Support NeoGAF

[Pachterballs]

They were also getting a lot of people begging for an isometric perspective after they already said they were going with top-down to keep it like the original.

they didn't say this. It could easily be iso. I have no problems at all with it looking like FO1/2.


wtf @ the marriages/roman + whatnot requests.

 

[Varna]

I understand why people want those kind of things. But god, please nothing on the Bioware level. F2 did romance just fine.

Why I wonder how much fan request they will take seriously. Interface and general control wise they should definitely listen to the fans. This is the stuff that gets modded almost instantly these days. Content wise they should really consider what people ask of them.

 

[Nairume]

they didn't say this. It could easily be iso. I have no problems at all with it looking like FO1/2.


wtf @ the marriages/roman + whatnot requests.

The kickstarter outright says they are going with topdown

We’re going back to the original and building from there. No first person shooter, we’re going top down so you get a tactical feel for the situation. And we’re not ditching the party play to turn it into some hack-and-slash bloodfest. It’s turn based, tactical, with a storyline that will be deeper and broader.

And Fargo has said elsewhere that they are specifically doing it to keep it in line with the original.

 

[TheSeks]

I got my $100 (and 10, thanks for nothing, international shipping!) in for Double Fine just under today's deadline, and this project is going to get the same support. This is an incredibly exciting time for gaming - if you'd told me that in 2012 I could contribute to both of these projects getting off the ground, I'd have called you a liar and probably shoved you...HARD.

All I need now is someone to announce a Radar Rat Race remake on Kickstarter and the year is complete as far as I'm concerned.

Not without Volition making a Descent 4 kickstarter.

Spoiler

And I'd give them my entire lifes savings for that

I need to get around to playing Wasteland... :/ Hopefully Fargo can convince GoG/et. al. to put it up for free.

 

[Emitan]

He doesn't have the rights.

 

[Decado]

Not without Volition making a Descent 4 kickstarter.

Spoiler

And I'd give them my entire lifes savings for that

You misspelled "Freespace 3"

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

can we romance the blood sausage? Inquiring minds must know!

 

[TheSeks]

You misspelled "Freespace 3"

Freespace was never Descent except under the circumstances that Interplay thought it would bomb. Get that shit out of here. I want my 6DoF robot blasting action.

 

[Joseph Merrick]

He doesn't have the rights.

fargo has the ip rights and that, ea owns the game code.

 

[Pachterballs]

The kickstarter outright says they are going with topdown



And Fargo has said elsewhere that they are specifically doing it to keep it in line with the original.

I think he meant that it wasn't going to be a gun view aka FO3. That's you'd see it from above. Which is what the isometric view would allow anyhow.

 

[bonesmccoy]

The kickstarter outright says they are going with topdown
And Fargo has said elsewhere that they are specifically doing it to keep it in line with the original.

Brian Fargo ‏ @BrianFargo
We are leaning towards isometric but we want to show some screens in our forum for fan feedback. You guys are my new boss after all.

Requoted, it was post #50 on the last page. He wrote that after the kickstarter was launched, so I take it the 'top-down' he's referring to is a mere distinction from over-the-shoulder or first-person.

The romancing requests are really, really strange. Is that what people expect now from their games? Now the Fallouts had those options, but they were practically buried in the game and you had to jump through a bunch of hoops just to get trigger a 'romance event'. I do though remember reading the hilarious descriptions of the Modoc farmer's son and daughter, lol.

 

[Emitan]

fargo has the ip rights and that, ea owns the game code.

he tweeted he cant put it on GoG

 

[Javaman]

On the flipside, if just one person ends up grabbing the $2500 option right at the death, that unique blood sausage is gonna be a helluva collectible, albeit slightly inappropriate-looking, item

P.S: Don't think I've ever refreshed a single webpage so often in my entire life, not even for minute-by-minute sport score updates. And almost each and every time, without fail, the total goes up by a 1000 or so.

Not really. Everyone that donates above the "blood sausage" level gets that same stuff.

 

[duckroll]

Not really. Everyone that donates above the "blood sausage" level gets that same stuff.

Yeah but that's a grand total of 12 other guys.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

They were also getting a lot of people begging for an isometric perspective after they already said they were going with top-down to keep it like the original.

Why can't they just have both options? Its just a camera perspective.

 

[Nairume]

Requoted, it was post #50 on the last page. He wrote that after the kickstarter was launched, so I take it the 'top-down' he's referring to is a mere distinction from over-the-shoulder or first-person.

