Monday, April 06, 2009
It's a Matter of (2D or 3D) Perspective!
Juuso posted this week some arguments about 2D versus 3D for indie games from a game developer's perspective. This argument was won by 3D several years ago in the mainstream side of the game development fence. Principally because 3D was cooler than 2D, and the hardcore gamers bought into it so they could wow their friends and folks on chat forums. Or something.
But since all of us are gamers here, I wondered ... what's your preference, as a player? Not just 2D versus 3D, but what sort of perspective? In an RPG?
One of the issues I consistently have with 3D is that objects often don't stand out as well. While everything is lit more "realistically" in a 3D world, they often blend together too nicely. the artists have more control over the look of an object (viewed from a very specific angle) in a 2D game.
I was always a fan of the first-person perspective as a kid, which has been an influence on me. I loved the "you are there" feeling of crawling through the dungeon. I can't say this is my favorite perspective or technology, but it was certainly an influence. It's probably why I loved Ultima Underworld so much. While other RPGs offered a simple first-person perspective (the Wizardry-style view), UU was the first game to offer a full 3D environment. Complete with underwater streams you could swim in. And the now-hated jumping puzzles. This was part of the influence for the perspective in Frayed Knights, but just as significant was the fact that it was extremely easy to do in the basic game engine I chose to use.Nowadays, the 3D "third-person over-the-shoulder" perspective is popular, as seen in games like Mass Effect. It is a popular perspective for more action-oriented RPGs, as you can see your character and still (kinda) aim in this view. You know, I really don't like this view. Fortunately, most games that I have played with this view allow you to swap perspectives to first-person, so I've been happy enough avoiding this perspective where feasible. It just doesn't do much for me. Except for the inventory screens, I never saw what my character looked like in Oblivion.
The problem with both of these perspectives is the depth-of-field problem - usually resolved by fogging and "level of detail" and what looks like little "horizon gnomes" making stuff visible at urealistically close distances. This also becomes a constraint on the world. Game designers have to make sure not too many objects can appear within the field of view at once, which can impact gameplay.
Then you've got the top-down or "semi-top down" birds-eye-view (both 2D and 3D), even if the perspective is... skewed. 2D JRPGs kinda-sorta gave us this perspective, as you can see in most of the RPG Maker games out there (Aveyond 2, 3 Stars of Destiny, etc.). Ditto for roguelikes, Baldur's Gate, Ultima VI and Ultima VII (and most of the earlier Ultimas, except for the dungeon sequences). An advantage of this perspective is that you can easily see and navigate the environment - there isn't too much problem with objects or paths being hidden by other objects (though it still happens, due to the perspective being slightly shifted or higher objects blocking the ground). Unfortunately, the birds-eye view isnt very pretty. We're used to looking at our world from our own eye level, and from above it just doesn't look so familiar. Which is why most games with this view "cheat" to skew the view to the side even though it doesn't match the camera's perspective very well.The more distant orthagonal / three-quarter view - replicated in 3D with a "distant" view often found in jRPGs. Eschalon: Book 1, Morning's Wrath, and Depths of Peril are indie RPGs that offer 2D and 3D versions of this view. The problem with this perspective is the occlusion issue. It looks good, but it's easy to have objects (including the player character) blocked behind an object, like a wall. So the game engines have to get creative about things like making objects become transparent or providing glowing outlines of hidden objects.
For 3D games today, there's a distant behind-the-character view, often used in modern 3D jRPGs. This perspective provides a good view of the world surrounding the player character, without the character blocking much of it with their body. But first person and behind-the-shoulder views in 3D, it also adds a bunch of problems for visual constraints - making sure not too many objects appear on-screen at once.It also makes it difficult to see hidden objects, and camera movement can be an issue. This is usually solved by giving the player some measure of control of the camera, though the environment can also be constrained to prevent interactive objects from being blocked. Persona 4 (pictured) uses both options, depending upon location. In school and in dungeons, the player can move the camera freely. In the town (among other places), the camera follows a very strict track, thus preventing the player from seeing that the rest of the world doesn't exist beyong this one street.
The Spirit Engine 2 offers a rare 2D side-view perspective. Rare for RPGs, that is. Not so rare for side-scrolling action games.
