arcanum 2's graphics

should arcanum 2 be in 3d or in 2d?

 

3D would be nice, but I think I'd much rather have a detailed and interactive 2D environment, than a blocky, polygonised 3D envirnoment that lacks detail and thus options. Using a 2D environment, you can add so much more to the environment, that it would far outstrip any graphical benefits, in terms of game play.

 

God won't sombody please save us from 3D. Why does the game industruy think everything has to "go" 3D to sell. Its great for first person shooters but not for detailed RPGs like Arcanum. 3D ruined the last Ultima game! But that's just my Opinion.

 

Actually, I wouldn't mind if Arcanum graphics remained the same. I like what I see. Maybe some weapons designes could be better and the dangeons could have less straight lines and squares...

 

Actually, I wouldn't mind something along the lines of Dungeon Siege, but that's only provided that they can give decent performance on most computers, instead of only the best available, and that they can maintain a high level of detail.

 

Something that might be nice for 3D would be being able to jump on roofs or use cover more effectively. I know using a 3D engine would either make the graphics suck or have them take 4 years to make the graphics good enough for people not to whine about it. Overall I say stick to 2D but 3D would be a change.

 

maybe it should stick to 2D...i mean,3D isn't necessarly an improvement,and i think i wouldn't stand such a change...

 

command & conquer was ruined by 3D... :dead:

 

Huh? What 3D did Command and Conquer ever use?!?! If you're talking about Renegade, then it wasn't really a C&C game. It was simply a rubbish 3D shooter, arbitarily set in the C&C universe, although it wasn't set very well.

Non of the C&C games proper, have ever used any 3D, except for maybe the movie cutscenes in the later games, but that doesn't really count.

 

i know renegade wasn't really a c&c episode,but it had the name... :sad: i hope it won't happen the same thing with c&c generals,even though it should have a different structure from renegade...

 

Warcraft III went to 3D. I haven't bought it because I don't care for the graphics on the box.

Arcanum II can use the same basic graphics it uses now. Sure, they should try to make it better. Add more varity. Maybe have more than 3 or 4 suit and dress options. If someone is wearing a top hat, their charactor should desplay with a top hat.

And please please please, get rid of the duck billed look for plate. A dwarf wearing plate looks ridiculous.

The tailor shops are pretty useless, but if you could go in an design your own suit or dress that would be cool. Of course the only reason to do that would be if you need to wear a suit to effectivly interact in town. "I'm sorry sir but you will have to dress properly if you would like to get in to see the Mayor!"

 

They prefer 3D because 3D is superior in every conceivable way, especially from a development standpoint. The problem with 3D is that it is too readily being sold as a "feature" instead of just being part of the game. The unfortunate thing is that a fancy engine seems to be more important these days than content or detail. Add all of that to the fact that these days everyone and their monkey has a GeForce or Radeon the requirements aren’t too bad to hit, provided you make the graphics scalable, something that can only be done with a 3D engine. If you want detail and interactivity, plus an engrossing environment a 2D game would take years upon years of development and art, especially art, and some art, plus a little more art. I suppose I sort of agree with you though, 3D needs to just fade into the background and just be “the way things are done� so games can get back to being about content and interface (can anyone forget Ultima 9? *gag*).

P.S. does everyone remember the voice acting in U9? That could have ruined any game.

 

Um... no. 2D means you can see more of the screen at any given time, and thus makes it easier to absorb atmosphere. It also means they don't have to render things ridiculously far away just because your character's pointed in that direction. Finally, it Saves Us From the Nightmare of Polygons.

 

Why not just have an option of 2D or 3D in-game?
That way, it would satisfy all!

 

I don't think the art work is more in 2D than 3D. I don't want to spend hours walking across Arcanum afterall. I just wan't the towns and people to come alive with detail. Be richly detailed. Everything in 3D looks like it is just painted on the polygons. Look at Age of Mythology for example. Good execution of 3D but the food in the carts look like they are just painted on top of the 3D cart in 2D. Why, because they are. The same thing in a 2D game looks like it is 3D because of the perspective of the art work.

Just make the towns, people, magick, tech, and speical effects look great.

 

Arcanum's detail is ghastly, all of the villagers are identical it's inbreeding at its finest. As for painted polygons, it's better than a world where there are only six different people, and their clones. If you've ever hand-painted backgrounds, you know how laborious a 2D game is. Never mind 2D character art, in the same amount of time it takes to make a terrible 2D player model (like Arcanum) you can make an impressive, smoothly animated radically detailed player model (like NWN). I have to be honest though and say that a genuine 2D background is a wondrous thing, but a rare thing, most are tiles so you have a world made up of a few different objects stuck together over and over again, very repetitive, Fallout Tactics is an extreme example of tiles gone horribly wrong. For a company like Troika, the best option for a 3D game is to licence an engine like Aurora or UT2 and build a game that has an actual plot with it. The animation in Arcanum was five years behind it’s time and that really put the kids off what is one of the best games I have ever played, Neverwinter Nights has virtually no plot (which it was never supposed to have) and a spiffy 3D engine, the kids dig it so it sells, even though most of the people buying the game are missing the point of its release. NWN is an engine for other people to build games on, but most of the people who bought it have never done anything with that lovely toolset. All we can hope is that some of those millions of NWN owners gravitate to a far more “hardcore� RPG genre.

Don’t get me wrong though, the basis of the art in Arcanum is stunning, but the sheer amount of character art it takes to smoothly animate a 2D model hurts a game, particularly when there is a company braying at the front door to hurry up and publish the game. While I’m sure you’d all love to see a 2D game with the limitless world of a Morrowind, or the limitless possibilities of a NWN, the bottom line is that a small company like Troika can ill-afford to spend ten years developing a game that was old before it started.

By the way, how many units did Arcanum move anyway?

 

Phisch, let's not confuse a weakness of two dimensional graphics with a lack of graphical depth. The point is, 2D is capable of a much more immersive game, assuming the art department puts the time in to make it effective.

 

i think the more time they'll spend on the 3d engine, the less they'll have to dedicate to other parts...

 

Has anyone ever played the game Albion? It wasn't done very well in that game, but one thing that may work well is that you could use 2D isometric for the world, and a 3D first-person for the towns and dungeons.

That way, you could wander around using top-down so you could see where you were going, but when you entered a town or dungeon, you would use 3D 1st person to get more of a 'realistic' feel to the game.

 

3D first-person view never fails to aggravate my motion sickness. Nothing like running away from a battle (or a shopkeeper...) because you need to upchuck your breakfast. :grin: