Fallout: New Vegas - Review Flood #1

bemushroomed said:

Wasn't trolling, it was a serious post, i wanted to know why they hated 3D so much and if they really could argue for their idiocy, and they couldnt. Trolling would be saying something you don't really stand for, or staight out lying, just to get a reaction. I didnt do any name calling or other trolling atempts to get them mad, just spoke my opinion.

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that no one there could argue 2D over 3D. No one made any valid arguments? I could make an argument for 2D over 3D in my sleep and I'm not even as dedicated as they are.

I'm assuming that by 2D you also mean turn-based because they go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned. The simplest argument being that in 2D you can think about your next move. A little more complicated answer would be that in 2D you are actually using the characters skills to accomplish tasks versus your own twitch reflexes.

There is your argument for 2d vs 3d. I have no problem playing in 2D or 3D (or playing in TRUE 3D) and think they both can be equally fun. I would have preferred a TB Fallout 3, but what I got was a lot of fun as well…….except for the plot and brain dead NPCs. (I always have to mention that)

So now that you have your argument can we stop bashing other forums. I've got nothing but respect for those guys over there. They're one dedicated bunch of fans who are devoted to one particular game setting almost like Wesp's devotion to Bloodlines.

No wasnt even taking turn based into consideration, was stictly talking graphics and the restrictions of 2D - engine wise.

Anything that is made in 2D can be made in 3D too, only better. You could make diving into water and climbing/jumping work in isometric 2D i guess, but wow would it suck compared to how its done with a 3D engine. Arguments such as "well so what, we dont need climbing" or "we don't need diving in FO!"are very weak arguments.

That's just 2 things that is far superior in 3D, i could continue forever, and i did, well until they banned me.

I lost all my respect to those people, dedicated or not, they're mostly just a bunch of sad haters. And yeah they could argue for a short while, until they realized how wrong they were and instead started calling me names and then banning me.

Ughh…enough already. You have your opinion and they have theirs, let's leave it at that.

Now, if you want to bash me that is totally acceptable because I think you're nuts.

You're not taking gameplay into consideration and you absolutely have to when comparing the two. You can't have a good TB game in 3D. It just isn't the same.

Take my namesake for example, Skaven. I have a huge army of Skaven. There is no possible way to make a computer game as good as TT Warhammer Fantasy Battle in 3D with such a large army. It just can't be done because I have to see the whole battlefield to know what tactics I want to use.

A realtime 3D game is great, but it has to be realtime or some quasi mixture of TB and realtime. For certain games 3D is better, for others TB is better. If they had made Fallout 3 TB then it would have been a totally different kind of game. Different being the keyword in that sentence. Neither one is better than the other, imo because I play both kinds of games and enjoy them for entirely different reasons.

Ok Bemushroomed, if you want to bash me then make a new thread titled something along the lines of "Skavenhorde is wrong", but let's not derail this thread too much. It's just easier to make another thread.

3D is certainly more versatile than 2D, but 2D art can invoke a certain atmosphere that 3D probably cannot. Turn-based - real time, 3rd person - top down are just game design decisions and nothing to do with 2D/3D, tho some of those aren't really possible in 2D.

Just got a message that my New Vegas has been posted, should arrive tomorrow or on friday, can't wait.

skavenhorde, you can't say "enough already!" but at the same time continue the rest of the post with arguments.. you do understand that?

you can have enormous armies in 3D, with excellent view, i think the total war series proves that. There are absolutely no restrictions when it comes to view in 3D, you could view it in isometric, then swich to first person to see more detail of characters, see in great detail their armor, their facial expression or whatever.. That wouldnt even be possible in 2D.

That there arent any good 3D turn based RPG games such as FO1-2 doesnt prove much, it only proves it kind of died out, sadly (not that it has ever been a very big genre..). It has nothing to do with 3D or that it wouldnt be possible in 3D.

There are no restrictions when it comes to the art work either. In the begining it certainly was for 3D, because of how low polygons worlds looks way worse than a 2D game without any such restrictions. Also, lightning / shadows etc will always look and act more natural in 3D since it's not static there.

Nathanyl said:

I had one BSD that rebooted the computer but nothing since. Fun game so far.

Click to expand...

BSD ? http://www.bsd.org/

bemushroomed said:

skavenhorde, you can have enormous armies in 3D, with excellent view, i think the total war series proves that. There are absolutely no restrictions when it comes to view in 3D, you could view it in isometric, then swich to first person to see more detail of characters, see in great detail their armor, their facial expression or whatever.. That wouldnt even be possible in 2D.

That there arent any good 3D turn based RPG games such as FO1-2 doesnt prove much, it only proves it kind of died out, sadly (not that it has ever been a very big genre..). It has nothing to do with 3D or that it wouldnt be possible in 3D. But yeah, it's probably not the thread..

