GameBanshee Forums

There's an awful lot of discussion as to whether BG3 should be in 3D or not on this forum. Everyone has their own opinion. So let's avoid the pros/cons of that in this thread.

Assuming the game happens and if it did go fully 3D what do you think it could bring to the series?

I'll start us off with the Teleport Field spell. I've been thinking about this and I can't get the image of an ogre appearing 30 foot in the air right above his kobold mate resulting in much squishiness (realtime physics as well, what the hell).

Even a dragon would be in trouble if she was teleported 20 foot over her nest full of eggs without time to flap her wings. If you then finished her off with a few fireballs, not only would get the horde but also an omellette of incredible power.

Of course I wouldn't have a clue how to implement the working details (creatures appearing in the ground, euurgh) in a fun way. That's where the developer's earn their money.

What do you lot think could happen?

imho the real advantage is that areas will have four walls, and hopefully the camera can rotate around if need be, i'd not mid having zoom capability either.

in some of the ie games problems arose where a char would drop something or die "behind" a wall and locating their gear became a somewhat painfull excercise, or if really unfortunate items were droped infront of a chest or the like and were then "unclickable"

3d could also allow for vertical movement (as you implied) or stuff like flight / levitation, climbing, falling (real pit traps) ect.

in addition i would think it makes maps / areas easier to render on the design side allowing for more complex areas and less recycling of whole maps.

In my own opion i would hate baldurs gate to become 3d. I mean it was the 2d style and interface of the bg series that attracted me to the sereis in the first place and it created a terrific atmosphere. I just dont see the point in wrecking a perfectly good game like bg3 by making it 3d while you could keep the same tested and proven formula the fans like and make more MONEY.

Infinity engine is most likely the biggest reason why I play current bg saga thru over and over again. I dont get it why everything must be in 3d just because 3d exists, like its somehow better option just because its newer than 2d. If Atari insists on fumbling and making a 3d polygon engine whatever, then I at least hope there's a fixed clear bird eye view like in bg's so controlling 6 person group doesn't get even harder because of some halfarsed camera.

Guess its just because the younger population playing games are so used to playing trash like tomb raiders and such that everything must be in 3d to please them now. Yay, Baldur's Raider III. Just replace Lara with some tight arsed elf woman with two swords.

lol i totally agree why use 3d when it exsists when using 2d would make the game funner and more beatiful to play.

[QUOTE=Elhioc]Infinity engine is most likely the biggest reason why I play current bg saga thru over and over again. I dont get it why everything must be in 3d just because 3d exists, like its somehow better option just because its newer than 2d. If Atari insists on fumbling and making a 3d polygon engine whatever, then I at least hope there's a fixed clear bird eye view like in bg's so controlling 6 person group doesn't get even harder because of some halfarsed camera.

Guess its just because the younger population playing games are so used to playing trash like tomb raiders and such that everything must be in 3d to please them now. Yay, Baldur's Raider III. Just replace Lara with some tight arsed elf woman with two swords.[/QUOTE]

So the engine is more reason to replay then party interaction, quests, story and all thoese things for you?

For me - the IE engine is about the last reason why I play BG/BG2, compared to gameplay.
The game engine has very little (if anything) to do with gamequality if the developers continue to have focus on the gameplay and writing.
In fact much more gameplay is possible when going 3D,.

Besides - I'm 27, so don't think I've never gamed in neither 2D or even text-based.

So the engine is more reason to replay then party interaction, quests, story and all thoese things for you?

Of course... none of those matter if dumped on a poor unejoyable game engine.

So by that logic, text-based games are utterly irrelevant and bad since they have no engine to speak of.

No engine? Every game has engine.. and text based one fits muds well. No hassle since you only control one character. In fact mud text based engine is one of the best working one in my opinion, and graphics are also top of the line. Called imagination.

Glad to see we're not getting off topic here guys.

oops

Well, 3d could bring... errr... (must it be positive? ).. well... clatoo verata *coughcough*

Well - the possiblity for diving, climbing, levitation would be nice.

[QUOTE=Elhioc]No engine? Every game has engine.. and text based one fits muds well. No hassle since you only control one character. In fact mud text based engine is one of the best working one in my opinion, and graphics are also top of the line. Called imagination.[/QUOTE]

Imagination generally runs all the time (at least, mine does), if its MUD or a 3D game.

Many people are saying graphics don't matter...and hypocritically saying that 3D would ruin the game.

As you've noticed, we haven't only said that 3d engine sucks for the blocky graphics, but also in playability. Got better things to do than fiddle some camera all the time that gets stuck and trying to find all party members and cursing the view for not going to good spot in combat...