Ah, I stand corrected then.

Of course, this also means that there are a lot of people in the official forum freaking out over it being top-down for no reason.

Why can't they just have both options? Its just a camera perspective.

Depends on if they are going 2D or 3D.

 

[duckroll]

Depends on if they are going 2D or 3D.

I don't think it's worthwhile making a game like this in actual 2D. Games like Fallout 1/2 and the Infinity Engine games were basically pre-rendered 3D environments and character models which were made 2D because of technical limitations back then. Just like how Starcraft 2 is fully 3D and looks identical to Starcraft 1, there is no reason why you would make a game in the style of Fallout 1/2 and not have it be rendered in actual 3D nowadays. You would have to make the assets in 3D regardless.

 

[Sentenza]

Why can't they just have both options? Its just a camera perspective.

I find the idea of an adjustable camera quite scary, to be honest.
Apparently very few developers can get it right (obsidian never achieved this, for instance).

As I wrote even on their forum, I would suggest to watch more at modern RTS (Dawn of War 1 and 2, SCII, Company of Heroes, DOTA 2) than at old RPG to get a 3D isometric view right.


That said, speaking about their forums, even more than those asking for romances I find extremely annoying those opening pointless or obvious threads like "Please, don't make it a FPS" or "Make the game good!1".
Jesus Christ, can't you guys at least bother reading the Kickstarter page before spamming useless suggestions?

 

[Pachterballs]

lol read it wrong.

^_^'

* no to adjustable perspective.

 

[Emitan]

Its just a camera perspective.

It's a way of life.

 

[MrCunningham]

I don't think it's worthwhile making a game like this in actual 2D. Games like Fallout 1/2 and the Infinity Engine games were basically pre-rendered 3D environments and character models which were made 2D because of technical limitations back then. Just like how Starcraft 2 is fully 3D and looks identical to Starcraft 1, there is no reason why you would make a game in the style of Fallout 1/2 and not have it be rendered in actual 3D nowadays. You would have to make the assets in 3D regardless.

2D environments with 3D characters/ game models might also be a good direction to go in. But yeah, There's no reason not to go fully 3D these days.

 

[Pachterballs]

depends on whichever presents the best and looks the best. 3D iso turnbased combat? I can't envision it. There was something quite charming about the fallout presentation that 3D can't replicate.

 

[Wallach]

I don't think it's worthwhile making a game like this in actual 2D. Games like Fallout 1/2 and the Infinity Engine games were basically pre-rendered 3D environments and character models which were made 2D because of technical limitations back then. Just like how Starcraft 2 is fully 3D and looks identical to Starcraft 1, there is no reason why you would make a game in the style of Fallout 1/2 and not have it be rendered in actual 3D nowadays. You would have to make the assets in 3D regardless.

I think a lot of people are under the impression that going 2D is somehow cheaper or easier in game development, when it's generally the opposite.

 

[bonesmccoy]

That said, speaking about their forums, even more than those asking for romances I find extremely annoying those opening pointless or obvious threads like "Please, don't make it a FPS" or "Make the game good!1"

I think there's a bit of trolling going on over there.

A sample from the 'What to Avoid' sub-forum:

• No disk swapping
• Invincible children
• Avoid China-bashing
• Player death?

 

[Emitan]

Well there shouldn't be invincible children.

 

[Pachterballs]

/bow

 

[Sentenza]

I think there's a bit of trolling going on over there.

A sample from the 'What to Avoid' sub-forum:

• No disk swapping
• Invincible children
• Avoid China-bashing
• Player death?

Well, those were joke threads. At least th first. The others are just silly or poorly worded, but I wouldn't say they are deliberately trolling.

 

[GDJustin]

I'm a little concerned about design by committee here. Fargo's comment that "we're his new boss" really bothers me.

We're paying you to make the game you want, dude.

Most of us are idiots that have never designed an awesome game. The ideas we think are badass and perfect probably aren't. Make the game you want.

 

[zkylon]

I don't think it's worthwhile making a game like this in actual 2D. Games like Fallout 1/2 and the Infinity Engine games were basically pre-rendered 3D environments and character models which were made 2D because of technical limitations back then. Just like how Starcraft 2 is fully 3D and looks identical to Starcraft 1, there is no reason why you would make a game in the style of Fallout 1/2 and not have it be rendered in actual 3D nowadays. You would have to make the assets in 3D regardless.

