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.

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))

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.

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...

Quote:Yes, and Four Swords uses polygons.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.