Fallout 3D or not 3D? Clearing up some matters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Given that the purpose of this forum is to allow Fallout fans (and any developers lurking around) to bounce ideas off each other as to what should be in F3, it may be best to renew the 2D/3D debate by restating the two positions

1. The 3D brigade categorically demand that F3 must be 3D in order to sell -- taking this at face value, 3D becomes nothing more than a cheap marketing gimmick. In my book, 3D can add a lot to a game, but of course there will be a tradeoff. Countless _open_ended_ RPGs relying on 3D engines lie as a bleak testament to bad coding, long development times, and obselesence.
2. A more reasoned pair of posters argue that 2D is not necessarily fatal, but get distracted by the 2D/3D distinction...

So lets change the subject: what features (given that 2D and 3D can be intertwined, whould YOU want to see in the F3 engine?

Merlin Jones PhD
 
It wouldn't bother me if the terrain and buildings were polygons, just as long as the players/creatures/etc are not.

Basically, things that are square and have edges can be polygons.. Organic things shouldn't be.

It's kind of tricky to make something that has a surface that flows out of triangles. I'd rather not see something that looks like a lego man in a vault suit.
 
>It wouldn't bother me if the terrain and buildings were polygons, just as long as the
>players/creatures/etc are not.

I agree that this is desirable. This would also assist in making the game world more "seamless". Consider Vault City and the First Level of Vault 8... the load time split the areas into 4 disparate parts even though they were joined together. Some kind of dynamic loading on the fly would be helpful feasible. But with 2D sprites, would you still call for a static isometric view?

>Basically, things that are square and have edges can be polygons..
>Organic things shouldn't be.

Of course, if BI does go 3D, we'll probably lose the excellent 2D artwork talent that really made BG. Hell, with 6 CDs of gaming goodness, F2 looks rather neglected in comparison.

One idea would be for the F3 team to recruit 50 or so volunteers to assist. Sure, a lot of wannabes might come forward. but I know several Fallout lunatics that program open source stuff and that would gladly move heaven and earth for a small footnote in the credits list and a copy of the game.

It would also make a great marketing gimmick. Many reviewers considered that F2's engine was what the players wanted, and consequently good. Involving fans in the development process (in a minor capacity beyond that of testing) would assist in selling the game.
 
"But with 2D sprites, would you still call for a static isometric view?"

Actually, I'd demand the static isometric view even if it were totally 3D, period. The only change I'd make to the view would be a 90 degree camera rotation ability. Of course, with the rotation, there could be a slight problem with the hex field system and the way the player is oriented with the surroundings(i.e. 90 degrees is not a multiple of 60 degrees).

"Of course, if BI does go 3D, we'll probably lose the excellent 2D artwork talent that really made BG. Hell, with 6 CDs of gaming goodness, F2 looks rather neglected in comparison."

Well, unlike Fallout/Fallout 2, the Infinity engine doesn't use 256 color tiles to make up buildings, so each setting is basically a HUGE 32bit picture. That's fairly wasteful, if you ask me. I don't think it really adds anything to the game either.

I will say that some of their artwork is nice, but considering BG is 16/32bit color and Fallout/Fallout 2 are 8bit color.. Just take a look at the Vault Dweller sprite and then look at any of the player sprites in BG.. The guy who did those Fallout sprites did a heck of a lot better of a job bringing out the detail of features on the player's body.

Then again, I could be biased. ;)
 
Because I nit pick at small details.

<< Of course, if BI does go 3D, we'll probably lose the excellent 2D artwork talent that really made BG. Hell, with 6 CDs of gaming goodness, F2 looks rather neglected in comparison >>

BIS didn't do the artwork for Baldur's Gate, Bioware did. BIS did the artwork for Planescape & Icewind Dale (not sure about the PCs though(?)).

Skie
 
Camera rotation and sprites.

<< Actually, I'd demand the static isometric view even if it were totally 3D, period. The only change I'd make to the view would be a 90 degree camera rotation ability. Of course, with the rotation, there could be a slight problem with the hex field system and the way the player is oriented with the surroundings(i.e. 90 degrees is not a multiple of 60 degrees). >>

They could use octogons. That would allow for a 90 degree camera rotation. I can't see any reason why they would need to keep hexes.

<< Just take a look at the Vault Dweller sprite and then look at any of the player sprites in BG.. The guy who did those Fallout sprites did a heck of a lot better of a job bringing out the detail of features on the player's body. >>

Look at the number of PC animations required for BG. There's only so much artwork a person can do.

And on the topic of player sprites. Planescape had some great ones. That was one pretty game that didn't sacrafice content.

