I had this discussion so many times over so many forums. And I still don't understand why people want games that look worse than they can with today's technology. Whay want sprites, when you can have nice, detailed 3D character models. In my opinion developers should use all the technological advancements to make beautiful games. Today's RPGs are not bad because they are 3D. They are bad because they are designed as bad, because they are rushed and are supposed to have as wide an appeal as possible. There are also a couple of myths that usually are mentioned in discussions on this subject.
First, people often claim, that RPGs are now short and low quality, because a lot of time and resources is wasted on shiny 3D graphics. Not true. Those people keep forgetting that 2D games were made by teams much smaller than today and the budgets were much lower. Besides, modern games are oftem made based on popular, well known engines. Mass Effect used a slightly modified Unreal Engine 3, a complete game development tool. If you hire people who specialize in this area, the work is really quite streamlined. And knowing what we know about Infinity, I'm pretty sure work on Baldur's Gate graphics was much more time consuming, than e.g. in case of Mass Effect 2. And finally, I believe there are many more aspects of game production, that eat up much more budget and time and these are voice-overs and multiplayer.
Another myth is that 2D ISO is much better for tactical gameplay. Nonsense. What if the game is 3D but has a fixed ISO camera and a good obstacle fade mechanics? How is that diferent in terms of gameplay? It's not. The only difference is that you get a more detailed representation of the gameworld and others get options to change the camera positions and angles.
So, when I hear/read people saying that they want 2D ISO RPGs, I think it's pure nostalgia speaking. Because there is no logic behind it.
For me the art style is more important than some 3Dmax models with some textures on them... @norolim, Dragon Age 1 did what you are saying right? It's nothing new. And I quite like DA 1 but 2D ISO is almost a genre, and as similar as a 3D may get it is always different, especially the art style.
Maybe its pure nostalgia speaking as you said, but I love BG1,2 IWD1,2 , there is something in the atmosphere in those games that I have never felt in any other 3D game,But I might be wrong because no one tried to do a game in the scale of BG with 3D engine/
Besides, Trent said that a New game will be 3D Iso Party based and not 2D.
For me the art style is more important than some 3Dmax models with some textures on them... @norolim, Dragon Age 1 did what you are saying right? It's nothing new. And I quite like DA 1 but 2D ISO is almost a genre, and as similar as a 3D may get it is always different, especially the art style.
Never said it was sth new. And yes, it's also a matter of art style. But style can also be applied to 3D graphics. See Torchlight or Borderlands or Journey.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it Maybe its pure nostalgia speaking as you said, but I love BG1,2 IWD1,2 , there is something in the atmosphere in those games that I have never felt in any other 3D game,But I might be wrong because no one tried to do a game in the scale of BG with 3D engine.
That's exactly what it is. No one even attempted to do it.
Grand Theft Waterdeep - All the 4th Edition rules you love, with an innovative horse-jacking system. Like the game on Facebook to unlock additional achievements, and Tweet your mission scores to unlock an Xbox Live Drizzt Avatar!
"TEARS OF ALOEVAN In a sylvan glen deep inside Ardeep Forest lies a mystical pool of water guarded by an otherwordly dragon. Within the clear waters of this pond is a portal that leads to a cloud of magic known as the Tears of Aloevan, which is located in a pocket plane. Once the Chosen of both Sehanine and Mystra, the moon elf queen Aloevan descended into madness, consumed by the silver fire that raged within her. Upon her death, her spirit was trapped in a nimbus of silver fire that prevented her from passing on to Arvanaith. Upon realizing her situation, seven clerics of Sehanine created a link between the natural world and the spiritual limbo in which Aloevan was trapped. Throughout the intervening centuries, Sehanine’s priests have labored to ease the mad queen’s torment by recreating the long-lost Court of Silver Fire within her pocket plane. But still the laughter of Aloevan (CG female ghost [augmented moon elf] Chosen of Sehanine/Chosen of Mystra wizard 19) is tinged with madness, and she clings to the vestiges of her sanity thanks only to her ever-present attendants. Passage between the two realms is restricted to solar eclipses. Whenever one of Aloevan’s seven attendants is ready to pass on to Arvanaith, another cleric of the Moonlit Mystery travels to the Tears of Aloevan by way of the mystic pool to serve in her stead. Although many others have sought entrance to Aloevan’s court, none have returned to tell the tale, so no one knows whether anyone not called there by Sehanine has ever succeeded in entering."