And then there are some games where the viewpoint is somewhat abstract and not particularly consistent - particularly in web-based games.
My personal favorites are - as mentioned - the first-person perspective in 3D, and the top-down (ish) perspective in 2D or 3D. The former I prefer for the experience, and the latter I prefer for the ease of navigation and seeing what's going in the world. (And then there was the RTS game that resembled an RPG, Dungeon Keeper, which offered both...)
So as a player, what's your perspective on perspective in RPGs? And do you have a preference for 2D versus 3D?
Labels: Game Design
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:33 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I'm not sure which I would pick as my overall favorite, but my -two- favorites are 1st Person and 3rd Person Isometric. The thing is, you can do Isometric with 2D OR 3D OR a combination. Heck, technically you can do 1st person with 2D sprites as well! So I'd argue that the 2D vs. 3D debate shouldn't be about which is "better", but about which the developer can execute better and which better supports the chosen artistic style of the game. If you've got talented 3D modelers and texture artists, and animators and so on, go for a 3D engine. If you don't but you have talented 2D artists and animators, go with animated sprites and hand-drawn backgrounds, or some other solution that plays to your strengths. As far as perspective I think the same arguments apply: 1st person perspective is better at immersing you in the world and creating a sense that you are your character, while 3rd person isometric is better at things like controlling a party in a more complex tactical combat system. I'd rather know that the camera perspective(s) were chosen by the developers to support their chosen style of game rather than chosen to "give fans what they want".
# posted by 
: April 06, 2009 1:11 PM
: April 06, 2009 1:11 PM
I too really like the immersion that a first person perspective brings. I don't think I've ever fled in terror from a monster in an isometric RPG, but I've done it plenty in first person RPGs. Of course Resident Evil and Silent Hill were both from an external viewpoint, and they got me pretty nervous at times. On the other hand I really like that the isometric view lets me see my character, and how cool he looks as I find neat new weapons and armor. Also, I'm not fond of melee combat from a first person perspective, it always feels really clunky to me. And I've got to agree with Linnaeus, an isometric perspective is far superior for tactical engagements, really any sort of turn based combat system.
Personally, it doesn't matter so much, as long as the game is good. I feel its more important that developers decide early in the project's life cycle on what fits best with their vision of the final product, and not necessarily what's the current flavor of the month. Then, work with those choices, rather than try to shoehorn in everything and the kitchen sink.
# posted by : April 06, 2009 3:43 PM
: April 06, 2009 3:43 PM
I find that its a matter of different but equal. Which style is best depends on the feeling the game is aiming for.
Personally, the lack of proprioception in 1st person makes me feel disconnected from the character, but at the same time I feel more connected to the world. I agree that 1st person has a better sense of "being there" and can immerse me in the setting much better. But being stripped of all my other senses (apart from hearing and quite restricted sight) breaks my immersion with the character. The 3rd person view gives a good substitute for those missing senses which helps me to connect with the character - being able to see when something smacks me in the back of the head makes up for not being able to feel it; seeing my character and its clothing makes up for not being able to hold out my arm and see it, etc.
The better my view of my character - the more I connect with them. The more realistic my view of the world - the more I connect with it.
In the end I generally prefer 3rd person because I like character based RPGs, and because 99% of 1st person melee combat implementations annoy the hell out of me.
Personally, the lack of proprioception in 1st person makes me feel disconnected from the character, but at the same time I feel more connected to the world. I agree that 1st person has a better sense of "being there" and can immerse me in the setting much better. But being stripped of all my other senses (apart from hearing and quite restricted sight) breaks my immersion with the character. The 3rd person view gives a good substitute for those missing senses which helps me to connect with the character - being able to see when something smacks me in the back of the head makes up for not being able to feel it; seeing my character and its clothing makes up for not being able to hold out my arm and see it, etc.
The better my view of my character - the more I connect with them. The more realistic my view of the world - the more I connect with it.
In the end I generally prefer 3rd person because I like character based RPGs, and because 99% of 1st person melee combat implementations annoy the hell out of me.
