Several hollow afirmatives pointed as facts but based in abstract opinions and personal feeling that normally comes from nostalgia and prejudice against the specific actual 3D based experience. Sum the fact that the majority of the 2D defenders simply discard any game that isn't fully RPG (Mass Effect, The Witcher among others) as 3D good examples and we finish with a fucking biased opinion that make any discussion on the matter pratically impossible.
I know people think 2D is the way to go, however, given the fact that 3D has finally come into its own, why should we expect less? What I mean is, 3D did pretty much suck over the past decade (at least in my opinion in games like NW2 and the Witcher 2 which had graphics maximized and not optimized), however 3D technology has progressed to the point where it has started to look really good. I too was longing for a gold old 2D game, but was recently converted to 3D by playing a game called Dark Souls. For anyone who is skeptical about 3D, play Dark Souls. Mind you, its not Baldurs Gate, and its not a deep RPG (more of an action/hack n slash), but the gameplay and graphics are mind blowing. You can also see the game on youtube. It has taken 10 years, but 3D has finally come into its own.
You still don't get the point at all, it has abolutely NOTHING to do with how good the game would look in a 3D engine.
Its simply an observed fact over the last decade of video games that 3D engines absolutely cannot recreate the same kind of experience that BG had.
I'm not interested in the slightest in games that only look good. I'm now looking for games which are actually great to play, and I've long been decieved and am no longer fooled by games that only show off a shiny new modern graphics engine, yet play like nothing more than just another typical action hack and slash game.
Better graphics have never improved gameplay, the RPG genre in particular has only gotten significantly worse since the primary focus became graphics and 3D instead of gameplay.
Being 'mindblowing' is exactly the reason I don't like RPG's to be 3D. I don't want my mind to be blown, I want to play my favourite RPG evening after evening. With 3D (with movable camera, not the isometric ones like Temple of Elemental Evil or Arcanum), it's such an intensive experience, I only play RPG's like Fallout 3 or Dragon Age on an evening every few weeks or so. My mind gets stimulated too much.,
With an isometric RPG, it's much easier to focus on the game and the story without getting overstimulated. It might mostly be a problem for me because of my mental disability (schizo-affective disorder), but even for mentally healthy people, what's far more easy with isometric view, is tactical overview of the combat. It's far easier to orient yourself in a dungeon and in combat with a fixed isometric view on your party.
@Mungri - I didn't mean 'easy for the programmers' to have anything to do with the core game. I meant graphically, only. In other words, I don't care how the environment is imagineered and don't want the selling point for the game to be flashy screens and pretty effects.
As for 'no game has been better', or 'no 3D RPG is good' comment, I think that's nonsense. In general, writing has given way to pretty imagery and the like, but this is not a truism.
I agree that NWN sucked. However, I very much enjoyed Mask of the Betrayer and the characters therein. I'm not going to get into a 'my dog is bigger than your dog' argument about better or not better, as that is subjective; I will say that I found MOTB to be every bit as engaging and interesting as BG.
Similarly, Knights of the Old Republic was fantastic, through and through. I loved it so much that I found out more about BioWare and this thing called Baldur's Gate. Yes, that is backward from the normal transition, but I was late to the RPG thing.
Mass Effect was brilliant. Feel, story and play were absolutely fantastic. It was a different take on RPG's, I know, but a good one!
Some people put Morrowind games up there. I'm not one of them, but it could just be poor taste and/or appreciation for the brilliance of Oblivion/Morrowind/Skyrim on my part. I loathed Elder Scrolls and stopped playing out of boredom and lack of interest (doesn't usually happen to me on games, but that one did it).
The reason I think 3D isometric would be wonderful is that you'd get wispy spell effects and it'd be nice. Titan Quest type quality of art is possible and would only help the experience. Still, I'd rather text graphics a la Dwarf Fortress with good plot/writing/NPC's than whizbang graphics and B-movie plot/dialogue.
I dont want a different take on RPGs at all, I want BG. I didnt enjoy NWN / Witcher / Mass Effect.
NWN had a great story in MOTB, but I couldnt stand playing it and only got half way through before quitting. I simply watched the story through youtube videos. I dont like 3D at all compared to fixed angle top down ISO for these games.
