|
| Thread: A mental exercise |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
creepiestdani
Adventuring Hero
|
posted March 22, 2011 03:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But consider just how much more data that is when you're storing a collection of 2D frames versus a model, a texture, and some animation commands. It's like storing a new texture for every frame of every creature for every action. The 2D version would be orders of magnitude larger in it's install size
It's possible by the exact same method that made Heroes 3 possible. The creatures in Heroes 3 were also 3D turned sprites. You'd need much less animations for the 2D version. It's akin to making animated gifs. To use an example, every creature during battles has five states: idle, moving, attacking, being hit, and being hit while defending, each with its corresponding animated gif.
Later edit: On a second thought, you do need more animations than in Heroes 3. Since the battlefield is 3D, you need a creature to be able to face all directions:
###
#x#
###
####
#xx#
#xx#
####
Like in Diablo 1 for example.
Quote:
and you've only supported one resolution (pre-rendered sprites don't scale too well). People with different resolutions STILL don't get too compelling of a product compared to just playing the 3D game on lowest settings
I don't care about the resolution. If I did I'd play the 3D version. For me Heroes 3, with its ancient 800x600 resolution, still looks just fine.
Quote:
Not to mention that there are now 2 versions to support and to patch which creates some headaches as there are many ways they could lose parity over time through negligence, accident, or market demand.
As I said, from a functional standpoint the two versions are actually not that different. The framework is the same, the relation between the elements that make up the game is the same. An ore mine may be visually different, but functionally it works exactly the same and occupies the exact same number of squares on the game's grid.
Quote:
Attacking the problem from the other side is that hardware improves over time.
When you think that Heroes 3 is just as playable now as it was when it first appeared.
Quote:
I sincerely doubt that people who aren't upgrading their computers and still using something ancient are the kind of audience that a gaming company is expecting big dividends from.
So do I. I'd love to see a 2D version of Heroes 6, but clearly it will never happen. I was curious to see if there are other people who find the idea appealing.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 03:46 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 05:01, 22 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
and you've only supported one resolution (pre-rendered sprites don't scale too well). People with different resolutions STILL don't get too compelling of a product compared to just playing the 3D game on lowest settings
Tell that to the people who made Age of Empires, they got 3 different levels perfectly okay.
Oh and creepiestdani, if you're going to make ASCIIart diagrams, Courier's a better font than the normal one.
|
|
Kenishi
Famous Hero
passed out drunk in Tavern's
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 06:50 AM |
|
|
For me it's a definitely easy choice 3D, not that I have anything against 2D but is personal choice.
OK to start of after I sow the H6 requirements I realized something the game will be wonderful (from a graphic point of view) because of it's approach first of all the minimum of DX9 means is a scalable one, the second one is the 1G memory for Video Card, from my knowledge this amount and when is specially pointed means that the game will have rich and high resolution texture, that means the skin that covers the polygons are going to be superb and very detailed.
And on a final note for the Heroes franchise we only head 1 3D game and 4 2D, and the first 3D wasn't the most successful product due to it's many faults, but the 3D present many new possibility for gameplay that haven't been explore still there are options to do so and H6 might deliver them.
____________
No Gods, no Masters. Knowledge is Power, and Power is Freedom
|
|
Nocturnal
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 08:15 AM |
|
|
|
Always 3D. I don't love 2D as it just gives an unrealistic atmosphere and hinders my connection with the game. With 3D, I am always more "in" the game.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 08:26 AM |
|
|
You did not feel completely immersed into H2/H3? Sad 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
creepiestdani
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 12:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the game will have rich and high resolution texture, that means the skin that covers the polygons are going to be superb and very detailed.
From the point of view of one such as myself who is interested only in the strategic aspect of the game, all these graphical wonders are mere fluff.
Quote:
the 3D present many new possibility for gameplay that haven't been explore still there are options to do so and H6 might deliver them
Name one. For a turn-based game the underlying grid-based system is inherently restrictive (in a good way).
Quote:
2D as it just gives an unrealistic atmosphere and hinders my connection with the game
For me 2D has a charm of its own.
|
|
Nocturnal
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 12:29 PM |
|
|
|
Of course it has a charm. Remebering Diablo 2 particularly, yeah, was wonderful. But imagine it with the same color schemes and everything but in 3D, wouldn't it be even more beautiful?
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 12:55 PM |
|
|
Diablo II, like H3, used pre-rendered sprites.
H1 and H2 did not (excluding cutscenes).
|
|
creepiestdani
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 01:29 PM |
|
|
The sprite is the end state. In Heroes 1 and 2 they took 2D objects and turned them into sprites. In Heroes 3 they took 3D objects and turned them into sprites. From now on I shall use "2D-sprites" and "3D-sprites" to distinguish the two. You do have a point in that, with the new battle system on a chess-like grid and four-squared creatures, they could no longer use 2D-sprites, like in Heroes 1 and 2, and games like Monkey Island:
This is how I would illustrate the difference between 2D-sprites, 3D-sprites, and polygons:
2D-sprites
3D-sprites
polygons
Three visual styles, the same game. The same with Heroes.
|
|
MrDragon
Supreme Hero
Eats people with Ketchup
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 01:47 PM |
|
|
Short version: 2D and 3D is highly subjective, some people want one, some want the other, and some quite frankly don't care.
