Now, everyone would be pretty justified in panning me for referencing a totally irrelevant game, but I've been playing the new Sonic Jump on iPad, and that not only has some of the slickest, cleanest animated sprites I have ever seen, but also features one zone with a background that totally made me thing of fantasy RPGs:
Anyhow, it's obviously not anything remotely to do with RPGs but it's a good example of how 2D graphics can still impress and look fresh.
@salieri Genres aside, Baldur's Gate is not a 2D game in the way that game is. There are no sprites or painted -by hand or otherwise- 2D backgrounds in BG. Everything aside from the UI and text was created in 3D. The reason everything got flattened into 2D afterward was computers of the time were not capable of running 3D with sort of graphical fidelity that Bioware wanted. Now they are.
For some other people: a game's genre is not determined by whether it is 3D or 2D. Neither is its camera perspective, nor its art style. Arguments made from those perspectives are entirely irrelevant. You don't want BG3 to be an action game? Neither do I! What does that have to do with 3D graphics?
BG 3 may have 3D model eye-candy like Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil did very well, while keeping the isometric fixed-camera view. I've already seen mention in this thread of the positive effect of character interaction: it leaves more to your own imagination thus you can identify more with the character (how she or he 'looks like' is mostly determined by the portrait you choose or even create yourself), but there's more benefits to 2D:
- in isometric view you can focus much more on the tactics of combat, maneuvring, pause and play, deciding which spells to use, reading the combat log: it was all done much better in the infinity engine than in it's 'successor' Dragon Age. - furthermore, eyecandy in 3D moving camera-view distracts from the game. To me at least, it causes over-stimulation of the senses quickly. I spend more time looking at how beautiful it is, than in advancing the plot. And walking around a large map, especially in wilderness areas, causes disorientation in knowing where you are. Plus there's just too much detail to be seen, just like walking in a crowded city street - it's tiring. After an evening of playing DragonAge or Fallout3, my senses got to tired too pick up the game again for weeks, while with IE games, I can pick up the game where I left the next day.
BG 3 may have 3D model eye-candy like Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil did very well, while keeping the isometric fixed-camera view. I've already seen mention in this thread of the positive effect of character interaction: it leaves more to your own imagination thus you can identify more with the character (how she or he 'looks like' is mostly determined by the portrait you choose or even create yourself), but there's more benefits to 2D:
- in isometric view you can focus much more on the tactics of combat, maneuvring, pause and play, deciding which spells to use, reading the combat log: it was all done much better in the infinity engine than in it's 'successor' Dragon Age. - furthermore, eyecandy in 3D moving camera-view distracts from the game. To me at least, it causes over-stimulation of the senses quickly. I spend more time looking at how beautiful it is, than in advancing the plot. And walking around a large map, especially in wilderness areas, causes disorientation in knowing where you are. Plus there's just too much detail to be seen, just like walking in a crowded city street - it's tiring. After an evening of playing DragonAge or Fallout3, my senses got to tired too pick up the game again for weeks, while with IE games, I can pick up the game where I left the next day.
It seems like you're contradicting yourself a bit here. You start out writing that it's possible to use 3D while preserving isometric view, and then pointing out why 2D is better, But the point is, that 2D or 3D is irrelevant, it's what you do with it.
I fully expect the game to be in 3D, but with a fixed isometric viewpoint, everything will be as in BG1+2, except, it'll all be rendered in realtime 3D. This will give many more options for lightning, shadows, the possibility of hiding behind objects and much more. All this preserving the isometric perspective, playing largely like in the first two games.
It seems like some people, (not you necessarily), associates 3D with first person or over the shoulder perspective gaming, but that doesn't have to be the case. Look at Diablo 3 and the Torchlight games, they're 3D.
The kickstarter project "Project Eternity" is also expected to be in 3D with isometric fixed viewpoint, and if you look at the single screenshot released from that game,it looks like it could have been taken out of a modern BG game. Granted, there's no characters on it, but still.
As have been written here by others, the art and characters in the original BG games were made in a 3D rendering program and converted to 2D, because the computers back then couldn't handle the detail in real time. Now we don't have those restrictions.
Lots of people think BG had "hand painted" art, but that just wasn't the case. It was hand made alright, but in a 3D rendering program.
@Bytebrain: maybe I didn't voice it properly, but your description of what BG3 should look like fits what I'm thinking. I remember when installing Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil, I was thinking 'wow, this is what BG should look like if it was more modern.
@Bytebrain: maybe I didn't voice it properly, but your description of what BG3 should look like fits what I'm thinking. I remember when installing Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil, I was thinking 'wow, this is what BG should look like if it was more modern.
Exactly, you're right. Hmm. Maybe I should dust of the old box I have of Temple of Elemental Evil... I don't think I ever completed the game.. Can't recall why. :-)
@Bytebrain: maybe I didn't voice it properly, but your description of what BG3 should look like fits what I'm thinking. I remember when installing Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil, I was thinking 'wow, this is what BG should look like if it was more modern.
