Someone mentioned houses being reused too often, they all look the same..ever been to a city? or the suburbs? Google row house and check out the images, or tract houseinfo or subdivisions....then take a tour through afew open houses and what do you see...a remarkable similarity from one house to another and the lower cost you go the more the same all the houses are.....in this instance having similar houses in a game is just mimicing real life.
#1, that's not true. There are systems in Skyrim that were generated by the computer - trees, clouds, river flows, surface flora on the ground, etc. My brother works for Disney Animation Studios and uses loads of algorithms to generate much of the random flora in movies like "Tangled", "Wreck-it Ralph", and the upcoming "Frozen". These autonomous rendering principles are widely known and used in modern video games as well, no matter what BS the PR department sold you at Bethesda or EA or Bioware.
True, I forgot about SpeedTree and the like, my apologies. The last game I actively modded was Morrowind, where everything was hand-placed, even trees. Then again, you can use this kind of technology in 3D modeling software as well.
And even though I fear I might ruin your BG:EE experience:
#2 - You think that every inn in Skyrim was individually hand crafted? No sir, they were created once, then plopped down repeatedly all over the world ad nauseum. The world is soulless because, unlike BG, the assets were copy/pasted too many times. Guess how they were copied and placed? Yes, with mouse/keyboard using a computer over and over and over again. In Baldur's Gate, you'll find this process far less manufactured and far more "hand-crafted" or "hand-drawn".
Nowhere did I claim that there is no repetition in Skyrim. Nowhere did I claim that Skyrim looks better. I am merely pointing out that the EXACT SAME TOOLS AND METHODS are used to create art for both Skyrim and BG. Both are created by a human artist and a computer to the same parts.
Now, the artists SKILL might actually be different (aha!), but this has nothing to do with the underlying technology. BG depends on 3D technology.
Uh, YOU compared BG to NWN, not me. So don't put it on me when you made the poor comparison to begin with. It doesn't matter if PCs hadn't caught up, the result SUCKED. Which brings me back to my point, BG's art design is STILL miles ahead of modern rendering practices.
Oh, but trust me: I'll be the first standing in line to say that NWN did NOT look good. All I'm saying is that there's virtually NO difference between the art in BG and the art in NWN. The developers of NWN simply couldn't get as much detail in the game due to hardware constraints. It was NOT - as you claim - because BG was hand-painted, but it was because the NWN art had to be optimised for real-time rendering.
Oh, and by the way: 3D renderers are catching up to BG's art design. You should have a look at the unreal & crysis tech trailers. The amount of detail in those scenes are definitely competition for BG's detail.
I really have no idea, all I know is that the art in BG blows anything out of the water even by today's standards in the 2D isometric format it was present in. Why are you asking me this question?
I'm asking you this question because you claim that BG looks better because it was hand-painted. I think by now I've proven that the BG art was made in 3D, just like NWN art. My point is that BG doesn't look better than NWN because it's 2D or because it's hand-painted. Disregarding the fact that BG art is neither 2D nor hand-painted, the real reason why BG looks better than NWN has to do with the detail in the art. And I'll tell you now: state of the art 3D renderers on the latest hardware are able to render such large amount of detail in real-time today.
Really? I haven't seen it.
I hope you're kidding me.
Even if what you say is true, Skyrim's art still looks manufactured, repetitive crap compared to Baldur's Gate. I seriously cannot play another minute of Skyrim because so much of it is NOT hand-drawn like BG is.
Again, that has nothing to do with BG being hand-drawn, for the simple fact that BG IS NOT HANDDRAWN.
It's all pre-rendered, and placed by algorithms.
Okay, sorry, but now you're just being stupid. Baldur's gate is pre-rendered, NOT skyrim. Neither Baldur's gate nor skyrim used algorithms to generate* their content. It has all been created by artists and "hand-painted", according to your definition.