# posted by : April 06, 2009 5:54 PM
: April 06, 2009 5:54 PM
For those of us whose vocabularies suxx0r, "proprioception" means "the reception of stimuli produced within the organism." I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with a 1st-person viewpoint, but there you have it. =P But you make some great points, Caffeine.
As for preferred viewpoint: It totally depends on the game type.
1st-person shooters, for example, are primarily 1st-person simply because of the need to aim effectively on any axis within the 3D world. But the effect here, as far as the game character goes, is that you become the character, even if your character is named "JC", "Gordon", "Nomad", or "Zoey". There is definitely a level of immersion that can only be accomplished via a 1st-person viewpoint.
The 3rd-person viewpoint, on the other hand, maintains a clear delineation between the player and the character(s). Which I think is quite important in a RPG... For example, you the player might control a female bog-troll shaman named "Jenny-Rae", but you are definitely not "Jenny-Rae". Which, personally, would be a good thing; I wouldn't necessarily want to put myself directly in the shoes of a female bog-troll. =P
2D vs 3D... Well, if you're talking "flat" vs "depth" I'll take 3D every time. I'm a firm believer that 3D rendering is better than 2D in every way. Generally when people are debating 3D vs 2D, they are talking about the player viewpoint, not how the scene is rendered! And that's a completely separate issue, IMO. A 3D scene can be faked with 2D sprites; likewise a 2D scene can be rendered in 3D.
@ Jay:
"...I never saw what my character looked like in Oblivion..."
Guess you didn't know that you could toggle a 3rd person view... unless I needed to do something like accurately aim, I was often in 3rd-person. =)
"...While everything is lit more "realistically" in a 3D world, they often blend together too nicely. the artists have more control over the look of an object (viewed from a very specific angle) in a 2D game..."
I have to take exception here; once again, we're mixing the viewpoint with the rendering method. There's absolutely no reason a game cannot be rendered in 3D with a "specific" viewpoint. And as technology and tools become ever better, artists are getting more control over the look than ever before.
Back to the question at hand (sorry about the ramble)... My preference for RPGs is the way a lot of MMORPGs (e.g. WoW) do it: A 3D world with full camera control, with the ability to zoom from a 1st-person view out to a distant 3rd-person view, viewable from any angle.
But specifically... I'll take 3rd-person over 1st-person every time -- I like to see who my characters are and what they look like. I like to see them react to the world around them (fight animations, emote animations, etc.).
As for preferred viewpoint: It totally depends on the game type.
1st-person shooters, for example, are primarily 1st-person simply because of the need to aim effectively on any axis within the 3D world. But the effect here, as far as the game character goes, is that you become the character, even if your character is named "JC", "Gordon", "Nomad", or "Zoey". There is definitely a level of immersion that can only be accomplished via a 1st-person viewpoint.
The 3rd-person viewpoint, on the other hand, maintains a clear delineation between the player and the character(s). Which I think is quite important in a RPG... For example, you the player might control a female bog-troll shaman named "Jenny-Rae", but you are definitely not "Jenny-Rae". Which, personally, would be a good thing; I wouldn't necessarily want to put myself directly in the shoes of a female bog-troll. =P
2D vs 3D... Well, if you're talking "flat" vs "depth" I'll take 3D every time. I'm a firm believer that 3D rendering is better than 2D in every way. Generally when people are debating 3D vs 2D, they are talking about the player viewpoint, not how the scene is rendered! And that's a completely separate issue, IMO. A 3D scene can be faked with 2D sprites; likewise a 2D scene can be rendered in 3D.
@ Jay:
"...I never saw what my character looked like in Oblivion..."
Guess you didn't know that you could toggle a 3rd person view... unless I needed to do something like accurately aim, I was often in 3rd-person. =)
"...While everything is lit more "realistically" in a 3D world, they often blend together too nicely. the artists have more control over the look of an object (viewed from a very specific angle) in a 2D game..."
I have to take exception here; once again, we're mixing the viewpoint with the rendering method. There's absolutely no reason a game cannot be rendered in 3D with a "specific" viewpoint. And as technology and tools become ever better, artists are getting more control over the look than ever before.
