I hate 3d graphics

Discussion in 'Indie Related Chat' started by svero, May 5, 2006.

  1. svero

    Moderator Original Member Indie Author

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    6
    [RANT]
    After playing Galciv2 it reinterested me in regular old feet on the ground civilization and so I picked up civ4.

    I have to say that both these games suffer from the same baffling decision to use 3d graphics where none are needed and they hinder the game.

    In Galciv you can zoom in on the ships and so on, but not once do I ever play anything but the iconic view. I don't think anyone does. Like my worse nightmare is when I zoom in 2 close and the game has the audacity to display a ship with polygons. Initially when I was playing the game I couldnt figure out how to tell what planets were colonizable because i was playing zoomed in. If you zoom out the colonizable planets show as filled in circles. Unusable planets as hollow. The instuctions say this but they neglected to tell me it didnt show when I was too zoomed in. In fact I only started enjoying the game when i figured out how to zoom away from all the fancy graphics. Certain screens are enhanced by 3d I guess.. like the ship building screen, but really it's a stretch even there.

    So now i get civ 4 and my computer can barely handle the strain. Some genius seems to think that in order to decide the right strategy I need to zoom in as view the polygons on the leaf of an individual tree denoting forest square. Thanks for that! It's completely useless. It doesn't add a single thing to the game that I can see.

    I wish big devs would use a little more common sense and just do what's right for the game instead of trying to cram everything into some fancy 3d engine which isn't needed and actually deters from the fun. I don't know what the arguments were for using 3d engines for either of these games, but I doubt they were very good ones, and I have a sneaking suspicion it had a little more to do with being on the cutting edge, and marketing, than basic gameplay/design decisions. The games are still very good games but aren't enhanced by the 3D. You just sort of feel like you're working around it to try and have fun with what is still a solid core gameplay mechanic.
    [/RANT]
     
  2. Gilzu

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    8
    Thats exactly why i liked most of the games that came in the age of Monocrome & cga (and maybe EGA) screens.

    graphics abilities were limited, so games had to bring great game play to cover for the low graphic quality. I play some of these days till this very day Civ I, Gradius, Commander Keen and Jones in the fast lane - even in CGA/EGA mode.

    Same goes for movies with great SFX but no plot.
     
  3. princec

    Indie Author

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    4,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hate 3D graphics too if it's any consolation, but mostly because I'm not clever enough to program them :D

    Cas :)
     
  4. PeterM

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps they couldn't get a publisher deal without going 3D?
     
  5. Sakura Games

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well if you played also the other Sid game, Pirates! has the same problem: excessively long 3d cut-scenes. The first thing you see them you say "wow" (that's probably what the publisher says), but after 4-5 times you quickly press ESC key saying "wtf they put those unskippable stupid scenes!" (what 99% of player would think).
    Remember that despite those games are named "Sid Meier's blabla" they were funded by publishers and for sure those 3d part was their idea. Sid would never do that, I'm sure :D
     
  6. Game Producer

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    2
    I just so love 3D graphics :p

    But I agree with this:
     
  7. svero

    Moderator Original Member Indie Author

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yeah I don't actually hate 3d for it's own sake. I like 3d graphics when it's used right and makes sense for the game in question.
     
  8. jefferytitan

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Most of my favourite games come from a similar era. They were just more varied and interesting. And the designers understood escapism and plain fun. I don't really identify with today's "hardcore gamers".

    I do like 3D, but few games I've seen have used it creatively enough to capture my interest. My last "wow!" 3D game was Doom. Which wasn't actually 3D. I think that says something. ;)

     
  9. cliffski

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. I didnt get past the patronizing Civ4 tutorial with its 'virtual civ' nonsense. I tried the demo and that put me off buying it.
    Galcivs 3D battles are pretty pointless, but ts a great game and you can ignore them entirely. 3D is great for real immerive stuff like BF2 or Call of Duty, and I guess for MMORPG games. But 3D RTS games generally suck, and anyone who thinks 3D strategy games are better than 2D is just flat wrong. Put that dev time into better AI, more gameplay, or even (shock!) a cheaper game.
    Im hoping we arent the only ones who feel this, as I'd hate to think people wont buy Kudos because its 2D. It didnt hurt Democracy, but Kudos is mroe mass market.
    Let us usher in a new 2D revolution comrades.
     
  10. d000hg

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's widely believed that Total Annhilation is the best ever RTS. Warcraft III also was pretty popular.

    I personally like 3D games as long as they don't detract from the game. I'd rather have pretty graphics; in RTS games for instance I don't like the option of going 1st-person but I like the added strategy from 3D terrain, line of sight and so on.
     
  11. Nauris

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dunno, I kind of like the fact that GalCiv2 is 3D. Granted, most of the time the zoomed out view is what you look at but at times I want to see those fleets approaching planet and battle scenes with my ships duking it out in the middle of nebula.
    Plus, man, the ship designer is minigame in itself and wouldnt be half as fun in 2D :)

    Dont underestimate the need for immersion for strategy titles. I doubt I`d have bought GC2 if screenshots showed only black background with bunch of icons. Even if I spend 80 percent of playtime zoomed out, my mind somewhere deep actually plays those battles in the 3D view, so that 20 percent of playtime has actually left hooks in me.
     
