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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>The adult elements opens it up to another crowd.

<< A much smaller crowd. >>

I don't think so. It's probably a bigger crowd than what it lost.

<< People such as yourself? >>

You assume too much too often. I found those area's pretty stupid. I don't find them any more adult than the violence or drug use found in the game though.

My dislikes with FO2 have nothing to do with these issues, and they have nothing to do with 3d either.

<< F1 and BG would make great Christmas or Birthday gifts -- not so F2! >>

I dunno, Fallout 2 was a pretty good Christmas present. And, a good number of people I've talked with found Fallout 2 alot better than Fallout 1. Perhaps it was the increase of adult elements.

<< Average" can mean a lot of things. Do you have an "average" computer? >>

No, I have a pretty dated computer actually. But, since you have a large problem with the word average. How about we change to 'standard'? The 'standard' computer (at least for gaming) is what was top of the line a year ago. This isn't to say that there can't be games that requirements are lower; but that the computer should (smoothly) run 95% of the games on the market.

<< This is all for a very sound reason: the greatest barrier to purchase is not dated graphics -- it is that the end User's computer is unable to play the game! >>

Really, then why do system requirements keep going up and up every year? According to your logic, if they released games that could run on a 486 they would broaden their market. Imagine the huge sales increase. No, wait, they'd probably end up with less sales.

You go back too far and it's not profitable. 3D has been around for a long while; it's becoming the standard. Deal with it.

Planescape requires a better system than Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate 2 requires a better system than Planescape. Neverwinter Nights will require a large improvement over what is required for Baldur's Gate 2.

What I hear when you scream, "2D! 2D! 2D!" is "I can't afford to upgrade my computer." [There may have been a bit of exaggeration for dramatic effect.]


I have to retouch on your laptop statement a post or two ago. Laptops aren't exactly the best way to go for gaming. A PC gives you more bang for your buck, and it is cheaper and easier to upgrade.

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

<< Of course, if you just want "total purchases", I think Diablo 2's 2,000,000 pre-orders, which raked in $180,000,000, can take on all the 3D games alone. ;)>>

But, that's Blizzard. Warcraft III will either come damn close or surpass it. I don't think any game developed by BIS has sold as well as a Blizzard game. I, also, haven't played a Blizzard game I like as well as any BIS game.

And what's up with people bringing Diablo (2) into this. Most of you are always saying, "Diablo (2) isn't an RPG. It's an action game with stats." But, when it works in your favor, you pull out the Blizzard card. ;)

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-29-00 AT 10:36AM (GMT)[p]>>I don't think so. It's probably a bigger crowd than
what it lost. <<

An empirical issue ... a matter for market research. How many best selling games used this as a marketing gimmick (except perhaps Duke Nukem 3D)?

>I dunno, Fallout 2 was a pretty good Christmas present.

I'm not sure Mum and Dad would agree. I wouldn't call it that titilating either -- but like many others, I bought the game because I enjoyed playing F1.

>>No, I have a pretty dated computer actually. But, since you have a large problem with the word average. How about we change to 'standard'? The 'standard' computer (at least for gaming) is
>what was top of the line a year ago. <<

I would say two or three years ago -- at least. You're assuming a development period of 1 year, with the coding team using top of the line systems

>>Really, then why do system requirements keep going up and up every year? According to your logic, if they released games that could run on
>a 486 they would broaden their market. Imagine the huge sales increase. No,
>wait, they'd probably end up with less sales.

Clearly, many coders are writing for high end (if not state of the art) PC systems for a number of reasons. 1) They use high end PCs when coding 2) Optimisation given the code base is too time consuming and hence costly -- slow performance may well be a bug (take F2's largest install) 3) Windows OSes are poor operating systems when it comes to running multimedia and 3D applications (compare Win9X/Me open GL and multimedia operations against identical ones using BeOS or Linux using WINE) 4) Shorter "time to market" 5) they're writing stuff for a "future PC"

>What I hear when you scream, "2D! 2D! 2D!" is "I can't afford to upgrade my computer." [There may have been a bit of exaggeration for dramatic effect.] <<

This may really strike a chord with you and a lot of other people. Yet that is not the only reason For others such as myself, appropriateness, suitability, aethetics, development and feasibility are of greater concern. Let's adopt your logic: tell me why isn't every single new PC application 3D?

