A Contrarian Opines

two · Post by **two** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 2:53 am

I have seen the movies; read the specs; done the research; and have a decent understanding of what NWN is all about. My question is: WHY? Why don't people ever learn from Hollywood? Special effects movies live or die not because of special effects -- they live or die according to their story line/character development. Remember Blair Witch? Remember the "original" Star Trek?

It seems to me that game designers have missed out on the real lession of PnP role-playing. Not only in PnP were the graphics incredibly poor (we are talking miniatures, if you were lucky) but usually non-existent. The beauty of PnP is that IT DIDN'T MATTER AT ALL. Graphical representation was totally OPTIONAL, and did not significantly add to the immersion/gaming experience of a well-run campaign.

I am questioning, therefore, why 3D is better than 2D; why years have been spent on NWN instead of updating the 2D infinity engine. Is a OK first-generation 3D game better than a bomb-proof, huge, superbly written 2D game? No way.

Think about it. Take all the resources you used up developing NWN and spend them on developing an infinity engine II. This is what you COULD have had:

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.

Basically, you can do all this in much less time than that spent on NWN already.

The graphics in SOA were flat-out great. They never bothered me at all. Sure they are not "realistic" but have you seen the NWN movies and screen shots? There is nothing realistic about a field of corn with 3 drooping tassels repeated over and over again. It's fake, it looks fake, it IS fake. If you use your imagination, you can make it seem real. Similarly, if you use your imagination in SOA, you can make it seem real. Similarly, if you are staring at a blank peice of paper in PnP, you can make a "kobold" seem real enough to get your heart pounding.

Why don't developers save themselves a lot of heartache? RPG's are about story, NPCs, characers, plots, interaction. They are not about 3D graphic engines and special effects. Remember NetHack? Great game. Unbelievably bad graphics. Great game.

What will NWN offer? For the single player game, 20 NPCs? A world as big as SOA if we are lucky? Typical adventure writing, not top-rate (because the money didn't go to this)? Lots and lots of repeated scenary, computer slow-downs, lame voice acting?

I KNOW that a 3D game CAN in theory be better than a 2D game. But in reality, so much effort has to go into graphical issues that NECESSARILY other things will be overlooked/given less priority. And I think it's these other things (writing, story, npcs) that actually are the heart of a RPG.

Just me opining.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 4:10 am

Originally posted by two:
<snip>
Remember the "original" Star Trek?
<snip>

Yes - and when one thing found that works, somebody will make endless copies of that one concept and destroy the genre totally.
I think that the BG"perspective"/infinity engine has been done enough already - one must have progress, (not only IRL but also the gameing world) otherwise people grow both tired and annoyed at lack of inovation.
I still remember back in Eye of the Beholder days, I like EoB 1 very much - I found number 2 fun - but number 3, that was enough for me, no matter what the story line was.

Futhermore somebody has to set a new standart, maybe NwN is not gonna be great, but it is certainly going to become a freshbreaht in RPG-games. And if this is succesfull, that could cause a "revolution" like BG caused when first relased.

I don't think either, that NwN is all about effects - what they IMO are trying to create goes far beyond a simple RPG with fancy design, they are trying to recreate PnP as CPRG, if they will succede has nothing to do with the engine.

In the gameing industy through the times of computer games there have been a development - and IMO that development should continue, even if that means developing new engines wich will take as much time as maybe redeveloping an old one.

IMO there must be inovation to cause the synergi(sp?) that will produce the great games, otherwise you will keep producing similar games.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 8:56 am

I remember having great fun on a text based MUD. I remember playing some flashy 3D games with awesome graphics, only to be bored after 30 minutes of uninteresting content...

3D must be some marketing flagship. If it's 3D (and looks good), it must be new, therefore innovative in other respects as well. Yeah, right!

I admit the NWN movies look nice, but they're not that nice. The BG maps were beautiful, and you'd have to look for quite some time before spotting repetition in terrain. Does it improve gameplay if I can see the other side of a tree? What do I care!? I want a map with 30+ different trees, not one with 4 whole trees that I can check out from 30+ different sides...

As for NWN trying to "recreate" PnP... How is a game in which I can't even run to a shop to buy supplies in the time you need to rest and rememorize your spells? No climbing. No swimming. Dragons float a few feet off the ground at best. Everybody runs at the same speed. How is this like PnP? This is a combination of D&D3 and Diablo II.

