next »

I've long said that graphics are overrated.  After all, even the best graphics engine starts looking like crap after a couple years as newer and better ones come out.  Yet, there are always games which withstand the test of time and maintain a visual appeal that continues to immerse me, even when their graphics were approaching obsolete at the time of their release.  Today, the original Neverwinter Nights looks unimpressive, despite my awe when it was brand new.  Yet, I can still be drawn into Baldur's Gate - its predecessor - as if that game was brand new.  There is something about its visual style that makes it timeless.

I think in the craze for better graphics for higher performing systems, that the artistic style that made many 2D games classic has been lost, or at very least diminished.  I've been thinking about this in recent days, as I've been reliving some old classics such as Red Alert, Starcraft, and (of course) Baldur's Gate.  I'd go back even further in time if my operating system let me.  It struck me how, even though they are now ancient, these games have a visual appeal that many newer games seem to lack.

I've come to the conclusion that we must approach our visual aspect with an artistic style completely different from what is expected in this day and age.  The style I'd like to see is something that appears more like a hand-drawn illustration than a computer render.  I don't know the technical side of implementing this, but I feel it's worthwhile pursuing.  I feel that video games have lost something in the transition to 3D, and we should strive to bring it back if we can.

So, what I'm proposing is a game that looks more like this:


Than this:



I don't know if I'm being too idealistic, but when I look back at a game like Baldur's Gate which still inspires me with its visuals today, I am reminded of the potential of artistic style despite technical limitations.  I believe that we can bring a great technical implementation together with that style to do something completely new.

I'm not sure about the technical possibility of that, but it's something worth investigating.

Personally I don't care about graphics very much. Any game from around 2002 or newer looks good enough for me, as long as the gameplay is ok. Of course eyecandy is pretty, but like you say, it's outdated quickly.

I don't know about the technical aspects, either, but investigating it is why I brought it up.

In my opinion one of the reasons games such as Baldurs gate still look so great is because the graphics are customly made across the whole gameworld.

With 3D games such as NWN this no longer happened. There they created a few sets of templates, tilesets, and used these to create/generate the gameworld.


The gameworld of Baldurs Gate is new, unique and original appearing at every point, while the gameworld of NWN more quickly becomes repetitive because you see the same elements over and over again throughout the gameworld.

Let's take a castle wall as an example. In the 2D gameworld the wall could feature some dark grey stones randomly scatered across the wall, there would be windows, some closed, some open, bricked off, some with some rag hanging outside, etc. Each piece of the wall would look different. In the 3D world, the wall would be divided into elements. Say it's 10 elements long. There are 4 different suitable wall sections in the tileset. This means at least 6 wall sections will look alike to another section.
The trick with a 3D environment is to combine elements, rotate them and place them in such a manner that it doesn't look the same as the place you've just come from, even if the same elements are used. Initially this works great. Yet while the combinations are not the same, after a while you start to notice they do be similar. At least, that's what I experience.

There are of course a lot of gradations to this. Not all 2D games have more variety than 3D games, and 3D games are still gaining on the 2D games in this aspect.
Yet, the increase of variety in graphical content also conflicts with one of the reasons that caused the move from 2D to 3D. Namely that 3D materials can more easily be used as a templates, to cut down on the artistic requirements for making or modifying a game.

We can attempt to give each place of the gameworld a truely unique look. I would love that actually. However, it will be more work in a 3D environment than in a 2D environment (of the same size), simply because there is more than one view angle. It will also be more demanding on PCs, as there is more graphical content to load. That's something that can easily be worked around tho, by useing quality gradations. The lower the quality setting, the more unique graphics would be replaced by a standard graphic of the same category.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Solinx

However, it will be more work in a 3D environment than in a 2D environment (of the same size), simply because there is more than one view angle. It will also be more demanding on PCs, as there is more graphical content to load.

A full-size RTS map with no two identical objects is an impossibility. Firstly, it would mean an immense workload for artists, and manpower is probably not something we'll have in abundance. Secondly, such a map won't run on today's computer. Their memory usage is far too high, and while I'm not an expert, I believe cloned meshes also decrease the amount of GPU clock cycles necessary.

There are several possibilities:
- We can make full-geometry maps (a la Unreal) instead of just terrain with some preset objects (a la BFME). Trough this we can make our main elements like castles and buildings unique for every map.
- Those objects that we do use multiple times, we must use wisely.
- We can add randomness to those objects. Generated trees come to mind.

Also, I might add that the full depth of 3D is actually a help, not a burden. Objects that can simple be rotated in 3D, must be sprited seperately for every view angle in 2D.

Exactly.

I love the ideal of making every place truely unique, yet I question our chances of making it happen, and the ability of PCs to cope with it if we could.

These possibilities you name all sounds great. It will get us near the uniqueness of 2D games, which is good. Still, I don't think we really have a chance to really come to the same level as long as we use a 3D environment. Not using a 3D environment isn't a solution however, as we want the player to be able to look at the battlefield from different sides.

Also, I might add that the full depth of 3D is actually a help, not a burden. Objects that can simple be rotated in 3D, must be sprited seperately for every view angle in 2D.

Which is why 2D gameworlds can only be viewed from one side.

Solinx

Which is why 2D gameworlds can only be viewed from one side.

Even then, many objects in them need to rotate, hence have multiple sprites

Considering the fact that ram and processor is quite cheap now a day.It can be a heavy graphic loading game so to make a good impression.