>>I have to retouch on your laptop statement a post or two ago. Laptops aren't exactly the best way to
>go for gaming. A PC gives you more bang for your buck, and it is cheaper and easier to
>upgrade. <<

Laptops are becoming cheaper and used by IT professionals, students, and executives. The fact that a laptop's upgrade options are more limited and more expensive than a PC shouldn't rule it out as a gaming platform. Why bother buying a game console if this is the case?
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-30-00 AT 10:51AM (GMT)[p]<< I'm not sure Mum and Dad would agree. I wouldn't call it that titilating either -- but like many others, I bought the game because I enjoyed playing F1. >>

I think it really depends on the 'Mum', the dad, and the person it's being bought for.

<< I would say two or three years ago -- at least. You're assuming a development period of 1 year, with the coding team using top of the line systems >>

No, I'm assuming they have a good idea of the time it's going to take to develop their game. They also have an idea of what type of systems will be around. And, they create a game that takes advantages of that. Even though it might not run smoothly on the computer they have now.

<< appropriateness, suitability, aethetics, development and feasibility are of greater concern.

Those are some very subjective words there. Your idea of what's appropriate, suitable, aesthetic, or feasable may differ from someone elses, or even the masses. Or for that matter, the developers.

<< . Let's adopt your logic: tell me why isn't every single new PC application 3D? >>

Because they aren't games. Therefore they don't need the pretty lights and colors to sell well. (And don't tell me pretty lights and colors don't improve sales.) They're also set up so that about anyone with a computer can use them.

You might as well ask why every single new PC application doesn't allow multiple users (or something akin to multiplayer, only without the playing part)?

<< Laptops are becoming cheaper and used by IT professionals, students, and executives. The fact that a laptop's upgrade options are more limited and more expensive than a PC shouldn't rule it out as a gaming platform. >>

It doesn't rule it out as a gaming platform. People who are going to use it as such should realise it's an expensive platform to use. If you have a laptop you're probably using it for something else as well. It's likely to be cheaper to buy a PC than to continue to upgrade the laptop.

Just like PC gaming is a fairly expensive form of entertainment (at to play the latest games). Does anyone need a 1K MHz processor for anything other than gaming? Do you need a 3D card for anything other than gaming?

<< Why bother buying a game console if this is the case? >>

Because consoles are cheap (at least in comparison to computers). You rarely need to upgrade; and if you do, it's minor and cheap. You also can run a game that comes out 5 years later on the same system. This is a rare thing for computers.

I'll relate this to consoles, but it's still aplicable to PCs. Ok, imagine you buy a new console with all these cool features. Now, imagine that they don't take advantage of these new features; they just keep producing games that look and play exactly like like the previous console. Do you think the majority of users will be happy about this?

Maybe, you'd be fine with that. You'd have no problems. Maybe, I'd have no problems with it as well. But, we would be part of a minority. And, likely not a profitable minority. And, while Fallout 3 using the original Fallout engine wouldn't bother me any; it wouldn't be profitable.

It's in the best interests of the developer and publisher to create a game that will be profitable. If the multiplayer and 3D are going to help sales, then they're going to add that. Hopefully, they don't have to sacrafice other areas to accoplish this.

Skie
You do realise these long replies are eating into my gaming time. :)
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

Ok, I didn't read through anything here, except the first post.

I really want to keep it 2D. 3D wouldn't be like the good old Fallout we know. Hell, I'd pay for something like F2 again - meaning, same engine, some new graphics, new weapons, and a new, great storyline.

-Split
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

If you say V:TM has depth, you've had a prolonged oxygen interruption to your cerebellum..

Cheap Diablo knock off!
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>I think it really depends on the 'Mum', the dad, and the person it's being bought for.

I don't think Mum and Dad would buy their 27 year old son a copy of F2 (too old for computer games?). I very much doubt that they would buy their 14 or 15 year old son or daughter F2 either (because of the audult elements). Then again, there will be a minority of exceptions.

>No, I'm assuming they have a good idea of the time it's going to take to develop their game. They also have an idea of what type of systems will be around. And, they create a game that takes advantages of that. Even though it might not run smoothly on the computer they have now.

Hmmm... given that Moore's Law still seems to hold (processor power doubles every 18 months)... and most owners don't upgrade that often, and that it takes at least 18 months to develop a game, I would hate to predict what kind of PC they will be writing F3 for.

>Those are some very subjective words there. Your idea of what's appropriate, suitable, aesthetic, or feasable may differ from someone Or for that matter, the developers.