Meerlight · Post by **Meerlight** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 1:50 pm

NWN isn't trying to recreate the PnP experience by letting your character perform anything a PnP character could, it's trying to recreate the PnP experience by adding the human element into gaming. For example the DM (innovation) can take over an NPC so you can have realistic conversations with him instead of a dialogue tree. As Xandax said, NWN isn't all about its 3D graphics. 3D graphics however, do work better and faster in multiplayer games. The 2d graphics in SOA and especially ToB became practically unplayable in large battles because the graphics were maybe a bit too detailed. The load times in BG2 were pretty long as well. These are 2 problems I hope won't be in NWN due to its 3D environments. The Infinity engine was outdated by the time SOA came out and IMHO can't be tweaked anymore to support more spell effects on the screen at the same time. Also instead of tweaking the same engine over and over, sometimes it's just more productive to make a new one.

two · Post by **two** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:08 pm

Originally posted by Xandax:
Yes - and when one thing found that works, somebody will make endless copies of that one concept and destroy the genre totally.
I think that the BG"perspective"/infinity engine has been done enough already - one must have progress, (not only IRL but also the gameing world) otherwise people grow both tired and annoyed at lack of inovation.
I still remember back in Eye of the Beholder days, I like EoB 1 very much - I found number 2 fun - but number 3, that was enough for me, no matter what the story line was.

Futhermore somebody has to set a new standart, maybe NwN is not gonna be great, but it is certainly going to become a freshbreaht in RPG-games. And if this is succesfull, that could cause a "revolution" like BG caused when first relased.

I don't think either, that NwN is all about effects - what they IMO are trying to create goes far beyond a simple RPG with fancy design, they are trying to recreate PnP as CPRG, if they will succede has nothing to do with the engine.

In the gameing industy through the times of computer games there have been a development - and IMO that development should continue, even if that means developing new engines wich will take as much time as maybe redeveloping an old one.

IMO there must be inovation to cause the synergi(sp?) that will produce the great games, otherwise you will keep producing similar games.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

This is an interesting misreading. The point about the original Star Trek was that its "graphics" (special effects, etc.) were "lame" even at the time, but the concept and writing (for most episodes) good enough to make up for everything else. The reason Star Trek survived was concept/writing, not fx. In fact, the concept was strong enough to support (as you said) a slew of lame follow-ups. Seen any Battlestar Galactica spinoffs? Better graphics. Lamer story/writing. Dead show.

This proves, to me at least, that concept and writing are more important that presentation/ fx/ graphics. That subsequent Star Trek spin-offs were not as good (some would argue this but whatever) is not the fault of the Star Trek genre itself; it is the fault of poor writing and execution within the genre. The genre has already proved itself sustainable.

I don't really understand your point about "there must be progress." When you say this, don't you understand you are assuming a whole bunch of things that others (like me) don't see as either obvious or necessary? Why is 3D vs. 2D "progress?" Why is a new graphics engine "progress," instead of hiring 4 new full-time 2d animators, expanding the "world" size by 5 or 10, etc. etc. etc. This obsession with 3d over 2d has more to do with technology faddism than any game requirements -- this much is obvious. Remember, PnP has NO GRAPHICS and it's GREAT.

I think it's wonderful that development occurs in the gaming world; I'm asking why development almost always is in the technolgy/whiz-bang direction instead of depth/narrative/ etc. direction. I know, it's just not as cool to say "hey we hired 5 writers today," v.s. "we hired 5 3D modelers fresh outta DOOM-school" but just because something ain't cool don't make it worse. I learned that in high school from an after-school special. Or two.

Why is the infinity engine "tired" or worn out? I just don't see what the problem is. With the time they have spent on NWN you could have re-engineered that baby completely, sped and tarted it up, changed every effect in the game, changed the look of every monster, added hundreds of new monsters, etc. etc. Built a few "environment creation" tools, and THEN had a year to spare to build truly huge world of interconnecting cities, of astral planes, of deep-rift dungeons, etc.

With NWN I feel like what we are going to be getting is SOA in OK 3d, with a worse story, a smaller world, and more hardware requirements.

Listen -- color spray is color spray is color spray. I saw it in the NWN movie, I have seen it in SOA, I have used it in PnP. It's make-believe all three; I don't see how 3D is going to increase my enjoyment after the novelty wears off (probably an hour or two). And then we are left with a story and with NPCs and with a world that have taken second, third, fourth place to the 3D engine.