Skie
 
For the love of God!

"The 3D brigade categorically demand that F3 must be 3D in order to sell -- taking this at face value, 3D becomes nothing more than a cheap marketing gimmick."

It hardly seems like you even listen to what other people say! I made a point that the FO engine was outdated, and since 3D engines are becoming more popular and have numerous other advantages, it's far more reasonable to go with 3D than attempt to revamp the FO engine or create a new 2D engine. Somehow, you managed to interpret that as meaning that FO3 with crash and burn if it's not 3D.

Also, I'd like to know why you immediately file me in the "3D brigade" simply for advocating that FO3 be 3D. I've enjoyed many 2D entries, and I realize that excellent games are still capable of being produced in 2D, however I've seen incredible things done with 3D engines that 2D engines just can't accomplish. Granted, the nature of many of these advantages is graphical, but is demanding good graphics in a game a sin?
 
>>Actually, I'd demand the static isometric view even if it were totally 3D, period. The only change I'd make to the view would be a 90 degree camera rotation ability. Of course, with the rotation, there could be a slight problem with the hex field system and the way the player is oriented with the surroundings(i.e. 90 degrees is not a multiple of 60 degrees). <<

Visualising this without a screenshot in front of me will probably give me a headache, but the rationale for such a move is really to allow the player to see surroundings that would otherwise be concealed, so wouldn't you want to be able to rotate a full 180 degrees? (LCM of 60 and 90?)

>>Well, unlike Fallout/Fallout 2, the Infinity engine doesn't use 256 color tiles to make up buildings, so each setting is basically a HUGE 32bit picture. That's fairly wasteful, if you ask me. I don't think it really adds anything to<<

With the fallout series, you also have a hell of a lot more options when it comes to permanently altering the scenery (eg sending some rockets at a few buildings etc). Take trapper town in Klamath. Because of the fence blocking the way, the player has to fight his or her way through the three of so underground levels to get to the Highwayman on the other side. Personally, I would either: use pliers to cut through the wire fence, climb the fence, walk around to the end of the fence, blow up the fence, or failing that, dig under the fence with a combat knife. Buildings at the far edge of the "backdrop" are also a problem

>>color.. Just take a look at the Vault Dweller sprite and then look at any of the player sprites in BG.. The guy who did those Fallout sprites did a heck of a lot better of a job bringing out the detail of features on the player's body. <<<

Those sprites would eat up many frames of animation though. Didn't Ultima 8 have some 40000 alone for the player's alter ego? Of course, these sprites can be easily prerendered using a 3D modeller and retouched for an organic look, so this is not really a problem nowadays. Of course, if you add mix and match clothing, this means even more frames. In this sense, 2D sprites only become a handicap if they take up too much disk space.

Suppose I wanted to have a horse to ride around in Fallout 3, the number of sprites could increase rapidly
 
RE: For the love of God!

>engine. Somehow, you managed to interpret that as meaning
>that FO3 with crash and burn if it's not 3D.

I suggest that you read the progression of arguments in the old set of threads. I argued that 3D is not absolutely critical to the success of a game, that some mix of features based on tweaking might prove a workable compromise. 3D "for the sake of 3D" is not an argument -- it's an opinion at best, a dogma at worst

>Also, I'd like to know why you immediately file me in the "3D brigade" simply for
>advocating that FO3 be 3D. I've enjoyed many 2D
>entries, and I realize that excellent games are still capable
>of being produced in 2D, however I've seen incredible things
>done with 3D engines that 2D engines just can't accomplish.

I don't recall you filing you anywhere. I agree with your second sentence. If I have incited you, I'm glad (read the first sentence of the first message in this thread). But I repeat, most of my anti 3D comments are based on a developer's perspective. Once a team is formed, budgets are set out, and a deadline set, the allocation of coding time determines success or failiure. Should Mr A spend more time on AI or creating a very cool laser lighting effect. Should Mr B spend more time creating quests or in trying to optimize a 3D engine which he is unfamiliar with in order to get the look "just right"? should Mr Z be tightening up dialogue, or ironing out bugs? Now do you see?

If you want to debate this further, continue it in a new thread.
 
RE: Camera rotation and sprites.

Octogons don't fit well together. Probably a better idea would be to use a standard grid, floating point number for the action points, and have normal movement cost 1 AP and diagonal movement cost 1.414 AP.
 
RE: Camera rotation and sprites.

What do you mean octogons don't work well? They fit together as easily as hexes. Plus, character's can move smoothly in 8 directions. As, opposed to hexes where they're hopping side to side to attempt a straight line.

Skie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top