Top Down vs Isometric View [poll added]

[Redhawk]

Top down. This isn't Fallout or Final Fantasy Tactics. I'd be happy with same graphics.

[sync-oz]

I don't feel strongly about this, except that I think 3D first person might encourage the wrong sort of play style. I loved Fallout's (and other Black Isle RPG's) iso view. Although top-down could be neat too, Ultima/WL style. Can imagine I'd be happy with either or any other innovation as long as it doesn't turn into a shooter!

[cdoublejj]

I really have to say i'd like to see an isometric game.

[GibMonkey]

Okay so here is what I'm thinking. Stop me if I sound crazy. If it absolutely HAS to be top down is it possible we can a mode to switch between top down and first person ala Bard's Tale type of view? Once in Bard's Tale view all the awesome artwork could be in HiDef? So first person can be more RPGish and top down can be more of a strategic view maybe? Maybe first person view lets you find hidden switches (like eye of the beholder) with a skill with trap finding highlighting the button in that view maybe? Just throwing things out there.....

[cdoublejj]

yeah that sounds crazy. usually top down is rpg and first person is FPS. if it will be any thing like the gurps/special system i'm not even sure it will be in 3d in fact i'd like to see pre rendered hi res 2d isometric but, i'd settle for 3d isometric like in Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars.

anyways fallout 1 and 2 and other black isle games did have what you are talking about mainly just when you talked to people or cut scenes.

[Gizmo]

yeah that sounds crazy. usually top down is rpg and first person is FPS. if it will be any thing like the gurps/special system i'm not even sure it will be in 3d in fact i'd like to see pre rendered hi res 2d isometric but, i'd settle for 3d isometric like in Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars.

The Bard's Tale and many of Wasteland's contemporaries from SSI were first person exploration; SSI's Gold Box games were, and had top-down/ISO combat (that was turn based). TORN was [would have been] SPECIAL based, and that was 3d ISO/TPP.

I would like 3d rotatable ISO; and if the budget demanded, I would not have a problem straight 2D (Guantlet style or Fallout style); or with 2d sprites on a 3D landscape; MYTH 1 & 2 did this fantasically (and enemies in that game DID explode like blood sausages ~but in realtime).

Another game to look at (I think) is Disciples 2 ~not for direct combat mechanics, but It has a beautiful world map, 2d '3d rendered sprites', and NPC's that level up along side the Player's (multiple!) parties. In that game you can retreat, but have to fight to win, because you can cause a nearly defeated enemy party to level up, and then greatly outmatch you ~or they could do that on their own by picking off easy enemies, then take you on. I would love 'aspects' of that game's scope worked into Wasteland2's own (unique, yet series appropriate) design.

In Fact, the more I think about it, the more appropriate parts of D2's established design appear to be (IMO)... You CAN aquire cities and put money into them and improve them and defend them; and the AI may try to fight you for them.You routinely have one party about to fight you and another just behind them about to pounce on the weakened PC's... And It's also made on the CHEAP; Does anyone who knows the game disagree with me? (To be clear, I am not suggesting that Wasteland 2 be a Disciples 2 clone set in the 80's Post Apocalypse. Only that it be learned from, and to see how it handles and represents certain aspects and situations. There are conceptual similarities under the hood between these games.)

[cdoublejj]

i don't about beefing uo the cities but, i could see defending them in a few missions.

as far as 3d that immediately ups the system requirements and i just saw a thread aksing/requesting the game be playable on main stream pcs and in order to that and have 3d it will look like shit which is another thing if they go 3d i don't want it look like shit it should be done properly with with high quality character models and items/objects.

C&C 3 did an okay job i guess it could looked at for a 3d isometric example but, in order to get as good as gfx as pre rendered like fallout tactics you'r gonna need some serious beef cake hardware like REAL gfx card and a GOOD real gfx card like a hd5870 or better to render that many polys in real time.

[smurfinaus]

isometric pls

[urgrue]

Leave things to the imagination. Top-down is ideal on a tight budget, though isometric like Eschalon is ok. Isometric like Baldurs Gate means a whole new level of budget that I doubt kickstarter will provide.

[Gizmo]

i don't about beefing uo the cities but, i could see defending them in a few missions.

as far as 3d that immediately ups the system requirements and i just saw a thread aksing/requesting the game be playable on main stream pcs and in order to that and have 3d it will look like shit which is another thing if they go 3d i don't want it look like shit it should be done properly with with high quality character models and items/objects.

