Final Analysis: Fallout 3D or not 3D????? Comments welcome

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

Guest

Guest
Summary: The use of a 3D engine in Fallout 3 is premature, given that:
1. Implementation of a new 3D engine would increase development time, increase buginess, and reduce the overall quality and open endedness that makes Fallout 1 and 2 so enjoyable.
2. Many of the problems with the existing Fallout engine can be easily alleviated with simple programming tweaks.

You've read the message board, and views tend to swing this way and that. But does Fallout 3 need to be Fallout 3D?

3D will make for lovely graphics, says 50% of you. 2D will make for wonderful graphics, says the other half or so. But if we can't have both, where should the balance lie?

Yes 3D is lovely, imagine being able to zoom in to see yourself (the Wanderer), or nubile NPCs full size, picture being able to see all those hidden goodies without having to look by simply rotating the view, imagine the immersiveness, the feel of really "being there". But wait, there's more!

Imagine the WAIT. A new 3D engine will increase cost and more importantly, increase the time it takes for the Programming team to develop Fallout 3. Imagine the wait as you try and play this new Graphical Behemoth on your 1Ghz PC which by release date will be rather laughable and painfully slow. Picture the smaller size of the game world, with all those 3D textures and models taking up valuable CD space that could have been devoted to greater levels of NPC interaction and map exploration.

Imagine the BUGS. A new engine will require more programming time spent on the new engine and tons more code, instead of tweaking and finetuning interaction and gameplay. One can think of many HORRIBLE RPGs that have sought to go down this road. Consider Daggerfall and Descent to Undermountain to name two. Of course, if fallout 2 v1.0 was buggy, imagine F3 v1.0. Horrible...

Yes, the Fallout Engine is not perfect: here are some tweaks to alleviate this. That's what Fallout 3 needs: TWEAKS... so start tweaking. Begin with your nose, then move on tweak other parts of your body if need be.. then some tweaks for Fallout 3 maybe..

1. "Difficulties in interacting around hidden corners due to the isometric perspective" First: F3 players should be able to change the size of the view bubble surrounding their head when they move "behind" a wall etc. So you can adjust it from nothing (so you can easily open a door that the bubble would otherwise hide, or to give an accurate overhead view) to Full size (so you can see the entire floor of the room you are in. Second: use mirroring to enable a second isometric view (as if the old view had been rotated 90 degrees).

2. "The 2D engine is bland" Sick and tired of seeing all those identical bookshelves? A set of 50 or so, say, bookshelves in bitmap form would take up far less room on the F3 CD than 50 or so 3D models with textures. So the solution is more 2D.

3. 2D not as realistic as 3D, so I will only buy Fallout 3 if it's 3D. Liar! Open ended games such as the Fallout series will demad a tradeoff right at the start -- so more graphical realism at the cost of realism in other departments like dialogue, graphical variety etc. Greater graphical realism also raises censorship issues.

Merlin Jones PhD
 
Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

<< 1. Implementation of a new 3D engine would increase development time, increase buginess, and reduce the overall quality and open endedness that makes Fallout 1 and 2 so enjoyable. >>

Ok, but a new 2D engine would take time as well. The original Fallout engine is too out-dated to be used. It was considered dated in Fallout 2. To create a 3rd game using that engine would be a bad ided. I can't imagine good sales.

The Fallout Tactics engine is not coded the same as an RPG. I can't imagine it taking a few tweaks to fix it.

<< 2. Many of the problems with the existing Fallout engine can be easily alleviated with simple programming tweaks. >>

No, the engine is too old to be useful. It would take a complete re-write; and they probably would only use a small percentage of the original code.

<< Imagine the WAIT. A new 3D engine will increase cost and more importantly, increase the time it takes for the Programming team to develop Fallout 3. Imagine the wait as you try and play this new Graphical Behemoth on your 1Ghz PC which by release date will be rather laughable and painfully slow. Picture the smaller size of the game world, with all those 3D textures and models taking up valuable CD space that could have been devoted to greater levels of NPC interaction and map exploration >>

I can't imagine there being a long wait. They could always use the LithTech engine. I, also, can't see them using top of the line graphics in an RPG. It's just doesn't seem like it would be a major focus.

