Top Down vs Isometric View [poll added]

[Leona]

iso i would say.

Diablo 3 looks amazing in 3d ... everything is in the art direction.


http://www.planetdiablo.com/images/imag ... nyhill.jpg

I second diablo 3 is amazing (never liked 1&2 because of their art style). Also there was is a lot of crappy 2d isometric games as well back in the days. It's all about art style. Fallout has best art style up to date.
I think it should be 3d stylized to isometric 2d locked view with no option to rotate camera. It will keep costs down and will give us room for imagination. It will be better for a game full of consequences and moral choices.

[Vryheid]

I hope they'll get some sort of 3D engine so that everyone can set their own perspective as they wish. AoD looks mighty fine with Torque: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/media.htm

Generally I find that 3d doesn't age well.
The 2d games of the nineties still look great or passable, whilst the 3d games of 98 or the start of the millenium looks very bad now, low polygonal models and low res textures, not a lot of attention to detail and blocky environments.
I would hope that this would end up becoming a classic rpg that would retain it's good looks throughout the ages, like the earlier classics.
Add to that the fact that 3d models up the cost of development by a fair amount.

By that same argument I could say that 2D games don't age well because sprites from the 80s and early 90s look crude compared the games we have today. The reason anyone sees sprite based design differently is because the impact of artistic design surpassed that of technological innovation back in the late 90s, whereas this same peak was reached with 3D games around 2005. Landmark 3D titles from that era such as Metal Gear Solid 3 still look fantastic today, and after around 2007 it became near impossible to tell what year modern 3D games came from because they all looked so amazingly realistic.

The Core level in Crysis is an excellent example of how 3D can be used to create an atmosphere as powerful as any 2D game:



The level was a surreal, hair raising experience back in 2007 and it still hasn't lost it's impact today. I'm convinced that a decade from now, we're still going to look back at these graphics as impressive. That's what differentiates it from 3D titles from the late 90s.

[Licaon_Kter]

The actual 3D portion of the screenshot looks fine. The UI and portraits (the 2D portions) are pretty terrible. So good artists can make a game look good, and bad artists make a game look terrible. Who would have guessed?

+1 exactly

Some other games that I still like ( wait a minute isn't this actually nostalgia kicking in and blinding me or... noooo it's not.. beauty is objective right? )... ok ... Max Payne 1 & Return to Castle Wolfenstein are 2 of my favourites that i can still play and don't feel dated, actually they feel great because the art, gameplay & atmosphere are great, even if the 3D engine stuff is 2001 level blocky.

[Citronvand]

I still prefer isometric view in 2D... I understand if some want it to be 3D, but I just have never felt them to be as mutch in their feeling as good old isometric 2D games. Really really hope that style is brought back here.

And I agree that I don't care about graphics as mutch as the story and what you can do in the envirment etc, so I rather put money on it than the graphics.

Agreed, and while the 3D screenshot was fine I think the screenshot of Fallout (2D) was much better. Fallout Tactics look even better:



I think 2D is much cleaner which makes it easier to see what is going on. I think this is especially important in a tactics game such as Fallout Tactics and Wasteland 2.

[Hyaon]

iso i would say.

Diablo 3 looks amazing in 3d ... everything is in the art direction.


http://www.planetdiablo.com/images/imag ... nyhill.jpg

I second diablo 3 is amazing (never liked 1&2 because of their art style). Also there was is a lot of crappy 2d isometric games as well back in the days. It's all about art style. Fallout has best art style up to date.
I think it should be 3d stylized to isometric 2d locked view with no option to rotate camera. It will keep costs down and will give us room for imagination. It will be better for a game full of consequences and moral choices.

I find Diablo3's 'soul' is all cutey and pretty, as much as I don't want to say the dreaded name, quite like WoW! Diablo 1 & 2 art style is dark gritty and medieval, I found it CREEPY! it evoked feelings within me.

