RE: Future of the series (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

Raap -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 3:05:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulation01

I didn't realize 3D had become passe.

More like it has been overly hyped and anything that didn't have it was suddenly 'old'. 3D certainly has its uses, but this game isn't one of them. Not unless they also decide to make a 3D game; i.e. not just graphics, but up and down movement and such.



Simulation01 -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 3:14:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raap


quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulation01

I didn't realize 3D had become passe.

More like it has been overly hyped and anything that didn't have it was suddenly 'old'. 3D certainly has its uses, but this game isn't one of them. Not unless they also decide to make a 3D game; i.e. not just graphics, but up and down movement and such.


Well, that is what I was wanting. Movement in 3D up, down, sideways....how else would you do 3D?![;)]



unclean -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 3:54:17 AM)

I'm guessing that Distant Worlds in 3D would end up looking more like EU3 or Supreme Ruler 2020 than Starcraft 2, so I'm going to have to side with Raap here.

Normally I'm all for games getting 3D engines, but indie strategy games are definitely an exception. [sm=00000459.gif]



Raap -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 3:56:53 AM)

Ah, that's a bit different. Thought you just meant keeping the game as it was now, just with 3D models instead of 2D sprites as many other games have done before( Space Empires 5, MoO3, etc.)

Well, in that case I do agree it might actually add something to the gameplay, but it would probably also be a lot harder to make it proper. You'd suddenly need to think of all sorts of things, like collision detection and pathfinding. Could end up being pretty frustrating to program, and would likely just benefit the human player since it's hard to make the AI able to exploit such an open game world. Would also require immense CPU power to calculate stuff for that many ships, and it would end up pretty messy at space ports when they are under attack with tons of civilian ships in the mix.

I like the idea, but I don't think it's been done in such a big scale before. Star Ruler has it, but that game's far less complex and detailed, and also runs poorly a while into the game or with large galaxies. It's also a complete mess when it comes to overview of your ships and such.



Shark7 -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 5:34:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raap


quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulation01

I didn't realize 3D had become passe.

More like it has been overly hyped and anything that didn't have it was suddenly 'old'. 3D certainly has its uses, but this game isn't one of them. Not unless they also decide to make a 3D game; i.e. not just graphics, but up and down movement and such.


Um, I'll pass. This game is best played just like it is, top down.



HectorOfTroy -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 5:51:37 AM)

Top down all the way. You have enough things to worry about, so 3D movement would just be one more extra thing.



J HG T -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 6:27:28 AM)

3D would add nothing meaningful to DW. Well maybe nice visuals of vast space, nebulaes and stuff.
Still, I side with 2D on this one. More practical, needs less resources from Com. and has certain charm in it. Easier to mod too.
If Erik and Codeforce are planning to move DW to 3D I won't object, but I won't be jumping from joy either.





James009 -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 6:29:58 AM)

I just want to chime in on 3D. I think 3D is overused in modern computer games. Some of the best and most deep strategy and RPG games were only 2D and they were so great because of what 2D provides. Making a game in 2D reduces strain on the developer because instead of focusing on a 3-dimensional engine they can focus more on adding new features, more gameplay, and added content. With 2D games there is also a little less to break because it should be a little more simple.

I'd like Distant Worlds to stay mostly the same (as in 2D) but with more content and more gameplay. I still think it'd be nice to have more ship designs availible (ie. multiple Escort looks or gradual differences in design), better UI, more events, more customization, multiplayer, and a gamemode to play as the captain of one ship. I don't think ground combat or anything 3D will bring much to Distant Worlds and would probably hamper it.

Regarding ground combat I think it'd be, at the very most, nice to see a little running combat simulation when you click the planet showing the progress with little army men fighting (simular to Master of Orion II). That would be pretty cool and I don't think it'd be impossible to implement.