Of course! Consider Ultima IX. It had the potential to amount to great game in terms of pedigree and storyline. Sadly, a bizarre focus on "3D for its own sake" (without a core 3D competency) meant a remarkably crappy game that sacrificed performance, stability, and gameplay. A case study in the tradeoff that 3D demands right from the outset. The developers failed to strike the right balance, given that the Ultimas were essentially a series of open ended RPG's.

>You might as well ask why every single new PC application doesn't allow multiple users (or
>something akin to multiplayer, only without the playing part)?

I imagine that the OS is supposed to provide services to cater for file sharing and the like

>It doesn't rule it out as a gaming platform. People who are going to use [laptops] as such should realise it's an expensive platform to use. If you have a laptop you're probably using it for something else as well. It's likely to be cheaper to buy a PC than to continue to upgrade the laptop.

Perhaps. Laptop users are usually wealthier and have a workstation as well...we probably also tend to play more games because we can take a game from the home/work PC to our laptops

>Just like PC gaming is a fairly expensive form of entertainment (at to play the latest games). Does anyone need a 1K MHz processor for anything other than gaming?

Compiling source, carrying out iterative processes, simulations, data analysis, modelling chemical structures, architecture applications, to name a few off the top of my head....

>I'll relate this to consoles, but it's still aplicable to PCs. Ok, imagine you buy a new console with all these cool features. Now, imagine that they don't take advantage of these new features; they just keep producing games that look and play exactly like like the previous console. Do you think the majority of users will be happy about this?

Developing for a console can prove markedly easier that developing for a PC for a number of reasons..

>minority. And, while Fallout 3 using the original Fallout engine wouldn't bother me any; it wouldn't be profitable.

I would rather that the development team aimed to creative the greatest post apocalyptic 3D game of all time, rather than went to work with the sole aim of making a "profitable game".

>Hopefully, they don't have to sacrafice other areas to accoplish this.

Sadly, this sacrifice is often the case. Certainly a good reason to bring in volunteers to lend a hand where able. In a perfect world without deadlines, budgets and profitability (where time and cost is the dominant consideration), this is not an issue.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>>The fact that a laptop's upgrade options are more limited and more expensive than a PC shouldn't rule it out as a gaming platform. Why bother buying a game console if this is the case?<<

This may seem a bit anal, but that console statement is very ignorant. I realize that this is totally beside the point, but this is something that I would really like to clear up.

The single largest difference between a PC and a console is in the basic architecture of the system itself. Even if a PC is finetuned for gaming and sold with all the latest hardware and software that a gamer could want, it is still designed to be usable for many other purposes, as well as being backwards compatible, to a limited extant, and therefore runs into many bottlenecks. However, consoles tend to take the other route. Most consoles are designed for one purpose alone: gaming. All of a console's resources are allocated to create an ideal gaming experience. With most consoles, being backwards compatible isn't even an option. The result is that a console runs comparable software better than mid to low-end PC systems can.

If you need an example, take the N64 and Perfect Dark. The N64 is clocked at about 93 MHz and uses 8 Mb (With the $30 4 Mb upgrade) of Rhambus Dram. Perfect Dark, a recent FPS designed by one of Nintendo's second party developers, runs well on the system, especially if you consider it's age and numerous other limitations. However, if you tried to run a port of Perfect Dark on a Pentium 133, the extra MHz are my gift to you, with 8 Mb of RIMM (Rhambus DRAM) it would be unplayable. If you don't believe me, try running Half-Life, it should be fairly comparable to Perfect Dark, on a system similar to the one I described.

Obviously there are a few problems with the above example. The most glaring problem is the lack of 3D card specifics, but I believe a Voodoo2 should suffice. Of course, you can also point to the age difference as a major issue; Half-Life is two years older than Perfect Dark, but the inherent limitations with a cartridge-based game should level the playing field a bit.

Again, sorry to rant, but as an avid console-gamer, that statement bugged me.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

<< I don't think Mum and Dad would buy their 27 year old son a copy of F2 (too old for computer games?). >>

Sound like biased parents to me.

<< I very much doubt that they would buy their 14 or 15 year old son or daughter F2 either (because of the audult elements). >>

Considering the ESRB rating, they shouldn't be buying Fallout 1 for them anyways. What makes sexual implications any more adult than violence? or drug use? Why is it that if the medium is computers then the subject matter is harsher?

<< Then again, there will be a minority of exceptions. >>

Naw, there's a good percentage of unaware parents. That figure as long as it's a game it's ok for their 13 year old. You know, anything to keep him from bugging them.