Uh, Arcanum didn't look that great. Amazing game, yes, but I don't think it looked better than BG. The tile-based environments for a start were totally repetative and less immersive than BG's more freeform environments. Also, the avatars were not as flexible, with changing equipment having much less of an impact on your character's appearance.
Uh, Arcanum didn't look that great. Amazing game, yes, but I don't think it looked better than BG. The tile-based environments for a start were totally repetative and less immersive than BG's more freeform environments. Also, the avatars were not as flexible, with changing equipment having much less of an impact on your character's appearance.
You know the game better than I do. My wow-factor was based on the first impression, but I have yet to actually play the game. Baldur's Gate usurps too much of my time. I've got a long backlist. Same for TOEE.
I'd like BG3 to resemble Diablo 3, with 3D models but still preserving the isometric view. Because, if you're completely honest to yourself about the 2.5D thing, that ship set sail a long time ago.
I think Baldur's Gate just wouldn't feel right to me if it wasn't a 2D isometric game. Sure, they can probably improve resolution and maybe use some other new tricks to create even more beautiful environments, but it should stay 2D. That's how it began and how we all learned to love it. I think this unique sense of nostalgia should be preserved.
They should keep it 2D with HD-sprites and backgrounds. Part of a franchise is its aesthetic feel, and BG wouldn't feel 'right' to me in another other than the 2D isometric perspective. I think it would be best to update the resolution of the sprites and backgrounds and concentrate on making the game large and expansive.
I'm voting for 2D The only good 3D graphics I know, that would perfectly fit BG saga is... Diablo III graphics. It is pure awesome: Bautifully painted background with nice 3D touch.
But having BG3 look like that in 3D is probably not possible. Probably too expensive.
I think it's unfair that some people have been putting a preference for 2D graphics down to nothing more than retrophilia. 2D graphics really can be much more appealing than 3D. I mean just look at Ghibli movies compared with Pixar movies. There are 2D games comng out these days that are visually stunning and not in any way appealing directly to a retro aesthetic. Just look at Rayman Origins for instance.
I was pro 2D in an older thread, and I was still torn for this poll. It's not that 2D is better (though I still think it does look great) it's more that alot of these games were 2D and awesome games and they've had 3D successors that looked like their ugly swaggering children.
It may be wrong to draw a correlation between 2D good 3D bad from this, but the worry persists that given the 3D tools that the temptation to make an inferior game will just be too much!.
Or Final Fantasy 7 with static 3D-rendered backgrounds, but rarely and suddenly breaking the static freeze to move the camera for more of a cinematic view. There's a certain charm to it I find, and you paid extra attention to the cutscenes because it was a special occasion when the camera first moved and it showed the enviroment from entirely new perspective that you only had brief moments to explore from. And it was fun to see the more advanced graphics come to play.
Af, and as long as I'm talking about FF7, charming, and cutscenes I might as well include a fond memory from that game. (Only watch if you're liked FF7, if not, feel free to move on.)
There are plenty of 3D type games out and I think everyone who has played 2D and 3D are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of BOTH. At this time there is a plethora of 3D offerings and a dearth of 2D offerings. I do not want another NWN with a BG theme. Dark Alliance was bad enough. A return to 2D with beautiful backdrops and a patent focus on overdeveloped plots and subplots (instead of overdeveloped 3D objects and the additional GUI overhead -- overhead in both implementation and physiological and cognitive USER workload/effort *) would be fantastic.
* No I don't want to have to manage a host of configurable but necessary buttons, 3d points of view directions, and look at boxy ugly graphics if you don't have a top of the line video card if this all comes at the expensive of BG-esque scale gameplay and plot scale/depth/branches. This stuff usually makes for a high bandwidth interface experience (i.e. the user is as busy with the interface as he is with the game play) but a shallow game. I would rather have more 2D game and less 3D requisite interface noise.
That's a no-brainer, 2D-isometric all the way. There are really very few RPGs nowadays that benefit from 3D-perspective, and those are mainly jRPGs that rely heavily on action-scenes and dynamics to keep players interested. But in case of wRPGs, tactics and surveillance of the battlefield play major role, and nothing can beat isometric there. Of course, one could argue that full 3D with fine camera control can do the trick, but in that case 3D feels... clunky? Unnatural? Difficult to say, but if you ever tried to play an Infinity game and then a Neverwinter Nights game immediately after it, you know what I mean.
Sorry, but its not really '3D' features, all that means is 3D card accelerated effects like lighting and TnL. Baldurs Gate 2 is entirely a 2D isometric game, with options to add hardware acceleration from a 3D card (which is what you have posted).
3D is evolution for an RPG, it improve not only the graphic quality but the quest resources and possibilities. The problem is in reason of some very bad RPG games out there that make people fear 3D issues. When i look a 3D game i think in Assassin's Creed, or even better, Mass Effect, unfortunally today many companies try to make their 3D game in the same style that some MMORPGs are made, and that just doesn't fit right.
@Eiler, Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance was more an diablo alike game than an RPG BG game in PC style.