<< Imagine the BUGS. A new engine will require more programming time spent on the new engine and tons more code, instead of tweaking and finetuning interaction and gameplay. One can think of many HORRIBLE RPGs that have sought to go down this road. Consider Daggerfall and Descent to Undermountain to name two. Of course, if fallout 2 v1.0 was buggy, imagine F3 v1.0. Horrible... >>

I'm not so sure about that. Look at System Shock 2 & Dues Ex. Sure, they're more of an FPS/RPG hybrid; but still have less bugs than FO or FO2. Even, Vampire wasn't as buggy. Perhaps, much of the problem with the bugs had to do with the engine used for Fallout.

<< 2. "The 2D engine is bland" Sick and tired of seeing all those identical bookshelves? A set of 50 or so, say, bookshelves in bitmap form would take up far less room on the F3 CD than 50 or so 3D models with textures. So the solution is more 2D. >>

I've always heard that sprite artwork takes up more than 3D. Which is another advantage to using 3D. I have yet to see a 3D game use as many CDs as BG or even Planescape.

<< 3. 2D not as realistic as 3D, so I will only buy Fallout 3 if it's 3D. Liar! Open ended games such as the Fallout series will demad a tradeoff right at the start -- so more graphical realism at the cost of realism in other departments like dialogue, graphical variety etc. Greater graphical realism also raises censorship issues. >>

Bah, I prefer the look of sprites. I can't see blocky people any more realistic than animated people. But, I do think FO3 will be 3D. It's too big of a sale point for it not to be.

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>Ok, but a new 2D engine would take time as well. The original Fallout engine
>is too out-dated to be used. It was considered dated in Fallout 2.
>To create a 3rd game using that engine would be a bad ided.

Fallout 1 took twice the time to develop that of Fallout 2, and that was the bigger (and admittedly buggier) game. Of course, BlackIsle with its Baldur's Gate franchise colud probably borrow a bit.. a bit of intellectual slippage would be welcome, but the company's core competency is not 3D.

>Imagine the BUGS. A new engine will require more programming time spent on the new engine and tons more code, instead of tweaking and finetuning interaction and gameplay. One can think of many HORRIBLE RPGs that have sought to go down this road. Consider Daggerfall and Descent to Undermountain to name two. Of course, if fallout 2 v1.0 was buggy, imagine F3 v1.0... add 3D to the equation

>I'm not so sure about that. Look at System Shock 2 & Dues Ex.

Both are rather linear when compared to the usual Black Isle titles don't you think? Also rather limited in terms of dialogue, options, and replayability? With a small gameworld and considerable nonlinearity, bugs can be easily squashed.

Of course, Revenant from Eidos rather well done for a 3D game... but that was pure eye candy more than anything else...

><< 2. "The 2D engine is bland" Sick and tired of seeing all those identical bookshelves? A set of 50 or so, say, bookshelves in bitmap form would take up far less room on the F3 CD than 50 or so 3D models with textures. So the solution is more 2D. >>
>
>I've always heard that sprite artwork takes up more than 3D. Which is another advantage
>to using 3D. I have yet to see a 3D game use as many as as BG or even Planescape.

I have yet to see a 3D gameworld as big as that in BG and PS. But with DVDs, the Fallout 2D or 3D debate is essentially a matter of how the developers time should be spent. Open ended games such as the Fallout series demand a tradeoff right at the start -- so more eye-candy at the cost of realism in other departments like dialogue, variety etc. But where does that balance lie? That's what the developers must decide.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>>Of course, BlackIsle with its Baldur's Gate franchise colud probably borrow a bit.. a bit of intellectual slippage would be welcome, but the company's core competency is not 3D.<<

That shouldn't really matter at all. Since BIS wouldn't create their own 3D engine, it would be relatively simple for the programmers to gain a level of proficiency with the 3D engine. Besides, how likely is it that they haven't had *any* experience with a 3D engine?

