A Contrarian Opines

two · Post by **two** » Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:54 am

A very civil and interesting thread! I was away for a while but I'm back...

A few questions I don't think were sufficiently addressed:

1) Why is "progress in the game world" represented by the move from 2d to 3d? Unless you think there is something intrinsically better about 3d, this is a real issue. We have all seen 3d games that look like crap. We have all seen 3d games that look great. We have seen 2d games that look like crap. We have seen 2d games that look great. It is not a function of X where X is the number of axis about which objects are plotted. Have you seen, for example, the fields of "corn" in the NWN movies and previews? Personally, they look much more "fake" to me than a good 2d representation would (as in SOA). Why can't you represent progress by focussing on other things like:
--more NPC interactions, MUCH greater details
--MUCH more advanced dialogue trees
--Much better writing, integrations of monsters and terrain and quests (i.e. why is there a lich next to a dragon next to a goblin? no reason just is thay way).
--supply more here.

2) The real leap forward of NWN, having tools for world building, could also have been developed for a 2d soltion, and much more quickly.

3) Time. Time. TIME. Ok they decided to go to 3d. Thus YEARS of effort go into this. Instead they could have released -- what? 3 or so SOA-sized games? Upgraded every aspect of SOA and the world and the engine? I'm just wondering if the time spent will be worth it.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:10 am

Originally posted by two:
<snip>

1) Why is "progress in the game world" represented by the move from 2d to 3d? Unless you think there is something intrinsically better about 3d, this is a real issue. <snip>

It is not - progress in the gaming world is often defined as developing new engines that can deal with more complex settings and problems.
Ei. climbing/swimming, riding etc.. You will not be able to do these things in NwN, but it would take a 3d engine to do these things, so the shift to 3d is neasecary.
So when should we make the shift? as soon as it is possible and then take this discussion early - or later when it is demanded and then take this discussion then?

Originally posted by two:
<snip>
Why can't you represent progress by focussing on other things like:
--more NPC interactions, MUCH greater details
--MUCH more advanced dialogue trees
--Much better writing, integrations of monsters and terrain and quests (i.e. why is there a lich next to a dragon next to a goblin? no reason just is thay way).
--supply more here.

Well, as somebody said earlier - you can't put down the gameplay of a game that hasen't even relased demos yet.
We don't know how the gameplay in NwN will be.
But I agree with you, the gaming world needs to set demands of better gameplay over "fast and furious" action.

Originally posted by two:
<snip>
2) The real leap forward of NWN, having tools for world building, could also have been developed for a 2d soltion, and much more quickly.
3) Time. Time. TIME. Ok they decided to go to 3d. Thus YEARS of effort go into this. Instead they could have released -- what? 3 or so SOA-sized games? Upgraded every aspect of SOA and the world and the engine? I'm just wondering if the time spent will be worth it.

I was tempted to just say "So what?" - then we would just have this discussion next time somebody said they would make a RPG in 3d.
Besides - what does it hurt to wait some time for a game?
There seem to be a consencus(sp?) of demanding games relased quickly, and then complaining over bugs, faulty gameplay, outdated graphics etc.
If the wait is to long, then find another game to spend money on.

Again - my main oppinion through all this is not that I promote the use of 3d over the 2d engine of SoA/ToB.

But through "demands" from people and ambitions of developers the need for new engines are everlasting.
Many people would have complained over "outdated" grapichs if NwN were 2d IE, just as many people complain over "ugly" 3d graphics (even though many seem to agree that grapichs aren't importent).

As for the time-concern: Well there I simply don't follow.
People demand games quickly and then complain over lack of inovation, outdatet grapichs, bugs. This is a contradiction in terms. So either give developers the time they need - or stop complaining about faults in the game.

In conclusion, as I've also said earlier, the point of NwN as I see it, is the intoducion of the human element into gaming, and the possibility of customising your own quest/worlds/modules etc. An element that IMO has been lacking from CRPGs for some time now.

Classic · Post by **Classic** » Sat Sep 29, 2001 11:45 am

2) The real leap forward of NWN, having tools for world building, could also have been developed for a 2d soltion, and much more quickly.

In conclusion, as I've also said earlier, the point of NwN as I see it, is the intoducion of the human element into gaming, and the possibility of customising your own quest/worlds/modules etc. An element that IMO has been lacking from CRPGs for some time now.

