Tendo City

Have we dealt with this now, in our MSN conversation? Well the anger part at least.. :)

As I said, NWN was just an example of a poorly done 3d camera to illustrate the fact that I prefer cameras to not have to have user interaction. This applies to third-person games too, I think... it just is not fun, in my opinion, when you have to constantly mess with a camera to get the best angle.

For some games that I disliked in part because of the camera... Earth 2150/The Moon Project, Ground Control, Dark Reign II, Neverwinter Nights, Force Commander, and others.

It's a somewhat different question, sure, but relevant to this discussion I think.

Oh, here's some shots of Temple of Elemental Evil. I'm sure you will say that it'd have looked better in a full 3d engine and a lower viewpoint, but I will not agree. Those beautiful 2d backdrops are amazing and are far nicer looking than anything they could have done with polygons, artistically... same goes for TBSes like Disciples. That couldn't be done anywhere near as well in 3d. Look at Warcraft III... it has stunning Blizz art styles, but because it's 3d it necessarially sacrifices on detail. If it was 2d it could have been much more detailed... yes, it'd sacrifice some things like ease of animation and stuff, but it would be more detailed. Resident Evil would be another good example here. Only now are we getting near the point where 3d can truly compete and I'd still say that 2d defintely has some unique qualities 3d doesn't seem to be able to quite match...





And Betryal at Krondor. :) As you can see, first-person adventuring and zoomed back third-person combat.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/shots/p,2/gameId,285/

Quote:I never said the genre is bad you twit, I said that it does not interest me because a) the combat itself is not good enough for me and b) the perspective makes exploration uninteresting, and exploration is the main reason I play games of that type.

The story thing I put as an arguement in another thread... I guess this part goes there then? I will say that obviously I disagree with every point of course... Okay, a few things. First, combat. You cannot generalize PC RPG combat like you can console RPG combat because the combat systems vary wildly from game to game. You must be specific... it is impossible to just generalize all PC RPGs because unlike console ones there is not one system of doing things. Next, one of the oldest styles of RPGs is the dungeon hack. You versus the badguys with a weak story at best. Icewind Dale and its sequel are modern titles in this style. But PC RPGs can also have great stories that are as deep as most console titles... though console titles can in some ways get deeper because generally in console games you have a pre-created character set while usually in PC games you get to create the main character and sometimes the whole party. That necessarially reduces the amount of storytelling you can do with the main character... though Baldur's Gate II does a brilliant job of having the main character be player-created but have a deep and involving story be going on with them as the centerpiece. BGI was definitely weaker on the story front, but it was Bioware's first RPG (and second game) so you can't expect them to be perfect...

Fallout I just cannot understand how you can call the story weak. Unless you didn't try to find it and were annoyed by how it didn't make sure you knew the plot like console games do, which seems to me the most likely thing given what you were saying about non-linear stories...

Your point may have been valid five years ago, but now artists have much more freedom with 3D games then they ever had with 2D ones, so 3D is definitely the better way to go if art is your only excuse.

Not just art... I honestly think that Baldur's Gate (or ToEE there) work better in topdown than third person or something like that. Yes, you aren't as close to the action and things don't look as 'realistic', but it looks great and you get a nice view or the area... maybe you dislike topdown/isometric, but I definitely do not. And I hope that RPGs continue to use it, because it's a great way of doing many kinds of RPGs.

What would you rather do: Travel on foot and by speeder through Coruscant, exploring the planet, or flying above the planet, getting a nice distant view but not really being in Coruscant?

Both of those forms would make for fun games, OB1... yes, first or third person full 3d gives you more of a 'you are there' feeling. But top down isn't any less fun! If you mean immersion by 'I think I am the character' maybe 3d does often have more of it ('often' because as I said a well presented and detailed story can also immerse you into a character, no matter the game form). But on the level of 'which game would I rather play', plenty of other things are factors that go ahead of graphics...

Like, Zelda. Yeah, OoT was an amazing experience I didn't get from LA. But LA was a fantastic experience too! I wouldn't say that LA would have been a better game in 3d because it's a fantastic game in 2d... as in, each form works, but I'm not going to say that RPGs or RPG-ish games should always be 3d, behind-or-in-the-character games. I don't think they should.

If they kept the exact same tone and feel of LA, I think it'd be much better in 3D. The game is already extremely immersive, but add another dimension to it and I'd explode from immersovicity.

LA would be a totally different game in 3d, though. I thought that the series had a definite change in tone when it moved to 3d.. yes, it works similarly, but it's different. LA would be so different that while it certainly could have just as much immersion and 'magic', it'd be a different game for it. Knowing what I do I'd rather it stays in the form it is in.