>>Both are rather linear when compared to the usual Black Isle titles don't you think? Also rather limited in terms of dialogue, options, and replayability? With a small gameworld and considerable nonlinearity, bugs can be easily squashed.<<

Most of the bugs in the FO games were do to scripting problems, which a 3D engine would not affect.

>>I have yet to see a 3D gameworld as big as that in BG and PS. But with DVDs, the Fallout 2D or 3D debate is essentially a matter of how the developers time should be spent. Open ended games such as the Fallout series demand a tradeoff right at the start -- so more eye-candy at the cost of realism in other departments like dialogue, variety etc. But where does that balance lie? That's what the developers must decide.<<

Actually, using a 3D engine would make graphics *much* easier to do. For example, most denizens could suffice with the same model and different skins, and universal animations (such as death animations) would mean that developers wouldn't have to spend as much time on the graphics as before.

Since the FO engine is outdated, as was previously pointed out, it would be necessary to redo many of the animations and textures regardless of whether a 3D engine was used or not. Overall, a 3D engine is much more beneficial to use than a 2D engine.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>Most of the bugs in the FO games were do to scripting problems, which a 3D
>engine would not affect.

Neither would a 2D engine, but you must concede that an out of house 3D engine would introduce a further level of complexity in coding that could be avoided

>Actually, using a 3D engine would make graphics *much* easier to do. For example, most denizens could suffice with the
>same model and different skins, and universal animations (such as death animations) would mean that
>developers wouldn't have to spend as much time on the graphics as before.

Best to ask the blokes at BI that. I accept that It could make modding a easier as well.

>Since the FO engine is outdated, as was previously pointed out,
>it would be necessary to redo many of the animations
>and textures regardless of whether a 3D engine was used or not.

Yes, but they've had a lot of practice with 2D stuff, plus why can't material from FO1, Fo2, FOT and failing that, BG etc be reused and refined? Development time is shortened drastically.

>Overall, a 3D engine is much more beneficial to use than a 2D engine.

It would also help justify the cost of my new Geforce2 card as well. But this does not explain why I found the two Fallouts far more enjoyable and far more replayable than similar 3D games such as Diablo 2 and Revenant. If forced to make a choice, I would prefer gameplay over 3D. If BI has already developed a 3D rngine and had the inhouse know how, this would not be an issue
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

Why is it that all these people seem to think Diablo 2 is 3D? It's just a 2D ISO engine, same as Diablo was. The only difference is it can use Direct3D or Glide to do some of the special effects.

As far as Doyle's comment about it taking longer to draw all those sprites for 2D, that's not true. You can prerender those sprites, which is what BIS, Blizzard, and BioWare do for their 2D RPGs. That takes roughly the same amount of time as the 3D model/texture.

Using prerendered sprites is also easier to program than say, a skeletal model animation system. It's also less costly on the CPU, so you have more things scurrying around at once.

And as far as Skie's comment about Fallout Tactics not having the full RPG elements, what does that have to do with the rendering engine? It has nothing to do with it. If BIS was talented enough to put all that interaction stuff in PS:T, I think they could do it with Fallout Tactics.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-24-00 AT 08:06AM (GMT)[p]<< But this does not explain why I found the two Fallouts far more enjoyable and far more replayable than similar 3D games such as Diablo 2 and Revenant. >>

Umm, those games had a completely different focus than Fallout. You can't really expect a hack 'n' slash game to have the depth of Fallout. Well, you can, but you're going to be disappointed.

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

<< And as far as Skie's comment about Fallout Tactics not having the full RPG elements, what does that have to do with the rendering engine? It has nothing to do with it. If BIS was talented enough to put all that interaction stuff in PS:T, I think they could do it with Fallout Tactics. >>

First, there are skills and traits in Fallout that won't be in Fallout Tactics. You would need to reprogram the engine to allow those skills and traits.

The engine also isn't setup for dialog trees. I can't imagine playing an RPG without dialog trees. Then again; people do enjoy Diablo.