I want the graphics to be beautiful, I don't care in how many dimensions.
That said, I don't see what part of this thread is a mental exercise, seems like a simple poll to me.
|
|
creepiestdani
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 02:11 PM |
|
|
@Nocturnal
Quote:
Of course it has a charm. Remebering Diablo 2 particularly, yeah, was wonderful. But imagine it with the same color schemes and everything but in 3D, wouldn't it be even more beautiful?
It's like saying: wouldn't Dexter's Laboratory be even more beautiful if it were 3D, like The Incredibles?
No, it wouldn't. Surely it could be made in 3D, but part of its charm comes from being the way it is.
However this is indeed highly subjective. If they had made both a 2D and a 3D version of Dexter's Laboratory and separately showed it to two different groups of people, I suspect each group would consider the version it was first exposed to more appealing then the other. In behavioral economics this is called "anchoring". The first item you're exposed to unconsciously becomes the reference point to which you compare subsequent items of the same kind. It's more complicated than that of course, but it's a rough explanation I think to why certain people dismiss the very idea of 2D outright.
@MrDragon
Quote:
That said, I don't see what part of this thread is a mental exercise, seems like a simple poll to me.
Is it doable or not, and is it worth the effort? What is the relation between gameplay and graphics? What are the advantages of using polygonal graphics over sprite-based graphics? How does the singleplayer experience differ from the multiplayer experience? What are the boundaries of subjectivity when it comes to games? These are but a few possible venues of discussion. That's the kind of mental exercise I had in mind. Of course, this requires putting a little more thought into one's replies instead of writing the first thing that comes to mind.
|
|
MrDragon
Supreme Hero
Eats people with Ketchup
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 06:12 PM |
|
Edited by MrDragon at 18:14, 22 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
Is it doable or not, and is it worth the effort? What is the relation between gameplay and graphics? What are the advantages of using polygonal graphics over sprite-based graphics? How does the singleplayer experience differ from the multiplayer experience? What are the boundaries of subjectivity when it comes to games? These are but a few possible venues of discussion. That's the kind of mental exercise I had in mind. Of course, this requires putting a little more thought into one's replies instead of writing the first thing that comes to mind.
My thoughts on these subjects:
-----
Both are doable.
If it's worth the effort is subjective.
The relation between gameplay and graphics is the graphics representing gameplay elements.
Which can be done equally well in 2D and 3D.
On the advantages I can only speculate with some experiance.
Sprites are easier to make but harder to animate, overall cheaper, great potential for stylizing, often gets (wrongly) critisized of lazy/cheap design, overall: worse PR. (going by what I think the industry thinks is the average consumer).
The boundraries are hard to define, in the end, even for a AAA title though, it comes down to target audiences, however broad they may be, and those will have various tastes and views, 3D appeals to more people for reasons I don't fully grasp.
-----
Those are my thoughts on the matter, I don't think of it as mental exercise though, more a basic thought process that a human being has in any discussion.
When I read mental excersize, I'm thinking things like thought experiments, what-if scenarios, this is just plain old discussion to me. (yes discussion (at least of any decent quality) requires thought.)
Not saying there is anything wrong with that, just that I find the thread title odd.
I don't appreciate the implication that I didn't think my post through.
(But maybe that's just me reading to much into your words.)
Edit: Yep that's just me reading to much into your words.
|
|
creepiestdani
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 06:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When I read mental excersize, I'm thinking things like thought experiments, what-if scenarios, this is just plain old discussion to me.
The initial post does express a what-if scenario:
Quote:
(What) If they were to make an identical (in terms of gameplay) 2D version of the game in parallel with the 3D version and the two versions were compatible with one another in multiplayer (which is doable), would you consider buying the 2D version?
The question however should have ended in "and why?", which leads to the other questions I mentioned. In my mind this was implicit to the question (due to my interest in philosophy), but you're right, I should have been more explicit.
Quote:
Yep that's just me reading to much into your words.
It is. What I was referring to is:
Quote:
3D, we are going forward.
I would ask the guy who wrote this: what do you mean by "going forward"? Most likely, nothing. Mere empty words.
Thank you for your thoughts. 
|
|
vitorsly
Known Hero
Joker!
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 09:53 PM |
|
|
[quoteQuote:
3D, we are going forward.
I would ask the guy who wrote this: what do you mean by "going forward"? Most likely, nothing. Mere empty words.
Thank you for your thoughts.
*cough* how many animated movies do you see in your local theater in 3D and in 2D *cough*
Probably just that. Right now we have the possibility to get REAL 3D
(that stuff with the glasses and the nintendo 3DS and stuff) it would be even more real (and eye hurting).
As I said before 3D because it has normally better graphics and you can see all around your character.
|
|
creepiestdani
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I said before 3D because it has normally better graphics and you can see all around your character.