It could still be the same basic game, just with a better combat system (or not, if you don't want to) and redesigned puzzles for the dungeon. The reason why Zelda felt different when it lept to 3D was not because it was no longer 2D, it's because they changed the look and tone of the series. They could have kept the same art, the same music, the same atmosphere, etc., but they chose not to. If you look at what gave LA it's special feel, it really doesn't have much to do with the perspective.

I guess I just like 2d in this genre more than you do. :) Sure, you could do that and 'improve' the game. It might even be more 'immersive' by how you mean it. But I just don't see the point... it's great as it is!

And it can be even better in 3D!

Not really. Different. Better? Nah.

Well you're nuts.

Nuts to think that 3d isn't always better than 2d? If I'm nuts, then I'm nuts in pretty good company I think. :)

You're like those filmmakers who still think that HD is the devil and film is the only way to go, mainly because they are afraid of new technology and rely too much on tradition, warranted or not.

HD vs. film... does film have any advantages? I don't know... but on the subject of games, I would absolutely disagree that 2d has no advantages over 3d. There are circumstances where 2d works better! (and I mean either 2d artwork or 2d presentaton (that is, like a side-scroller, or a flying shooter where you just move on two axes (no vertical dimension)) I don't know how anyone could possibly disagree with that.

You say that out of ignorance, simple as that. You don't even understand the capabilities and advantage of #D games, you just think that everything 3D has to be a FPS or something. Guess what textures are, ABF? That's right, 2D images. And did you also know that Four Swords is a 3D game? That's how they were able to do all of those crazy effects that would never be possible if it had used a 2D engine.

OB1, we clearly have a miscommunitation here. I'll try to be more clear and I REALLY hope that you both read and try to understand my post. You don't do that far, far too often.

The problem might be the term '3d'. It has in this thread meant several things... I should try to be more clear and stick with one definition, which should be 'the use of polygons'. No connotations of any specific perspective... just the use of polygons.

You obviously missed or misunderstood this.

Quote:(and I mean either 2d artwork or 2d presentaton (that is, like a side-scroller, or a flying shooter where you just move on two axes (no vertical dimension))

Also, earlier I was talking about topdown or isometric versus close-behind-character third person or first person. I said that some games are better in third person. Then the terms '3d' and '2d' were used, improperly. Polygons are not the deciding factor here. They are a different, and mostly just graphical preference, issue. I'm talking about more substantive gameplay issues here. Which is why 'topdown/isometric' and 'third-person-behind/first-person' are better terms to use, I believe. Clearer and they describe what the actual issue being discussed is.

Of course, earlier I commented on how I hate 3d-topdown games which require a lot of camera manipulation, but as I said I have played some 3d-topdown games that do it right so it IS something they can do right if they want to try. It's an issue that doesn't exist in fully 2d games, but it isn't something that totally precludes a isometric 3d game from ever working. They just need to be sure to do a good job.

See my post in the other thread where I posted images of Tim Cain's new 3d isometric post-nuclear RPG. Or go to the first page of this thread and look at the two pictures of the canned Black Isle Fallout 3. THAT is what this game should look like. You clearly disagree, but I'd like to see you talk about it in relation to those shots and to Daggerfall/Morrowind, not just a general 'you are stupid for disliking 3d' that I so obviously will never agree with. 3D certainly has uses, but so does 2d...

Quote:OB1, we clearly have a miscommunitation here. I'll try to be more clear and I REALLY hope that you both read and try to understand my post. You don't do that far, far too often.

The problem might be the term '3d'. It has in this thread meant several things... I should try to be more clear and stick with one definition, which should be 'the use of polygons'. No connotations of any specific perspective... just the use of polygons.

You obviously missed or misunderstood this.

Yes, and Four Swords uses polygons.

Quote:Also, earlier I was talking about topdown or isometric versus close-behind-character third person or first person. I said that some games are better in third person. Then the terms '3d' and '2d' were used, improperly. Polygons are not the deciding factor here. They are a different, and mostly just graphical preference, issue. I'm talking about more substantive gameplay issues here. Which is why 'topdown/isometric' and 'third-person-behind/first-person' are better terms to use, I believe. Clearer and they describe what the actual issue being discussed is.

Of course, earlier I commented on how I hate 3d-topdown games which require a lot of camera manipulation, but as I said I have played some 3d-topdown games that do it right so it IS something they can do right if they want to try. It's an issue that doesn't exist in fully 2d games, but it isn't something that totally precludes a isometric 3d game from ever working. They just need to be sure to do a good job.

See my post in the other thread where I posted images of Tim Cain's new 3d isometric post-nuclear RPG. Or go to the first page of this thread and look at the two pictures of the canned Black Isle Fallout 3. THAT is what this game should look like. You clearly disagree, but I'd like to see you talk about it in relation to those shots and to Daggerfall/Morrowind, not just a general 'you are stupid for disliking 3d' that I so obviously will never agree with. 3D certainly has uses, but so does 2d...