Data -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 9:24:37 AM)

+1
i think 2D will eventually end on it's own GOG.....but we all love good old games for the gameplay first of all
and i really like the MOO2 similar ground combat....but then again I like everything similar to MOO2 so you can safely ignore me[:)]



Webbco -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 11:46:19 AM)

It's important that people don't equate "3D" with "lack of depth". Having 3D ship design, if done correctly, would add heaps to immersion. We shouldn't reject the idea simply because there are so many game developers that really do think cutting edge graphics is the primary goal (and there DOES seem to be so many).

After thinking a bit about it, I can't realistically see DW becoming true 3D in the near future, simply because of the sheer scale of the game. Some features would probably have to be cut out in order to implement 3D design...an unworthy sacrifice for a game of this calibre in my opinion.



Gargoil -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 2:40:32 PM)

I have seen arguments for 3D and for not 3D, but no real argument that states that, in some cases 2D is actually superior.

I actually think if we had both a 2D and 3D version of DW right now, and even if the 3D working as intended, we'd still find the 2D version to be BETTER. It is the way the infromation is presented. You can grasp what's going on.



cmdrnarrain -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 4:10:50 PM)

I agree 3D adds very little to a game like this, even Homeworlds pretty played as 2D game with the ability to pan.

Most of the user interfaces need serious work and should be modeled on the new Tech screen.



ASHBERY76 -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 6:57:35 PM)

For a start you would have a seemless zoom in 3d which a 2d game can not.



Setekh -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 7:43:19 PM)

Keep it 2D.  I have nothing against 3D and I have a system more than capable of coping with the latest 3D games,  but 2D massively increases modability.



Raap -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 8:01:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

For a start you would have a seemless zoom in 3d which a 2d game can not.

Ironically, most 3D games seem to restrict that zoom at ridiculous levels. Most 3D RTS games for instance have a very strict limit on how far you can zoom in and especially out.

At any rate, I'm not sure why seamless zoom would make any difference. You already have a great zooming system in DW.



Sabin Stargem -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 11:29:56 PM)

I don't care for the zooming in Distant Worlds because it feels a bit...clunky? It feels too jumpy to me.



On the topic of 2D vs 3D, there is always the possibility of using 3D, but using an isometric camera. This would allow an intermediary step for the developer to get used to working with 3D graphics. I am thinking of something similar to Gratuitous Space Battles, where we have flattened 3D representations of ships and look down on them from above - 3D sprites, essentially. Heck, considering that the developer of that game is independent, maybe Codeforce could ally with Positech for Distant Worlds II.



Gratuitous Space Battles trailer

The Making of Gratuitous Space Battles






Simulation01 -> RE: Future of the series (1/28/2011 11:56:27 PM)

In the words of liberals.....this is not a zero sum game.  We can have our cake and eat it too!  Eventually the developers will simply bring the first incarnation of this game to a close and they will look for ways to add something 'new'....3D is that major something to bring to a game with this kind of depth.  They will seek to attract a larger audience and that is what 3D will do.  Let me be clear.  I am not hating on DW's current 2D state.  I love this game.  However, I also love my 3D RTS games like Sins of A Solar Empire....that game simply lacks the depth of empire that I like ( diplomacy, trade, and the inability to modify your ships in game ). 

As for an example of a 3D game of this scale.....just look at EVE.


Also, if the game one day went 3D the biggest thing I would want would be a spaceship editor like in Spore so that truly unique designs could be made by EVERY player. That would be an awesome thing to bring to a Grand RTS like this.



Raap -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 12:28:45 AM)

And why do you think Sins lacks that depth? They wanted to make a shallow game? Nah, far more likely creating the graphics just took too much of the resources, as with countless other games.