@Mungri - here's where I find your reasoning odd. BG already exists. BG3 is, by definition, new and different. How and what is different remain to be seen.
I don't agree with the conclusion that 3D inherently makes the game better or worse. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. However, since it's BG that you want, you're in luck. BeamDog/Overhaul are just about to give you that.
The problem is that you don't want to discuss the matter @Mungri, you want to state it. Ok, everyone now know that you don't like 3D RPGs no matter if they have a good plot, characters, quests... cos you don't like 3D by itself.
If your objective was to state this, well done, your job is finshed, together with your vote on the first page of this pool evidently.
But if you don't want to discuss, just to state, say that in first hand, to avoid the present conflicts. your bad manner to me and intransigence position against other persons ideas aren't needed as no one would keep arging with you if they know that you don't want to work the idea. By the way, you already stated a lot how you hate 3D games, well good for you, i don't and there are people here also that don't.
People with open minds to work the idea and change it to make a better use of both systems wish to continue the discussion, people like me that prefer BG3 in 3D, or people like @Avenger_teambg that clearly prefer a 2D engine. I believe that a 3D isometric game would be awersome, and some 2D elements well put could diminish issues with an potential camera problem in a 3D engine. 2D engine with 3D elements is not only good as it's even used on the original BG II game and will be used on BG EE.
Yesterday when starting up a new game for some testing and watching CHARNAME being tortured, the golem rushing in, the assassin getting zapped, I paid attention to the character models and while I very much like the isometric view and am a 2D fan in that regard (painted backgrounds instead of building blocks), what could benefit from 3D programming is the character models: they could actually be moving if made in 3D instead of showing a set of different stances so quick, it seems like movement. At least, that is what BG looks like now: as if there's just a set of dozens of poses instead of a fluid movement. Contrast that with spell animations, that already are 3D: they look really alive.
But you see, my opinions are actually based on having played such 3D games and not liking the ENGINE in one bit whatsoever. A lot of you people are too focused on story and gameplay elements which are really not my point. I never said anything about those things, I absolutely enjoy the story in NWN, but I can't stand to play the game for more than 10 minutes because the rotating 3D camera for a party based game like BG doesn't work well whatsoever.
Even most 3D games that try to mimick the 2D ISO gameplay, eg. Titan quest, Sacred 2, Diablo 3 and Path of Exile don't do a very good job at it. One shared flaw with all of these games is that you simply cannot zoom out enough for comfortable ISO gameplay. Try as I might, I cannot set these games to display as much background In relation to my character even in 1080p resolution compared to playing BG in 800x600. Now if you actually set BG to that high a resolution, you see loads of the background maps, but the characters shrink a lot. But a modern 2D engine could simply be created around being more comfortable to view in current widescreen, and HD resolutions. Oh the other hand, 3D engines seem incapable of enough zooming out because polygonal 3D graphics simply cannot handle the shrinking as you zoom out.
Another point is that your opinions that 3D could work are all based entirely on belief. Opinions that think it would not work are based on comparing BG to current and previous 3D games. The only possitive that 3D brings to these kind of games is shinier graphics, yet at the cost of gameplay, comfort, and decent viewing angles / zoom.
Also modern 2D graphics can look fantastic with current shading techologies, as plenty of indie developers are showing time and time again on PC games.
@Son_of_imoen BG is over 15 years old now. You cannot compare the graphics to a current 3D engine and thing 'BG could use this, that and that'. All of your observations and negatives about BGs character movements can be fully fixed in a modern 2D engine, none of those things are a problem with a game using 2D graphics, they are a problem with 15-20 years old 3D graphics.
Personally I don't really care so much but I'm leaning towards 2d so I picked that. More interested in the gameplay than the graphics anyways, so if that and the story are good I could go for either.
I find 2D graphics more pleasant for my eyes. NWN was terrible, every location looked the same. NWN2 was much better but still far from convincing. Even though NWN2 had much more detail in graphics, no location caught my attention for more than a few seconds. Forget about beautiful interiors of temples, drow architecture, or impressive cities. Everything is boring. The fight in 3D also looks worse. There was nothing sort of ripping creature into pieces on critical hit, which is so rewadiing in BG:) Moreover, free camera in 3D RPGs is so uncomfortable. I spent too much time rotating the camera to get a better view, or just to get rid of the branch between camera and the hero. Isometric view ftw.