There are no longer any real advantages with 2D over 3D. This is not 1995.

Quote:Yes, and Four Swords uses polygons.

It looks two dimensional for the most part, though... but for this discussion it's the perspective that matters most and it has one that works great.

Quote:There are no longer any real advantages with 2D over 3D. This is not 1995.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

How do you take a long explanation of why this discussion is only about 2d/3d on the periphery and not as the main point of the discussion and respond with a one line post about 3d not being worse than 2d anymore? Did I say 3d is worse than 2d? Why can't you make a response that actually says someting instead of repeating the same stupid line again... too hard?

Anyway, if you refuse to talk about any of the points relevant to this discussion and just want to talk about two dimensional versus three dimensional art (something I barely touched on in that post! Or did you just read the last line?), as I said, they both definitely have their uses. When a game looks great in 2d I generally do not wish it was in 3d. If it looks great in 2d, it looks great... why make it "better" in some way that may or may not work and has a good chance of totally changing the game?

Quote:It looks two dimensional for the most part, though... but for this discussion it's the perspective that matters most and it has one that works great.

It looks 2D but it's not. Now the game doesn't use very many polys (basically two polys for every object... I'd rather not explain it right now), but it is technically a 3D game.

Quote:How do you take a long explanation of why this discussion is only about 2d/3d on the periphery and not as the main point of the discussion and respond with a one line post about 3d not being worse than 2d anymore? Did I say 3d is worse than 2d? Why can't you make a response that actually says someting instead of repeating the same stupid line again... too hard?

Anyway, if you refuse to talk about any of the points relevant to this discussion and just want to talk about two dimensional versus three dimensional art (something I barely touched on in that post! Or did you just read the last line?), as I said, they both definitely have their uses. When a game looks great in 2d I generally do not wish it was in 3d. If it looks great in 2d, it looks great... why make it "better" in some way that may or may not work and has a good chance of totally changing the game?

You said that 2D has advantages over 3D, which is false.

Quote:It looks 2D but it's not. Now the game doesn't use very many polys (basically two polys for every object... I'd rather not explain it right now), but it is technically a 3D game.

To make the camera zooming easier, I guess? The point is that it looks like 2d, which is really all that matters...

Quote:You said that 2D has advantages over 3D, which is false.

You cannot simplify that into such a simple statement. It is impossible. If you want to reply to my comments you should actually reply to them and not fire off an innacurate one-line response, because it doesn't work.

What did I say? I said that isometric/topdown has advantages over behind-the-character third person or first person, yes, I said that. And detailed why that is true. You never addressed that, and it's my main point here. As soon as I gave some substantive reasons that I think that isometric works better than first/third person, you abandoned the discussion...

What else? That both drawn artwork and polygons ('2d' and '3d') have their uses in games and that there are places where each one works great. You seem to only want to talk about this issue, sadly... and you're simplifying my position beyond recognition. And you seem to be not really paying attention to what I am saying and combining multiple issues together that aren't the same, as I've now tried to explain several times.

I also talk about my preferences for cameras (movement, etc) in 3d games, but you haven't really discussed this issue either.

Quote:To make the camera zooming easier, I guess? The point is that it looks like 2d, which is really all that matters...

To make everything easier, actually. They're just flat polys with textures on them. Makes programming and animating so much easier.

Quote:You cannot simplify that into such a simple statement. It is impossible. If you want to reply to my comments you should actually reply to them and not fire off an innacurate one-line response, because it doesn't work.

What did I say? I said that isometric/topdown has advantages over behind-the-character third person or first person, yes, I said that. And detailed why that is true. You never addressed that, and it's my main point here. As soon as I gave some substantive reasons that I think that isometric works better than first/third person, you abandoned the discussion...

What else? That both drawn artwork and polygons ('2d' and '3d') have their uses in games and that there are places where each one works great. You seem to only want to talk about this issue, sadly... and you're simplifying my position beyond recognition. And you seem to be not really paying attention to what I am saying and combining multiple issues together that aren't the same, as I've now tried to explain several times.

I also talk about my preferences for cameras (movement, etc) in 3d games, but you haven't really discussed this issue either.

I've addressed this, I'm sick of going around in circles with you.

Quote:I've addressed this, I'm sick of going around in circles with you.

You've addressed it? Then quote yourself or something... :)

Quote:To make everything easier, actually. They're just flat polys with textures on them. Makes programming and animating so much easier.

Yeah, that makes sense. Polygons are easier to deal with.

Quote:You've addressed it? Then quote yourself or something...

You do it. I'm really bored of this. Honestly.

Bah... lost a great start of a post... :(

Anyway, I've been playing KotOR more (I'm on the Star Forge Planet now), and my opinions on the game are pretty definitive. It's a great game. Lots of fun. It's just got annoying problems I can't quite ignore...