But yes, making stuff 3D is usually a way to try to appeal to a larger audience. So is dumbing down. Now, that might work fine with RPGs and other such games, especially when consoles come into the picture, but the 4x genre which Distant Worlds is a part of appeals to a pretty small range of gamers. And you've a majority of demanding gamers there who want all the depth that can be had, not resources wasted on fancy graphics that do nothing but look good. And so you might very well end up shooting yourself in the foot if you try to appeal to a larger market using graphics; you'll alienate much of your existing customer base, and you won't attract many new ones because the genre really doesn't appeal to all that many people.

Again, keep in mind that you'll have to remake many elements of the game if you decide to go 3D. It'll also be much more expensive and time-consuming, and you'll most likely only end up with mediocre 3D graphics. Chances are you'll also end up with a game that has *less* depth than the predecessor and is harder to make mods for. There would also be a much more limited shipset. Now compare this to having them put all their resources into adding to and further improving the existing gameplay and moddability, to quite possibly make this the best 4x game there's ever been. I certainly know which choice I would pick.

Oh, and comparing this with a massively multiplayer online game really isn't the best idea, since Eve uses supercomputers to run their servers.



WoodMan -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 1:02:55 AM)

quote:

Now, that might work fine with RPGs and other such games, especially when consoles come into the picture, but the 4x genre which Distant Worlds is a part of appeals to a pretty small range of gamers.

Actually, in my mind the single player RPG genre died with Baldurs Gate 2.  When NWN came out in 3D it was all over.  [:D]  There have been some valient attempts, Oblivion and Morrowind spring to mind, but nothing to equal that old 2D game yet.



Raap -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 1:34:07 AM)

That was kind of my point. RPGs used to be a relatively small market, but after some 3D, consoles and dumbing down, aRPGs have become a pretty popular genre amongst the mainstream.

I'm just saying that that quite likely won't happen with 4x games like Distant Worlds.



unclean -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 1:36:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raap
And why do you think Sins lacks that depth? They wanted to make a shallow game? Nah, far more likely creating the graphics just took too much of the resources, as with countless other games.


He said depth of empire, which is a completely valid complaint about that game. Also, saying that the graphics somehow took resources away from the gameplay and then turning around and saying they widen the appeal is a really bizarre stance to take - that game was a huge hit with three expansion packs and lots of patches, and if you think that the graphics did anything but help expand the gameplay I just can't see where you're coming from.

Unless that's just your roundabout way of saying you don't like RTS games or something.



WoodMan -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 1:48:59 AM)

3D actually adds nothing to Sins in my opinion.  Its not really 3D, I forget its even a 3D game as its controlled mainly from a single perspective and the only reason to zoom in and use the 3D part of the game is to see the fancy battles.  If it was in 2D I would still probably enjoy it as much (which is not much because its a pretty shallow game overall).

I don't think there is a need for developers to dumb down all their games and focus on fancy graphics and weird controllers that you wave around in your living room.  In the past, kids grew up and stopped playing games, but I think my generation (guys approaching 30) are the first generation who did not grow out of games.  There are some 30,40 and 50 somethings who still play games, but they are a minority, however, I'm 27 and don't know a single guy who doesn't play games!  In the future, hopefully this trend will continue and developers can move away from flashy graphics and stupid gimicks and focus on depth, immersion and intellectual challenge.  In fact, if I owned a games company, this would be the aim.  It requires less money to make and there is an increasingly large audience all the time.



Sabin Stargem -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 4:12:52 AM)

3D doesn't have to kill the viewpoint of 2D, but rather changing the mechanisms by which that viewpoint could be created - all the while taking advantage of videocards and generally looking better.

On the topic of dumbing down, I think it is important to make a differentiation between that and simplification. From the viewpoint of an engineer or an creator, the question isn't just "how much can I add", but rather "What can I take away to make it better?". Turning a block of stone into an statue requires removing the stone in a specific pattern, otherwise the statue would be fragile or ugly. That is to say that it is easy to make bad choices when trying to simplify something, but a skilled craftsman can perceive what actually would make the result worse.




Examples

Dumbing Down - Thief III - An attempt to accommodate the performance of consoles, which results in many loading screens. For some reason, it couldn't do rope arrows.