First, people often claim, that RPGs are now short and low quality, because a lot of time and resources is wasted on shiny 3D graphics. Not true. Those people keep forgetting that 2D games were made by teams much smaller than today and the budgets were much lower.
Weird that you're defending the newer games: indeed, despite those older teams being up to 10 times smaller than today's development teams, those older games still managed to be considerably larger than now. If you're not one willing to sacrifice Content for Looks, this is a plus for the 'old school' way of thinking.
And the issue here isn't just graphic quality, but rather the whole cinematic focus that studios opted for. While spending their precious time and resources with things like lip synch, cutscenes, voice-overs and, of course, shiny graphics considerably improve how the game presents itself, you still end up having to cut other features - and when it comes to RPGs, this generally means player freedom, a true sacrilege.
The most practical example I can give you is this: if a beta tester discovers a rather creative way to resolve a quest but that somehow breaks the NPC dialogue, the developer could deal with this relatively easily by adding new lines of code leading to new dialogues. If your studio is obsessed with the cinematic experience of the game, if cutscenes are, sadly, your primary way of storytelling, then you probably won't be able to add yet another time-expensive cutscene to the development cycle. The solution is not to reward roleplaying and player creativity, rather to add 'invisible walls' or the like to avoid the pesky player's ingenuity.
Now, you might be thinking: all I'm talking about is making use of 3D, not this whole shenanigans of 'cinematic focus'. To which I answer: you, however, spoke of BioWare's cinematic focus posterboy: the Mass Effect series. And in case you haven't noticed yet, BioWare's 'heavy handed' approach to storytelling (not as much linearity as a JRPG but a lot more than your average 'western RPG') probably already adds those 'invisible walls' from the start. That's why their writers often refers to player choice as a illusion, because with their cinematic focus they really can't provide acceptable consequences to most of those choices, which indeed end up becoming illusions.
In another man's words, the graphic pretties is a RPG's 'anathema' (I like hyperboles).
And, lastly, you must understand that when it comes to art direction there aren't really inherently better choices. 3D isn't inherently better than 2D just as realistic isn't inherently better than cartoonish. Actually, in both comparisons, the latter tend to age better simply because we are very unlikely to reach photorealism any time soon, if ever. Lots of people actually like the isometric perspective, which (from my understanding) 3D games can only emulate, and lots of people like games that look like a painting.
Grand Theft Waterdeep - All the 4th Edition rules you love, with an innovative horse-jacking system. Like the game on Facebook to unlock additional achievements, and Tweet your mission scores to unlock an Xbox Live Drizzt Avatar!
Philip, I liked what you said! I miss the times when games were not tied to facebook... Now (and I'll not even talk about the "villes" because those "games" were meant to be crap and be in facebook), I'am talking about games that include ingame facebook buttons... to me THAT is going too low. I know devs want to take any chance to make the game known, to sell an extra copy but that is too much, it hurts the game reputation... Use facebook or any other platform to make the game known but with class.
By the way I have no idea what BGEE's plans are. I'am talking in general, an example that hurt my eyes is magicka for those who know. Philip, you saying this as you said it, I feel we have the same opinion about this social networks fever.
@norolim Weird that you're defending the newer games
Either you didn't read my post thoroughly or you didn't understand it. Where exactly am I defending new games? I used ME as an example, to show that working on graphics can actually be easier than in the past, because of common use of development kits. I did not praise the game for anything. How did you come up with those conclusions? My guess is you got a bit too emotional about it. Mind you, I'm a big fan of classic RPGs. I believe, that in most cases the modern ones are crap. But I remain reasonable, when looking at todays technology and potential. I don't glorify 2D out of a misconception that it's the only technology suitable for RPGs. It's not 3D that's breaking our games. It's the greedy publishers, demanding insanely short development times and crazy sales figures and customers, demanding...well, no to much really.
And the issue here isn't just graphic quality, but rather the whole cinematic focus that studios opted for. While spending their precious time and resources with things like lip synch, cutscenes, voice-overs and, of course, shiny graphics considerably improve how the game presents itself, you still end up having to cut other features - and when it comes to RPGs, this generally means player freedom, a true sacrilege.