But, I'm afraid we've gotten off topic, yet again. So back to 3D. We really need to stick to the topic. Consoles, adult content, laptops as a gaming platform, and a slew of other discussions don't really fit here. Plus, those discussion are really being had only by me and you. We could always move those to e-mail to keep the board from being so cluttered.

<< we probably also tend to play more games because we can take a game from the home/work PC to our laptops >>

More games than who?

<< Compiling source, carrying out iterative processes, simulations, data analysis, modelling chemical structures, architecture applications, to name a few off the top of my head.... >>

Ok, this has moved from casual gamer to business. Why would someone buy a 1 Gig processor if it wasn't for gaming or business?

<< I would rather that the development team aimed to creative the greatest post apocalyptic 3D game of all time, rather than went to work with the sole aim of making a "profitable game". >>

Either one extreme or the other? They can't focus on creativity and design, but add in a couple things to keep it profitable?

<< Sadly, this sacrifice is often the case. Certainly a good reason to bring in volunteers to lend a hand where able. >>

Is that even a viable solution?


Does Fallout 3 need to be 3D to be successful?

The short answer - Yes.

The long answer - Not necessarily, but is it worth the risk of Fallout 3 not being profitable due to of a lack of 3D? It is a business, after all. If adding a feature helps keep you in business, then why exclude it?

And, a couple questions for you: What's there to gain in keeping the game 2D? Do you think BIS will change the focus of the game if it goes 3D? Do you feel, at this time, that it's not possible for a 3D RPG to have great content?

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-00 AT 09:31AM (GMT)[p]>them anyways. What makes sexual implications any more adult than violence? or drug use? Why is it that if the medium is computers then the subject matter is harsher?

Which is more offensive, a child being shot in the back of the head, or a woman putting a condom on her lover? Given that I have never seen the latter in a movie, I would say that in general, sexual content is more offensive. Computer games offer a greater level of interactivity, and are less regulated than say movies, so there may well be a clampdown. I suppose that sex could be incorporated into a game for its seduction elements, "simulation", or pure dramatic effect. F2 used it as a marketing gimmick.

>Either one extreme or the other? They can't focus on creativity and design, but add in a couple things to keep it profitable?

Like Ultima IX: Ascension for instance?

>And, a couple questions for you: What's there to gain in keeping the game 2D?

Reduced development costs and time to market, "better" graphics (given that BI probably has more skilled 2D artists, is very good at prerendering sprites based on 3D models, and comparing Neverwinter Night's 3D engine), likely greater stability, reduced coding time and amount of code, core competency lies with 2D, budget and deadline constraints. I admit that 3D does have advantages going beyond mere profitability. I invite you to state them.

> Do you think BIS will change the focus of the game if it goes 3D? Do you feel, at this time, that it's not possible for a 3D RPG to have great content?

Why not take the transition from Ultima 8 to Ultima 9 as an example of a failed transition to 3D?

I can tell you that F3 will have a budget and a deadline. It probably won't be as big as that of Baldur's Gate. Given limited time and money, where should it be spent? On struggling to get a 3D engine to deliver, or in taking their existing engine to another level in terms of colour depth, resolution, and art? I would say that BI would be better at carrying out the latter.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-00 AT 09:53AM (GMT)[p]>This may seem a bit anal, but that console statement is very ignorant.

Not as amusing as the declarations of ignorance that accompany many of your preambles. Please continue!

>The single largest difference between a PC and a console is in the basic architecture of the system itself.

What about the "Operating System"?. Windows tends to take up a lot of overhead... Direct X attempts to alleviate this to some extent. I would still say that in general, it is easier to develop games for a platform (greater platform support, only one set of hardware to deal with, greater expertise at the machine code level etc etc)

>If you need an example, take the N64 and Perfect Dark. The N64 is clocked at about 93 MHz and
>uses 8 Mb (With the $30 4 Mb upgrade) of
>Rhambus Dram. [...]However, if you tried to run a port of Perfect Dark on a Pentium 133, the extra MHz >are my gift to you, with 8 Mb of RIMM (Rhambus DRAM) it would be unplayable. If you don't believe me, try running Half-Life, it should be fairly comparable to Perfect Dark, on a system similar to the one I described.

Why not emulate Perfect Dark on an old gamer's setup, say a PII and Voodoo II card? An emulator can be downloaded off the internet for free.. I accept that many people enjoy playing games on consoles, others enjoy games at the arcade, some on a PC, and yes, even a few with Laptops
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

You're too tolerant MJ. That Doyle guy is too aggressive and Skie doesn't seem to understand your arguments. You need a worthy second to fight at your side.