The most important thing for me is *atmosphere*. I want to feel immersed in the world of the game. Graphics, voices, music, carefully crafted locations, attention to detail - that's what keeping coming back to BG after so many years of playing. 3D games are almost as much overrated as 3D movies. Was there a better HOMM than HOMM3 ? It's still 3 weeks to release and I recommend anyone playing Machinarium (http://machinarium.net/demo/) to fill the gap and to understand what I mean by atmosphere in 2D games. Enjoy!
@Son_of_imoen BG is over 15 years old now. You cannot compare the graphics to a current 3D engine and thing 'BG could use this, that and that'. All of your observations and negatives about BGs character movements can be fully fixed in a modern 2D engine, none of those things are a problem with a game using 2D graphics, they are a problem with 15-20 years old 3D graphics.
This thread could really use someone explaining the nuances and differences in what '2D', '3D', 'isometric' and 'top-down' stand for.
As to your comment, BG2, as I pointed out, already made use of 3D in the spell animations, so even the starting point, BG itself, is not pure 2D. You can see from the Config menu, 3D technology is part of Baldur's Gate. And if a character can turn about in a fluid motion like the spell animations in BG2 are fluid, it's 3D technology used inside a 2D engine. And if I'm mistaken, someone with programming know-how should point out where my opinion goes wrong.
As pointed out enough times already, BG2 doesnt use '3D, i.e. 3 dimensions' for the spell effects, it uses transform and lighting to accelerate the spell and other lighting effects in real time.
None of the graphical engine is accelerated in actual '3 dimensions'. The '3D acceleration' setting doesnt mean that '3 dimensions' are being added to the game, it means that you are enabling your 3D video card to accelerate the 2D graphics engine plus spell effects. 3D video cards do a lot more than just render 3D polygons you know.
The argument that being able to activate '3D acceleration' = 'BG2 contains 3D graphics' is simply cluelessness.
Thanks for trying to explain, but if you're indeed tech-savvy, could you elaborate further,
what is meant by 2D?
what is meant by 3D?
I understand isometric, but when consulting Wikipedia, which is usually a good introduction to a topic, the 2D and 3D lemma's were very technical.
And when we're talking 3D engines, are we talking free camera-moving, movie-like rpg's like Dragon Age (that's not like BG3 should be at all, to my opinion),
or are we also talking the kind of graphics like done in Temple of Elemental Evil or Arcanum (fixed view, isometric, but more graphically detailed and 'alive'): are those 3D and in what respect or 2D? Because the last thing is the 3D I'm talking about and if it's not, well, I created confusion.
BTW, I will actually have to play TOEE and Arcanum to get a better view of it. There was a big WOW factor when I first installed them, but neither I played beyond the opening area, there's just too much BG for me to play. But now I've been looking at screenshots, and the sights disappoint me: all inner area's have the 'room lifted off' feel. I always felt awe for the BG2 designers for creating indoor area's that didn't give you the feel like the roof was lifted off, but instead, you felt like being in there, while the point of view was still from where you would be outside the ceiling, but it didn't show.
Its very simple, 3D engines are based on real time acceleration of models built from 3D polygons. 2D engines are either purely flat with left, right, up and down movement only, or use pre rendered backgrounds with flat maps in an isometric view, but still with only two axis of movement.
A 3D game will have real time graphics rendered in depth using polygons. Also on top of the basic two axis movement in a 2D engine, there will also be a possible third axis of movement.
Modern games like DAO and Civ 5 take a full 3D engine in a top down isometric view to play in a very similar fashion to 2D games, however they still have real time 3D graphics which are drawn from polygons. You can see this in the real time animated cutscenes, or when you zoom into third person view in DAO, and in the leader scenes and bump / tessellated maps in Civ V.
Games which use 2D engines but mimick 3D such as Baldurs Gate use entirely pre rendered backgrounds which are completely flat, but with an isometric angle. There are however still only two axis of movement and rendering of the graphics, there is no 'third dimension', and none of the graphics are built from polygons to provide any depth. Very similarly, Final Fantasy 7 +8 used entirely 2D engines, but with 3D animated characters. The actual graphics engine itself was pre rendered 2D backgrounds, and any shinier effects in the games used FMV sequences running off the CD player rather than actual 3D rendered in real time.