I dunno... Dungeonkeeper did pretty well with no 3d card. Dawn of War was 3D, but was fixed ISO/3d (unless you changed the settings) and it looked great; it could have been done with rendered sprites. High poly models don't really matter if the general interface puts the player at 90' from the PC's ~I mean Fallout was rendered 3d sprites, and Pool of Radiance 2, and Temple of Elemental Evil were both realtime 3d figures on a 2D background. These games had trivial system requirements, and would be easily handled by most integrated video these days.

[RansomIblis]

I would go for an isometric view, similar to that of Van Buren's tech demo. isometric/3d/rotatable

I thought that I read in one of the interviews that they weren't interested in 3D as it would be too expensive...

[jabu]

I would go for an isometric view, similar to that of Van Buren's tech demo. isometric/3d/rotatable

I thought that I read in one of the interviews that they weren't interested in 3D as it would be too expensive...

I'd be surprised if modern full scale development was actually cheaper with 2D assets than 3D on a project of this magnitude.

[cdoublejj]

i don't about beefing uo the cities but, i could see defending them in a few missions.

as far as 3d that immediately ups the system requirements and i just saw a thread aksing/requesting the game be playable on main stream pcs and in order to that and have 3d it will look like shit which is another thing if they go 3d i don't want it look like shit it should be done properly with with high quality character models and items/objects.

I dunno... Dungeonkeeper did pretty well with no 3d card. Dawn of War was 3D, but was fixed ISO/3d (unless you changed the settings) and it looked great; it could have been done with rendered sprites. High poly models don't really matter if the general interface puts the player at 90' from the PC's ~I mean Fallout was rendered 3d sprites, and Pool of Radiance 2, and Temple of Elemental Evil were both realtime 3d figures on a 2D background. These games had trivial system requirements, and would be easily handled by most integrated video these days.

fallout 1 and 2 were all pure 2d they made 3d models in light wave and the program took screen with the models all fully light with a lighting system and it was all converted down frame by frame in to 2d sprites.

I would go for an isometric view, similar to that of Van Buren's tech demo. isometric/3d/rotatable

I thought that I read in one of the interviews that they weren't interested in 3D as it would be too expensive...

I'd be surprised if modern full scale development was actually cheaper with 2D assets than 3D on a project of this magnitude.

I can believe this cause you have to go through extra steps to render it in to 2d

just so long as it has nice textures and decent polys it should look okay.

I've done some 3d modeling before









Nothing amazing but, it is leaps and bounds better than scene it replaced.

I can mention one or what used to be one good positive for 2d, it takes up less space. that model takes about 10 minute to load even on a beef cake machine it also a whopping 15megs. how ever with full 1080p monitors and the 2d resolution would need be pretty decent depending on how it's done or how many full screen gfx are need it could take up space but, being isometric i would imagine most of the scenes would be made out of a lot of smaller gfx except for cut scenes.

Infact now that i think about thats why fallout 1 and 2 had those nifty bare components wire handing out user interfaces, the talking heads didn't have to be very big a mere 100-200ish resolution and the rest of the screen was filled up with wire and Vacuum tubes.

actually even on big monitor they still should be able to save space and have ridiculously low system requirements. with pre rendered you can have ginormous amounts of polys and texture resolution and bake it all down to a sprite weighing in from a few kb to a few hundred kb.

However hardware is always advancing and getting cheaper i'm sure they could pull something off like star craft 2 that is 3d isometric and looks damn fine on high setting and not too shaby on low settings.

[Gizmo]

fallout 1 and 2 were all pure 2d they made 3d models in light wave and the program took screen with the models all fully light with a lighting system and it was all converted down frame by frame in to 2d sprites.

I know.

(The Talking Heads too... Only they were first Clay sculptures, and mapped with a 3d Stylus.)

[Crooked Bee]

Please don't make this isometric. I want Wasteland 2, not another Fallout. In fact, whether W2 is going to be top down or not is going to be pretty close to a deal breaker to me.

[Gizmo]

Please don't make this isometric. I want Wasteland 2, not another Fallout. In fact, whether W2 is going to be top down or not is going to be pretty close to a deal breaker to me.

Wasteland was designed for an early IBM, Apple 2 and Commodore 64. I don't mind any improvements so long as the contribute towards the concept.