*edit: to clarify: some things in skyrim were generated, for example the trees. But firstly, I'd like to point out that there's nothing wrong with the trees in skyrim (they look just like BG's trees, IMO). Secondly, all those trees, buildings, and whatever have been hand-placed by an artist, just like in BG.
Calling me "stupid" aside...facts are facts people. Everything from textures to models to flora, to lighting, and on and on, has far more computer generated content than a game from ten years ago. And why not? Back then, computer capabilities were less useful than they are today.
A rendering studio from 15 years ago could not do as many automated tasks as they can today. The touch of a human being was far more prevalent back when BG was conceptualized and designed. It's a shame that developers have gotten lazy in this regard today, relying so much on their software and not as much on their inherit human talent.
I say we've lost something because of it. I miss the old manuals and cloth maps. A game like the Magic Candle did not even have the back-story in the game, it was all written in a paper document.
Umm No we don't need name calling. and umm Manuals and cloth maps are wonderful but not what we were discussing. I like them and I always pay a premium price for them when they are available.
facts are facts people. Everything from textures to models to flora, to lighting, and on and on, has far more computer generated content than a game from ten years ago.
You still don't seem to understand that baldur's gate had just as much computer generated content than a game like skyrim, at least proportionally.
Basically, here's how the artists made skyrim/baldur's gate: 1. [both] Both art teams hand-crafted all the art in 3D models & textures. 2. [skyrim] Skyrim's art department used SpeedTree to automatically generated 3D models for vegetation such as trees. Honestly, compare a generated-tree with an artist-tree and nobody will tell the difference. 3. [both] Both art departments took those hand-crafted 3D models and hand-placed them in a scene. You'll notice duplicate beds in both skyrim and baldur's gate houses. 4a. [baldur's gate] Well, there's no way we can render this huge amount of detail in 3D in real time on a 200mhz computer, so let's take a screenshot of this area and use that screenshot instead of the 3D world. 4b. [skyrim] Well, there's no way we can render this huge amount of detail in 3D in real time on an average computer, so let's reduce the amount of polygons and reduce the texture size to something that the average gamer can run.
up until step 4, the art teams of both Skyrim and Baldur's gate did pretty much the same thing. The main difference is that the Baldur's Gate team took a screenshot (technically, they rendered the 3D scene to a high-resolution image) of the 3D scene and used that instead of actually using the 3D scene in real-time.
A rendering studio from 15 years ago could not do as many automated tasks as they can today. The touch of a human being was far more prevalent back when BG was conceptualized and designed. It's a shame that developers have gotten lazy in this regard today, relying so much on their software and not as much on their inherit human talent.
What kind of "automated tasks" are you talking about? Besides SpeedTree, which only works for vegetation, not that much has changed for artists in the past 15 years. Well, besides that artists today have much more work to do, with models requiring bump maps, illumination maps, etc.
Well at least with Skyrim you can bring in better textures if you happen to have a water cooled SLI enabled monster system 4096x4096 looks pretty sweet actually
The only question is if we can do it in real-time or pre-rendered, and this just depends on how much computing power we have avaiable. Early real-time 3D games naturally suffered from the lack of this power, but as mentioned in this topic they were a necessary learning experience. We are still not quite there yet, but give it 10 years and we will be able to run BG-level detail and much, much higher in real-time, with all its advantages - dynamic lighting, realistic physics and more player interaction with the environment.
Also, complaints that real-time 3D games are "soulless", "cold" or "without spirit" are intangible and without substance. Criticism of a game's art should be done on a case-by-case basis, not by sweeping generalizations about the underlying technique. A preference for photography does not rob all motion pictures of beauty and meaning.
I think that is the problem with games. I agree with you, that there are 3D games, which aren´t "soulless", "cold" or "without spirit". All I need to say is, everybody, just look at Witcher 2. That game is a proof that 3D game is already able to provide graphics which match 2d picture without melting your graphic card.