Back to the question at hand (sorry about the ramble)... My preference for RPGs is the way a lot of MMORPGs (e.g. WoW) do it: A 3D world with full camera control, with the ability to zoom from a 1st-person view out to a distant 3rd-person view, viewable from any angle.
But specifically... I'll take 3rd-person over 1st-person every time -- I like to see who my characters are and what they look like. I like to see them react to the world around them (fight animations, emote animations, etc.).
What I've never seen done is a true 3D environment, Ultima VII-style, top-down perspective.
True 3D environments because we can, but Ultima VII-style top-down because of the clarity of interface.
True 3D environments because we can, but Ultima VII-style top-down because of the clarity of interface.
Oh, and also, if I ever see a game that does seamlessly zoom in from a personal "battlemap" view to a geographical "travel" view, complete with details like weather system and a day & night cycle?
I will cream in my pants. Because I've dreamed of an RPG like that ever since I was 15.
I will cream in my pants. Because I've dreamed of an RPG like that ever since I was 15.
I was going to say that I favour 2D (especially jRPG) views, but then I remembered playing Xenogears and Wild Arms 3. Both use a 3D system that makes exploring fun (moreso with Xenogears).
I think what actually makes the difference for me is non-photorealistic rendering. Efforts to add realism usually result in confusion. Especially when it comes to what routes are passable, and what objects you can interact with. WoW is one game that struck a nice balance for me.
I think what actually makes the difference for me is non-photorealistic rendering. Efforts to add realism usually result in confusion. Especially when it comes to what routes are passable, and what objects you can interact with. WoW is one game that struck a nice balance for me.
@xenovore
Proprioception is the term for those vague sort of senses you have about your own body and what its doing. For my comment, that means things like knowing where you hands and feet are without looking, or knowing when the hair stands up on the back of your neck...
1st person shooters are tricky with that sort of thing. You cant feel how high your feet are when you take a step, or judge whether you can step over something, etc. 3rd person works better because it provides an alternative - you still cant feel where your limbs are, but at least you can see them at a glance.
It doesnt really add to the 3rd person, exactly, but I miss it when its not there in 1st person.
Oh, and I forgot to mention I 100% agree with the observation about 3D objects not standing out because of lighting. There was a discussion on Gamedev the other day which got me thinking the exact same thing - the 2D often has more "punch" because the colours can be tweaked directly, while the 3d has to go through an extra layer of lighting. Perhaps crafty cell-shaders might be an interesting way to both have the benefits of 3d and lighting but retaining some ability to push colours in the right direction.
Proprioception is the term for those vague sort of senses you have about your own body and what its doing. For my comment, that means things like knowing where you hands and feet are without looking, or knowing when the hair stands up on the back of your neck...
1st person shooters are tricky with that sort of thing. You cant feel how high your feet are when you take a step, or judge whether you can step over something, etc. 3rd person works better because it provides an alternative - you still cant feel where your limbs are, but at least you can see them at a glance.
It doesnt really add to the 3rd person, exactly, but I miss it when its not there in 1st person.
Oh, and I forgot to mention I 100% agree with the observation about 3D objects not standing out because of lighting. There was a discussion on Gamedev the other day which got me thinking the exact same thing - the 2D often has more "punch" because the colours can be tweaked directly, while the 3d has to go through an extra layer of lighting. Perhaps crafty cell-shaders might be an interesting way to both have the benefits of 3d and lighting but retaining some ability to push colours in the right direction.
# posted by : April 06, 2009 10:19 PM
: April 06, 2009 10:19 PM
I agree with many of the earlier posters.
I generally prefer 3D views from a design and play perspective (they tend to be more dynamic), but as they're usually more costly to generate and they make a larger proportion of the world visible, they can sometimes lead to very sparse worlds (which isn't good).
First person is better for games that require aiming (like FPSes); third person is better for games that require empathy with the character (like RPGs and adventures).
One idea for camera perspectives that's been churning around in the back of my head for a while: have a full 3D rendered world but with a normally-fixed camera (perhaps isometric, perhaps other). This allows the world designers to have known viewpoints (to try and avoid occlusion problems), but still provides the opportunity to use special camera effects sometimes (such as a pan and zoom in on a door/tunnel you're entering or a zoom out to the world map, etc).