There are no restrictions when it comes to the art work either. In the begining it certainly was for 3D, because of how low polygons worlds looks way worse than a 2D game without any such restrictions.

Click to expand...

True enough, although I hate Total War I was stuck in the perception that 3D had to mean First Person Point of View, but your right. I do love King Arthur and that is totally in 3D.

Alright, you're not as nuts as I thought Just my poor comprehension skills. I automatically assumed it was a Fallout 3 First Person Point of view debate vs 2D.

Still love Gold box games, Baldur's Gate and Fallout's. If they were in 3D it wouldn't change my opinion of them.

The biggest argument anyone could make with 3D vs 2D is Elemental vs MOM. MOM kicks Elemental's butt from here to Mars in the graphics department even though it's so old. Elemental is just drawn so badly it isn't even funny. I was ok with it at first, but it became more horrible the more I played. But that really is just an argument over art style not 2D vs 3D.

So I give. You win. The only advantage I can think of for 2D is that it's easier to make 2D games and therefore faster/cheaper. Maybe more devs could be a little more innovative if they made 2D games instead of 3D.

I'd say 2D is a much easier entry into making games, which is why I use that kind of art myself - for my own project.

However, I also suspect that once the 3D hurdle is overcome - it would be even easier to most people.

I just can't handle learning about 3D modelling and animation (not to mention the dreaded vector graphics math), when doing all the other crap that I have to do myself.

I wish I could just design the thing and throw it into a game-maker machine

There is another advantage: Hand painted backgrounds, such as the ones used in Baldur's Gate. This leads to better aging - 3D games age horribly compared to 2D games, just dig up a 3D game from the late 90s and compare it to Baldur's Gate; they look aweful!

skavenhorde, it's certainly not cheaper to make 2D games. Even the really small and independent game devs that often get their games reviewed here makes their games in 3D because of that. It's cheap and it's also much easier and faster than making 2D art which really requires great skills. Even a person without much knowledge about art at all can make a decent looking 3D game, but for him to make a decent looking 2D game alone, next to impossible.

Maylander, i agree, in the begining it certainly was like that, it'll even out though, 3D games are starting to look better and better.. 2D games where you can't push up the resolution ages horribly…

DArtagnan said:

I wish I could just design the thing and throw it into a game-maker machine

Click to expand...

They might have that one day. A long time ago when dinosaurs roamed the Earth there was a game called, Adventure Construction Set. You could make your own games using that and it wasn't that difficult.

Then Forgotten Realms took a stab at it with, Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures. An engine so powerful that even today people are making campaigns with it.

Then of course you have RPG Maker. A powerful engine if you like making JRPGs. I don't, but a few people have made some games on it that people seem to love.

bemushroomed said:

skavenhorde, it's certainly not cheaper to make 2D games. Even the really small and independent game devs that often get their games reviewed here makes their games in 3D because of that.

Click to expand...

Avernum, Eschalon, Geneforge, Armageddon Empires, Solium Infernum, Knights of the Chalice, almost all JRPGs that are on Rampant's homepage, Empires and Dungeons and Fast Crawl. Let's throw some freeware into the mix, Alien Assault and Hero Quest. All 2D and I'm not even mentioning rogues, but could you imagine a game as complex as Dwarf Fortress being made in any reasonable amount of time if it had 3D graphics?

The thing is your trying to convince me one is better than the other and that's just not going to happen. I like both. It's probably due to the fact that I grew up on 2D and have no problem using my imagination to fill in the blanks.

you have Bethesda's game engines, you can make a completely new game with it (like Nehrim), it's extremely easy to use too.. scripting is like programming though, it does require a lot of reading and troubleshooting.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/ this is a really cool free engine, it has a big library of old style 2D adventures (many as good as the old commercial games + a few remakes of old adventure games, such as King's Quest) and a few RPG games too i believe..

skavenhorde said:

They might have that one day. A long time ago when dinosaurs roamed the Earth there was a game called, Adventure Construction Set. You could make your own games using that and it wasn't that difficult.

Then Forgotten Realms took a stab at it with, Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures. An engine so powerful that even today people are making campaigns with it.

Then of course you have RPG Maker. A powerful engine if you like making JRPGs. I don't, but a few people have made some games on it that people seem to love.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of all of those, but the first two suffered from rigid underpinning, as in you had to make games for the limited engines used.

I've heard about rpgmaker - but I'm probably too set-in-my-ways to use something like that. Otherwise, I'd just use NWN or something, to make mods.

Nah, I'm looking to make something from the ground-up - where I'm in full control.

I've looked at the Unity 3D engine/toolset - but it looks like too much work to get into it.

I'm relatively comfortable creating 2D art - in terms of interface/static objects, and I'm doing quite well with XNA/C# for the actual code. My primary challenge is getting animated art at the level I require (being a perfectionist) - and then of course, the time and energy needed to complete a project of this scale. I might never finish it

bemushroomed said:

you have Bethesda's game engines, you can make a completely new game with it (like Nehrim), it's extremely easy to use too.. scripting is like programming though, it does require a lot of reading and troubleshooting.