The most practical example I can give you is this: if a beta tester discovers a rather creative way to resolve a quest but that somehow breaks the NPC dialogue, the developer could deal with this relatively easily by adding new lines of code leading to new dialogues. If your studio is obsessed with the cinematic experience of the game, if cutscenes are, sadly, your primary way of storytelling, then you probably won't be able to add yet another time-expensive cutscene to the development cycle. The solution is not to reward roleplaying and player creativity, rather to add 'invisible walls' or the like to avoid the pesky player's ingenuity.
But this actually proves my point. The probelm is not 3D, it's the focus, as you rightly say. Bioware decided to focus on cinematic games and this in combination with short development time and the need for wide appeal had a very negative effect on the quality. If they focused on tactical gameplay as a design choice, had as much time as they had with BG, and EA was not forcing them to cater to everyone, maybe, just maybe DA2 would actually be a playable or even a good game.
And, lastly, you must understand that when it comes to art direction there aren't really inherently better choices. 3D isn't inherently better than 2D just as realistic isn't inherently better than cartoonish.
Again, proves my point. Neither is inherently better as far as style is concerned. But 3D is better as far as detail, and view point options and scalability are concerned. Why choose the inferior technology, than? Let me quote myself:
[...]it's also a matter of art style. But style can also be applied to 3D graphics. See Torchlight or Borderlands or Journey.
Lots of people actually like the isometric perspective, which (from my understanding) 3D games can only emulate, and lots of people like games that look like a painting
And what do 2D ISO graphics do? Emulate 3D Besides, "emulation" of ISO in 3D environments is very effective, as e.g. it can be done from many angles and distances.
Grand Theft Waterdeep - All the 4th Edition rules you love, with an innovative horse-jacking system. Like the game on Facebook to unlock additional achievements, and Tweet your mission scores to unlock an Xbox Live Drizzt Avatar!
The worst thing is, the latter half of that post could actually be true about the next D&D game...
Personally, I think an engine like Temple of Elemental Evil has the best of both worlds; it's a combination 2D and 3D. The objects are paintined in a 2D manner, layered in 3D. All the character models are 3D but the camera is fixed at a BG-esque angle, giving a 2D feel.
The problem with 3D games I usually have is that I spend half my time wrestling with the camera and the game always seems to handle a little sluggish (on every PC). I don't have anything against it per se, I've seriously enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 1/2, but I've preferred all IE games (except Torment*) and the Fallout/Arcanum engine games because they handle better than any 3D game I've played since.
Small Sidenote; The biggest problem with RPG's these days (in my opinion) isn't so much graphics as being the limiting factor (though @Aliteri mentioned another good one; invisible walls because they can't afford to create another creative way of solving a quest), the problem is Fully Voiced games. Not only does it explosively increase the budget of the game, it also limits the number of NPC's most developers would want in a game (partymembers/questgivers) and it becomes terribly difficult to change content once it's been made. If someone points out the illogicality of a quest, they can't fix it, it would mean changing the dialogue, getting the voice actor back, redoing the lines, etc. In Ye Olde Days, it was just rewriting a line of text. BG2's plot was changing when the game was almost done, this is impossible nowadays, it would mean recasting half the actors. I think this, coupled with Super Graphics severely limit the length and quality of most games today.
In short; I don't mind 3D, it can be very pretty, but it usually leads to giant budgets which limit creativity and experimental content because of the risk involved. I prefer simpler ways, then.
*I consider Torment a work of art and rate it as one of the best, if not the best game ever. The engine, however, was clunky and unwieldy, despite being based on the IE.
The problem with 3D games I usually have is that I spend half my time wrestling with the camera and the game always seems to handle a little sluggish (on every PC). I don't have anything against it per se, I've seriously enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 1/2, but I've preferred all IE games (except Torment*) and the Fallout/Arcanum engine games because they handle better than any 3D game I've played since.
But there is nothing to handle in those games...you have a fixed angle, fixed distance camera. If you like that camera angle and distance, then you are fine. If you don't, then you are stuck with it. And that is one of the major advantages of a 3D engine: it's flexible. You can set the camera in a BG style and it will do it's job perfectly (provided the developers know what they are doing). But if you wish, you can rotate it, change the angle, zoom in. I think that the BG style ISO perspective is the best one for tactical gameplay, and I always used it in DA:O. But I also enjoyed being able to rotate it around the battlefield, an option I'd love to have had in BG. Also, when I was not in battle, I liked to zoom in for closer look...I didn't need a tactical perspective when talking to Leliana. DA:O has some serious limitations as far as tactical gameplay is concerned, but they were not a result of a 3D engine being used.