Maybe I'm wrong. But they do NOT have infinite resources. Nobody does. Something else suffers. They have made the call (let's make it 3D! wow!). It's why I'm worried.

two · Post by **two** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:14 pm

Originally posted by Meerlight:
NWN isn't trying to recreate the PnP experience by letting your character perform anything a PnP character could, it's trying to recreate the PnP experience by adding the human element into gaming. For example the DM (innovation) can take over an NPC so you can have realistic conversations with him instead of a dialogue tree. As Xandax said, NWN isn't all about its 3D graphics. 3D graphics however, do work better and faster in multiplayer games. The 2d graphics in SOA and especially ToB became practically unplayable in large battles because the graphics were maybe a bit too detailed. The load times in BG2 were pretty long as well. These are 2 problems I hope won't be in NWN due to its 3D environments. The Infinity engine was outdated by the time SOA came out and IMHO can't be tweaked anymore to support more spell effects on the screen at the same time. Also instead of tweaking the same engine over and over, sometimes it's just more productive to make a new one.

Again, with the resources they have spent on NWN, they could have made the infinity engine streamlined enough to handle he big fights, of this I'm sure. They could also have added the interesting multiplayer/DM stuff that truly is a step forward.

You have to remember what a big step it is moving from 2d to 3d, how much time it takes, how many resources. I'm just not sure the result is going to be justified; after all, an RPG is just flat-out not ABOUT graphics. In fact, it is one of those rare games that can be played with NO graphics at all. That makes me wonder why so much time is being spent on optional elements (graphics) as opposed to necessary elemens (story, NPC, interactions, world size, creatures, etc etc etc).

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 8:58 pm

Originally posted by two:
This is an interesting misreading. The point about the original Star Trek was that its "graphics" (special effects, etc.) were "lame" even at the time, but the concept and writing (for most episodes) good enough to make up for everything else. The reason Star Trek survived was concept/writing, not fx.
<snip>

I know what you meant, I loved the original Star Trek, and movie number 1 and 2, but not movies 3-9, and Star Trek next generation and Star Trek # - need I go on...

There should be room for innovation, even a great concept grows dull, if done to much.

Originally posted by two:
I don't really understand your point about "there must be progress." When you say this, don't you understand you are assuming a whole bunch of things that others (like me) don't see as either obvious or necessary? Why is 3D vs. 2D "progress?" Why is a new graphics engine "progress," instead of hiring 4 new full-time 2d animators, expanding the "world" size by 5 or 10, etc. etc. etc. This obsession with 3d over 2d has more to do with technology faddism than any game requirements -- this much is obvious. Remember, PnP has NO GRAPHICS and it's GREAT.

I've never said that 2d is better than 3d, I just said that use of the same ei. engine, names, graphics will cause an effect that will declare the genre for dead.
My whole point is whether or not it is better for a company to jump off the "easy" road and start building a "new harder" road wich others might take instead.

If we didn't have innovation, ei. Quake-engine would not have been made. I didn't like Q1, Q2 was playable and I hated Q3, but their engine can be used for great games. (innovation)

Originally posted by two:

I'm asking why development almost always is in the technolgy/whiz-bang direction instead of depth/narrative/ etc. direction. I know, it's just not as cool to say "hey we hired 5 writers today," v.s. "we hired 5 3D modelers fresh outta DOOM-school" but just because something ain't cool don't make it worse. I learned that in high school from an after-school special. Or two.

Here I agree, but this is not the developers fault, it is the customer. It is him that need to say that we want better stories.

But again, I'm not advocating the use of "flashy" animations over story or anything - I'm just saying that we need to progress, lest we stand still.

Originally posted by two:

I'm just not sure the result is going to be justified; after all, an RPG is just flat-out not ABOUT graphics. In fact, it is one of those rare games that can be played with NO graphics at all.

Well then, there are MUDs to play.
Also NwN might not live up to its "destiny" but, maybe we get a spinoff of NwN (NwN2 - or something diffenrent) that will - this is why I like progress - it keeps pushing others to do better.

Originally posted by Xyx:

3D must be some marketing flagship. If it's 3D (and looks good), it must be new, therefore innovative in other respects as well. Yeah, right!

Again, this is not something I've said, but if customers don't want "flashy" graphics then it is fixable by playing some MUD over the net, and again, NwN might not live up to your expectations, but maybe the next will.
And NwN game can't recreate the full features of PnP, no, but this is a big step in the right direction, as said above by Meerlight by introducing the "human" element in a DM/GM.

I would 1000 times rather have some companies that dare to progress (even if it is into 3d) that companies that stay in the same engine, graphics etc all the time.