But here we comes to the vicious circle. If we would like to see game like BG or just it´s 3D remake, it would require large amount of manpower and therefore, bigger sales. And as BG is more hardcore game, it will never sell as much as Skyrim or DA or Mass Effect.
Still, I would like to see isometric games in 2D. Animations are bigger problem with 2D games. BG with animated environment would be the most beautiful game.
But in that case *all* art is hand-drawn. Literally ALL art in NWN was made by a real artist too. So do you consider NWN to be entirely hand-drawn too?
You have a point. I thought NWN was a great game, but it was its piecemeal quality that turned me off artwork-wise. It's true that every computer game has a piecemeal quality to some extent (i.e. any character that can move through an environment for example, or environments that may comprised of multiple parts, etc.), but I just find the 3D environment is overdone in this sense and to an extent that I don't think is avoidable (and because of that, also less appealing). For example, consider the graphic crafting options of armors and weapons in NWN, where your character is basically a combination of a ton of little parts. WoW can be even worse, where until you get an armor set, you often have a hideous patchwork of mismatched items, which are often not even graphically compatible. For example, a greatsword on the back that goes through part of your cape, or shoulder pad. On some level, there is a lot more 'customizability,' but on the other hand, everything starts to look the same after a while but with different colours. And this is the same for the environments, since you can only combine a limited number of trees, for example, in such way before they form graphic collisions that are graphically hideous, like the greatsword through the cape or shoulder pad, or the cape and greatsword going through your mount/steed, your cape burrowing into the ground when you sit down, and so on. That being said, I like both 2D and 3D.
Someone mentioned houses being reused too often, they all look the same..ever been to a city? or the suburbs? Google row house and check out the images, or tract houseinfo or subdivisions....then take a tour through afew open houses and what do you see...a remarkable similarity from one house to another and the lower cost you go the more the same all the houses are.....in this instance having similar houses in a game is just mimicing real life.
I thought the point of fantasy and fiction was to escape. If it brings me right back, it's not very successful. I get your point though, it's basically art imitating life on some level. I was at an art gallery a little while ago, and I always find myself attracted to landscape or scenery paintings and especially if they are very colorful. But in the next room, there was a giant sink hanging from a canvas. I see no merit in the latter, aside from the shock value and the offense it demands from someone with a classical artistic taste, but hey, different strokes.
I say we've lost something because of it. I miss the old manuals and cloth maps. A game like the Magic Candle did not even have the back-story in the game, it was all written in a paper document.
I think that is the problem with games. I agree with you, that there are 3D games, which aren´t "soulless", "cold" or "without spirit". All I need to say is, everybody, just look at Witcher 2. That game is a proof that 3D game is already able to provide graphics which match 2d picture without melting your graphic card.
Still, I would like to see isometric games in 2D.
The gaming industry changed from our old niche market to a mass phenomenon indeed. It's nice that people can get their yearly Call of Duty/Halo fix (though to be honest, Electronic Arts started this trend back in '95 with the FIFA series) - people get to have fun their way, and it pushes 3D technology forward.
On the other hand it is sad that other virtues and even whole technologies get neglected. Warren Spector, if some of you remember him, recently did an interview, brainstorming on where gaming would be now if developers focused on artificial intelligence and believable characters instead of graphics and guns.
Personally, it makes no difference to me what kind of graphics technology a game uses, I care much more about gameplay and content. Aside from isometric RPGs I enjoyed System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief: Dark Project, Morrowind, Vampire: Bloodlines, The Witcher 2, Dragon Age Origins, EVE: Online and Starcraft 2, hell, even Minecraft. Half of these look horrible by today's standards.
I hope CD Project follows up on the Witcher, and also that our Beamdog guys and gals here are successful in their endeavours and we see another old-school RPG! Why limit yourself to one (sub)genre!
@MississippiGhost Warren makes a good point up to a point, but playing "What If" games can never change what is and Hindsight is never allowed before you do something
As for the Witcher comments...I liked the Witcher games but...um, I was not especially wowed by the graphics or anything...it was just another game. I have them both via GoG now but had the original Witcher when it was first released in the US.