I'm sure there a bunch of other things that would need to be recoded as well to make it RPG compatible.

You could turn the StarCraft engine into something that you could play an RPG on. You would also need to change alot of the code, and add alot of new code. Why do you think engines tend to stay in a specific genre? Sure, they could have used the Quake II engine for Homeworld; but they probably saved money by not.

What exactly is your point with PS:T? Most of the stuff in PS:T was already coded into the Infinity engine. There's even chunks of useless BG code in PS:T. Why? Because, it's safer to leave it there than take it out and possibly have a problem.

The interaction is an impressive use of dialog trees. Do you think that the same kind of interaction couldn't have been done in BG?

And, finally, 3D is too big to be ignored. Games lose sales for using sprites. Just like they lose sales for not having multiplayer. Look at the decline in single player only RPGs. There are only 2 in development at this time (Anachronox & Morrowind), as compared to the 20-30 ones with some form of multiplayer (if not multi only). Look at the number of 2D RPGs in development, it's almost the same situation.

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

I still say the next fallout should be made like dues ex, same graphics engine as dues ex and the depth of gameplay of fallout would be sick!!! im mean fallout is fun and all but moving to a fps/rpg like dues ex would be great, you would be able to walk around and see so mush detail, imagine walking around in the vault able to actualy see peoples face and such, I think a fallout game like dues ex would definitly be a hit
(i compare it to dues ex because its the best game in the world :) )
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

><< But this does not explain why I found the two Fallouts far more enjoyable and far more replayable than similar 3D games such as Diablo 2 and Revenant. >>

>Umm, those games had a completely different focus than Fallout. You can't really
>expect a hack 'n' slash game to have the depth of Fallout. Well, you can, but you're
>going to be disappointed.

That's a matter of opinion, but in those games, real depth and playability was sacrificed for something quite different. I would rather the developers spent more time on gameplay and interaction, rather than mere eyecandy.

Hack and slash and 3D mesh well together, both hput more value in style than substance.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>And, finally, 3D is too big to be ignored. Games
>lose sales for using sprites.

That's an empirical matter -- and you haven't showed any evidence to indicate that this is the case. Most smart gameplayers don't just buy a game because it promises 3D. (Indeed, 3D could turn off many people with laptops or older PCs without 3D cards)

3D is only a small part of any buying decision. I look at the box and the tiny screenshots on the back, I read the reviews on the Internet, I see if my PC can run the thing. 3D is the last thing on my mind.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>>you haven't showed any evidence to indicate that this is the case<<

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing you've said yet in this argument. What evidence have YOU shown? Can you even supply evidence?

Besides, the simple fact is that FO2 did *NOT* sell as well as could have, or even should have. The reason is that the engine was ludicrously outdated. By the time the first game came out, the graphics were mediocre at best and using the same engine a year later did nothing to help them. 3D clearly *does* affect sales, and other benefits from using a 3D engine are numerous.

Face it, pre-rendered graphics are waning in popularity with the gaming public. Every day more people get more and more powerful computers and better 3D cards that they would like to see put to good use. If the game has good ratings in reviews, like a FO game most certainly would, that's just an added benefit. From so many different views, 3D is just the smart way to go, and no amount of complaining from yourself can change that.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>>>Umm, those games had a completely different focus than Fallout. You can't really expect a hack 'n' slash game to have the depth of Fallout. Well, you can, but you're going to be disappointed.<<<

>>That's a matter of opinion, but in those games, real depth and playability was sacrificed for something quite different. I would rather the developers spent more time on gameplay and interaction, rather than mere eyecandy.<<

I stand corrected: this is by far one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. "That's a matter of opinion"? OMG. Do you even know what Diablo II is? Do you know what Fallout is, for that matter? Compared to D2, FO has so much depth that I seriously question your sanity after reading this statement. I think a good idea would be to just quit now, while you are not too far behind.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-24-00 AT 03:18PM (GMT)[p]>>>Most of the bugs in the FO games were do to scripting problems, which a 3D engine would not affect.<<<

>>>Neither would a 2D engine,<<<

That was my whole point, the engine wouldn't affect the bugs we've seen.