First, though, this article. Well worth reading, definitely. It's about what some game designers behind some of the greatest game stories think of games and stories. (read it, everyone!)

Here's the quote I wanted to use, though.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6120427/index.html

Quote:Q: How do you think technology facilitates storytelling in games? How do you think technology gets in the way of the storytelling?

Chris Avellone: Absolutely technology facilitates storytelling. It adds the wonder and the action to the story, and it's the means by which the player perceives and controls his in-game personality. There are all sorts of events and wonders you can describe solely with a text story, but without the technology, animation, and a powerfully presented world, it's just going to be a bunch of text. You can only describe your encounter with a giant dragon, flying across the world in a giant airship, or using a gravity gun to fire saw blades at your enemies in so many words without the technology to back it up.

I don't think technology has ever gotten in the way of storytelling, and I think Infocom games are the proof of that. Even as simple as they seemed to be, as long as text could be presented on the screen, you could bring across a powerful story experience even without graphics or a 3D engine. I guess in the end, I think technology can only enhance the story experience (facial animations, voice acting, animations, fully realized world, scripted reactive elements, physics-based engines, etc.).

Hideo Kojima: I don't think storytelling and technology are related in any way. Detailed expressions (including facial expressions) and gestures make it easier to show subtle emotions, but this has nothing to do with storytelling.

"Technology can get in the way of storytelling by giving us really cool digital actors to work with, and suddenly (and I'm guilty of this) we think we're Spielberg."

Ken Levine: More technology equals more simulation. More simulation equals more emergence. Emergent experiences are the key to gameplay storytelling. Check out Grand Theft Auto III. What's great about that game? The cutscenes? Sure, they're well written, but is that what you remember? Or are they really the context for the unique action that each player experiences? Like the time you were being pursued by the Haitian gang and took your motorcycle off a ramp, crossing the river and watching the other bangers crash into the river behind you? That moment was never specifically scripted, but it was enabled by the story, which set it up and gave it context.

Technology can get in the way of storytelling by giving us really cool digital actors to work with, and suddenly (and I'm guilty of this) we think we're Spielberg. Face it, no game developer has the chops of a great film director, and no game character is going to emote like Brando. We've got different strengths and weaknesses.

Tim Schafer: Well, technology helps make the experience more and more immersive to more people. Previously you would have to have quite a good imagination to turn, say, the words of Zork into a real world in your head. But now people who don't have that much imagination can still fall into fantasy worlds because of the increased "realism" of the presentation. But as that gets closer and closer to real, the parts where it's missing (facial expressions, etc) become more and more glaring.

Ragnar Tørnquist: Technology needn't get in the way of storytelling unless we focus too much on showing off our cool new shaders and particle effects and not enough on establishing an emotional connection with the player. Technology can definitely facilitate for better storytelling. The best visual stories are just that--visual. There's that whole "show, don't tell" rule which has often fallen by the wayside because of technology; The Longest Journey, which I wrote, was definitely an example of that. Mostly everything had to be communicated through dialogues. The more we can show, and thus allow players to figure out for themselves, the better. And nowhere is that more apparent than with human characters. Things like facial expressions and body language enable us to communicate the story in a massively different fashion, making it much more immediate and personal than what's been possible before.

It needs to be more than a gimmick, however. We need technology that fuels the narrative and the gameplay, and not the other way around. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. We're still at a gee-whiz stage where every new technological innovation is tossed in there, because gamers will love it. And they do! Hell, I love big explosions as much as the next guy. But we have to look at the technology as a tool, as a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

They say these things better than I could... but Avellone, Schaefer, and Tornquist make very good points. They have conflicted answers, just like mine is...

... really, I should post that whole article in a new thread, it's DEFINITELY worth reading, and not many people will here...

... I meant to talk more about other things, but I don't know how much good going over the annoyances in KotOR would do... let's just say that KotOR tries the more technological (3d, etc) route in its gameplay and storytelling but doesn't do as well as it could because of it's mediocre engine (yes, when it's done well 3d these days can do better than 2d. But good, well-done 2d is preferable in a lot of ways to mediocre 3d... (I'm not saying KotOR should be 2d (with the kinds of compensation techniques they (esp. Tornquist) talk about in that question), it seems like a game better done in 3d... really, it should have a great 3d engine and really good graphics. It doesn't have quite either one of those possibilities... but what it does it does well enough that I forget that sometimes, and that's a mark of a great game. Really, my biggest irritation is probably the combat... I want to control all of them effectively (you can't, really), and I want the game to REMEMBER repeating commands -- I shouldn't have to re-tell the character to use the power attack every time I want them to use it! It should be like BGII or IWDII and have an option to repeat that action until you choose a different one!). The flaws of the graphics engine are secondary because they are just good enough, and the writing is good enough, for me to mostly ignore it.