*edit*
What comes to me being hypocrite... imagination works with text based games of course since they leave pretty much everything concerning graphics to mind but doing 3d engine is forcing their own vision of the game up. Kind of like the difference with television and books. You've red books right?

And comparing which in my opinion pleases the eye more, 2d or 3d, I say 2d if those are the options. Too bad if you dont agree, thats your headache

[QUOTE=Elhioc]As you've noticed, we haven't only said that 3d engine sucks for the blocky graphics, but also in playability. Got better things to do than fiddle some camera all the time that gets stuck and trying to find all party members and cursing the view for not going to good spot in combat...

*edit*
What comes to me being hypocrite... imagination works with text based games of course since they leave pretty much everything concerning graphics to mind but doing 3d engine is forcing their own vision of the game up. Kind of like the difference with television and books. You've red books right?

And comparing which in my opinion pleases the eye more, 2d or 3d, I say 2d if those are the options. Too bad if you dont agree, thats your headache [/QUOTE]

Problems with playability in 3D as compared to 2D? I have a hard time to see this.
Loosing party members? - I "lost" my partymembers because they couldn't pathfind in BG1+2 as well - so that has nothing to do with 2D vs. 3D. You could easily reposition the camerar on a party member in 3D as you can in 2D.

To me it seems that the many "issues" people have with 2D vs. 3D is actually viewpoint related (first person, isometric, over-the-shoulder) and not actually 2D/3D related.
3D can run in locked isometric view as it was in the BG-series; however, one of the advantages of 3D is that you have the possiblity for much more freedom, like free camerar movement.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Well - the possiblity for diving, climbing, levitation would be nice.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so in the end, this is all that 3d truly offers (apart from rotatable camera, which just blows anyway)

So guys, clearly none of you have played Jagged Alliance, you can both Jump and climp in that. (although there is no levitation.) However, Helicopters are involved, so I guess it does have levitation, and these are dealth with well, on a 2D engine!!

Well I have not played Jagged Alliance no, but I have played many other 2D games, some with “climbing up ladders” and “flying”, and can safely say I’d rather have that in 3D then in 2D.

Besides - 3D brings more to games, then what have been mentioned.

There is more "possible space" in 3D because you have all sides to every object that you can utilize, contrary to 2D. This means that you could sneak into a building using the backdoor instead of only going into the front door.

Also the characters and monsters were all very static and didn't have many animations. The background was also static and didn't respond to the movement of characters/monsters. Interaction with the game world was rather limited, even if it looked nice.
Such interaction and dynamics are possible in 3D much more so then in 2D drawn games, because in 3D even the "background" can be made as objects you can interact with. Cut down vegetation to move through underbrush for instance.

The graphics background of BG2 did look nice yes, but the characters did not. They were very similar with very little difference between them, except for colorschemes; Minsc is blue/yellow and my character is red/black ... otherwise they look almost exactly the same.
In 3D you can change appearance based on what you wear. Throw on a cloak, and you can display the cloak. Throw on a robe and you can see the robe. The same with everything else, from armour, clothes, weapons and so on.

Also – rotateable camera does not “blow” – it is very useful and a feature I like a lot.

etc etc.

Such reasons are also why I would like to see BG3 in 3D.

3D is a step up technology-wise from 2D for a reason, and there are so many advantages.

What I personally think is scaring "everybody" is that because game developers and publishers think so much more on the bottom line these days that game quality seems to have dropped. And because most new games are 3D then a connection between bad games and 3D is easy to take.
But hey - there have been countless of bad 2D games as well.
Also - the fact that 3D for a long time have been associated with FPS games, and other action genres - then it could be feared that 3D equals "action/hack n' slash instead".

If a company focus on the game story and quality - then I'd all things even much rather have the game in 3D then 2D.

Don't get me wrong, as I do love the Infinity Engine to death. I just find this whole argument silly, since the publishers have said it will be 3D, and there's damn little anyone can do about it. I guess my views just differ from others in that I wouldn't mind it in 3D as long as it was done right.

I don't really care about graphics...even NWN graphics where fine for me, despite the limitations on the engine and being very Diablo-ish in control. I just care about story, character, depth, and execution of the many aspects that make it an RPG (and if you know me, I hate NWN because many of those things where painfully absent).

Though, to be fair, this topic isn't about arguing 2d vs 3d. It's about what 3d can offer to the game.

I will add another thing that 3D offers: Multi-level terrain! Yes, 2D engine can be 'cheated' into simulating that to an extent, but nowhere near as well as a 3D one. You can have bridges with people underneath and on top simultaneously and many other such features. Really, the only problem I have with 3D is that it tends to be less detailed than 2D graphics, but this is changing as technology progresses and new engines are developed that are just as detailed as 2D ones were if not more so.