my wish list.

  • Thread starter Thread starter monkeypunch
  • Start date Start date
M

monkeypunch

Guest
i want lots of things, but most of all an editor.
the discussions about an editor at the arcanum inn have really got my greylump ticking. the abillity to make your own mods would be really nice.

aloso i would like to swap from t/b to realtime, have a z-index and as non-linear game as possible. arcanum gives me alot of this, but i still lack the z-index and 3dspirites.
 
I think he meant z-axis.(?) In other words, the illusion of 3D.

Skie
 
I disagree with everything monkeypunch said except about the editor. You basically want to turn FO3 into a baldurs gate? In my opinion, baldurs gate sucked. If they made those changes FO3 would be on 6 cds and who cares about having 3D graphics. I prefere the 2D Fallout graphics. It would be cool if there was more death animations, so when you shoot someone in the eyes, there whole side doesn't get blown off. I also thought you should be able to shoot people in the throat.
 
How did any of his suggestions make the game take 6 CDs? Also, the only BG-like suggestion was the ability to switch from turn-based to real-time. If it's done like Arcanum or FT:BOS, it would be quite a bit different than BG's psuedo-turn-base.

From what I've read on the dirty.org boards; 3d is inevitable. I don't think we'll see another 2d BIS game.

Skie
 
Thing I hate about 3D is the artwork takes a big hit. It's fine in a fastpaced game and can introduce some interesting effects but I'd rather have 2D for Fallout 3. Take a look at the difference in Panzer General II versus Panzer General 3d. PG3d is more of a challenge but among other things it's been heavily criticized in the eye candy department. I really hope they don't cave in and jump on the 3D bandwagon just because everyone else is doing it.
 
I think they're practically forced to go 3d. 3d's too big of a selling point to be ignored.
It's also likley that FO3 will only be single player. In 2-3 years, a single player game in 2d won't sell.

Arcanum & BG2 look to like they'll be the last of the 2d RPGs.

Skie
 
Hate to concede defeat, but you're probably right.
Still think it sucks but money seems to be the driving factor.

It'd be a great day to see a company stoop to the player instead of the dollar. Heres to wishin' and hopin'.
 
not necessarily

The reason why BG was so huge (among other things) is that all of the backgrounds were gigantic 2d bitmaps. Those take up a lot of space. By comparison, Fallout and Fallout 2 had tiles that were used over and over again, dramatically reducing the size of the art resources. 3d art is actually much smaller to store than a whole bunch of 2d sprites.

I understand hesitation about 3d graphics, but I hope that most people realize that all 2d graphics in Fallout 1 and 2 are actually just snapshots of 3d models. Granted, they are extremely high-poly models, but the fact is that they still start out as 3d images. It's only a matter of time before 3d engines and gaming machines are capable of rendering characters and environments that have the level of detail of the old 2d sprites. I've been watching Scott Warner working on the Washington Project demo (using Lithtech 2), and it really does look very nice. Even when you zoom in pretty close on characters, they still look nice. At the range at which most people are accustomed to playing (FO camera view), they look good.

Something you may be happy to hear -- Lith2 supports removal of limbs in the engine. Add a bloody particle effect and you have a whole bunch of great deaths waiting to happen.
 
RE: not necessarily

My trigger finger has been itching since i saw the removal of limbs bit,But wont it get a bit Monty-python`ish, there`s enough monty in fallout already with the easter eggs in FO2.

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