3D engines which play in a similar way to BG are possible by creating a fixed angle top down viewpoint (like in most modern ARPGs - DAO, Diablo 3, Sacred 2, Titan Quest, Path of Exile etc). It is also possible to create side scrolling 3D games like Super Street Fighter 4 and Trine 1 + 2. These games are built on a real time 3D engine, but simply lock the players movement to 2 dimensions only.
Now while it is possible to recreate baldurs gate in a full polygonal 3D engine with a top down view, the problem people have is how exactly will this make it any different to all the new and modern RPGs? Most people who are still playing and interested in BG arent interested in the graphics, they are still playing this series because the gameplay it offers is still preferable to them over every RPG since (hence why BG is so many peoples favorite RPG of all time).
Most people who want a new BG game dont simply want a remake in a new 3D engine. We have already experience what happens when that is attempted - basically NWN and DDO. The result is a completely different game that is no where near as good. We also dont trust that future BG type games will be able to maintain the superb quality that makes it as good if the game is redone in a 3D engine.
I dont want anything new from BG3. I've tried enough new RPGs and all of them are completely disappointing compared to the BG series. I want a new game that is 100% like BG2, and that includes the engine, combat, classes and spells. I accept that the infinity engine itself is long obsolete and a new engine definitely needs to be re-made, but I want a new 2D engine that perfectly mimicks BG1 + 2, not a new 3D engine which will potentially ruin the greatness of BG1+2's gameplay.
Thanks for taking the time for clarification, Mungri. Just one thing isn't clear though to me yet: the backgrounds in BG are flat of course, and a house or other object doesn't turn about, but characters in combat do move around - they turn, swing swords, spellcasters wave hands - how does a 2D engine create that illusion of movement and what improvements could be made inside 2D engine to make them move more fluently. Despite my misunderstanding of the technical background, my impression still stands that, taking the opening cutscene for instance, the spell animations of Irenicus looks much more fluid, like it's an uninterupted flow of magic, than the movement of the golem and other characters, that have much more a 'seeing flat images so fast, it feels like movement' feel (but maybe that's the way a golem's supposed to move and that biased my view of Irenicus and Imoen in that scene).
The spell and any similar environment glowing effects are pretty much all thats rendered by the graphics card in BG2. The character animations arent an illusion, think of it as any 2D cartoon that you see on the TV, you can still have animated 2D games.
I just remembered Bastion. This is a modern top down ISO RPG which uses 3D animated character models but in a 2D isometric world:
However maybe the problem could be solved if we just stop of recycle the Aurora Engine, for an example.
Mass Effect 2/3, Unreal engine 3 for example if adapted for a full RPG game could work wonders. Also the red engine of The witcher 2 (didn't play this game yet, only saw teasers on youtube) maybe could come as an option.
I would prefer the making of an specific engine for Baldur's Gate 3, if team BG is able to put up for this challenge. NWN was a good thing in some way, he show us where are the possible mistaken paths in 3D engines, what we shouldn't follow.
I play Baldur's Gate until today, so a graphic issue really isn't a problem, but i do it a lot for nostalgia and in reason of the awersome storyline of this game. But things evolve and i see the need of carry on for a 3D engine.
When i had an SNES i always thought that my games where awersome, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy III (VI in PSX), Super Metroid, Super Mario RPG... wow, nothing could compare with that. I had a skeptical look for Playstation in that time, i always thought "bahh, they can't do better than a Chrono Trigger", but that was nostalgia speaking, cos after a while Final Fantasy VII came, and even if i yet prefer FF III over it, i had to recognize, that's future... evolution, and evolution looked nice in Final Fantasy VII.
Ps: Of course the games today lose the difficult intensity that existed in some games (Super Metroid for example), but that's another history !
Mass Effect and Witcher 2 engines would be absolutely terrible for a top down RPG, neither would work at all to create the same experience as BG1+2. Both are strictly designed for first / third person action based combat, not what we want from a BG successor.
The only AAA RPG that came close to matching BG was DAO, and they even completely abandoned that idea / engine for the sequel and made it vastly worse.