Dumbing Down - Deus Ex 2 - While I don't mind the universal ammo, the plot, GUI, and huge number of loading screens resulted in a mess.

Dumbing Down - King's Quest 8 - Oh my. The switch over to 3D was a complete waste, in that it didn't take advantage for what it could do for puzzle solving, nor was the combat interesting. A genuine case of dumbing down and missing the point of the series.


Kitchen Sink - Master of Orion III - Too many half-baked ideas.

Kitchen Sink - Daikatana - They kept changing the engine to keep up with competitors, never really settled on anything, so they did everything. Pruning and restraint would have helped a lot here.

Kitchen Sink - Warrior #1 - Whoa. WAAAY too talky for a comic, and has quite a few bats in the belfry. Shearing away most of the dialogue and using carefully chosen sentences would have made it far better. Not that the source material was any good in the first place, but still...a clear demonstration of excess.

Warrior #1 review


Simplicty - Quest for Glory II (AGDI) - Uses a combo parser system, where you can use your mouse to navigate dialogue trees, but you can also ask questions by typing words. A very good accommodation between classic adventure games and modern GUIs, where sacrifice is not required.

Simplicty - Diablo II - At first it appears very similar to the original, but has a lot more depth and content than Diablo - but is still very simple to play. This maintains the flow of gameplay.

Simplicity - Arkham Asylum - You are the Batman. The relatively simple controls lent a lot to making you feel strong when you timed your actions right, or pulled off a plan.




Simulation01 -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 4:55:18 AM)

Not wanting 3D at some point is like someone that only likes the middle of the cake, but not the icing.  Sure it's good, but the 3D icing really lights up the taste buds.

The Sins of a Solar Empire developers did something that struck me as incredibly odd.  They developed an expansion that they labeled Diplomacy....which had no diplomacy!  It's like they were gonna add diplomacy, but....I don't know...It was like they forgot the purpose of the expansion and didn't add any.  They didn't really add any major cosmetic goody's either....so....if they didn't develop the graphics ( as has been suggested as a reason for not adding more depth ) what did they spend their money working on?  I know they were wanting more money...that's obvious but.......  the title was Diplomacy.



Howard Mitchell -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 9:04:48 AM)

Gameplay over graphics any time.

Very glad to hear there is at least a 'surprise' in store for the future.



Sgt.Fury25 -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 12:10:15 PM)

Hi all,just chiming in to just leave game as is,3D only bogs things down especially for older systems.Gameplay is more significent IMHO!Love this game.[sm=00000924.gif]



Kayoz -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 4:48:32 PM)

Changing DW over to 3D would require way too much dev effort and £££ for the quality it might lend to the game.



Simulation01 -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 5:25:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

Changing DW over to 3D would require way too much dev effort and £££ for the quality it might lend to the game.



You know what I'm hearing in this thread? Fear! You're all afraid of even trying. You're all basically saying it can't be done and you're too afraid to see it tried. Scared little children......fortune favors the bold.[sm=sterb029.gif]



Abraxis -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 5:37:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulation01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

Changing DW over to 3D would require way too much dev effort and £££ for the quality it might lend to the game.



You know what I'm hearing in this thread? Fear! You're all afraid of even trying. You're all basically saying it can't be done and you're too afraid to see it tried. Scared little children......fortune favors the bold.[sm=sterb029.gif]


Some of us don't see any value whatsoever in implementing 3D, others would have them focus on other things, we're rational, not afraid.

If I told you to hold your breath for the next hour, you would refuse being the rational and sensible person you are. If you disagree, feel free to challenge my argument... unless... you're afraid [sm=innocent0009.gif]



Data -> RE: Future of the series (1/29/2011 5:54:17 PM)

in the end it's Elliot's decision...but there are many more easier goodies to implement before even considering this
fortunate for us not so bold as we are [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375