Personally, it makes no difference to me what kind of graphics technology a game uses, I care much more about gameplay and content. Aside from isometric RPGs I enjoyed System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief: Dark Project, Morrowind, Vampire: Bloodlines, The Witcher 2, Dragon Age Origins, EVE: Online and Starcraft 2, hell, even Minecraft. Half of these look horrible by today's standards.
Well, of course gameplay is more important than graphics. I can take some Starcraft 1, Thief:The Dark Project or even Hexen any day. It depends on what you expect from the game and what taste for a game you have at that time. In case of BG or other games, where you play heroes in some realms, you want that world to be believable. And graphics is one of the things that make it believable. Of course, not only graphics, audio I think is equally important (Thief looked pretty dated back when it came out, but its audio was so strong that for me, no game could beat that atmosphere, yet), lore is important.
NWN have only good character development, area project on NWN look poor compare with BG. NWN dont have open world. Party was too small player dont have full companion control. NWN to much focus on graphics and lose gameplay.
@StrangeCat Seriously - DA had cliché characters, but the Witcher didn't? Aside from all girls essentially being the same thing and dialogue that could be written by a fifth grader, I'm not getting it. I guess I understand not liking Dragon Age, but the strengths of the Witcher were not in the written word or in believable characters - not by a long shot.
*sigh* The music track for this topic seems to be "Round and Round". I've lost the actual discussion point in the discussion - it's like the forest got covered in weeds.
To my mind, the repetition and instancing and what have you have nothing to do with the appeal or immersiveness of the 'opposing' styles. I mean even games like Arcanum that were very obviously built from a 2D tileset had at least a little of the effect that BG had. The very manner of their presentation lent them a certain unassailability - the fact that you couldn't stick your character's face right up against every piece of crockery and zoom right in and see it from every angle and knock it off a table meant that you never really had to come to terms with the fact that it was just the same old junk. It's almost literally like looking down on a picture behind glass and, for me (and obviously a fair number of people here) that works just fine.
Did someone say Bastion? I'm playing it at the moment and, even though it's obviously a totally different kettle of fish, I love the style and think it demonstrates perfectly how an isometric game can still look beautiful, fresh and current.
Comments
http://larryfeltonjohnson.typepad.com/photos/atlantic_station/atlantic_station_008.html
http://www.hdc.org/DIL/rsdwe.htm
http://acalltomoxie.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/20060523012658_dc_logan_townhouses_row_small.jpg
And even though I fear I might ruin your BG:EE experience:
Now, the artists SKILL might actually be different (aha!), but this has nothing to do with the underlying technology. BG depends on 3D technology.
All I'm saying is that there's virtually NO difference between the art in BG and the art in NWN. The developers of NWN simply couldn't get as much detail in the game due to hardware constraints. It was NOT - as you claim - because BG was hand-painted, but it was because the NWN art had to be optimised for real-time rendering.
Oh, and by the way: 3D renderers are catching up to BG's art design. You should have a look at the unreal & crysis tech trailers. The amount of detail in those scenes are definitely competition for BG's detail. I'm asking you this question because you claim that BG looks better because it was hand-painted.
I think by now I've proven that the BG art was made in 3D, just like NWN art.
My point is that BG doesn't look better than NWN because it's 2D or because it's hand-painted. Disregarding the fact that BG art is neither 2D nor hand-painted, the real reason why BG looks better than NWN has to do with the detail in the art. And I'll tell you now: state of the art 3D renderers on the latest hardware are able to render such large amount of detail in real-time today. I hope you're kidding me. Again, that has nothing to do with BG being hand-drawn, for the simple fact that BG IS NOT HANDDRAWN. Okay, sorry, but now you're just being stupid.
Baldur's gate is pre-rendered, NOT skyrim.
Neither Baldur's gate nor skyrim used algorithms to generate* their content. It has all been created by artists and "hand-painted", according to your definition.