I generally prefer 3D views from a design and play perspective (they tend to be more dynamic), but as they're usually more costly to generate and they make a larger proportion of the world visible, they can sometimes lead to very sparse worlds (which isn't good).
First person is better for games that require aiming (like FPSes); third person is better for games that require empathy with the character (like RPGs and adventures).
One idea for camera perspectives that's been churning around in the back of my head for a while: have a full 3D rendered world but with a normally-fixed camera (perhaps isometric, perhaps other). This allows the world designers to have known viewpoints (to try and avoid occlusion problems), but still provides the opportunity to use special camera effects sometimes (such as a pan and zoom in on a door/tunnel you're entering or a zoom out to the world map, etc).
Favorite perspective? That one's easy for me; it's unquestionably the first person point of view; and this is regardless of whether the game features seamless three-dimensional environments รก la Ultima Underworld, employs step-based pseudo-3D (early Wizardry/Might & Magic) or relies on some kind of hybrid (such as Etrian Oddyssey, which has 3D graphics but step-based movement). My priority when playing RPGs is to be sucked into the game world as much as humanly possible, and that cannot be achieved as fully with any other perspective.
By the way, I found the shift from Persona 3's isometric viewpoint to the much closer third person perspective in Persona 4 (in the dungeons and school environments, anyway) to be one of the most satisfying changes to the system. Bringing the camera down to slightly above the shoulders of the protagonist really ramped up the tension and sense of danger during the dungeon explorations.
By the way, I found the shift from Persona 3's isometric viewpoint to the much closer third person perspective in Persona 4 (in the dungeons and school environments, anyway) to be one of the most satisfying changes to the system. Bringing the camera down to slightly above the shoulders of the protagonist really ramped up the tension and sense of danger during the dungeon explorations.
-----------------------------------
Late comment, sorry :(
I've been hoping you would do a post about 2D vs 3D. Great to hear what you think about the subject. As a player, I definitely prefer 2D games. I (think) I understand from a development standpoint why 3D is so popular these days. Each invidiual pose/frame for a sprite doesn't have to be drawn for 3D, correct?
For me, I tend to like 2D much better. I can't say I am particular on a perspective. I like the side-scrolling that action games tend to use, or the top-down (ish) view from the old style SNES RPGs (Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire, 7th Saga, etc...). If I had to pick, I would pick the top-down(ish) perspective. My favorite RPGs had this perspective. Of course, I like Wizardry and a few other games that use the first-person perspective. The thing about first-person though, is you can't see your own character/avatar half the time. I'm not sure what is up with the "need" to see my avatar in the game, but I tend to like games better that show you.
Not to say that I don't like 3D games either. I'm not sure Final Fantasy XII's environment could have been as cool in a 2D game (but I'd sure like to see it tried). If a game is going to be 3D, I prefer a 3rd person perspective for sure. Not necessarily the "over the shoulder" from Mass Effect, but something like Neverwinter Nights, Star Ocean (2D/3D hybrid), or Final Fantasy VII-X & XII. I really liked the Tales of Symphonia game on the Gamecube. Maybe I'm just a fan of cartoon-ish graphics?
I would be interested to see different experiments with 2D games and their perspectives. A side-scrolling RPG could be interesting, I think. It seems to me like a game like that could have a lot of potential to add strategy related to party-formation and/or puzzle solving. Any examples of games that try to break the status quo on the 2D perspective?
Something I've been curious about, and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask the question, but it "appears" that some of the console developers are struggling with the switch to HD gaming and getting 2D to look correct. SNK Playmore has said that drawing the sprites is a huge resource hog and is making their latest King of Fighters have a lower character count (See Development section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Fighters_XII). I think Nippon Ichi made the same claim about their Disgaea 3 game, though I can't find the article I'm thinking about. However, Vanillaware doesn't seem daunted (in public) with their Muramasa game. Perhaps it is because the Wii isn't as HD capable as the PS3/Xbox360. I'd be interested in learning more about the 2D game process, to understand why developers might be running into issues like this. Do you know of any resources that you could recommend?
Anyways, great post!