I played Bastion, and that game sucks, it's my personal opinion if someone like it and get offended, just saying.
Dragon Age: Origins follow to much the MMORPGs bases, that would be unwise to apply into a possible BG3. But i have to ask, you say that DA:O is appliable, but not ME2/3 and The witcher 2 in reason of the first be a full controled 4 NPCs party and for the last be a 1° person based (ME use the NPCs more or less automatic) or single player?
Because the actual use that's gave to an engine doesn't meant that the engine is limited only to that. Aurora engine Sucked a lot in NWN and NWN 2, but looked a bit better in The Witcher. It was made for party based groups but worked better in a single NPC system.
Dragon Age: Origins follow to much the MMORPGs bases, that would be unwise to apply into a possible BG3. But i have to ask, you say that DA:O is appliable, but not ME2/3 and The witcher 2 in reason of the first be a full controled 4 NPCs party and for the last be a 1° person based (ME use the NPCs more or less automatic) or single player? .
I dont agree with you at all, DAO is nothing like MMORPGs, in fact ME2/3 and Witcher 2 are much more similar to MMORPGs than DAO is.
I dont even think you've played many of these games tbh. I've alreasy seen you state that you havnt played Witcher 2 or MMORPGs, so exactly how do you come to any of your conclusions?
ME2/3 and Witcher 2 engines are not top down ISO view engines, they are full first / third person view action RPG engines. Your opinions on what would be good for BG3 are quite honestly completely terrible.
Anyway, the fact that you actually find ME2/3 and Witcher 2 preferable over Bastion says enough to me for how little your opinions should be considered for any kind on BG remake. Your understanding of games 'engines' and how they would work in different types of games is pretty slim.
But things evolve and i see the need of carry on for a 3D engine.
There are already plenty of 'evolved' games out there like NWN and DA2. Feel free to go and play any of the hundreds of typical cookie cutter RPGs that already exist. There is absolutely nothing out there any more like BG2. Most fans of BG are fed up of evolution in this genre, they want nothing other than more games like BG, but theres no one out there making them anymore because every developer is too focused on making dumbed down 3D trashy action combat games for consoles.
By the way, if you so desperately want a 3D Baldurs Gate game similar to ME / Witcher 2's engine, here you go, go and play this:
That's exactly the kind of disorienting, overstimulating gameplay I don't like about 3D engines. I want to focus on story, dialogue, tactical combat and spellcasting, not being bewildered by everything I see around me and constantly moving the camera to get a good overview of my party (imagine what this scene would be like with 6 characters to keep track of).
I want a new 'evolution' from the typically boring, 3D hack n slash / push a button and something awesome hasta happen, action action action and more action! ... all the way back to the tactical combat and spellcasting system of BG2, along with ofc the fixed camera top down ISO view.
3D RPGs are nothing new or special. They are overdone and most of them are rubbish (only the Elder Scrolls series is really any good, I get bored of the rest after just 15-30 minutes).
@Mungri: As for the Bastion video: of course a BG-sequel should be more gritty and not cartoonesque at all, but you've shown nicely what a 2D engine is capable of in 2012. Glad you understood and agree with the point I tried to make about character modelling: if not done in a cartoonesque, but in a BG-artstyle, the video shows what I meant.
off-topic: overstimulating too is the amount of video's and adverts you get bombarded with when you go to youtube to search something. I just wanted to know what The Witcher and Diablo III gameplay look like, and I got completely sidetracked by Ukranian politics and had to work hard to shove off the distraction and remember what I was looking for. Grmmbll.
Comments
Its simply an observed fact over the last decade of video games that 3D engines absolutely cannot recreate the same kind of experience that BG had.
I'm not interested in the slightest in games that only look good. I'm now looking for games which are actually great to play, and I've long been decieved and am no longer fooled by games that only show off a shiny new modern graphics engine, yet play like nothing more than just another typical action hack and slash game.
Better graphics have never improved gameplay, the RPG genre in particular has only gotten significantly worse since the primary focus became graphics and 3D instead of gameplay.
With an isometric RPG, it's much easier to focus on the game and the story without getting overstimulated. It might mostly be a problem for me because of my mental disability (schizo-affective disorder), but even for mentally healthy people, what's far more easy with isometric view, is tactical overview of the combat. It's far easier to orient yourself in a dungeon and in combat with a fixed isometric view on your party.