Also keep in mind, just how much complexity/content was chopped from Diablo3, it could very well be down to the engine's limitations or they're aiming for the 'masses'... If it was for technical reasons, it would be a terrible engine for WL2 to use.

Whilst I don't mind Fallout Tactics art style, I do find it a bit too 'clean'.

[Citronvand]

The actual 3D portion of the screenshot looks fine. The UI and portraits (the 2D portions) are pretty terrible. So good artists can make a game look good, and bad artists make a game look terrible. Who would have guessed?

+1 exactly

Some other games that I still like ( wait a minute isn't this actually nostalgia kicking in and blinding me or... noooo it's not.. beauty is objective right? )... ok ... Max Payne 1 & Return to Castle Wolfenstein are 2 of my favourites that i can still play and don't feel dated, actually they feel great because the art, gameplay & atmosphere are great, even if the 3D engine stuff is 2001 level blocky.

The portraits are from the 3D models which just looks bad. Real 2D portraits are superior:

[Hoodlum]

Isometric for the win. I love it and I really miss some great, classic cRPG in this style... I think many people feel the same and would like to see it coming back.

Top down ... eh, in my opinion it never was a great option. You won't make a stunning locations or characters with this, no sir.

Though ... you gotta brainstorm it ... isometric post-apocalyptic cRPG? Well, we don't want to make Fallout 1/2 out of this right? So you have to think it out, make it unique.

PS. If we talk about portraits - YES, would love too see them. And yes, I think they should be actual PAINTINGS, not 3D models... just like in Baldur's Gate or something - it added a great, great feeling to the game and made characters interesting/intriguing.

[etix]

personally i cant enjoy fallout anymore (was trying some mod from NMA community some time ago) due to low resolution, those games are clearly not meant to be played on 20+ inch widescreens and playing in window, having high resolution background around hurts eyes as much as full screen option
from the other hand improved version of fallout graphic - namely fallout tactics - as presented few posts earlier is still looking perfect and it shows oh how good a game can still look in isometric 2D, noone rly needs 3D, something that will add to flavor is that u can *hide stuff here and there* if u use 2D which is not so easy in 3D, always enjoyed to look behind walls for sprise crates
also, as diablo 3 was mentioned here, keep in mind that there is a looooot of 2D elements, theyre just melted in 3D graphics so well that u cant notice - all about polishing

[TheFated1]

It's 2d isometric for me. Even the old Gold-Box games tried to do a sort of fake isometric in combat, because it looked better. There are 2 things that would change my mind on the matter.
A. Seeing some truly amazing top-down graphics appropriate to Wasteland 2.
B. Being told that doing the game in isometric would be so much more expensive than top-down that the story and world suffered as a result.

[fixT]

I'd prefer forced isometric (no rotation) than top-down.

[geezer]

I'm getting the impression that many people posting here have not actually read this thread. The debate as to whether 2D is better than 3D is sort of like the debate between whether C++ is better than objective C or standard C. Or whether assembly should be used for inner loops. The only people qualified to answer those questions are actual programmers. In the case of the 2D vs 3D debate the only people qualified to answer are digital artists. People with actual experience working on 2D sprites and 3D polygon models. It's a behind the scenes question. Good game artists can make either look good.

It's true that when 3D first started to replace 2D the art looked terrible, but digital artists have now learned from those mistakes and are capable of making 3D look just as good. 3D models can be incredibly detailed and look just as good as a detailed drawing by a talented traditional artist. Using applications like Mudbox and Zbrush it is possible to paint detailed 2D textures with bump mapping onto 3D models. I fail to understand why some of you are convinced that only 2D art can look good. There are valid reasons for preferring 2D to 3D but unless you are an artist you really are not qualified to say anything about it. At least one person with real experience creating game art has posted in this thread and said that high resolution 2D sprites would be a lot more work than 3D models. That means it will be more expensive.