*snaps fingers* Rosh, come here.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>You're too tolerant MJ. That Doyle
>guy is too aggressive and
>Skie doesn't seem to understand
>your arguments. You need a
>worthy second to fight at
>your side.
>
>*snaps fingers* Rosh, come here.

Actually Doyle wasn't being aggressive at all and Skie seemed to be perfectly able to counter Merlin's arguements. I enjoyed reading this discussion (even the off topic issues that came up). And if you agree with Merlin so much why don't you come up with some proper arguements?

"What could be better then a swan dive into the asphalt?"
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>You're too tolerant MJ. That Doyle
>guy is too aggressive and
>Skie doesn't seem to understand
>your arguments. You need a
>worthy second to fight at
>your side.
>
>*snaps fingers* Rosh, come here.

Rosh doesn't just pop in as the "debate savior" for board members. He only argues when he feels strongly a certain way. I'm pretty sure Rosh doesn't *care* if Fo3 is to be 2D or 3D, he cares more of the RPG depth than anything.

Besides, if you're so hell bent on giving MJ a second man, why don't you take up the "cause?"

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>You're too tolerant MJ. That Doyle guy is too aggressive and Skie doesn't seem to understand
>your arguments. You need a worthy second to fight at your side.

Nah! Deprogramming them is simply a matter of time. What would be more interesting is if one of them actually TRIED to create a very weak version of a Fallout Tribute Game using 3D or 2D. Who would get further?

If anyone is seriously thinking of creating a wastelands/fallout epic to keep us entertained until F3 comes out, let me know!
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

<< Which is more offensive, a child being shot in the back of the head, or a woman putting a condom on her lover? >>

It depends on the context and how graphic each is. A video that shows the proper use of condoms wouldn't be offensive what-so-ever. Unless you have preconcieved notions that visualization of sex is wrong. It really comes down to the person. They have to judge for themselves.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I said, "sexual implications." There wasn't anything beyond that in FO2. I think Tomb Raider satisfies more mastibatory fantasies than FO2 would.

<< I suppose that sex could be incorporated into a game for its seduction elements, "simulation", or pure dramatic effect. F2 used it as a marketing gimmick. >>

Actually, I thought sex was incorperated into FO2 to give the game a grittier feel. Obviously, it failed, because the rest of the game had too much OCC.

<< Like Ultima IX: Ascension for instance? >>

The Ultima series has been going downhill for the past few years anyways. With the release of Ultima Online it was obvious their focus had changed. Ultima IX has more focus on look at the pretty sunset than role-playing. While a FPS/RPG hybrid (Dues Ex, System Shock 2) can focus on story and still have good graphics.

<< Reduced development costs and time to market, >>

Find something to back this up. And, even if it does increase development costs (which I doubt), if it's more profitable because of it. Where's the problem? As far as time to market (I don't think it will increase this either), what's another 6 months to a year?

<< "better" graphics (given that BI probably has more skilled 2D artists, is very good at prerendering sprites based on 3D models, and comparing Neverwinter Night's 3D engine), >>

You think the BIS artists don't do 3D models? Also, Neverwinter Nights is Bioware not BIS. Neverwinter Nights' engine was written by Bioware. BIS is using the LithTech 2 engine (at least for one project). At least compare the art to a game using the same engine.

<< likely greater stability, >>

Back this up. It's possible 3D could increase stability. You don't know, and I don't know.

<< reduced coding time and amount of code, core competency lies with 2D, budget and deadline constraints. >>

Are you just making up reasons as you go along? You have nothing to back any of this up. You're throwing out assumptions (at best).

<< I admit that 3D does have advantages going beyond mere profitability. I invite you to state them. >>

1) You add another axis. Example: A thief can climb a wall and go in through a window.

2) You can take advantage of terrain. Examples: You can snipe an enemy from a roof. You can snipe someone outside, through a window, from the inside of a building on the second floor.

3) You don't have draw a new sprite for each type of armor/weapon/whatever combination (which saves time/money). Examples: NPCs can change with the armor you give them. You can see difference when you change weapons. You can actually see what weapons and armor your enemy is using.

4) You can rotate the camera to see around buildings, so there won't be things you can't see.

These are all actual advantages. You have nothing to back up the disadvantages. Search around, provide some sort of proof.

<< Why not take the transition from Ultima 8 to Ultima 9 as an example of a failed transition to 3D? >>

Origin has been screwing things up for years. Ultima 8 was not a great game in any sense. Ultima Online has a complete lack of role playing (you might as well call Diablo an RPG). It's likely the problem is with Origin and not with 3D.