As for 'no game has been better', or 'no 3D RPG is good' comment, I think that's nonsense. In general, writing has given way to pretty imagery and the like, but this is not a truism.
I agree that NWN sucked. However, I very much enjoyed Mask of the Betrayer and the characters therein. I'm not going to get into a 'my dog is bigger than your dog' argument about better or not better, as that is subjective; I will say that I found MOTB to be every bit as engaging and interesting as BG.
Similarly, Knights of the Old Republic was fantastic, through and through. I loved it so much that I found out more about BioWare and this thing called Baldur's Gate. Yes, that is backward from the normal transition, but I was late to the RPG thing.
Mass Effect was brilliant. Feel, story and play were absolutely fantastic. It was a different take on RPG's, I know, but a good one!
Some people put Morrowind games up there. I'm not one of them, but it could just be poor taste and/or appreciation for the brilliance of Oblivion/Morrowind/Skyrim on my part. I loathed Elder Scrolls and stopped playing out of boredom and lack of interest (doesn't usually happen to me on games, but that one did it).
The reason I think 3D isometric would be wonderful is that you'd get wispy spell effects and it'd be nice. Titan Quest type quality of art is possible and would only help the experience. Still, I'd rather text graphics a la Dwarf Fortress with good plot/writing/NPC's than whizbang graphics and B-movie plot/dialogue.
NWN had a great story in MOTB, but I couldnt stand playing it and only got half way through before quitting. I simply watched the story through youtube videos. I dont like 3D at all compared to fixed angle top down ISO for these games.
Magicka to me is better than every AAA 3D RPG.
I don't agree with the conclusion that 3D inherently makes the game better or worse. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. However, since it's BG that you want, you're in luck. BeamDog/Overhaul are just about to give you that.
If your objective was to state this, well done, your job is finshed, together with your vote on the first page of this pool evidently.
But if you don't want to discuss, just to state, say that in first hand, to avoid the present conflicts. your bad manner to me and intransigence position against other persons ideas aren't needed as no one would keep arging with you if they know that you don't want to work the idea. By the way, you already stated a lot how you hate 3D games, well good for you, i don't and there are people here also that don't.
People with open minds to work the idea and change it to make a better use of both systems wish to continue the discussion, people like me that prefer BG3 in 3D, or people like @Avenger_teambg that clearly prefer a 2D engine. I believe that a 3D isometric game would be awersome, and some 2D elements well put could diminish issues with an potential camera problem in a 3D engine. 2D engine with 3D elements is not only good as it's even used on the original BG II game and will be used on BG EE.
Even most 3D games that try to mimick the 2D ISO gameplay, eg. Titan quest, Sacred 2, Diablo 3 and Path of Exile don't do a very good job at it. One shared flaw with all of these games is that you simply cannot zoom out enough for comfortable ISO gameplay. Try as I might, I cannot set these games to display as much background In relation to my character even in 1080p resolution compared to playing BG in 800x600. Now if you actually set BG to that high a resolution, you see loads of the background maps, but the characters shrink a lot. But a modern 2D engine could simply be created around being more comfortable to view in current widescreen, and HD resolutions. Oh the other hand, 3D engines seem incapable of enough zooming out because polygonal 3D graphics simply cannot handle the shrinking as you zoom out.
Another point is that your opinions that 3D could work are all based entirely on belief. Opinions that think it would not work are based on comparing BG to current and previous 3D games. The only possitive that 3D brings to these kind of games is shinier graphics, yet at the cost of gameplay, comfort, and decent viewing angles / zoom.
Also modern 2D graphics can look fantastic with current shading techologies, as plenty of indie developers are showing time and time again on PC games.
@Son_of_imoen BG is over 15 years old now. You cannot compare the graphics to a current 3D engine and thing 'BG could use this, that and that'. All of your observations and negatives about BGs character movements can be fully fixed in a modern 2D engine, none of those things are a problem with a game using 2D graphics, they are a problem with 15-20 years old 3D graphics.
