suz wrote:Unfortunately camera controls need to be done in the engine, otherwise there's almost no chance to get rotation.
I hope the team changes their minds on fixed point camera only and provides an option for moving it, even if stating that's not the optimal game experience.
Provided characters are 3D models and a well known format I wouldn't worry about model quality.
One of the first things that comes out these days is mesh, skeleton and texture mods for characters and animation mods shortly after, if your PC can handle high poly you will likely have high poly models soon after release.
<snip 3D computer imagery jargon>
See, this is what convinces me that static 2D is better: No worry about polygons or camera angles. The concept artist can design the art! The only visual advantage I see to so-called 3D is to allow the player to direct part of the visuals, but IMO the tradeoff is not worth it. I'd much prefer a well crafted scene illustrated from the POV of the artists than a 3D model that lets me change the angle.
Is it possible that it's cheaper to use
real 3D models than to build convincing 3D
computer models? Every single one of those 3D engines looks fake to me. It's
not 3D unless it has parallax or motion capture; it's just fakey movie 3D.
I hope I'm pointing out the obvious, that hand drawn artwork is capable of looking
more convincing than computer drawn 3D environments (despite every modern technological advance). But unlike Wasteland's time, static 2D computer images can be just about equal to hand drawn artwork quality today.
I am visualizing something that the unnecessary 3D engine computing power would be more useful for: random and procedurally
generated static 2D visuals.
With a
random 2D visuals generator the picture you get in any scene can be varied like a deck of cards, with so many different permutations that no one will ever see every version of the 2D image. You "roll the dice" and the next picture of action is generated; the visual variations simulate your character's ability or blind chance, i.e. the pictures
are the dice.
With
procedurally generated 2D visuals, stories can play out in a comics-style slideshow, like the battles from Wasteland, action by action. Your character's picture (portrait) changes depending on a roll of the dice (a permutation of the battle) and he/she carries those changes through the game. Your characters gain scars as well as abilities; their clothes and armor and weapons become more customized over time; each change is part of the story of your individual party.
I imagine that some portion of your characters' attitude, dialogue, and personality can likewise be procedurally generated. The player or players
direct the action, and the characters respond to the environment and the environment responds to the characters in a natural way that's not scripted. It's emergent behavior generated by your playthrough.
Just as the 2D imagery can play out procedurally, the POV can be procedurally generated too; it doesn't need to be fixed or scripted. The content of the game that would be taken up by the massive realtime 3D computer models' engine can be traded for a multi-level library of permutations of 2D hand drawn artwork.
The game can look as good as the concept art that you see on the box covers!That's just the imagery; the interface can also be improved with more features. With more artistic freedom, our game doesn't need to be limited by the models we are stuck with; it's only limited by the imagination of the authors. I believe this is possible because I see it as a modern, updated version of Wasteland's format. Wasteland is my proof of concept.
; just illustrating the point.