<< Given limited time and money, where should it be spent? On struggling to get a 3D engine to deliver, or in taking their existing engine to another level in terms of colour depth, resolution, and art? >>

If they use the LithTech engine (very likely), then they are using an existing engine. This will save them overall time. Look at Torment, it surpasses Fallout in multiple areas. They took and early build of the infinity engine, tweaked it, and did their own artwork (no re-using BGs like they did with IWD). In the end it took as long to create as Fallout (roughly 3 years).

They can take an existing engine (might as well choose 3D). Spend 3 years working on the game with a focus on content and story, and shouldn't have any problems releasing a polished game.

And if they aren't currently developing FO3. When Team Torment finishes their next project they'll already have a 3D engine using the SPECIAL system.

<< I would say that BI would be better at carrying out the latter. >>

Yes, but you have misconceptions and assumptions. Until you back up most of your reason for why 3D is bad, your post has little validity.

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

Umm...I could do a text-based Fallout game. I'd probably get farther than someone doing 2D or 3D. Although, I could add in some really bad sketches of area's and enemies.

Then again, if you want to license the LithTech engine for me. I might be able to do some fancy 3D stuff for you.

Or you could send me the Arcanum editor and I could whip up a fantasy game for you pretty quickly. Then again, I could whip together a pathetic attempt at an RPG using the StarCraft editor as well.

And off topic, wasn't Rosh (?) or someone doing a Wasteland/Fallout MUD/MUCK/MUSH?

Skie
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

>It depends on the context and how graphic each is. A video that shows the proper use of condoms wouldn't be offensive what-so-ever. Unless you have preconcieved notions that visualization of sex is wrong. It really comes down to the person.

An educational feature regarding condom use would probably use a plastic replica rather than a genuine erect member... a depiction of violence (even if educational), on the other hand, would use a genuine child and a lot of tomato sauce. Most censoring authorities find sexual content more offensive than violence. Look at how movies are rated!

>I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I said, "sexual implications." There wasn't anything beyond that in FO2. I think Tomb Raider satisfies more mastibatory fantasies than FO2 would.

That's a rather loose term... I suppose a woman winking at me from across a restaurant has some kind of sexual implcation as well... or when my PA touches me on the arm, or when my wife smiles at me... contrast this with the back of F2's box.

>Actually, I thought sex was incorperated into FO2 to give the game a grittier feel. Obviously, it failed, because rest of the game had too much OCC.

Actually, I thought that the programming team was a typical bunch of horny 20 somethings that were getting a bit sick and tired of working "20 hour days for god knows how many months"... I've seen the porn on my programming team's workstations. Damn Internet

>changed. Ultima IX has more focus on look at the pretty sunset than role-playing.

So this not an issue for any upcoming F3 release? Remember that profitability concerns would have dominated origin's decision to go 3D if we adopt your analysis.

<< Reduced development costs and time to market>>
>Find something to back this up.

Why should the onus fall onto me every time? Why don't you prove that prove that 3D games sell better than 2D ones, and back it up with empirical evidence? Give us a footnote or website address.. something more substantial than an improbable bald opinion masquerading as a fact.

I had a person look into this and she suggests refering to a game-coding site at www.gamesutra.com. Read about some of the trials and tribulations involved in coding a great PC game!

> And, even if it does increase development costs (which I doubt), if it's more profitable because of it. Where's the problem? As far as time to market (I don't think it will increase this either), what's another 6 months to a year?

A drastic oversimplification. I'm inclined do dismiss this with something like "get an degree in business, and then you'll know!" Save yourself four years and think it through. For starters, remember that time is money!

>You think the BIS artists don't do 3D models?

I thought they tended to pre-render and retouch the resulting sprite animations. Theres a lot more to 3D than 3D models... think of the backdrops and code base required!

>BIS is using the LithTech 2 engine (at least for one project). At least compare the art to a game using the same engine.

There's a number of unknowns here. Time will tell I imagine

<< likely greater stability>>
>Back this up. It's possible 3D could increase stability. You don't know, and I don't know.

More 3D = More code (self evident). I've read papers that enumerate why larger code bases lead to more bugs, reduced stability, reduced speed (due to optimisation difficulties and deadlines) The regretable fact that you have consistently failed to recognise this as a major issue suggests that you are addressed the matter purely from a consumer point of view... but great games are made by the development team, not by "suits" and the end-user.
.
>Are you just making up reasons as you go along? You have nothing to back any of this up.You're throwing out assumptions (at best).