The biggest problem with RPG's these days (in my opinion) isn't so much graphics as being the limiting factor the problem is Fully Voiced games. I think this, coupled with Super Graphics severely limit the length and quality of most games today.
Agreed. Even with the Super Graphics statement. But 3D doesn't equal Super Graphics. Have a look at this game. Just OK graphics, rather low budget, isometric view, 3D engine, good reviews! A miracle? No, design, intention and good job done.
In short; I don't mind 3D, it can be very pretty, but it usually leads to giant budgets which limit creativity and experimental content because of the risk involved. I prefer simpler ways, then.
Now, you're just contradicting yourself. 3D doesn't infalte budgets on its own...as evidenced by the game I linked above.
That game, Lara croft guardian of light is a proof why it's better to stick to art and drawing when the alternative is lame 3D. If the game is awesome I don't care about the bad 3D but I would prefer it wasnt.
I don't know what tech was used in temple of elemental evil but it worked very well imo.
Grand Theft Waterdeep - All the 4th Edition rules you love, with an innovative horse-jacking system. Like the game on Facebook to unlock additional achievements, and Tweet your mission scores to unlock an Xbox Live Drizzt Avatar!
ARRGGGGRRRR (pkloop turns on Mandel's "suicide is painless" walks out to garage and bulletizes self)...
Man, if they did this the fan base would go %#$!ing ballistic. Talk about the ultimate example of ubertrolling. BG and 4th Ed, "Facebook achievements" tweeting scores for unlockables" ...yikes. I think Trent & his team want to make a viable company..not have to find a way to enter the witness protection program :-)
In my mind, the perfect BG3 would essentially be the 3D visual detail level of Diablo 3 with the party system and turn based gameplay of BG2, with some fixes.
In my mind, the perfect BG3 would essentially be the 3D visual detail level of Diablo 3 with the party system and turn based gameplay of BG2, with some fixes.
I think a more realistic rather than stylized presentation (i.e. The Witcher 2 vs Diablo 3 visual style) would fit Baldur's Gate better. Also I'd love to have full control over the camera, even if the default view is top-down isometric. Imagine being able to stare up at the buildings inside Baldur's Gate, or the Gnoll Stronghold.
I agree with @Zeckul. I'm not familiar with The Witcher 2, but Diablo 3 looks way too WoW-ish and cartoony. I had something more realistic and a little bit darker in mind for BG3 (in terms of realism, BG1 was way ahead of BG2 and that is one of the reasons why I like it better).
To put it simply: if you ask me to chose between a 2D and 3D version of the same RPG, assuming both versions have the same content and have both be designed with the same concern for details and quality, then I will clearly choose the 3D version.
I love being able to zoom in and out, to rotate the camera and to enjoy the view from different angles. 3D games have also the advantage to be able to easily integrate physics engines, which makes physical interaction between objects (creature, FX, items, etc..) really nice and dynamic. As well as make use of dynamic lightning which add a greet touch on a scene ambiance. I also love 3D positional and environmental sounds while playing.
Certainly there was a time where 2D graphics looked a lot better than 3D, because well 3D was all about few polygons and low details textures. But that's not the case anymore on modern hardware and 3D should keep improving.
2D just plain looks better because you can have a guy come in and actually draw the background - something that's impossible with 3D. I've seen 3D graphics that are realistic, but I've never seen any that are beautiful.
I've seen 3D graphics that are realistic, but I've never seen any that are beautiful.
This statement seems to suggest that reality and beauty are mutually exclusive. I have to disagree with this.
I will say that 3D worries me. I don't technically know enough about it to expound upon how much more money it costs, etc. to make a 3D game vs a 2D game. From what I've seen others saying, it seems as if it wouldn't be too difficult to make a good 3D engine that didn't cost too much money, so long as Dragon Age-esque mistakes such as caring far too much about cinematic effects in dialogue, etc. aren't made.