  12. Nauris

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    They suck because they`re basically 2D games with 3D models. Which means the same old Star/Warcraft only with higher system requirements. Those games that actually have utilized the third dimension in one way or another (like Myth with its 3D terrain), gained from that.
    It would be interesting to play a GalCiv type game but in really 3D space. Or maybe not. Maybe we`d just get lose orientation.
     
  13. Savant

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's, honestly, a load of BS. The graphics they did back then were the best possible for the time. So they were still graphics whores, it just looked like crap no matter what they tried. So don't think they were intentionally not doing nice looking graphics - they simply couldn't do any better.

    Plus, you were younger, easier to please, newer to gaming, etc. Lots of factors that make you look back with fond nostalgia. Combine that with the fact that you've mentally filtered that period of gaming to exclude all the crappy games that were released and all you remember is the good stuff.

    And now that period (which had a higher crap to gold ratio than today) becomes the "good old days". What-ev. :)
     
  14. Sharpfish

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    0

    A rare occasion where I actually agree with what Savant says. ;)

    Seriously stop hating the tech and just hate the game. 3D or 2D is not the issue. I have played so many 3D games that I love that I know 3D isn't bad by default. And I love 2D stuff going all the way back to the Atari VCS, but quite rightly a lot of it was just as much crap as we get today (if not moreso). We are just jaded and harder to please.
     
  15. cliffski

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes but its the 3D tech that makes a game need a $2000 PC and run at a snails pace. 2D games load in seconds, they always run at maximum res with smooth responsive GUIs and high frame rates. Cossacks let you have 32,000 units for crying out loud, because they were 2D.
    If 3D tech didnt make the game take longer to load, need better hardware, or compromise unit limits, Id be all in favour of 3D RTS games. but thats not the case.
    Its not a matter of principle, but a matter of experience. with a very few exceptions (Imperial glory was ok) 3D RTS games have sucked IMHO.
    even with a good 3D RTS you end up playing it in top down or isometric view anyway, thats after you waste half the battle trying to get camera right.

    Homeworld was a true 3D strategy game. most people found it too confusing.
     
  16. Bachus

    Original Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're hating the game and not the player.

    You're ruling out 3D just because GalCiv2 is retarded and doesn't show all the information necessary when in 3D mode. Just because it's a bad game doesn't mean 3D is inherently flawed.

    Same with GUIs, load times, or whatever problem you have. Those are *bad* games. They'd be just as bad in 2D.
     
  17. papillon

    Indie Author

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    (As a spectator only - the ability to get a first-person view of the battle *in replay afterwards* is pretty cool. I don't really play these strategy games, I look over partner's shoulder. Have been bullied into trying occasionally but find it too stressful to be fun. I'm not competitive enough.)

    I'm one of the most rabidly anti-3d people I know and even I don't *really* hate all 3d. I hate 3d because so very very often the use of 3d messes things up and makes the game harder to play, impossible to run on an 'okay' computer, and sometimes more money was clearly put into tech than artistic design, so it's hideously ugly anyway!

    3d is great for some things though.
     
  18. spellcaster

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem here is that there was no way to tell these two types of planets apart. The problem isn't the 3d view. For some reason, you're connecting an interface design problem with the display method.

    Personally, I don't care if a game is 2d or 3d. I'm more interested in whether a game is fun or not. And sometimes 3d can add to the experience. Sometimes it will just provide nicer graphics.
    Using 3d will never make the game worse. But sometimes the transition is only half hearted. If a battlefield (for example) is rendered in 3d, I expect all the "usual 3d stuff" to work. I want to be able to rotate the view, zoom-in and out, etc.
    Now, if the engine limits the viewing angle (for example) you feel restricted - even if you have more freedom than in 2d.

    Going 3d adds new challenges for the designer while it makes some stuff more simple. But in the end, it's just a tool. And it's up to you how you use it.
     
  19. luggage

    Moderator Original Member Indie Author

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    The trouble with 3D games (ignoring the higher specs that are needed) is that developers feel like they must show off the fact it's in 3D. So you suddenly get zoomed in or first person views when they're no actual use.

    Age of Empire's move into 3D did nothing but crank up the system requirements. Oh, and it allowed a few cutscenes to be done - whoopee. It didn't even look much better.
     
  20. Gilzu

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    8
    I didn't say they intentionally did crap graphics. Infact, I'm absolutly sure they did their best to make the game as great looking as possible - even if it looked like crap.

    What I did say, is that game designers had to cover over the bad graphics with good gameplay - since they couldnt hide behind a "we have a great gfx with 3d, shaders and stuff". You just couldnt hide behind that excuse.
     

Share This Page

  • About Indie Gamer

    When the original Dexterity Forums closed in 2004, Indie Gamer was born and a diverse community has grown out of a passion for creating great games. Here you will find over 10 years of in-depth discussion on game design, the business of game development, and marketing/sales. Indie Gamer also provides a friendly place to meet up with other Developers, Artists, Composers and Writers.
  • Buy us a beer!

    Indie Gamer is delicately held together by a single poor bastard who thankfully gets help from various community volunteers. If you frequent this site or have found value in something you've learned here, help keep the site running by donating a few dollars (for beer of course)!

    Sure, I'll Buy You a Beer