It's nevertheless overall harder and takes more time to make 3D than 2D games, in my programming experience. And assets wise, they also have to make complete objects that look good from all angles, instead of just fixed 30° or Isometric (unless there's no camera movement). I'm pretty sure no one bothered to model the backs of the buildings in Fallout, for instance.

 

[Perkel]

I think there's a bit of trolling going on over there.

A sample from the 'What to Avoid' sub-forum:

• No disk swapping
• Invincible children
• Avoid China-bashing
• Player death?

You should check google moderator page for wasteland 2

 

[iceatcs]

Holy shit $25K to go. I was put $15 when it was near $700K, I think it was just 24 hours ago.

 

[Sentenza]

It's nevertheless overall harder and takes more time to make 3D than 2D games, in my programming experience. And assets wise, they also have to make complete objects that look good from all angles, instead of just fixed 30° or Isometric (unless there's no camera movement). I'm pretty sure no one bothered to model the backs of the buildings in Fallout, for instance.

I'm pretty sure they did, actually, considering how they were 3D renders turned in 2D graphics.

 

[duckroll]

It's nevertheless overall harder and takes more time to make 3D than 2D games, in my programming experience. And assets wise, they also have to make complete objects that look good from all angles, instead of just fixed 30° or Isometric (unless there's no camera movement). I'm pretty sure no one bothered to model the backs of the buildings in Fallout, for instance.

I never said anything about making a game which is played in 3D. The process of making a game like Fallout 1/2 in full 3D rather than pre-rendered 2D is definitely pretty much the same. It would actually take more time to go through the extra step of turning all the 3D assets into 2D. There is really no significant reason for the game to be 2D, unless they are going for a art style which would make sense for it to be in 2D.

 

[zkylon]

I'm pretty sure they did, actually, considering how they were 3D renders turned in 2D graphics.

But they just showed you the front of the buildings, so why waste time doing the backs? Just like the buildings in the MW campaign are probably cardboard cutouts and there's nothing behind them.

Just guessing though...

I never said anything about making a game which is played in 3D. The process of making a game like Fallout 1/2 in full 3D rather than pre-rendered 2D is definitely pretty much the same. It would actually take more time to go through the extra step of turning all the 3D assets into 2D. There is really no significant reason for the game to be 2D, unless they are going for a art style which would make sense for it to be in 2D.

If the game has an isometric perspective and it's in 3D, people will probably want to rotate the camera, though.

Myself, I wouldn't mind a fixed perspective.

 

[MrCunningham]

I think a lot of people are under the impression that going 2D is somehow cheaper or easier in game development, when it's generally the opposite.

Absolutely. As much as I would love to see high resolution 2D sprites, 3D character models do take less resources to make and offer more in the way of customization (character body sizes and costume changes). In this day in age real time polygon models can look just as good as pre-rendered sprites and they do take up less storage space (high resolution sprites with thousands of frames of animation can eat up a lot of room). Also 3D models just scale better at different resolutions.

Personally, I think a mix of 2D high detail pre rendered isometric backgrounds with polygon models might look nice.

 

[Perkel]

But they just showed you the front of the buildings, so why waste time doing the backs? Just like the buildings in the MW campaign are probably cardboard cutouts and there's nothing behind them.

Just guessing though...


If the game has an isometric perspective and it's in 3D, people will probably want to rotate the camera, though.

Myself, I wouldn't mind a fixed perspective.

It won't be 3D, it will be 2D isometric like fallout or baldurs gate.

3D is the reason why budgets are so high also why old school tactical rpg died. Also 2D art don't age as fast as 3D. Neverwinter nights 1 looks like shit compared to baldurs gate 1 today.

 

[Sentenza]

It won't be 3D, it will be 2D isometric like fallout or baldurs gate.

3D is the reason why budgets are so high

Actually, no.

 

[Perkel]

Absolutely. As much as I would love to see high resolution 2D sprites, 3D character models do take less resources to make and offer more in the way of customization (character body sizes and costume changes). In this day in age real time polygon models can look just as good as pre-rendered sprites and they do take up less storage space (high resolution sprites with thousands of frames of animation can eat up a lot of room). Also 3D models just scale better at different resolutions.

Personally, I think a mix of 2D high detail pre rendered isometric backgrounds with polygon models might look nice.

