2d Isometric Or 3d
Orcrist
Join Date: 2002-12-18 Member: 11050Members
Join Date: 2002-12-18 Member: 11050Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you prefer</div> Only applies for tactical & strategy games with top-down view, of course.
I was actually a bit disappointed when I heard that C&C Generals would be in 3D, as that usually leads to high system requirements and poly-chopped models. The previous games in the C&C series were all 2D and in my opinion, Tiberian Sun & Red Alert 2 had realistic enough graphics, while keeping the system requirements low compared to 3D games.
I'm just wondering, is this really the end of 2D Isometric games? Are the posibility's to keep 2D a viable option next to 3D at an end? What's your opinion?
I was actually a bit disappointed when I heard that C&C Generals would be in 3D, as that usually leads to high system requirements and poly-chopped models. The previous games in the C&C series were all 2D and in my opinion, Tiberian Sun & Red Alert 2 had realistic enough graphics, while keeping the system requirements low compared to 3D games.
I'm just wondering, is this really the end of 2D Isometric games? Are the posibility's to keep 2D a viable option next to 3D at an end? What's your opinion?
Comments
So if a game has got great gameplay, I would rather have it in 2D isometric so I could bump all the settings up to their max. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> 3D would be fine too, but I may not be able to bump it *all* the way up.
List of reasons:
- If 99% of the community cry out for 3D based games, the public shall recieve them.
- As good as 2D is. You can only do SO much with the onscreen pixels available.
- A lot of 2D games use 3D models that have just been pixelised.
- Technology (As much as everyone loaths it) marches onward. 2D is dead =/
However, the new Total War game (Rome) has all of the models in 3D. It's just constantly improving technology. The developers have come up with a way to have thousands of 3D units onscreen at once, at a minimal loss to the system requirements needed to run it.
Rest in Peace
Then what about the remaining 1% <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
How about something the opposite of Total War, 2D terrain, 3d entities. Something like the Sims but in a war game.
Then what about the remaining 1% <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoops, guess your right. Devs do need to make games targeted to 1% of the entire market. Now THATS how to make money! Go for the smallest group possible!
They should make the gameplay so you don't HAVE to scroll around, but the graphics should still be uber sexy. I think Generals accomplishes this nicely, as when playing it I've never had to scroll around or zoom in/out.
I think it makes the gameplay better by letting the user focus on strategy, battle, and what he's going to do next rather than "lemme click here and drag this way and zoom in so i can see if there's this and that at place X".
WarCraft III did this very well too.
[edit]
Also, Tiberian Sun used Voxels instead of sprites (remember when they claimed those as the wave of the future? hah.) so it was technically 3D. you just couldn't move the camera cause the way things were designed. RA2 however used voxels mixed with 2D sprites because of the system hit people experienced with TS. In the end though the voxels looked so horrible in both games that you didn't really care anymore. :P
[/edit]
StarCraft 2. And possibly Diablo 3. Blizzard does both 2d and 3d games really well...which is why I say Blizzard > Westwood > Relic > Almost any game company
and I have a question. Does Homeworld/Homeworld:Cataclysm count as a Real Time Strategy game?
Yes, they do. They are stratigy games and they are in real-time, therefore they are RTSes. They have the same elements as traditional RTSes, unit management, resource control, research trees, and the player does not actually assume the role one of the pilots in battle but of a general in command, just like a typical RTS games.
Homeworld is the only RTS I really enjoyed, excellent game.
thats completely 3D, but suffers a lot on gameplay.
WarCraft 3 is a good RTS
Conquest/Ground Control were ok RTS's
C&C Generals was a good RTS
Homeworld/Homeworld: Cataclysm is a Perfect RTS.
2 Taiidani Destroyers, 2 Kushan Destroyers (Taiidani look cooler).
2 Kushan Heavy Cruisers
Max Kushan Carriers
20 Kushan MGC's
20 Kushan Heavy Vette's
10 Repair Vette's
80 Kushan Cloaked Fighters
18 Kushan Ion Frigates.
[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Total Anihilation (spelling <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->) and SimCity 4 used this
The "3D" version of Castlevania bombed on N64 - I'm sure it was not very good.
A game like Final Fantasy Tactics (PSX again) is probably the best combination of 2D/3D that I can think of - they used a 3D landscape with 2D sprites for characters, weapons, and all that other good stuff. It is still regarded as one of the best console games of all time <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is combo more prevalent on consoles, rather than PC, though I have played Shogun: Total War and is a good combo of 2D/3D. Not to mention it's a very tough game that takes time to learn the finer points of <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
All-in-all, I like <b>higher resolution</b> graphics, but they need not be 3D. Not that all the "3D" games out there really have 3 Dimensions anyway...most of them are pretty single-planar. That's what makes a game like Tribes (1 or 2) good - the fact that you have to look not only to your flanks and in front, but above, below, everywhere. You just never know where someone can be with a jetpack <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> This is another reason that flight combat games are fun. Tie Fighter forever!
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Voxels ride again!
Let's think of all the games that used voxels.
They're all novalogic! :o
It's pretty funny really, it's probably the only game in which graphics matter as little as they do, and so they totally did a half-assed job just because they could.
...Wait, let me think about that for a second...
When I first saw this spell casted on me, I just couldn't believe it:
<img src='http://planescape-torment.de/images/Hammer.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
- And what about Fallout? The way the machine gun ripped and shot off the the upper body of the person was just wicked. Sprites rule!
" A lot of 2D games use 3D models that have just been pixelised."
Hmm, Infinitium seems to have summed up all my examples, so looks like I'm an advocate for 3D. Heh, a second ago, I thought I was rooting for the 2D side...