A 2D engine like the infinity engine is tried and true. That style of game engine will be much simpler to keep bug free and intuitive and potentially more artistically appealing than a 3D engine as they currently stand. I believe I've seen a lot of people on here mention bad things about NWN's graphics, which I thought were fine. When I play 3D games (NWN, DA:O, etc.), I spent most of the game attempting to simulate an isometric top-down view such as the view in the infinity engine, even though it really isn't the same thing, because there is a created need to rotate the camera angle frequently. This is more in sync with reality of course, but can also be a bit of a hassle. I do think the default in 3D games should always be that the cursor moving to the edge of the screen rotates the camera horizontally, and zooming and vertical manipulation are done with the mouse wheel. I remember back when I was first playing NWN, being in some wilderness area and just switching the camera to survey the horizon and thinking "man, this is really cool." But it isn't ever really necessary to do so, the ability to look up at the buildings and such is awesome, but not integral to the gameplay in any way.
To get back to my original point, a 2D game potentially has the capacity to have more artistic beauty, whereas a 3D game could have more realistic beauty. It seems pretty clear based on comments made by both Trent and Phillip that they are looking to make future releases in a 3D engine (possibly one that they create), which is fine with me, although Baldur's Gate and the rest of the old 2D games will always have a special place, and I don't believe that 3D is inherently better than 2D as some people are suggesting. More versatile in several ways, yes; but better is a very subjective term in this case and I don't think it can just be thrown out as an overarching statement like that.
@norolim - it looks positively stunning! However, I'm just too fond of isometric 2D to let go, and not just because of the looks. To me, it's also a matter of feel, which changes completely when switching from isometric 2D to full blown 3D like Witcher 2. Sure, if it has to be 3D, then Witcher 2 looks a lot better than Diablo 3. But Baldur's Gate wouldn't be the same game if it had that kind of looks, imho.
@norolim - it looks positively stunning! However, I'm just too fond of isometric 2D to let go, and not just because of the looks. To me, it's also a matter of feel, which changes completely when switching from isometric 2D to full blown 3D like Witcher 2. Sure, if it has to be 3D, then Witcher 2 looks a lot better than Diablo 3. But Baldur's Gate wouldn't be the same game if it had that kind of looks, imho.
In that case imagine Thw Witcher 2 quality 3D with a fixed ISO camera as an option and a good object fading mechanics. IMO it's the best option. The feel is exactly the same as with w 2D ISO, i.e. you don't have to rotate the camera and everything is clearly visible all the time. At the same time, those who want some control over the camera can still have it. Obviously I don't expect the potential BG3 to have Witcher 2 quality graphics, but good 3D will also do.
With RPGs like BG I like to have my camera a bit more "far-out" so I can see more stuff at the same time. That's why I like Diablo III's point of view.
Comments
First, people often claim, that RPGs are now short and low quality, because a lot of time and resources is wasted on shiny 3D graphics. Not true. Those people keep forgetting that 2D games were made by teams much smaller than today and the budgets were much lower. Besides, modern games are oftem made based on popular, well known engines. Mass Effect used a slightly modified Unreal Engine 3, a complete game development tool. If you hire people who specialize in this area, the work is really quite streamlined. And knowing what we know about Infinity, I'm pretty sure work on Baldur's Gate graphics was much more time consuming, than e.g. in case of Mass Effect 2. And finally, I believe there are many more aspects of game production, that eat up much more budget and time and these are voice-overs and multiplayer.
Another myth is that 2D ISO is much better for tactical gameplay. Nonsense. What if the game is 3D but has a fixed ISO camera and a good obstacle fade mechanics? How is that diferent in terms of gameplay? It's not. The only difference is that you get a more detailed representation of the gameworld and others get options to change the camera positions and angles.
So, when I hear/read people saying that they want 2D ISO RPGs, I think it's pure nostalgia speaking. Because there is no logic behind it.
@norolim, Dragon Age 1 did what you are saying right? It's nothing new. And I quite like DA 1 but 2D ISO is almost a genre, and as similar as a 3D may get it is always different, especially the art style.
Maybe its pure nostalgia speaking as you said, but I love BG1,2 IWD1,2 , there is something in the atmosphere in those games that I have never felt in any other 3D game,But I might be wrong because no one tried to do a game in the scale of BG with 3D engine/
Besides, Trent said that a New game will be 3D Iso Party based and not 2D.