Lol wat ? 2D is way more cheapjer than 3d. You are all trolled by japanese fighting games developers.

Cost of making fallout1 was3mln dollars and back then and 2D 256colour was super high tec.

 

[BlueTsunami]

If its a fixed isometric perspective, wouldn't using pre-rendered 3D stages be better if you want to render out the highest quality assets (at large resolutions) without worrying about the impact it has on your PC (especially considering that this game would be played on monitors up to 2K resolutions). Part of the reasons why I like pre-rendered backgrounds and stages is due to the lack of need for filters and AA in realtime. I bet if all of the assets of Fallout 1 and 2 were originally high resolution they'd look amazing today. There's a hand crafted feel to Fallout 1 and 2.

With that said, an awesome example of a good looking 3D isometric game is Titan Quest.

 

[The_Player]

3D is the reason why budgets are so high also why old school tactical rpg died.

Nope. It's because nowadays players don't understand 2D. They think that it's obsolete, and so there less chances for game to succeed. Marketing stuff.

 

[MrCunningham]

Lol wat ? 2D is way more cheapjer than 3d. You are all trolled by japanese fighting games developers.

Cost of making fallout1 was3mln dollars and back then and 2D 256colour was super high tec.

Have you ever tried drawing and animating sprites by hand? It's not easy and can be time consuming. Sure they could just render them as 3D models, animate them and convert them to sprites. But if you are doing this, why not just lower the poly counts a bit, and make them real time 3d? They would offer more customization and flexibility that way.

 

[Shalashaska161]

Damn they're almost there just 15k to go!

 

[Emitan]

Lol wat ? 2D is way more cheapjer than 3d. You are all trolled by japanese fighting games developers.

Cost of making fallout1 was3mln dollars and back then and 2D 256colour was super high tec.

So your guesses are correct and people who actually make sprite based games are lying? lol

 

[Sentenza]

Lol wat ? 2D is way more cheapjer than 3d. You are all trolled by japanese fighting games developers.

Cost of making fallout1 was3mln dollars and back then and 2D 256colour was super high tec.

Pretty much all assets in Fallout were 3D renders, turned in bitmap images/animations.
They wouldn't save one single cent making the game in 3D, they went for 2D just cause computational power at the time wasn't nowhere close to run that stuff in real time 3D.

And if you want achieve some decent standard with your graphics, even today,hand drawn 2D animations are extremely time consuming and pricey to do.
Plus, you should have to renounce at all these advantages in terms of flexibility that real time 3D renders can offer (like showing on the characters what equip they are wearing, being able to rotate it in any direction without any effort, etc).

Last but not least, if you go for 3D assets ported in 2D today, you are going to have the worst side of both worlds. No flexibility and not cool, quirky hand-made look. It really doesn't save you a cent and with the graphical prowess of today's systems is completely pointless effort.

 

[Wiktor]

He also barely made any effort to improve his offering over the years (and yes, I'm mostly talking about the production value), which is what turned me from a fan of his first works to a bored, disappointed ex-customer.

Avadon was the Spiderweb's game that finally changed a lot compared to his previous outtings

 

[Sentenza]

Avadon was the Spiderweb's game that finally changed a lot compared to his previous outtings

Yes, after many games, and with a not-exactly-groundbreaking improvement.
Also, it was also one of his most criticized games for being somehow "dumbed down" compared to the previous titles.
And now with the new Avernum he already started to recycle the same assets once again.

 

[ixix]

I wonder if there's any overlap between the pixel purist camp and the Bioware romance crowd. Because the idea that there is a subset of people out there crossing their fingers for the announcement that Wasteland 2 will be a 2D dating sim is simply delightful.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Wasteland 2: Can love blossom in the Wasteland? |OT|

 

[duckroll]

Lol wat ? 2D is way more cheapjer than 3d. You are all trolled by japanese fighting games developers.

Cost of making fallout1 was3mln dollars and back then and 2D 256colour was super high tec.

Errr, I really don't think you know what you're talking about. In terms of actual practical asset production, Fallout 1 is a 3D game. The backgrounds and characters are modeled and animated in 3D, and then converted into 2D because nothing at that time would be able to run 3D graphics like that in realtime.

 

[Pachterballs]

there's no need to appease any market. they should just do whatever they think services the game the best. 2D/2.5D/3D. etc

fuck yeah.

How good does that still look?! dogmeat!!!