Looking at Wasteland you'll notice that none of the map icons for creatures (or the ranger party) was drawn from the top; (drawn the way the art for 'Gauntlet' was for example). If anything the display looks like a Fallout/ Baldur's Gate style, made for the restrictions of an IBM AT DOS PC.

(Personally) I don't have an issue with them designing it as 'Isometric', so long as it still feels like the Wasteland franchise.

[Crooked Bee]

Wasteland was designed for an early IBM, Apple 2 and Commodore 64. I don't mind any improvements so long as the contribute towards the concept.

Looking at Wasteland you'll notice that none of the map icons for creatures (or the ranger party) was drawn from the top; (drawn the way the art for 'Gauntlet' was for example). If anything the display looks like a Fallout/ Baldur's Gate style, made for the restrictions of an IBM AT DOS PC.

Naturally, I'm aware the icons weren't "really" top down. When I said "top down", I implied precisely the kind of style Wasteland used (as well as 2400 A.D., Ultima IV, Escape from Hell, Deathlord, etc.), nevermind that it wasn't 100% top down, literally. It's still usually called top down for lack of a better word.

That said, I'm extremely suspicious of the "technical limitations" kind of argument. After all, it's the same argument people tend to use when saying things like "older games only were turn-based due to technical limitations" or "Fallout always wanted to be a first person shooter" or some such.

To me, it doesn't matter if those were just technical limitations. What matters is that there was this highly distinctive "top-down" style of CRPGs back then, and I want Wasteland 2 to follow that style (with updated graphics and interface, naturally). My point is, even if it was due to technical limitations of the platform(s), the resulting style was unique and one that I love a whole lot. That's why I want the sequel to inherit it, and it just won't be a true sequel to me without it -- a "re-imagining" at best.

[Brother None]

I dunno, Bee. Can you even justify a $1M budget with top-down graphics? The thing is, top-down has always been a bit limited in what you can aesthetically, that's why Wasteland does so much with animated portraits and slanting the look of objects.

Assuming it's 3D, why not allow some camera flexibility? I think the best RPGs of the late 80s/early 90s, like Realms of Arkania, worked with different cameras for different situations.

[SniperHF]

Assuming it's 3D, why not allow some camera flexibility? I think the best RPGs of the late 80s/early 90s, like Realms of Arkania, worked with different cameras for different situations.

If there is Camera flexibility, I would like it to have the option of being fixed. Maybe adjustments in the height or perspective, but keep it locked in place unless you either hit a key or menu option. That way you don't have to keep playing with it when you move the mouse.

Or perhaps a set of 2 or 3, well developed and tested perspectives as opposed to a freely adjustable camera. I think I like this idea best.

Doesn't a lot of this depend on the engine selection though? I assume iNxile won't be developing a custom engine as I think that would add more time/cost.

[Crooked Bee]

I dunno, Bee. Can you even justify a $1M budget with top-down graphics?

I dunno, I've no idea about the costs involved, but theoretically, why not? In that case, more money could go to more important things, like fleshing out the locations, the skill use, multiple quest solutions, choices and consequences, NPCs, skill and attribute checks, encounter design, etc.

The thing is, top-down has always been a bit limited in what you can aesthetically, that's why Wasteland does so much with animated portraits and slanting the look of objects.

Well, as I said, it is a strong aesthetic preference to me. I love this kind of top down view and I believe one could build on it in fresh ways without giving up on it. Plus I love animated portraits and would want them to be in the sequel too.

Again, Fallout 2 followed the way Fallout 1 looked; Realms of Arkania 2 followed the way RoA 1 looked, etc., and for the best. I just want Wasteland 2 to be Wasteland 2, and not simply another, even if solid, post-apoc game "because the times have changed and technology has moved on and in fact Wasteland always wanted to be isometric", or some bullshit like that.

Sure, that may be just my opinion, the opinion of a minority, and it doesn't matter given that the majority wants the game to be switched to isometric. If that is true, however, then it reminds me a whole lot of the way other franchises were "re-imagined", and I hate that kind of thing. Why should Fargo cater to all these Fallout fans who probably haven't even played the original Wasteland?! If I wanted the kind of game "the majority" would make, I wouldn't even care for this whole Wasteland 2 Kickstarter thing.

(As for the mixed camera, I guess I'd be okay with combat not being top down, but I definitely want the exploration to remain top down like in the original Wasteland. Again, that's just me, who cares about me, I'm just living in the past, the industry has moved on, etc.)