"TEARS OF ALOEVAN
In a sylvan glen deep inside Ardeep Forest lies a mystical pool of
water guarded by an otherwordly dragon. Within the clear waters of
this pond is a portal that leads to a cloud of magic known as the
Tears of Aloevan, which is located in a pocket plane.
Once the Chosen of both Sehanine and Mystra, the moon elf
queen Aloevan descended into madness, consumed by the silver fire
that raged within her. Upon her death, her spirit was trapped in a
nimbus of silver fire that prevented her from passing on to
Arvanaith. Upon realizing her situation, seven clerics of Sehanine
created a link between the natural world and the spiritual limbo in
which Aloevan was trapped. Throughout the intervening centuries,
Sehanine’s priests have labored to ease the mad queen’s torment by
recreating the long-lost Court of Silver Fire within her pocket plane.
But still the laughter of Aloevan (CG female ghost [augmented
moon elf] Chosen of Sehanine/Chosen of Mystra wizard 19) is
tinged with madness, and she clings to the vestiges of her sanity
thanks only to her ever-present attendants.
Passage between the two realms is restricted to solar eclipses.
Whenever one of Aloevan’s seven attendants is ready to pass on to
Arvanaith, another cleric of the Moonlit Mystery travels to the
Tears of Aloevan by way of the mystic pool to serve in her stead.
Although many others have sought entrance to Aloevan’s court,
none have returned to tell the tale, so no one knows whether anyone
not called there by Sehanine has ever succeeded in entering."
And the issue here isn't just graphic quality, but rather the whole cinematic focus that studios opted for. While spending their precious time and resources with things like lip synch, cutscenes, voice-overs and, of course, shiny graphics considerably improve how the game presents itself, you still end up having to cut other features - and when it comes to RPGs, this generally means player freedom, a true sacrilege.
The most practical example I can give you is this: if a beta tester discovers a rather creative way to resolve a quest but that somehow breaks the NPC dialogue, the developer could deal with this relatively easily by adding new lines of code leading to new dialogues. If your studio is obsessed with the cinematic experience of the game, if cutscenes are, sadly, your primary way of storytelling, then you probably won't be able to add yet another time-expensive cutscene to the development cycle. The solution is not to reward roleplaying and player creativity, rather to add 'invisible walls' or the like to avoid the pesky player's ingenuity.
Now, you might be thinking: all I'm talking about is making use of 3D, not this whole shenanigans of 'cinematic focus'. To which I answer: you, however, spoke of BioWare's cinematic focus posterboy: the Mass Effect series. And in case you haven't noticed yet, BioWare's 'heavy handed' approach to storytelling (not as much linearity as a JRPG but a lot more than your average 'western RPG') probably already adds those 'invisible walls' from the start. That's why their writers often refers to player choice as a illusion, because with their cinematic focus they really can't provide acceptable consequences to most of those choices, which indeed end up becoming illusions.
In another man's words, the graphic pretties is a RPG's 'anathema' (I like hyperboles).
And, lastly, you must understand that when it comes to art direction there aren't really inherently better choices. 3D isn't inherently better than 2D just as realistic isn't inherently better than cartoonish. Actually, in both comparisons, the latter tend to age better simply because we are very unlikely to reach photorealism any time soon, if ever. Lots of people actually like the isometric perspective, which (from my understanding) 3D games can only emulate, and lots of people like games that look like a painting.
I know devs want to take any chance to make the game known, to sell an extra copy but that is too much, it hurts the game reputation...
Use facebook or any other platform to make the game known but with class.
By the way I have no idea what BGEE's plans are. I'am talking in general, an example that hurt my eyes is magicka for those who know.
Philip, you saying this as you said it, I feel we have the same opinion about this social networks fever.
Personally, I think an engine like Temple of Elemental Evil has the best of both worlds; it's a combination 2D and 3D. The objects are paintined in a 2D manner, layered in 3D. All the character models are 3D but the camera is fixed at a BG-esque angle, giving a 2D feel.
The problem with 3D games I usually have is that I spend half my time wrestling with the camera and the game always seems to handle a little sluggish (on every PC). I don't have anything against it per se, I've seriously enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 1/2, but I've preferred all IE games (except Torment*) and the Fallout/Arcanum engine games because they handle better than any 3D game I've played since.