Is it the Facebook influence that makes people want to post to a discussion without reading any of it first as if your opinions are the only ones that could possibly be of any importance?

[Smejki]

I am for isometric (2D or 3D, I don't care) of tech-level of Fallout: Tactics at least. Then I will be completely happy because all other things are okay for me.

If it will be 3D (I am sure it will) then it would be great to be able to set camera to fixed iso, rotatable, top-view or totaly free. It would satisfy all.

[Rascal]

My vote for isometric.

[Hiver]

In light of latest turn of discussion :

How "pretty" or detailed or nice or artistic... however you want to call it, game looks in the end isnt directly connected to whether its 2D or 3D.
It depends most of all on what artists can do.
There are bad examples in both technologies and things of beauty in both. None of it is inherent to one technology but to talent and skill of the artists.

3D can also incorporate 2D techniques or presentation as a part, for example in character pictures or similar stuff.

While im sure these are one of the guys who can still pull a great looking 2D game and i wouldnt mind it as such, it seems like the team has decided to go 3D so i dont think its productive to argue about it anymore.
3D is the technology that developed more over the last years and capabilities of current 3D engines (i think) far outweigh some "artistic quality" that wasnt even inherent in 2D itself.

Im sure the game will look great artistically in 3D.

[Hoodlum]

I think it's really about individual taste.

Like ... people talk that Age of Decadence or Diablo III are great examples of modern isometric games, but ... hell I don't really like it at all and good old Interplay titles beat those graphics in all ways ... IN MY OPINION.

But ... ya'll right that it also depends on the artists. Like ... check this independent isometric adventure game Stasis. It's 3D and it looks absolutely stunning. Hard to believe it's being made by one guy.

So you know ... in the end it doesn't really matter which technique they pick - but what they do with it and does it fits our taste.

[Hiver]

I love how Age of Decadence looks artistically.

You should check and see the early versions of it, available on forum of the game, to see how far they advanced and how much effort and talent it took.

[Leona]

I'm getting the impression that many people posting here have not actually read this thread. The debate as to whether 2D is better than 3D is sort of like the debate between whether C++ is better than objective C or standard C. Or whether assembly should be used for inner loops. The only people qualified to answer those questions are actual programmers. In the case of the 2D vs 3D debate the only people qualified to answer are digital artists. People with actual experience working on 2D sprites and 3D polygon models. It's a behind the scenes question. Good game artists can make either look good.

It's true that when 3D first started to replace 2D the art looked terrible, but digital artists have now learned from those mistakes and are capable of making 3D look just as good. 3D models can be incredibly detailed and look just as good as a detailed drawing by a talented traditional artist. Using applications like Mudbox and Zbrush it is possible to paint detailed 2D textures with bump mapping onto 3D models. I fail to understand why some of you are convinced that only 2D art can look good. There are valid reasons for preferring 2D to 3D but unless you are an artist you really are not qualified to say anything about it. At least one person with real experience creating game art has posted in this thread and said that high resolution 2D sprites would be a lot more work than 3D models. That means it will be more expensive.

Is it the Facebook influence that makes people want to post to a discussion without reading any of it first as if your opinions are the only ones that could possibly be of any importance?

Amen!!! Thank you!

[moomoos]

After sleeping on it, I have to say isometric. Top down is really not fun in these kinds of games because it's difficult to get a good overview of what's happening and it looks very boring also to see everything from straight above.

Isometric is perfect.

[hubologynow]

Gotta be isometric. Allows for better tactical views (e.g. better representation of high ground) and more immersion through being able to see your enemies put to death by violent means. There's literally no gameplay advantages to keeping it top-down.

[krellen]

For the love of god, can the game PLEASE not be 3d? I specifically funded this project because I thought I was getting an old-school, Wasteland style RPG. 3d has absolutely no place in that model.

I've been waiting over a decade to see games like this again. 3d is a complete non-starter for me. I will pull my funding if that's the direction the game goes.