2D VS 3D
I am curious about how good 2D isometric can look. It seems that they have committed to that style going forward and I am not sure how I feel about that. I don't think 3D is what ruined D&D based computer rpgs. I think it has been the rule changes/new editions and the insane amount of loot that gets handed out. I think 3D is more immersive but does anyone have an example of a contemporary isometric 2D game that looks really impressive? I would like to check it out and see what a BG3 could potentially look like.
Post edited by Coriander on
0
Comments
I don't enjoy 3D games much. The fact is when you let a computer do half of the creativity for you it never looks nice. Neverwinter Nights 2 was pretty but it was pretty lifeless.
Neverwinter Nights came first but despite the shaven feel, the atmosphere saved it from being a bad game.
At the end of the day I would rather BG3 be isometric.
There may be some out there that I don't know of, but I doubt it (unless, like I said, they're indie titles which don't really provide an apt comparison). Hopefully, BG3 made by Trent and team will be that example, and will show us what can be done with a 2D/3D mix isometric modern game.
3D would add another dimension, but the isometric style should still be kept for future titles. 3D or 2D - that doesn't really matter that much. I guess for special effects, 3D can be better, but then again, when I think about it, 3D games, generally speaking, age very badly.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I think a lot of people are obsessed with 2D being intrinsically worse than 3D (it's "one less"), which is just a misconception IMO.
Baldur's Gate areas are largely composed of pre-rendered 3D models -- there's virtually as much perspective and depth as a 3D game, except the viewpoint is fixed. Of course the older 2D isometric games look dated, because they were built on and for outdated computers. Compared to its 3D contemporaries, however, I think the BG games look great... And I imagine a modern 2D isometric game would be no worse.
Now, the huge disadvantage of 2D is that it is static. A good 3D game lets you deform the landscape and create or destroy new objects on screen. 3D allows you to have realistic physics, weather and lighting. 3D allows you to change camera perspective in cutscenes, or zoom in on your companion's face if you have a conversation. On the technical side, 3D scales better with new hardware - you can always up the resolution or add more effects like anti-aliasing or shaders, instead of the original game artists having to re-do all the artwork of the game. Finally, 3D allows for much more extensive modding by the community.
That being said, in the end the quality of game graphics depends on the skill and talent of the artists involved. The best 3D engine cannot make bad textures and models look good, and neither can 2D.
For reference, a "modern" isometric game was already mentioned with "The Temple of Elemental Evil" (it already uses 3D characters though!), for a modern 3D game in the perspective of BG look no further than Diablo 3.
For Baldur's Gate 3, if that ever happens, i think that if they have a certain amount of resources available, and if they have good artists, they can make a 2D game much better than it would look like in 3D.
When 2D games started looking good, the technology advanced into 3D. However the first 3D models were atrocious, if they continued with 2D for RPGs we would have an awesome looking Neverwinter Nights.
Either way I think if BG is gonna move forward they should stick with 2d. It has a certain charm to it and can technically have an unlimited amount of detail, 3d nowadays is so advanced it takes so much time to make it look good, why bother when 2d can look as good, if not better. Not to mention the fact that this time is better invested in the stuff that actually matters, gameplay and story.