Click to expand...

Making something like Nehrim is completely out of the question for a single amateur developer like myself - and I despise the Oblivion engine! I can't enjoy Nehrim for this reason.

I have to limit myself to simplistic graphics and a simple custom-made engine, so I can focus on my strengths - which would be game design. That's what I tell myself, anyway.

Building a 3D world with my skill-set - would be like asking my mother to design an airplane

Have you looked into AGS that i mentioned? I've done some simple things in it, it was easy enough + i got a very nostalgic rush out of it too if you can program your own engine i bet you can make 3D worlds which is all about design and having a little common sense..

bemushroomed said:

you have Bethesda's game engines, you can make a completely new game with it (like Nehrim), it's extremely easy to use too.. scripting is like programming though, it does require a lot of reading and troubleshooting.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/ this is a really cool free engine, it has a big library of old style 2D adventures (many as good as the old commercial games + a few remakes of old adventure games, such as King's Quest) and a few RPG games too i believe..

Click to expand...

You're right. I didn't even take into consideration the other construction sets out there. I'm mostly familiar with the old ones and NWN.....can't believe I forgot that one

I had totally forgotten about AGS. Thanks for the reminder that I need to check their website from time to time

bemushroomed said:

Have you looked into AGS that i mentioned? I've done some simple things in it, it was easy enough + i got a very nostalgic rush out of it too if you can program your own engine i bet you can make 3D worlds which is all about design and having a little common sense..

Click to expand...

I looked at the webpage - and it doesn't look like it does much - and I'd still need to create all the art.

I believe in playing to your strengths, which is why I think 9 out 10 indie games are crap - because they bite over too much. The Spiderweb games, for instance, are simply too ugly for me. One of the few indie games that I think works "well enough" is Eschalon, and it's that level I'm aiming for.

I can create static 2D art at a level I'm personally satisfied with. I've succeeded in making a functional (yet currently VERY simple) step-by-step engine ala Dungeon Master, and I can use Photoshop to make the dungeons look pretty good. That's my main project, but as I said - the strong point will be the actual design.

I'm also considering creating a MoM-like game, because that kind of tilebased engine is another thing I could do alone, and make it look pretty good.

Creating worlds as such, would never work for me - because I'm most definitely not an art dude. They would look like crap and distract from the actual game.

You don't need to be a "art dude" to create good looking 3D worlds, you do need to be an art dude if you're gonna create something nice in 2D though. I've done everyhing in these pics (not the water though, or the rocks, the rocks i could easily make much better though.)

http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/images/35080-1-1286633508.jpg
http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/images/35080-2-1286633509.jpg

could i do the same in 2D? lol. not a chance in hell i could. 3d modelling isnt really that hard and for 3D engines you often dont even need to do the art, you often have all the resources or can download mod packs with the resources you need if you cant do 3D modelling..

bemushroomed said:

You don't need to be a "art dude" to create good looking 3D worlds, you do need to be an art dude if you're gonna create something nice in 2D though. I've done everyhing in these pics (not the water though, or the rocks, the rocks i could easily make much better though.)

http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/images/35080-1-1286633508.jpg
http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/images/35080-2-1286633509.jpg

could i do the same in 2D? lol. not a chance in hell i could. 3d modelling isnt really that hard.

Click to expand...

I think you miss something pretty vital.

You care about 3D, and you have experience with 3D.

I'm not an art dude - but I have a lot of experience creating static 2D art. I've spent years learning Photoshop and creating a specific kind of art, and I really have no desire to start all over, learning about texturing and modelling.

I'm not saying it's "hard" - but there must be a reason not everyone can sit down and create stuff at your level.

You're good at it, so face it

That said, you're welcome to create 3D art for my game - as long as you can accept it being implemented in a non-3D engine. Unless, of course, you also want to create the actual engine - so I can focus on what I'm actually good at

Haha, but seriously, I've tried learning about 3D a few times, and I have some experience with 3D Studio. But it's been years, and the last time I tried a trial version of some 3D rendering application, it was WAY above my head.

But it would be ideal for the dungeon wall sections, and weapon art - and many other things.

It's just that I have to design the game, code the game, make art for the game, make sound for the game, write the story, and all kinds of other crap - and I have to stop somewhere. It's hard enough getting anywhere as it is

yeah, i'll i'm saying is that it's not impossible to create decent looking 3D worlds without knowing that much about art. But i guess you're right that its mostly about what you care about and have a little knowledge about.

If i have one suggestion for you when it comes to game art, make sure you have a very coherent style, that often looks good no matter if you could replace a so-so looking wall or tree with a awesome looking one made in a different art style, maybe from a 3D program or whatever. You probably know it already, but sometimes you see that in games, it looks terrible.