>>but you must concede that an out of house 3D engine would introduce a further level of complexity in coding that could be avoided<<<

Umm.... So using a new engine that is designed to be liscensed by developers, like the LithTech engine, is going to be more difficult that rewriting the FO engine? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

>>>Since the FO engine is outdated, as was previously pointed out, it would be necessary to redo many of the animations and textures regardless of whether a 3D engine was used or not.<<<

>>Yes, but they've had a lot of practice with 2D stuff,<<

So? Why is making a hex in a 2D program different from making a texture to be applied to a 3D model?

>>plus why can't material from FO1, Fo2, FOT and failing that, BG etc be reused and refined?<<

FO1 and 2 use 256 colors. Since there is no way that the new game would use only 256 colors, they would all have to be redone in 16 bit or True Color, whichever they decided to go with. BG uses a different engine entirely, so most of those textures would have to be converted, which could easily take as long as making new textures specificly for the FO engine, and most of them wouldn't match FO's post-apocalyptic environment. As for textures from FOT, they probably could be used over, and would be if the game used a 2D engine.

>>It would also help justify the cost of my new Geforce2 card as well. But this does not explain why I found the two Fallouts far more enjoyable and far more replayable than similar 3D games such as Diablo 2 and Revenant. If forced to make a choice, I would prefer gameplay over 3D. If BI has already developed a 3D rngine and had the inhouse know how, this would not be an issue<<

Yet another foolish comment. Besides the obvious blunder of declaring D2 to be a 3D game, you also seem to think that a 3D engine is what determines how fun the gameplay is. I have confidence that BIS could make a fun game no matter what type of engine they used because BIS has repeatedly proven itself to be a worthy development team. Rather than assuming that they would blunder through a 3D engine and release whatever pile of shit they felt like, you should have a little faith. BIS has so far delivered many quality products and will continue to do so no matter what engine they use.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>>>you haven't showed any evidence to indicate that this is the case<<
>
>That is quite possibly the stupidest thing you've said yet in
>this argument. What evidence have YOU shown? Can you even supply evidence?

Right back at you... you asserted that 3D games sold better than 2D ones. What evidence have YOU shown? Can YOU even supply evidence? If you want to debate something, back it up... as I said before, this is an empirical matter.

I haven't got anyone free to look into this, but I imagine that given that 2D games have preceded 3D games for many years, in aggregate, 2D has been more successful, at least for a few more months :)

>Besides, the simple fact is that FO2 did *NOT* sell as
>well as could have, or even should have. The
>reason is that the engine was ludicrously outdated. By
>the time the first game came out, the graphics were
>mediocre at best and using the same engine a year

So you didn't like the Artwork? Well I imagine BI could get fine arts candidates to handpaint everything and then scan it in, but you DID _buy_ FO2 didn't you?

>Face it, pre-rendered graphics are waning in popularity with the gaming
>public. Every day more people get more and more
>powerful computers and better 3D cards that they would like
>to see put to good use. If the game has good ratings in reviews,
>like a FO game most certainly would, that's just an
>added benefit. From so many different views, 3D is
>just the smart way to go, and no amount of
>complaining from yourself can change
>that.

Rather trite, don't you think? I love 3D as much as anyone, but is it really suited to a large scale RPG game?

Many gamers who pay hard cash for their games do NOT expect Doom-like action, Unreal graphics, or Diablo-esque simplicity from their RPGs. Give them detail in the game engine and depth in the story line. Cram the game full of obscure skills and inventory items when they decide to play the thing the second time around. Pepper it with characters and complex conversation trees. Sure I like eyecandy, but given that BG was a roaring success sans 3D, the matter is hardly clear cut!
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>Yet another foolish comment. Besides
>the obvious blunder of declaring D2 to be a 3D game,

Really? Does D2 use your 3D card for lighting etc? A partial implementation of 3D is still 3D -- and the game was billed as able to utilise 3D visuals... If D2 is "2D", its success completely rebuts your blanket assumption that F3 MUST be 3D to be "succcessful"

>you also seem to think that a 3D engine
>is what determines how fun the gameplay is.