Late comment, sorry :(
I've been hoping you would do a post about 2D vs 3D. Great to hear what you think about the subject. As a player, I definitely prefer 2D games. I (think) I understand from a development standpoint why 3D is so popular these days. Each invidiual pose/frame for a sprite doesn't have to be drawn for 3D, correct?
For me, I tend to like 2D much better. I can't say I am particular on a perspective. I like the side-scrolling that action games tend to use, or the top-down (ish) view from the old style SNES RPGs (Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire, 7th Saga, etc...). If I had to pick, I would pick the top-down(ish) perspective. My favorite RPGs had this perspective. Of course, I like Wizardry and a few other games that use the first-person perspective. The thing about first-person though, is you can't see your own character/avatar half the time. I'm not sure what is up with the "need" to see my avatar in the game, but I tend to like games better that show you.
Not to say that I don't like 3D games either. I'm not sure Final Fantasy XII's environment could have been as cool in a 2D game (but I'd sure like to see it tried). If a game is going to be 3D, I prefer a 3rd person perspective for sure. Not necessarily the "over the shoulder" from Mass Effect, but something like Neverwinter Nights, Star Ocean (2D/3D hybrid), or Final Fantasy VII-X & XII. I really liked the Tales of Symphonia game on the Gamecube. Maybe I'm just a fan of cartoon-ish graphics?
I would be interested to see different experiments with 2D games and their perspectives. A side-scrolling RPG could be interesting, I think. It seems to me like a game like that could have a lot of potential to add strategy related to party-formation and/or puzzle solving. Any examples of games that try to break the status quo on the 2D perspective?
Something I've been curious about, and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask the question, but it "appears" that some of the console developers are struggling with the switch to HD gaming and getting 2D to look correct. SNK Playmore has said that drawing the sprites is a huge resource hog and is making their latest King of Fighters have a lower character count (See Development section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Fighters_XII). I think Nippon Ichi made the same claim about their Disgaea 3 game, though I can't find the article I'm thinking about. However, Vanillaware doesn't seem daunted (in public) with their Muramasa game. Perhaps it is because the Wii isn't as HD capable as the PS3/Xbox360. I'd be interested in learning more about the 2D game process, to understand why developers might be running into issues like this. Do you know of any resources that you could recommend?
Anyways, great post!
I don't know. I like first person for exploration, but I usually feel like I have blinkers on. The view is just too narrow, especially without being able to use my other senses effectively.
For combat, I'd prefer third person, because of the tactical considerations. I prefer to think, rather than just react. So I never mind switching to a different combat screen.
Hmm,... it might be fun in a turn-based, party-based game to completely upend that, to use a third person perspective until it was time for one of your characters to act, at which point you'd be taken to their first person perspective. Or to do that in an X-Com combat situation, where you gave orders to everyone, then let the round play out automatically.
Well, there are all sorts of possibilities,... and variety IS the spice of life. :)
For combat, I'd prefer third person, because of the tactical considerations. I prefer to think, rather than just react. So I never mind switching to a different combat screen.
Hmm,... it might be fun in a turn-based, party-based game to completely upend that, to use a third person perspective until it was time for one of your characters to act, at which point you'd be taken to their first person perspective. Or to do that in an X-Com combat situation, where you gave orders to everyone, then let the round play out automatically.
Well, there are all sorts of possibilities,... and variety IS the spice of life. :)
Wow - thanks for all the comments. I've been watching them appear and been really impressed.
I wasn't so much wanting a poll, as much as getting an idea *why* people preferred one perspective over another. You folks did not disappoint!
Just a few thoughts:
@Demiath: You know, I hadn't noticed that about P3 / P4, but you are right!
@Weezard: I don't know the answer to that beyond the obvious: Sprites take a lot of time to animate. With 3D, your initial creation time is a lot larger than it is creating a sprite-ready 2D portrait... but you get the savings on the back end. Adding an additional animation to the already built, rigged object can take a lot less time than creating a new sprite-based animation sequence.
@T-Boy: You mean like Supreme Commander's Zoom-out?
@xenovore: Oh, I knew about the toggle - even used it a couple of times. But I never wanted to leave first person view.
I wasn't so much wanting a poll, as much as getting an idea *why* people preferred one perspective over another. You folks did not disappoint!