Self evident if you have ever had to oversee coding on a commercial basis. Open source teams tend to operate more on kudos and glory, not money and deadlines. I'm not sure how your background might lead to a diametrically opposite view. Surprise me!

>1) You add another axis. Example: A thief can climb a wall and go in through a window.

Not impossible with 2D, and often not exploited in many 3D games.

>2) You can take advantage of terrain. Examples: You can snipe an enemy from a roof. You can snipe someone outside, through a window, from the inside of a building on the second floor.

Only comes to the fore with a 3D FPS game.

>3) You don't have draw a new sprite for each type of armor/weapon/whatever combination (which aves time/money). Examples: NPCs can change with the armor you

Sprites can be prerendered and retouched from 3D models, reducing overhead on the client PC and allowing a far greater number of NPC "actors" to be on the screen at any given time. Admittedly not an issue with an FPS game.

>4) You can rotate the camera to see around buildings, so there won't be things you can't see.

Correct. A 2D engine could rotate 180 degrees, but would require additional artwork to provide this. Some kind of intelligent mirroring would alleviate the need for vast amounts of additional 2D backdrops.

>These are all actual advantages. You have nothing to back up the disadvantages. Search
>around, provide some sort of proof.

Why not back up your own assessments with an "Expert Opinion" while you're at it? (not that I doubt your assertions of course!) If I didn't know any better, I would think that you're a budding game columnist for PC gamer or somesuch. A little reading (or talking with developers) outside this context might be helpful.

>Origin has been screwing things up for years. Ultima 8 was not a great game in any sense. Ultima Online has a complete lack of role playing (you might as well call Diablo an RPG). It's likely the problem is with Origin and not with 3D.

Specifically, Origin's choice to go 3D... both are intertwined. U9 could arguably have been a lot better without the focus on eyecandy. The game plays extremely well on a state of the art setup. Of course, the coding team probably wore themselves out working on the 3D element and keeping to a deadline, so no time for other aspects of the game.

>If they use the LithTech engine (very likely), then they are using an existing engine. This will save them overall time. Look at Torment, it surpasses Fallout in multiple areas. They took and early build of the infinity engine, tweaked it, and did their own artwork (no re-using >BGs like they did with IWD). In the end it took as long to create as Fallout (roughly 3 years).

Easier said than done... Remember that F1 used a basic 640x480, 256 colour display. Tweaking this to load 16 bit colour backdrops and sprites, and better artwork is relatively simple. Going 3D is another matter.

>They can take an existing engine (might as well choose 3D). Spend 3 years working on the game with a focus on content and story, and shouldn't have any problems releasing a polished game.

Easier said than done... certainly not impossible.

>Yes, but you have misconceptions and assumptions. Until you back up most of your reason for why 3D is bad, your post has little validity.

Assume and misconceive all you want. Try writing up your 3D fallout tribute game using and open source 3D engine such as Crystalspace. You may surprise us all (especially me)!
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

I believe Rosh was working on a MUCK, but last I heard it was delayed indefinitely.
 
RE: Fallout 3D or not 3D?????

<< Most censoring authorities find sexual content more offensive than violence. Look at how movies are rated! >>

I know, it's a bit odd. I wonder what it stems from. Likely religion, but I'm sure there are other factors that can be atributed to it as well.

<< That's a rather loose term... I suppose a woman winking at me from across a restaurant has some kind of sexual implcation as well... or when my PA touches me on the arm, or when my wife smiles at me... contrast this with the back of F2's box. >>

You mean this little bit:
Sex & Romance After The Bomb
Fall in love, get married, and then pimp your spouse for a little extra chump-change. Hey, it's a dark and dangerous world.

That seems more violent than sexual. To force someone into whoring seems pretty voilent to me. But, the game doesn't really show anything. It only implies the sexual situations. It's not like it's even graphic writing.

<< So this not an issue for any upcoming F3 release? Remember that profitability concerns would have dominated origin's decision to go 3D if we adopt your analysis. >>

No, given the release date of Ultima 9. It could've easily got away with being 2D. In 2-3 years (if not 5-6, or longer) 3D will be a bit more essential.