My keywords all through this is "innovation"/progress - as opposed to, well "satus quo" wich I've never seen as positive.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sun Sep 23, 2001 12:31 am

Originally posted by Meerlight:
NWN isn't trying to recreate the PnP experience by letting your character perform anything a PnP character could, it's trying to recreate the PnP experience by adding the human element into gaming. For example the DM (innovation) can take over an NPC so you can have realistic conversations with him instead of a dialogue tree.

That's very true indeed, and will be what separates NWN from the rest.

This didn't require migrating to 3D, however.

Originally posted by Meerlight:
The 2d graphics in SOA and especially ToB became practically unplayable in large battles because the graphics were maybe a bit too detailed.

What do I care if the game won't run in 1600 x 1200 resolution!? As long as it's fun to play, I won't care whether it looks flashy or not.

Originally posted by Xandax:
if customers don't want "flashy" graphics then it is fixable by playing some MUD over the net

I don't want to play some MUD, I want to play D&D...

I think the major point of dragging the game into 3D was missed completely. In order to handle the massive system requirements, 3D movement has been cut out! What's the point of moving to 3D at all if it adds nothing to gameplay? I won't be having any more fun or feel more immersed just because I can look at stuff from different sides. I will have more fun and feel more immersed if I can finally fly, swim and climb in a D&D CRPG.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Sep 23, 2001 1:25 am

Originally posted by Xyx:
<snip>
I think the major point of dragging the game into 3D was missed completely. In order to handle the massive system requirements, 3D movement has been cut out! What's the point of moving to 3D at all if it adds nothing to gameplay? I won't be having any more fun or feel more immersed just because I can look at stuff from different sides. I will have more fun and feel more immersed if I can finally fly, swim and climb in a D&D CRPG.

The switch to 3d would have been nessacary at some point to get the things you want in a game, so why not start moving towards that point now?

Classic · Post by **Classic** » Sun Sep 23, 2001 2:27 am

Hey, why bother with this post? If you guys don´t wanna play this game then don´t!!

Personally, I can´t wait to get my hands on a game/engine that will allow me to make a complete and, in theory, endless (NOT SMALLER!) world with the land, monsters and treasures that I have made up myself and which I will be controlling while players adventure in it.

This game also opens up the possibilities of add-ons, not just new adventures but new monsters, terrain, and such to even further exploit the imaginations of gamers all over the world. In my opinion (and this is certainly a matter of opinion) the IE would never have been capable of fulfilling this "dream". Only a 3D world will do this. If the first game out compromises with the 3D movement because of system requirements, so be it. Later games or even just later add-ons can make up for this and then we´ll all be used to the system, ready to take full advantage of these new possibilities!

As a final note, don´t jump to conclusions about the story-quality of NWN before you have seen/experienced it! For all we know it might be a great game with an intricate and immersive storyline or maybe the exact opposite. The point to this game is that it allows all the would-be storytellers out there to show what they got, and I´m sure alot of people are gonna give it a go! A fantastic engine and a fantastic story aren´t mutually exclusive, you know!!

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sun Sep 23, 2001 8:31 am

Hey! Star Trek DS9 is a *great* show!

I am glad NWN will be in 3D. The game looks so much better than the Infinty Engine. If you hate anything 3D, don't play/buy it.

More room on the server for us.

Robin_Hood · Post by **Robin_Hood** » Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:46 am

Hmm...I see I'm not the only one with mixed feelings about the graphics engine. I don't get it...why can't they add climbing and stuff to the game...well, maybe it's just too much to ask, in terms of getting the game out some time. I don't know how much time/work it would require. I think it looks nice, and I AM really looking forward to get my hands on that game! But I seriously doubt they'll be able to make it as *beatiful* as SoA. It might look cool and 3d and ****, but BG2 is just plain *beatiful*. I mean, look at Trademeet at night, or the Underdark or any other place in the game...I can't imagine how they could possibly make things look that beatiful with a 3d engine. But yes, 2d is slower when there's a lot of hassle going on. And so on, yadda yadda. I'm gonna go to sleep now, good night y'all

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sun Sep 23, 2001 11:15 am

If I can still see polygons, it can't look as great as the Infinity Engine. Since these games aren't about graphics in the first place, I don't see why they couldn't reduce the polygon count a bit further and allow full 3D movement...

Rail · Post by **Rail** » Sun Sep 23, 2001 5:56 pm

Originally posted by Robin_Hood:
Hmm...I see I'm not the only one with mixed feelings about the graphics engine. I don't get it...why can't they add climbing and stuff to the game...well, maybe it's just too much to ask, in terms of getting the game out some time.