You seem to think this is the case. It might also depend on the circumstances

>of shit they felt like, you should have a little
>faith. BIS has so far delivered many quality products and will continue to do
>so no matter what engine they use.

Quite trite
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>>>That's a matter of opinion, but in those games, real depth and playability was sacrificed for something quite different. I would rather the developers spent more time on gameplay and interaction, rather than mere eyecandy.<<

>I stand corrected: this is by far one of the
stupidest things I have ever heard. "That's a matter
>of opinion"? OMG. Do you even know what Diablo II is? Do you know what Fallout is,
>for that matter? Compared to D2, FO has so much depth that I seriously question your sanity after reading
>this statement.

Yes, but D2 COULD have had the depth of fallout, but the developers chose NOT to do this, instead emphasing visuals and combat. Do you understand my argument?
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

<< Rather trite, don't you think? I love 3D as much as anyone, but is it really suited to a large scale RPG game? >>

Why wouldn't it be? I can't imagine 3D making a 'large scale RPG' more difficult to develop.

<< Many gamers who pay hard cash for their games do NOT expect Doom-like action, Unreal graphics, or Diablo-esque simplicity from their RPGs. >>

Since when does 3D equate to action or simplicity? So, most games using 3D engines haven't had the depth of Fallout. Well, most games using 2d engines haven't either.

<< Give them detail in the game engine and depth in the story line. Cram the game full of obscure skills and inventory items when they decide to play the thing the second time around. Pepper it with characters and complex conversation trees. >>

Why can't this be done with a 3D engine? Why can't there be complex dialog trees and a deep story if there's a 3D engine?

<< Sure I like eyecandy, but given that BG was a roaring success sans 3D, the matter is hardly clear cut! >>

Yeah, and BG's graphics were fairly up to date at that time. Compare them to Fallout 2's, a game that came out about 2 months earlier. BG was also very action oriented with multiplayer. Of course it sold well. For the same reason Diablo sold well.

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

Ok, so you admit that 3D engine is fine for Fallout (still not sure how Diablo II fits into the 3D debate) so long as the focus is on story and character development? You do know that the focus of a 3D game doesn't have to be visuals and combat.

Even a game with poorly done 3D graphics can be a great game, if it makes up for it in other areas. Look at the turn-based strategy game Close Combat. That's a game with a focus on content and not graphics.

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-25-00 AT 07:34AM (GMT)[p]<< Really? Does D2 use your 3D card for lighting etc? >>

D2 is 2D. You don't need a 3D card to play it; you can turn off the 3D effects so it is 2D only. The only thing you'll lose is some lighting effects (sarcastic "woo").

<< A partial implementation of 3D is still 3D >>

So, does that mean a partial use of 2D is still 2D? So then Diablo 2 is a 2D/3D game? That means a game has to have some form of 3D to be successful, right?

<< and the game was billed as able to utilize 3D visuals... >>

As are many games, I believe BG2 is one of them. It can utilize a 3D card for some flashy spell effects, but it is still a 2D game.

<< If D2 is "2D", its success completely rebuts your blanket assumption that F3 MUST be 3D to be "successful" >>

Wrong. The reason Diablo II can get away with being 2D is that it's a sequel to a top selling game. The same reason Baldur's Gate can get away with being 2D. They can have a game with dated graphics, because they already have a large audience. The third Baldur's Gate will be 3D. The next Diablo (if they choose to make one) will be 3D. Why? They will lose sales if it's 2D.

You also have to figure that Fallout 3 at the very least is 2-3 years away. Team Torment is working on a high fantasy RPG using the SPECIAL system. The setting will be a world of their own creation. Team 3 is working on an Icewind Dale expansion. This leaves Team Icewind Dale, who has only been working on their new project for a couple months (which might not even be Fallout 3).

If you think a game in 2-3 years can survive being 2D, when games right now are frowned upon for being 2d, then you're very diluted.

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