<< Why don't you prove that prove that 3D games sell better than 2D ones, and back it up with empirical evidence? >>

Well, action games sell very well. And, they're forced into being 3D. Simulation games pretty much come in 3D only as well. Even sports games are 3D. I'm not sure why football needs to be in 3D, there's really no advantage to it. RTS games are migrating in that direction (there must be something there for them, since many don't need 3D). Come to think of it, about every genre is either 3D or going that way. They can't all be taking advantage of what 3D offers. Is there some hidden meaning, or could it be...that 3D is becoming the standard, and companies don't want to develop sub-standard games. Now why wouldn't they want to do this, oh, I know...because sub-standard doesn't sell as well.

Just like anything that isn't main stream will have a drop in sales. Maybe the game will still be profitable, but it'll take somewhat of a hit never-the-less. Example: "What? You actually have to read more than a page in this RPG. And there's no multiplayer!? It's nothing like Baldur's Gate. I'm taking this Planescape: Torment crap back to the store."

<< A drastic oversimplification. I'm inclined do dismiss this with something like "get an degree in business, and then you'll know!" Save yourself four years and think it through. For starters, remember that time is money! >>

So companies should make games smaller and release more of them? Is that what you're saying? Obviously, there's an forumla for optimum production time to sales. You can only work so long on a project before it becomes unprofitable. On the otherside, if you don't work long enough, it's also unprofitable. Many games get delayed for 6 months to a year, and some come out when they were planned. So it is possible to release a game later than planned, and it still be profitable.

<< but great games are made by the development team, not by "suits" and the end-user. >>

So we have nothing to worry about. BIS is one of the greatest developers in the industry. They're up there with Bungie (it was sad to hear about their assimilation by Microsoft) and Blizzard. Maybe it has to do with it starting with a 'B'? If so, it could spell good things for Bioware. Back on topic. BIS seems to give the more hardcore role-players what they want (story & depth). I see no reason to go against them deciding 3D for any game. And, if it ends up piss poor...you can say, "I told you so."

<< Not impossible with 2D, and often not exploited in many 3D games. >>

Yeah, I think it's takes up more time and money to be worth it in most cases (whether 2d or 3d). It's, also, something I don't think we'd see in Fallout.

<< Only comes to the fore with a 3D FPS game. >>

No, this is something I think could be incorperated into Fallout.

<< Sprites can be prerendered and retouched from 3D models, reducing overhead on the client PC and allowing a far greater number of NPC "actors" to be on the screen at any given time. Admittedly not an issue with an FPS game. >>

Even sprites cause slow down. Try summoning 2 groups of skeletons in Baldur's Gate while a group of monsters are attacking. Talk about choppy.

They could always have a world of blocky people running around. They could call them Modrons. :)

<< Why not back up your own assessments with an "Expert Opinion" >>

Well, because, finding references is a bit harder than it looks. So I figured you could save me the trouble and completely prove me wrong.

<< If I didn't know any better, I would think that you're a budding game columnist for PC gamer or somesuch. >>

Wow, that's a major insult. PC Gamer indeed. As if I want games to go 3D. No, quite the contrary, I want it to stay 2D; but understand the need to go 3D.

<< A little reading (or talking with developers) outside this context might be helpful. >>

I have. Although, they seem to avoid the question as to whether 3D is quicker/easier when it comes to artwork. Although, they can give you any number of answer as to why go 3D. Once I even heard something like this, "To move beyond pushing pieces around on a board."

<< Specifically, Origin's choice to go 3D... both are intertwined. U9 could arguably have been a lot better without the focus on eyecandy. The game plays extremely well on a state of the art setup. Of course, the coding team probably wore themselves out working on the 3D element and keeping to a deadline, so no time for other aspects of the game. >>

And then they don't even support the game after it's released. Sounds to me like Ultima IX wasn't very important to them.

<< Easier said than done... Remember that F1 used a basic 640x480, 256 colour display. Tweaking this to load 16 bit colour backdrops and sprites, and better artwork is relatively simple. Going 3D is another matter. >>

Just curious, but why use the Fallout (1) engine? I can't imagine coding improved color being any more difficult than editing the Fallout Tactics engine. I also think the Fallout (1) engine is a bad idea. It has amazingly long load times. Which has to be something to do with the engine itself. Baldur's Gate and Planescape loaded like 10 times faster than Fallout 2 (using the same PC).

<< Try writing up your 3D fallout tribute game using and open source 3D engine such as Crystalspace. You may surprise us all (especially me)! >>

Is it free? I'm a bit on the poorer side (until January). If you'd like I could make you a text based Fallout game. I might even be able to code in some kind of piss poor multiplayer.

Skie
Oh and that gamesutra link didn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top