I agree. When I heard they were doing a 3d engine, I was excited about them adding climbing to the game. When I heard it would not be included, I was disappointed, but I am hopeful it will eventually be added in an expansion.

I guess I am very excited about the game for the same reasons as Xandax. Is this a perfect game? No. Is it a step in the right direction? Absoluetly. This will help us recreate some of the fabled places in our own imagination. Does it have an engine as good as PnP D&D did, i.e. our own imagination? No, but this allows us to take our own imagination and make it available to other players.

I will miss the beloved IE and I agree BG2 is a beautiful game (though IWD and HoW are even better, IMHO). But, in 2d, you will never get the awe of looking up from the base of a towering temple face dedicated to some god (good or evil), an awe that seems possible to instill in NWN. Look at the difference between cut scenes and gameplay in BG2. Durlag's Tower is downright imposing in the cut scene, and Spellhold is frightening and sinister. Both are fine in gameplay, but nothing compared to the 3d cut-scene. I believe that NWN will eventually recreate gameplay as good as the cut-scenes in BG2, and THAT is why I am looking forward to NWN. It may not be that good when it first comes out of the box, but it will be with time. I just hope it doesn't take 4 or 5 years to get that way, but I'm patient. *sigh*

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Mon Sep 24, 2001 2:37 am

Originally posted by Rail:
in 2d, you will never get the awe of looking up from the base of a towering temple face dedicated to some god (good or evil)

And neither will you in NWN, I fear.

From what I understood by reading various interviews:

The reason why 3D movement was cut out was that the game took an enormous performance hit when too much of the map became visible at the same time. Too many polygons on screen. If you would fly or climb very high, you'd be able to see just about every polygon on the map.

In order to reduce performance problems even further, the camera has been capped to a certain downwards angle. Looking straight ahead into infinity would, again, put too many polygons on the screen...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Sep 24, 2001 3:33 am

One thing I don't understand is that many of you say that grapichs dosen't matter, but yet, you keep saying that SoA was beautiful and NwN will never be so beautiful. I feel this is contradicting.

Again - I feel that many people are annoyed at the fact that NwN will not deliver as much as it promised at start (climbing, flying, swimming etc.), but we must remember that NwN is just a step on the journey (like BG1 was, and see what BG2 became) - and that the switch to 3d was nessecary at some point. So I say, make the shift now, and work other things out down the road. If we had another IE-game in NwN, this discussion would just have been delayed to a possible later game.

And again, I don't feel the excitement of NwN should be about 3d or not 3d (

), beautiful or not so beautiful grapichs etc. but the fact that the human element and the possibility of seriously scripting your own modules/adventure is (hopefully) going to be introduced into gaming.

Classic · Post by **Classic** » Mon Sep 24, 2001 4:42 am

Right on, Xandax!!

And by the way, if you zoom out as far as it will go you can see up to third story. When you stand by the gate of some large building it will still loom up and away from you in a very imposing manner (just check out the screenshots out there).

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Mon Sep 24, 2001 12:29 pm

Graphics aren't essential for a good CRPG, but they sure are nice.

What bothers me about moving to 3D is that we get none of the benefits (3D movement) while it won't look better than 2D...

If 3D movement would have been included, I could have seen why the "sacrifice" was made.

THE JAKER · Post by **THE JAKER** » Mon Sep 24, 2001 3:36 pm

Responses to a bunch of points:

I thought most of the writing on the original star trek was just as cheesy as the fx were. If anything Battlestar Galactica had a more interesting story, I think they just wussed out because it was too expensive to make, and they would reuse a lot of the classy looking footage too much. Star Trek TNG actually had decent writing AND decent effects.

Trademeet at night really is so beautiful...

I'm really looking forward to NWN. It is a shame about the Infinity Engine, because it runs well and looks great on modest computers, but I don't see that many people writing modules for it. Why is that? My excitement about NWN stems more from the openness of it - the fact that people like all of you can come up with modules and adventures in it. I think that the adventures that fans come up with will be the main reason to play, not the shipped story. I don't really care about the graphx that much, but I do know that I have felt very immersed in 3d graphics worlds, even when the graphix are not that great there is a sense of immersion.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Wed Sep 26, 2001 10:42 am

I agree with Rail. IWD has *much* better graphics that BG2. BG2 was nice at 800x600, but IWD is *beautiful* at 640x480.