Is this game still worth playing?

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

The developers of, say, Pillars of Eternity made it clear in interviews multiple times that they wanted to bring back the feel of Baldur's Gate games. Hence the isometric perspective, since Baldur's Gate had it. People funded this kickstarter project mostly exactly because they liked old school Infinity Engine games and wanted more games of similar design. That was the main and, perhaps, the only reason of the game being isometric. It is not good or bad, it is just what it is.

 

However, like I mentioned, all the models even in 2D and iso games originally are drawn in 3D.

 

I don't see the need to project anything on a 2D plane when you can just release it in full 3D and let the player adjust the camera to be isometric (like many people playing NWN1/2 with isometric camera, having the same experience as they would if these games were exclusively isometric).

 

I know, I've seen people use the "nostalgia" bandwagon to market their work, but do you really think they would bank everything solely on an older demographic which was already niche to begin with, if it weren't actually a good and useful presentation style as well?  If you're saying that everyone funded it because they like the design, that's one thing, but to claim that they all like the design solely because it gives them warm fuzzy memories and not because it's a good, valid presentation that serves its purpose well is demonstrably false, and frankly unbelievable.  I truly cannot believe anyone would continue to make that claim when there's someone right here saying it doesn't apply to them.

 

I hope you're only saying the ones mentioned above are originally 3D models flattened to 2D, and aren't actually claiming that all modern 2D games are done that way.  They're not.

 

Just so you know, "isometric" has a very specific meaning.  It doesn't just mean "overhead at a slight angle."  There is no parallax or 3D perspective in an isometric projection, so they cannot have the exact same experience as they would if the games were exclusively isometric (though personally, I prefer them not to be true isometric as the Infinity Engine games are).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MayCaesar]

               

 

2D worked far better in the games I mentioned than a 3D presentation and rotational or first person cameras would have.

 

This is precisely the point I was criticizing. I see no reason for these games to be better in 2D than in 3D. I think that Baldur's Gate 2 in quality 3D wouldn't be any worse than in 2D, and that Dragon Age: Origins in quality 2D wouldn't be any worse than in 3D. And, really, in all RPGs I know characters, in the end, move on 2D surfaces. There might be multiple levels of those surfaces, but in the end they move on individual surfaces or, at best, can jump a bit above them. So in these games functionally 3D isn't any different from 2D, the difference is only in the looks, not in the gameplay.

 

It is quite different from, say, FPS games, or flight simulators - those in 2D wouldn't work very well. But RPGs can work equally well in both. And, since people in 3D RPGs mostly can adjust the camera in such a way that they are essentially played like 2D (not precisely, but you get my point), while in 2D the opposite rotation is not possible - I'd generally prefer 3D to 2D of similar quality. But it is not really critical for me, as long as I enjoy the aesthetics.

 

 

I know, I've seen people use the "nostalgia" bandwagon to market their work, but do you really think they would bank everything solely on an older demographic which was already niche to begin with, if it weren't actually a good and useful presentation style as well?  If you're saying that everyone funded it because they like the design, that's one thing, but to claim that they all like the design solely because it gives them warm fuzzy memories and not because it's a good, valid presentation that serves its purpose well is demonstrably false, and frankly unbelievable. 

 

I don't remember saying that 2D wasn't a valid presentation; in fact, I specifically said the opposite a few times. But, once again, 2D is simply a projection of 3D. You can project 3D into 2D, but you cannot project 2D into 3D. A person enjoying 2D games can simulate similar to 2D look in 3D with proper camera setting, while a person enjoying 3D games cannot simulate similar to 3D look in a 2D game. Just like you can buy a $1,000 car having $10,000 on your bank account, but you cannot buy a $10,000 car having $1,000 on your account, 3D is more potent than 2D. It doesn't necessarily apply to particular games, since the implementation always varies; there are a lot of 2D games played much better than a lot of 3D games. But you can do in 3D what you cannot do in 2D, while you can do in 2D only what you can do in 3D.

 

One thing I haven't touched here is convenience of development. Of course 2D games are much easier to develop than 3D. You don't need to adjust terrain levels in 2D, you don't need to draw everything in 3D initially and can use some 2D visual effects / models. This might be looked at as advantage of 2D, indeed.

 

Just so you know, "isometric" has a very specific meaning.  It doesn't just mean "overhead at a slight angle."  There is no parallax or 3D perspective in an isometric projection, so they cannot have the exact same experience as they would if the games were exclusively isometric (though personally, I prefer them not to be true isometric as the Infinity Engine games are).

 

I use a common (although technically incorrect) terminology here. Strictly speaking, isometric is 2D, and what you can get from, say, Dragon Age: Origins by using tactical camera is still 3D. Even developers sometimes confuse the terminology. For example, the upcoming game Sword Coast: Legends is positioned as isometric, while it is actually just 3D with a certain camera positioning.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

I don't remember saying that 2D wasn't a valid presentation; in fact, I specifically said the opposite a few times.

 

What you said, which I quoted and which I am objecting to, is your statement: "I don't see any reason to purposefully make 2D/iso games nowadays when high quality 3D games run on modern PCs with little trouble, except for solely the nostalgic purposes".  I presented reasons.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MayCaesar]

               

What you said, which I quoted and which I am objecting to, is your statement: "I don't see any reason to purposefully make 2D/iso games nowadays when high quality 3D games run on modern PCs with little trouble, except for solely the nostalgic purposes".  I presented reasons.

 

Alright, I must admit, that statement was a bit shortsighted. But I think I explained in my latest post what I really meant by it.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

Alright, I must admit, that statement was a bit shortsighted. But I think I explained in my latest post what I really meant by it.