Remark to quote 1: NO!!! It couldn´t have been developed for any 2D engine because the background art simply has to be specifically created for any particular scene. The tile system simply won´t make beatiful backgrounds like those of BG and (especially) IWD. This is only possible on a 3D engine if you want satisfactory results!

Remark to quote 2: That´s exactly the point! What´s more, this will ensure that the quality of stories will reach higher standards than before, at least in theory, as most games will have a live DM to monitor the adventure as it progresses, making tiny adjustments to fit every characters specific quirks. Also the amount of modules will be vast! Over time, the best will be singled out, thus giving the players access to the best that can be had given the restrictions posed by the engine ( which could be enhanced greatly with add-ons)!

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sat Sep 29, 2001 1:08 pm

Good point! 2D tilesets would indeed be a problem. A standard "large" BG2 area, like Waukeen's Promenade, is a 30(!) MB bitmap. If you try to cut these big maps up into little pieces, they'll look ugly and artificial (much like the "corn" fields...).

NWN being 3D gets so much attention because it's easier for marketing to say "Look at these 3D screenshots!" than "Play through the game a couple of times to experience great replayability!". And, for some reason, 3D is "it" for some people. For the record: I like SoA's boring, 2D Umber Hulks a lot better than those fake, un-detailed, polygon-ridden things from the demo movies.

The inclusion of world builder stuff will give the gaming industry a better insight into what people like to see, and will hopefully give them something to compete with.

Some of the finest gaming additions have been user-made, after all (Capture the Flag comes to mind).

Dastal · Post by **Dastal** » Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:12 pm

OK, so you have all this stuff:

1) A world 5x as big as SOA+TOB. Easily.
2) Bullet-proof engine, heavy QA, almost bugless.
3) 5x the number of existing monsters, everything re-vamped, new animations.
4) Conversion to 3E rules if desired
5) Toolkit / building a world concept with huge huge huge list of resources. Put infinity II in a tool-driven world.
6) everything updated from spell effects on down/up
7) Hundreds! of NPCs. yes hundreds.
8) Insanely great sound/voice.
9) Stories/Plot ranging from short adventures to truly epic -- and they are all professionally done, sensible, and exciting
10) Totally revamped multiplayer with NWN concepts thrown in, etc. etc.

However, you couldn't get the following without revamping the entire engine:
4) Conversion to 3E rules if desired
5) Toolkit / building a world concept with huge huge huge list of resources. Put infinity II in a tool-driven world.
10) Totally revamped multiplayer with NWN concepts thrown in, etc. etc.

And even so it would take like 256 mb of ram to run and like 10 gb of hard drive space. I wouldn't mind cause I got all that, but the majority of ther customers might.

3DG (Three dimensional graphics) take up a lot less memory then UASBG (Ultra Advanced Sprite Based Graphics). UASBG is similar to what was in the modern Infinity Engine games. At the time BGII was published, 3DG technollogy was relatively unsoffisticated. There were a few FPS's that had it, but all the RT games had pretty severe limits on how many units could be on the board at one time. Myth, notably rarely started you with more than ten units and esspecially in single player created units that you rarely faced in groups of more than ten. The BG games, in contrast, had up to six players in your party and there were some battles with thirty or forty creatures apposing you. Heck most taverns would have overridden the Myth limit. SSSI's upcoming Empire Earth has virtually no 3D effects, and those it has, namely zoom, could be mirored in an UASBG engine. Yet, it still uses a 3DG engine for memory purposes. Now do you understand the reasoning behind the new engine?

Dastal · Post by **Dastal** » Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:22 pm

Oh yes, and to the huge world, great plot, masive NPC interaction, awsome voicing, etc,etc. I think you will be gratly amazed at what come out of the fan computers. For a start, the fans will figure out tons of trigger tricks especially in oh say a year, that the developers had never dreamed of. If you look at Age of Kings, people, when the game first came out remarked at how amazing the campaigns were. Within months, better stuff had come out of places like AoK Dragon and SCN Punk. By now people are openly insulting the workmanship of the ES scenarios opting instead for such scenarios as Tamerlane, Prince of Destruction; Rage of the Dutch Fisherman and The Last Samaurai.