The fight in 3D also looks worse. There was nothing sort of ripping creature into pieces on critical hit, which is so rewadiing in BG:)
Moreover, free camera in 3D RPGs is so uncomfortable. I spent too much time rotating the camera to get a better view, or just to get rid of the branch between camera and the hero. Isometric view ftw.
The most important thing for me is *atmosphere*. I want to feel immersed in the world of the game. Graphics, voices, music, carefully crafted locations, attention to detail - that's what keeping coming back to BG after so many years of playing. 3D games are almost as much overrated as 3D movies. Was there a better HOMM than HOMM3 ?
It's still 3 weeks to release and I recommend anyone playing Machinarium (http://machinarium.net/demo/) to fill the gap and to understand what I mean by atmosphere in 2D games. Enjoy!
As to your comment, BG2, as I pointed out, already made use of 3D in the spell animations, so even the starting point, BG itself, is not pure 2D. You can see from the Config menu, 3D technology is part of Baldur's Gate. And if a character can turn about in a fluid motion like the spell animations in BG2 are fluid, it's 3D technology used inside a 2D engine. And if I'm mistaken, someone with programming know-how should point out where my opinion goes wrong.
None of the graphical engine is accelerated in actual '3 dimensions'. The '3D acceleration' setting doesnt mean that '3 dimensions' are being added to the game, it means that you are enabling your 3D video card to accelerate the 2D graphics engine plus spell effects. 3D video cards do a lot more than just render 3D polygons you know.
The argument that being able to activate '3D acceleration' = 'BG2 contains 3D graphics' is simply cluelessness.
what is meant by 2D?
what is meant by 3D?
I understand isometric, but when consulting Wikipedia, which is usually a good introduction to a topic, the 2D and 3D lemma's were very technical.
And when we're talking 3D engines, are we talking free camera-moving, movie-like rpg's like Dragon Age (that's not like BG3 should be at all, to my opinion),
or are we also talking the kind of graphics like done in Temple of Elemental Evil or Arcanum (fixed view, isometric, but more graphically detailed and 'alive'): are those 3D and in what respect or 2D? Because the last thing is the 3D I'm talking about and if it's not, well, I created confusion.
A 3D game will have real time graphics rendered in depth using polygons. Also on top of the basic two axis movement in a 2D engine, there will also be a possible third axis of movement.
Modern games like DAO and Civ 5 take a full 3D engine in a top down isometric view to play in a very similar fashion to 2D games, however they still have real time 3D graphics which are drawn from polygons. You can see this in the real time animated cutscenes, or when you zoom into third person view in DAO, and in the leader scenes and bump / tessellated maps in Civ V.
Games which use 2D engines but mimick 3D such as Baldurs Gate use entirely pre rendered backgrounds which are completely flat, but with an isometric angle. There are however still only two axis of movement and rendering of the graphics, there is no 'third dimension', and none of the graphics are built from polygons to provide any depth. Very similarly, Final Fantasy 7 +8 used entirely 2D engines, but with 3D animated characters. The actual graphics engine itself was pre rendered 2D backgrounds, and any shinier effects in the games used FMV sequences running off the CD player rather than actual 3D rendered in real time.
3D engines which play in a similar way to BG are possible by creating a fixed angle top down viewpoint (like in most modern ARPGs - DAO, Diablo 3, Sacred 2, Titan Quest, Path of Exile etc). It is also possible to create side scrolling 3D games like Super Street Fighter 4 and Trine 1 + 2. These games are built on a real time 3D engine, but simply lock the players movement to 2 dimensions only.
Now while it is possible to recreate baldurs gate in a full polygonal 3D engine with a top down view, the problem people have is how exactly will this make it any different to all the new and modern RPGs? Most people who are still playing and interested in BG arent interested in the graphics, they are still playing this series because the gameplay it offers is still preferable to them over every RPG since (hence why BG is so many peoples favorite RPG of all time).
Most people who want a new BG game dont simply want a remake in a new 3D engine. We have already experience what happens when that is attempted - basically NWN and DDO. The result is a completely different game that is no where near as good. We also dont trust that future BG type games will be able to maintain the superb quality that makes it as good if the game is redone in a 3D engine.