Some types of games, such as first-person shooters, have certainly benefited from being polygonal, because it directly affects the gameplay. Others have not.
|
|
Minnakht
Known Hero
Green eyed monster
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 11:47 PM |
|
|
Then let's directly affect gameplay! Put some z-axis in the movement of everything! H4 had bridges, which allowed you to pass over terrain, forming what could be essentially two paths, one above and one below. The object removal triggers could then alter the paths! Now imagine that, but with even more path levels! With more than surface and subterranean. Imagine a map in a hollowed-out mountain, with several floor levels inside it. Mint-boggling maps with so many extra paths you can ambush the hell out of people or avoid other armies.
Even the battlefields could have high and low ground on them instead of being flat like an unlucky girl.
Also hiding behind objects
I've played Dwarf Fortress myself. It is a 2D game - why, it's an ASCII game, even. But it has those z-levels, and how.
____________
Shameful Advertising
|
|
Kenishi
Famous Hero
passed out drunk in Tavern's
|
|
posted March 23, 2011 06:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
the game will have rich and high resolution texture, that means the skin that covers the polygons are going to be superb and very detailed.
From the point of view of one such as myself who is interested only in the strategic aspect of the game, all these graphical wonders are mere fluff.
Quote:
the 3D present many new possibility for gameplay that haven't been explore still there are options to do so and H6 might deliver them
Name one. For a turn-based game the underlying grid-based system is inherently restrictive (in a good way).
Quote:
2D as it just gives an unrealistic atmosphere and hinders my connection with the game
For me 2D has a charm of its own.
First thing that comes in mind is a more interactive battle ground, right now to some degree is being implemented like flooding area and appearing obstacles during battles etc, so I'm thinking of plain levels higher and lower ground for example moving archers on high ground would eliminate ranged penalty (to some degree or entirely), or increases the dmg it deals.
Charging from a higher ground would increase the speed while the opposite would be true also.
Destroying castle walls in a siege would deal some dmg in form of debris to the creatures in it's vicinity.
That's some of the things I can think of there could be more, but as i said the option to use it is there just not implemented.
____________
No Gods, no Masters. Knowledge is Power, and Power is Freedom
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2011 06:55 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 07:05, 23 Mar 2011.
|
Well they worked flooding out perfectly well with 2D Isometric in Sim City 2000, Starcraft got the whole 'realistic view in 2D' sorted out, and C&C: Tiberian Sun got 'modifying 2D terrain' working.
Depending on how time you want to spend, there really is very little you can do with 3D that you can't also do with 2D. Also, while 3D could be seen to be more 'immersive', such graphics require a much bigger processor (H3 was released in 1999 and need a 133 MHz processor and 32 MB of RAM, 7 years later H5 was released, and needed a 1.5 GHz processor and 512MB of RAM, and this time it's going to be a dual core 2+ GHz processor and 1GB of RAM, plus a 512 MB video card).
|
|
Kenishi
Famous Hero
passed out drunk in Tavern's
|
|
posted March 23, 2011 09:09 AM |
|
Edited by Kenishi at 09:11, 23 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
Well they worked flooding out perfectly well with 2D Isometric in Sim City 2000, Starcraft got the whole 'realistic view in 2D' sorted out, and C&C: Tiberian Sun got 'modifying 2D terrain' working.
Depending on how time you want to spend, there really is very little you can do with 3D that you can't also do with 2D. Also, while 3D could be seen to be more 'immersive', such graphics require a much bigger processor (H3 was released in 1999 and need a 133 MHz processor and 32 MB of RAM, 7 years later H5 was released, and needed a 1.5 GHz processor and 512MB of RAM, and this time it's going to be a dual core 2+ GHz processor and 1GB of RAM, plus a 512 MB video card).
Flooding was an example of what is being done, as a new thing in H6, while the need for a better PC ... guess the whole "make next gen games - need better hardware" is a bit manipulated but i got to say I installed recently a PII 400 Mhz, ATI Rage 128 Pro 32 M and 384M Ram whit Linux to work as a server and I must say ... the evolution of PC was needed the whole thing was moving sluggish compared to nowadays gears, but again some of the requierments of nowadays games are exaggerated , but were going of topic so, if you play games on PC you better be prepared to upgrade and invest money in it, if not a PC can be used until it breaks down.
Than way move in Starcraft 2 in a 3D environment and almost the same could be said about the rest ... i think that people demand and mostly find it more pleasing, just my opinion, but although for a game like Heroes is not imperative still new buyers (as it seams among us there would find audience for a 2D version ) might not even buy it if its a 2D game, because nowadays everything revolves around HD Real 3D and bling is more important than substance, not saying is bad or god but that the reality.
As for the C&C true but it was destruction in rectangular shape which wasn't to realistic like in a 3D game, maybe the 2D environment has it's limitation or maybe they couldn't deliver it at that time but I haven't seen in recent years a 2D game to be able to depict realistic terrain destruction.
____________
No Gods, no Masters. Knowledge is Power, and Power is Freedom
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2011 09:36 AM |
|
|
|
Maybe, but how many strategy games have you seen that do terrain destruction at all? I've only seen Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2, and it was only really buildings that got damaged in the latter one.
|
| |
|
|