It isnt '3D', its '3D acceleration'. If you uncheck it the entire game runs in 2D off the CPU. Checking it just enables a 3D card to accelerate the particle effects which makes stuff more shiny, but it doesnt add any polygons which is the requirement for 3D graphics anywhere in the game, everything is still 2D sprite based.
And I dont like Mass Effect either, I dont like a single 3D RPG released since BG2 as much as BG, none of them handle the top down isometric gameplay correctly.
Cthulhu Saves The World and Penny Arcade 3 are 2D 8 bit graphics based modern Indie RPG on the PC. They both vastly outclass any modern 3D RPG in terms of gameplay and RPG elements.
Comments
Anyhow, it's obviously not anything remotely to do with RPGs but it's a good example of how 2D graphics can still impress and look fresh.
For some other people: a game's genre is not determined by whether it is 3D or 2D. Neither is its camera perspective, nor its art style. Arguments made from those perspectives are entirely irrelevant. You don't want BG3 to be an action game? Neither do I! What does that have to do with 3D graphics?
- in isometric view you can focus much more on the tactics of combat, maneuvring, pause and play, deciding which spells to use, reading the combat log: it was all done much better in the infinity engine than in it's 'successor' Dragon Age.
- furthermore, eyecandy in 3D moving camera-view distracts from the game. To me at least, it causes over-stimulation of the senses quickly. I spend more time looking at how beautiful it is, than in advancing the plot. And walking around a large map, especially in wilderness areas, causes disorientation in knowing where you are. Plus there's just too much detail to be seen, just like walking in a crowded city street - it's tiring. After an evening of playing DragonAge or Fallout3, my senses got to tired too pick up the game again for weeks, while with IE games, I can pick up the game where I left the next day.
You start out writing that it's possible to use 3D while preserving isometric view, and then pointing out why 2D is better,
But the point is, that 2D or 3D is irrelevant, it's what you do with it.
I fully expect the game to be in 3D, but with a fixed isometric viewpoint, everything will be as in BG1+2, except, it'll all be rendered in realtime 3D.
This will give many more options for lightning, shadows, the possibility of hiding behind objects and much more.
All this preserving the isometric perspective, playing largely like in the first two games.
It seems like some people, (not you necessarily), associates 3D with first person or over the shoulder perspective gaming, but that doesn't have to be the case. Look at Diablo 3 and the Torchlight games, they're 3D.
The kickstarter project "Project Eternity" is also expected to be in 3D with isometric fixed viewpoint, and if you look at the single screenshot released from that game,it looks like it could have been taken out of a modern BG game.
Granted, there's no characters on it, but still.
As have been written here by others, the art and characters in the original BG games were made in a 3D rendering program and converted to 2D, because the computers back then couldn't handle the detail in real time.
Now we don't have those restrictions.
Lots of people think BG had "hand painted" art, but that just wasn't the case.
It was hand made alright, but in a 3D rendering program.
3D rendering does not ruin a game, it's how you use 3D rendering that can ruin the game.
Hmm. Maybe I should dust of the old box I have of Temple of Elemental Evil... I don't think I ever completed the game.. Can't recall why. :-)
2d obviously.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is literally a retard.
The only good 3D graphics I know, that would perfectly fit BG saga is... Diablo III graphics. It is pure awesome: Bautifully painted background with nice 3D touch.
But having BG3 look like that in 3D is probably not possible. Probably too expensive.
It may be wrong to draw a correlation between 2D good 3D bad from this, but the worry persists that given the 3D tools that the temptation to make an inferior game will just be too much!.
http://www.harebrained-schemes.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/barrens_street_market1.png
Or Final Fantasy 7 with static 3D-rendered backgrounds, but rarely and suddenly breaking the static freeze to move the camera for more of a cinematic view. There's a certain charm to it I find, and you paid extra attention to the cutscenes because it was a special occasion when the camera first moved and it showed the enviroment from entirely new perspective that you only had brief moments to explore from.
Af, and as long as I'm talking about FF7, charming, and cutscenes I might as well include a fond memory from that game. (Only watch if you're liked FF7, if not, feel free to move on.)
Bonus moment from FF7:
* No I don't want to have to manage a host of configurable but necessary buttons, 3d points of view directions, and look at boxy ugly graphics if you don't have a top of the line video card if this all comes at the expensive of BG-esque scale gameplay and plot scale/depth/branches. This stuff usually makes for a high bandwidth interface experience (i.e. the user is as busy with the interface as he is with the game play) but a shallow game. I would rather have more 2D game and less 3D requisite interface noise.
I wouldn't mind 3D though if it was like Magicka or Dragon Age Origins, but when you get developers together with a 3
@Eiler, Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance was more an diablo alike game than an RPG BG game in PC style.
@Mungri, ok so, now 3D isn't 3D, makes sense.
And I dont like Mass Effect either, I dont like a single 3D RPG released since BG2 as much as BG, none of them handle the top down isometric gameplay correctly.
Cthulhu Saves The World and Penny Arcade 3 are 2D 8 bit graphics based modern Indie RPG on the PC. They both vastly outclass any modern 3D RPG in terms of gameplay and RPG elements.