Re: Actually...
drakesteele said:
Top view was how RPGs were done when all we had was 2-D graphics, and while they were great, technology has moved on.
Already the veins in my head swell.
drakesteele said:
I absolutely LOVED all the Ultima series, and they were flat, top-view, character-based graphics... Heck I used to play Nethack and that was literally characters only. Used to play it for hours.
The set up: "See guys, I'm not a console kid but in fact am an old-time computer RPG fan. I've played them for years. So don't just dismiss me as a moron AKA Oblivion fanboy, OK?"
drakesteele said:
Top view, isometric views, are going back, and not forward. 3D is the current state of the art, and VR is the next level coming.
A preliminary demonstration of his ignorance of the history of computer RPGs, from the 1980s to the present day.
drakesteele said:
You are mistaken if you think otherwise. Trust me. I've been using computers since 1981, and have been a computer technician since I was 16 back in 1986, training people on and fixing their Commodore 64s and Apple ][s, and I've seen the technologies come and go.
And despite having such creds he is still completely clueless.
drakesteele said:
The progression has been:
ASCII top-view (Nethack) -> custom character ASCII top-view (Ultima) -> black and white top-view and isometric views (a few mac RPGs and such) -> Color top-view and isometrics (Fallout 1/2) -> Non-hardware-accelerated 3D (aka Doom) -> DirectX accelerated 3D top/isometric-views (NeverWinter nights) -> Full 3D First-Person (Ultima IX/Morrowind/Oblivion/FALLOUT3)
His neat and tidy timeline is full of inconsistencies and holes.
Let us begin then, though really, my head is spinning.
drakesteele said:
Now if you're counting The Bard's Tale originals and some of the other dungeon crawlers as "First Person" um... No. They were still pictures of hallways. Not quite the same thing. They didn't move in the same way true first-person does. Nice try.
OK Mr. Old-Timer, since you're such a veteran computer gamer, then you should be familiar with an ancient C64 game published by Datasoft called
Alternate Reality. It was the first true 1st person (by today's standards) CRPG anyone had ever seen, a real technological breakthrough in its time. We're not talking "pictures of hallways" as you describe Bard's Tale as either, but a full-motion 1st person adventure. Now that was
1986. Meanwhile, 8-bit RPG developers continued to use top-down and iso and "still picture" 1st person ala Bard's Tale for years and years to come, despite this oh so wonderfully immersive, full-motion 1st person perspective that even shitty 8-bit computers were proved capable of handling. Why? Because the focus was upon using workable P&P style game engines and not upon trying to create realistic 1st person, 3D environments. The object was to make a good RPG, not to come up with yet another action game, of which there were so many - exploration, information gathering, and strategic combat, not joystick waggling.
Jesus Christ, look at the SSI AD&D Gold Box series. The graphics were shite yet the game play (if you were an AD&D nerd) was second-to-none. Could SSI have made the graphics better? Could they have focused more on realism AKA IMMERSHUN? Sure, because there were plenty of other 8-bit CRPGs out there with 10x better graphics, but
great graphics weren't a priority for the designers of the AD&D computer games. Creating a faithful pen & paper style experience on the computer was. Could you have pulled off big battles with 6 party members vs a roomful of 20 Zenthrim cultists, an undead dragon and three beholders in 1st person? NO, and that's why they used a flat, 2D view.
Fast forward to 1997: Iso-perspective is used for FO1 because it seems the most efficient choice for creating the P&P style experience the developers want. 1997, Sherlock, and they're intentionally choosing a 2D design despite the 3D, 1st person game engines IBM PCs found themselves with the horsepower to handle since at least the beginning of the decade.
For the love of God, there's so much that has been said a thousand times over but guys like you will never get it. FPS and other action games have always been about the latest and greatest eye candy. Most good CRPGs haven't. There is a reason that iso was used for CRPGs in the past (before marketing concerns encroached upon those of game design), just like there is a reason that the Japanese continue to use it for the cheesy RPGs that they continue to release today, despite having access to "new and improved" technology: for tactical battles and role-playing environments in general, 2D/iso/top-down/whatever really works. It's why Origin Systems (you mention yourself a fan) continued to use it for their Ultima series up until the late 90s despite the fact that they had developed a 1st person game engine for their Ultima Underworld series in 1992. You think Origin just didn't have the ability to make any more 1st person RPGs after Underworld? Of course they did,
but they instead chose a 2D engine because it was the best choice for a role-playing game..
You act like you are such a long-time computer RPG nut but it's obvious that your knowledge of them is very shallow. I could go on, but... Aw hell, OK, the Baldur's Gate series? Yeah, they were just using shitty, outdated 2D technology because computers weren't capable of handling anything more at the time, right? God damn brilliant reasoning abilities you have.
Anyhow, look back at the history of computer RPGs both distant and near-present, then again if it just doesn't sink in, and you'll see that your "design based on limited technology" argument doesn't pan out for shit.
)