I dont want anything new from BG3. I've tried enough new RPGs and all of them are completely disappointing compared to the BG series. I want a new game that is 100% like BG2, and that includes the engine, combat, classes and spells. I accept that the infinity engine itself is long obsolete and a new engine definitely needs to be re-made, but I want a new 2D engine that perfectly mimicks BG1 + 2, not a new 3D engine which will potentially ruin the greatness of BG1+2's gameplay.
I just remembered Bastion. This is a modern top down ISO RPG which uses 3D animated character models but in a 2D isometric world:
I wouldnt mind BG3 being similar to that, 3D characters, 2D environments.
However maybe the problem could be solved if we just stop of recycle the Aurora Engine, for an example.
Mass Effect 2/3, Unreal engine 3 for example if adapted for a full RPG game could work wonders. Also the red engine of The witcher 2 (didn't play this game yet, only saw teasers on youtube) maybe could come as an option.
I would prefer the making of an specific engine for Baldur's Gate 3, if team BG is able to put up for this challenge. NWN was a good thing in some way, he show us where are the possible mistaken paths in 3D engines, what we shouldn't follow.
I play Baldur's Gate until today, so a graphic issue really isn't a problem, but i do it a lot for nostalgia and in reason of the awersome storyline of this game. But things evolve and i see the need of carry on for a 3D engine.
When i had an SNES i always thought that my games where awersome, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy III (VI in PSX), Super Metroid, Super Mario RPG... wow, nothing could compare with that. I had a skeptical look for Playstation in that time, i always thought "bahh, they can't do better than a Chrono Trigger", but that was nostalgia speaking, cos after a while Final Fantasy VII came, and even if i yet prefer FF III over it, i had to recognize, that's future... evolution, and evolution looked nice in Final Fantasy VII.
Ps: Of course the games today lose the difficult intensity that existed in some games (Super Metroid for example), but that's another history
http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/supergiant_games_bastion
Mass Effect and Witcher 2 engines would be absolutely terrible for a top down RPG, neither would work at all to create the same experience as BG1+2. Both are strictly designed for first / third person action based combat, not what we want from a BG successor.
The only AAA RPG that came close to matching BG was DAO, and they even completely abandoned that idea / engine for the sequel and made it vastly worse.
Dragon Age: Origins follow to much the MMORPGs bases, that would be unwise to apply into a possible BG3. But i have to ask, you say that DA:O is appliable, but not ME2/3 and The witcher 2 in reason of the first be a full controled 4 NPCs party and for the last be a 1° person based (ME use the NPCs more or less automatic) or single player?
Because the actual use that's gave to an engine doesn't meant that the engine is limited only to that. Aurora engine Sucked a lot in NWN and NWN 2, but looked a bit better in The Witcher. It was made for party based groups but worked better in a single NPC system.
I dont even think you've played many of these games tbh. I've alreasy seen you state that you havnt played Witcher 2 or MMORPGs, so exactly how do you come to any of your conclusions?
ME2/3 and Witcher 2 engines are not top down ISO view engines, they are full first / third person view action RPG engines. Your opinions on what would be good for BG3 are quite honestly completely terrible.
Anyway, the fact that you actually find ME2/3 and Witcher 2 preferable over Bastion says enough to me for how little your opinions should be considered for any kind on BG remake. Your understanding of games 'engines' and how they would work in different types of games is pretty slim. There are already plenty of 'evolved' games out there like NWN and DA2. Feel free to go and play any of the hundreds of typical cookie cutter RPGs that already exist. There is absolutely nothing out there any more like BG2. Most fans of BG are fed up of evolution in this genre, they want nothing other than more games like BG, but theres no one out there making them anymore because every developer is too focused on making dumbed down 3D trashy action combat games for consoles.
By the way, if you so desperately want a 3D Baldurs Gate game similar to ME / Witcher 2's engine, here you go, go and play this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate:_Dark_Alliance_II
That's exactly the kind of disorienting, overstimulating gameplay I don't like about 3D engines. I want to focus on story, dialogue, tactical combat and spellcasting, not being bewildered by everything I see around me and constantly moving the camera to get a good overview of my party (imagine what this scene would be like with 6 characters to keep track of).
3D RPGs are nothing new or special. They are overdone and most of them are rubbish (only the Elder Scrolls series is really any good, I get bored of the rest after just 15-30 minutes).