 

Then I'll let it rest.  Your latest post seemed to be talking about something quite different, which I also find needlessly restrictive, but not something I consider worth disputing.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Yeah, no point in talking to a wall.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MayCaesar]

               

Yeah, no point in talking to a wall.

 

Very nice way to end the discussion. 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_SeverusSewer]

               

NWN1 is the best gaming investment I have made in this new century. Between the Official material, a five year on-line campaign, hundreds of Player created mods, and continued occasional play on a current PW, this game still has much to offer. And it is available on GOG.com.

 

This games looks **** mate. It looked like it was made in the 80's compared to bg. It is the problem from the games from that generation (Morrowind, soul reaver, deus ex). I can belive i played it when it came out. Nowdays i cannot even look at it, square looking characters.

Compared to nwn 2, it looks like decades old.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

This games looks **** mate. It looked like it was made in the 80's compared to bg. It is the problem from the games from that generation (Morrowind, soul reaver, deus ex). I can belive i played it when it came out. Nowdays i cannot even look at it, square looking characters.
Compared to nwn 2, it looks like decades old.

I disagree:

http://cf.shacknews....or003_large.jpg

http://www.amethyst-..._halfdrow_f.jpg

http://www.amethyst-...truefeather.jpg
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_LastBard]

               

I disagree:

http://cf.shacknews....or003_large.jpg

http://www.amethyst-..._halfdrow_f.jpg

http://www.amethyst-...truefeather.jpg

 

Me too.

 

 - Edit -

 

And just watch it:

 

http://neverwinterva...3037fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3112fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3186fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3238fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3250fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3268fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1803fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1859fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1891fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1907fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...2056fullres.jpg

 

Oh, yes...still NWN 1. '>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_icywind1980]

               

@ Hesuna: We shouldn't be having this conversation on a thread that asks the question, ''Is NEVERWINTER NIGHTS still worth playing?'' I agree with you there.

 

All the rest of both of our comments are personal preference and I don't have to explain myself to you or any other gamer. I play for me and for my enjoyment, not yours. I prefer 3D games and I always will. I don't care if the game has a ''compelling story'' (Which most don't). It's lost on me if I feel I can't experience it, the case being especially in RPGmaker games that look like NES games. They feel empty, even if there is 100,000 words of dialog in them.

 

As for those games mentioned above, how do you know they wouldn't be better in full 3D? It's not really something either of us could truly know, cos it's not how they're made. You say they would bog down system specs, but is that really an issue on a newer computer? I guess I was just speculating that the games you mentioned would be better in 3D- my apologies for that, but I don't understand why you think it's better for games in general to be iso or 2D as you didn't actually support your argument. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

Edit: I didn't realise this spilled over to the 2nd page when I posted.

 

Also you were incredibly rude with your post about talking to a wall. If you don't enjoy the conversation, simply don't talk.

               
               

               

                     Modifié par icywind1980, 20 août 2015 - 02:55 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

You may find my response rude, but I can't understand how anyone would consider my response there unjustified. I have lost patience with people who rudely go with their own incorrect assumptions instead of actually reading what the other person wrote.

 

My point was two fold:

(1) I think you, Icy, are missing out on great games, but I already made that point and am not going to bother you on those grounds anymore. Play what you like. I dropped this after one post. I have not been belittling anyone for playing 3D games.

(2) The claim that all games should be 3D however is a bad assertion and worthy of being challenged because its not about personal preference, but instead about game design and development. I challenged it on the following grounds:

   - high fidelity 3D graphics and cutting edge engines detract (during game development) from more meaningful aspects of game development - design of the game itself

   - not all games need the same presentation and better games appropriately match presentation with game play. 3D implies different types of play than 2D does or the thing that we call "ISO".

 

I provided examples as to why the games I chose are better in their current implementations than as truly 3D. And I'm tired of repeating myself.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

It's lost on me if I feel I can't experience it, the case being especially in RPGmaker games that look like NES games.

 

You're about 2 generations off.  The colour depth and resolution of RPG Maker games wasn't achieved in consoles until 5th generation consoles (NES is third).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_kamal_]

               If I wanted to complain about graphics ruining a game I would complain about the terrible graphics of chess. One single flat empty map thats got a two color 8x8 texture. You get six unit types and that's it, the factions don't even have different units!


/ I played wearing an onion on my belt, as was the style at the time. Also, I wasnt very good.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MayCaesar]

               

If I wanted to complain about graphics ruining a game I would complain about the terrible graphics of chess. One single flat empty map thats got a two color 8x8 texture. You get six unit types and that's it, the factions don't even have different units!


/ I played wearing an onion on my belt, as was the style at the time. Also, I wasnt very good.

 

This is not the best example, since Chess by its very design does not try to emulate anything from the real world: it is just a competitive game. RPGs, on the other hand, try to emulate roleplaying, roleplaying of a fictional character in a fictional world at that. In Chess, better graphics wouldn't benefit the gaming experience in any way, it would be obsolete functionally. In RPGs - at the very least, it depends on the game.

 

On a different note, there have been countless attempts to try to diversify Chess. I used to play Chess semi-professionally, and, you know, playing the same 8 moves long variation of French defense the 1000th time isn't fun. The problem is, the Chess community is so big and influential, it is basically a monopoly, and trying to popularize games offering more diversity encounters a massive opposition from millions of devoted players. I believe, for example, this "extension" would really benefit Chess, both in terms of diversity and skill required:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960