Just a few thoughts:
@Demiath: You know, I hadn't noticed that about P3 / P4, but you are right!
@Weezard: I don't know the answer to that beyond the obvious: Sprites take a lot of time to animate. With 3D, your initial creation time is a lot larger than it is creating a sprite-ready 2D portrait... but you get the savings on the back end. Adding an additional animation to the already built, rigged object can take a lot less time than creating a new sprite-based animation sequence.
@T-Boy: You mean like Supreme Commander's Zoom-out?
@xenovore: Oh, I knew about the toggle - even used it a couple of times. But I never wanted to leave first person view.
That makes sense, I can see why it would take forever to animate a 2D sprite vs a 3D model.
My un-knowledge of game development is going to come bleeding out over this, but... Are there tools that are similar to Anime Studio (formerly called "Moho") that allow you to give a 2D image a 'skeleton' and create your own animation sequence? It seems to me like a person should be able to take the keyframes from the animation made and export those as a sprite sheet? LOL - of course, this is probably why I am a business programmer and not a game programmer/designer :P
My un-knowledge of game development is going to come bleeding out over this, but... Are there tools that are similar to Anime Studio (formerly called "Moho") that allow you to give a 2D image a 'skeleton' and create your own animation sequence? It seems to me like a person should be able to take the keyframes from the animation made and export those as a sprite sheet? LOL - of course, this is probably why I am a business programmer and not a game programmer/designer :P
I am well known for being anti-3d. I am one of those people who is prone to motion-sickness in 3d games if the camera swings around.
I am also extremely prone to getting lost inside a single room, unable to find the exit. My brain cannot keep the perception of space correctly. This can be compensated for by good map displays.
However, I still find the experience of first person perspective to be profoundly unpleasant. It doesn't bother me in really old-school dungeon crawls (the sort of view I replicated in the first Cute Knight), especially if all the directions are at neat 90-degree angles. But as games approach 'real' 3d - especially if they're realtime - they build a deep sense of uneasiness in me as I play. If it's not the motion-sickness, it's the claustrophobia!
With many games, if I can't zoom way out and see where my character is standing and how she interacts with the environment, I will not play. This is why I have not played more than a couple rooms of Portal.
I am also extremely prone to getting lost inside a single room, unable to find the exit. My brain cannot keep the perception of space correctly. This can be compensated for by good map displays.
However, I still find the experience of first person perspective to be profoundly unpleasant. It doesn't bother me in really old-school dungeon crawls (the sort of view I replicated in the first Cute Knight), especially if all the directions are at neat 90-degree angles. But as games approach 'real' 3d - especially if they're realtime - they build a deep sense of uneasiness in me as I play. If it's not the motion-sickness, it's the claustrophobia!
With many games, if I can't zoom way out and see where my character is standing and how she interacts with the environment, I will not play. This is why I have not played more than a couple rooms of Portal.
@Coyote re: Supreme Commander: Yes. Like that.
But not for RTS. Dungeon Siege comes close, but not close enough for me.
But not for RTS. Dungeon Siege comes close, but not close enough for me.
As an artist trained in 3D and 2D, both for stills and animation, I see a lot of good in both systems. I think that smart art direction is key to a good presentation, rather than worrying about dimensionality.
That said, as a player, I love tactical games, and I lean toward the isometric projection with "3Dish" rotation as seen in FFT. Band of Bugs manages that well with full 3D assets, while FFT used sprites. I'm more interested in the *sense* of space when I game, and that can be communicated well either in 2D or 3D.
I can admit to a preference for 3rd person control over 1st person in something like a WoW, though. I like the greater sense of spatial awareness, since first person views don't adequately cover peripheral vision well.
Post a Comment
That said, as a player, I love tactical games, and I lean toward the isometric projection with "3Dish" rotation as seen in FFT. Band of Bugs manages that well with full 3D assets, while FFT used sprites. I'm more interested in the *sense* of space when I game, and that can be communicated well either in 2D or 3D.
I can admit to a preference for 3rd person control over 1st person in something like a WoW, though. I like the greater sense of spatial awareness, since first person views don't adequately cover peripheral vision well.
Links to this post:
<< Home