*edit: to clarify: some things in skyrim were generated, for example the trees. But firstly, I'd like to point out that there's nothing wrong with the trees in skyrim (they look just like BG's trees, IMO). Secondly, all those trees, buildings, and whatever have been hand-placed by an artist, just like in BG.
A rendering studio from 15 years ago could not do as many automated tasks as they can today. The touch of a human being was far more prevalent back when BG was conceptualized and designed. It's a shame that developers have gotten lazy in this regard today, relying so much on their software and not as much on their inherit human talent.
I say we've lost something because of it. I miss the old manuals and cloth maps. A game like the Magic Candle did not even have the back-story in the game, it was all written in a paper document.
Basically, here's how the artists made skyrim/baldur's gate:
1. [both] Both art teams hand-crafted all the art in 3D models & textures.
2. [skyrim] Skyrim's art department used SpeedTree to automatically generated 3D models for vegetation such as trees. Honestly, compare a generated-tree with an artist-tree and nobody will tell the difference.
3. [both] Both art departments took those hand-crafted 3D models and hand-placed them in a scene. You'll notice duplicate beds in both skyrim and baldur's gate houses.
4a. [baldur's gate] Well, there's no way we can render this huge amount of detail in 3D in real time on a 200mhz computer, so let's take a screenshot of this area and use that screenshot instead of the 3D world.
4b. [skyrim] Well, there's no way we can render this huge amount of detail in 3D in real time on an average computer, so let's reduce the amount of polygons and reduce the texture size to something that the average gamer can run.
up until step 4, the art teams of both Skyrim and Baldur's gate did pretty much the same thing.
The main difference is that the Baldur's Gate team took a screenshot (technically, they rendered the 3D scene to a high-resolution image) of the 3D scene and used that instead of actually using the 3D scene in real-time.
I mean, does this (http://lpix.org/782420/BWPSS20120813079.jpeg) really look that much better than this (http://suzitastarshadow.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2011-11-19_00005.jpg)?
(by the way: enjoy the instancing on those beds, chests, chairs and tables in BG) What kind of "automated tasks" are you talking about? Besides SpeedTree, which only works for vegetation, not that much has changed for artists in the past 15 years. Well, besides that artists today have much more work to do, with models requiring bump maps, illumination maps, etc.
But here we comes to the vicious circle. If we would like to see game like BG or just it´s 3D remake, it would require large amount of manpower and therefore, bigger sales. And as BG is more hardcore game, it will never sell as much as Skyrim or DA or Mass Effect.
Still, I would like to see isometric games in 2D.
Animations are bigger problem with 2D games. BG with animated environment would be the most beautiful game.
On the other hand it is sad that other virtues and even whole technologies get neglected. Warren Spector, if some of you remember him, recently did an interview, brainstorming on where gaming would be now if developers focused on artificial intelligence and believable characters instead of graphics and guns.
Personally, it makes no difference to me what kind of graphics technology a game uses, I care much more about gameplay and content. Aside from isometric RPGs I enjoyed System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief: Dark Project, Morrowind, Vampire: Bloodlines, The Witcher 2, Dragon Age Origins, EVE: Online and Starcraft 2, hell, even Minecraft. Half of these look horrible by today's standards.
I hope CD Project follows up on the Witcher, and also that our Beamdog guys and gals here are successful in their endeavours and we see another old-school RPG! Why limit yourself to one (sub)genre!
Warren makes a good point up to a point, but playing "What If" games can never change what is and Hindsight is never allowed before you do something
As for the Witcher comments...I liked the Witcher games but...um, I was not especially wowed by the graphics or anything...it was just another game. I have them both via GoG now but had the original Witcher when it was first released in the US.
Did someone say Bastion? I'm playing it at the moment and, even though it's obviously a totally different kettle of fish, I love the style and think it demonstrates perfectly how an isometric game can still look beautiful, fresh and current.