Small Sidenote; The biggest problem with RPG's these days (in my opinion) isn't so much graphics as being the limiting factor (though @Aliteri mentioned another good one; invisible walls because they can't afford to create another creative way of solving a quest), the problem is Fully Voiced games. Not only does it explosively increase the budget of the game, it also limits the number of NPC's most developers would want in a game (partymembers/questgivers) and it becomes terribly difficult to change content once it's been made. If someone points out the illogicality of a quest, they can't fix it, it would mean changing the dialogue, getting the voice actor back, redoing the lines, etc. In Ye Olde Days, it was just rewriting a line of text. BG2's plot was changing when the game was almost done, this is impossible nowadays, it would mean recasting half the actors.
I think this, coupled with Super Graphics severely limit the length and quality of most games today.
In short; I don't mind 3D, it can be very pretty, but it usually leads to giant budgets which limit creativity and experimental content because of the risk involved. I prefer simpler ways, then.
*I consider Torment a work of art and rate it as one of the best, if not the best game ever. The engine, however, was clunky and unwieldy, despite being based on the IE.
Agreed. Even with the Super Graphics statement. But 3D doesn't equal Super Graphics. Have a look at this game. Just OK graphics, rather low budget, isometric view, 3D engine, good reviews! A miracle? No, design, intention and good job done. Now, you're just contradicting yourself. 3D doesn't infalte budgets on its own...as evidenced by the game I linked above.
I don't know what tech was used in temple of elemental evil but it worked very well imo.
ARRGGGGRRRR (pkloop turns on Mandel's "suicide is painless" walks out to garage and bulletizes self)...
Man, if they did this the fan base would go %#$!ing ballistic. Talk about the ultimate example of ubertrolling.
BG and 4th Ed, "Facebook achievements" tweeting scores for unlockables" ...yikes. I think Trent & his team want to make a viable company..not have to find a way to enter the witness protection program :-)
I`m with you on this one.. even though I haven't played D3..
To put it simply: if you ask me to chose between a 2D and 3D version of the same RPG, assuming both versions have the same content and have both be designed with the same concern for details and quality, then I will clearly choose the 3D version.
I love being able to zoom in and out, to rotate the camera and to enjoy the view from different angles.
3D games have also the advantage to be able to easily integrate physics engines, which makes physical interaction between objects (creature, FX, items, etc..) really nice and dynamic. As well as make use of dynamic lightning which add a greet touch on a scene ambiance.
I also love 3D positional and environmental sounds while playing.
Certainly there was a time where 2D graphics looked a lot better than 3D, because well 3D was all about few polygons and low details textures. But that's not the case anymore on modern hardware and 3D should keep improving.
I will say that 3D worries me. I don't technically know enough about it to expound upon how much more money it costs, etc. to make a 3D game vs a 2D game. From what I've seen others saying, it seems as if it wouldn't be too difficult to make a good 3D engine that didn't cost too much money, so long as Dragon Age-esque mistakes such as caring far too much about cinematic effects in dialogue, etc. aren't made.
A 2D engine like the infinity engine is tried and true. That style of game engine will be much simpler to keep bug free and intuitive and potentially more artistically appealing than a 3D engine as they currently stand. I believe I've seen a lot of people on here mention bad things about NWN's graphics, which I thought were fine. When I play 3D games (NWN, DA:O, etc.), I spent most of the game attempting to simulate an isometric top-down view such as the view in the infinity engine, even though it really isn't the same thing, because there is a created need to rotate the camera angle frequently. This is more in sync with reality of course, but can also be a bit of a hassle. I do think the default in 3D games should always be that the cursor moving to the edge of the screen rotates the camera horizontally, and zooming and vertical manipulation are done with the mouse wheel. I remember back when I was first playing NWN, being in some wilderness area and just switching the camera to survey the horizon and thinking "man, this is really cool." But it isn't ever really necessary to do so, the ability to look up at the buildings and such is awesome, but not integral to the gameplay in any way.
To get back to my original point, a 2D game potentially has the capacity to have more artistic beauty, whereas a 3D game could have more realistic beauty. It seems pretty clear based on comments made by both Trent and Phillip that they are looking to make future releases in a 3D engine (possibly one that they create), which is fine with me, although Baldur's Gate and the rest of the old 2D games will always have a special place, and I don't believe that 3D is inherently better than 2D as some people are suggesting. More versatile in several ways, yes; but better is a very subjective term in this case and I don't think it can just be thrown out as an overarching statement like that.