Take a look at id Software''s history of games...

Wolfenstein - get keys, collect weapons, kill Nazis
Doom - get keys, collect weapons, kill monsters
Doom II - get keys, collect weapons, kill monsters. better game engine
Quake - get keys, collect weapons, kill monsters. 3d engine
Quake II - get keys, collect weapons, kill other online players. accelerated 3d engine
Quake III Arena - go online, collect weapons, kill other players. advanced 3d engine

Does there seem to be a trend here? The gameplay goes down, while the pretty graphics get prettier. I know I really eliminated much of id''s games'' content, but I think a good reason they create such advanced graphics engines, is to offer them to other companies for extra profit. id might not make enough money from sales since any software can be pirated, but they can make loads of money by selling their game engines to 3rd parties who are interested in creating more diverse and content-rich games.


MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org

Firstly it looks like 2D games already are becoming taboo (at least for publishers...) if u take a look at adventuresofts website... www.adventuresoft.com and read thier blurb about Simon The Sorcerer 3 you will find it was originally going to be 2D, only no publisher would touch it as 2D and so they had to make it 3D.

However I''m in full support of 2D engines, why? Well because they are:

A) Easier to develop than a 3D engine, thus taking up less of the programmers time, and giving him more time to focus on what really are the important parts of any game (e.g. AI, etc.)

and

B) Take up less processor time anyway leaving more time for the important bits to run. (and gives more space for bigger and better important bits)


This is why, as games push toward realism, gameplay drops (not enough space/time for the all the good gameplay making stuff).

Personally I think that the "backend" of games should start to be developed first (i.e. the bits that do anything other than display pritty graphics on the screen) rather than writing a really snazy front-end and then trying to sqeeze as much as you can into the backend stuff.

Of course it depends on the game... a FPS (I include all games that involve u in some kind of flight/space-combat sim here) really isnt going to work with a 2D world engine is it, but beyond those I dont see any game genre which cant get away with a 2D Engine (NOTE: your graphic artists can fake 3D in 2D by simply creating 3D models and then using the renderings as the actual game grahpics).



BTW have all the game designers died today?? I have yet to see this forum have a new post since I checked 6hrs ago (usually there''s been at least 10 by now)

NightWraith

Graphics quality will reach a limit at some point, where the defining factor in games will be the game. Currently, graphics are getting to be so advanced, that studios are having a tough time getting the number of artists they need to actually make use of the hardware/engine. Look at Shen Mue as a prime example.

You will always have games that strive for realism. I want to be able to race in NASCAR without the worry of dying. Otherwise, I''d like everything else to be the same.

Then there are games that just shouln''t try to be realistic. They should go for a really bizaar out-of-this-world image.

Think of movies. Some are realistic, some are not. The existence of one does not mean the other can''t exist.

Ut

Again, I''d like to take the opportunity to point out that there is a very important difference between game design and game programming.

The game designer decides plot, gameplay, characterization, and what the overall game experience should be.

The programmer decides how to implement the game design. He uses all of his technical prowess to realize the experience that the game designer seeks to create.

The game designer is bound to make suggestions which must be followed. For instance, the designer may insist on a 2D engine. Or he may disallow a certain type of creature encounter mechanism. These are dictates which the programmer must follow.

But it is important to remember the difference. There are some very talented people who are capable of both game design and game programming. Many of them participate in this Forum. But the fact that someone can play both of these roles can create a problem.

Sometimes programming expertise can limit design creativity. When faced with an idea, a designer/programmer may worry too much about the idea''s implementation. The idea is modified into a form that the designer/programmer knows how to implement. On the other hand, if this idea were submitted to someone with more programming expertise, an implementation might be found which more closely resembles the original idea.

Creative design is enough of a challenge without the added burden of implementation. Great designers are rare. Great programmers are also rare. Who among us has attained the highest proficiency in both categories?

When wearing the hat of the game designer, concentrate only on design. Be as creative as possible. Only when the idea is fully formed should you address the issue of implementation. And if the idea creates some unique problem that you can''t solve, there are thousands of talented people right here willing to help.

I have mentioned this briefly in the past, but I feel that it is an important issue. Good luck!

~~Jonathon

Hey kieren_j, hows the super-compression algoriithm
going? CAR?

[Hugo Ferreira][Positronic Dreams][Stick Soldiers]
"Redundant book title: "Windows For Dummies".
"Camouflage condoms: So they won''t see you coming".

actually take a look a list of a list of the best selling games of all time, most are 2D or 3D w/less than state of the art graphics. Games like TheSims and such. Sure graphics are all the rage wih FPS games...but did you know that the "Who Wants to Be a Millionare" game sold far better?
Games with suppa graphics get hype...but that doesn''t mean sales.

I just want to comment on the 2D/3D debate...

You have to keep apart the evolution of graphics hardware and the choice of the viewing angle/paradigm.

The evolution of graphics hardware is always a good thing for programmers. It sometimes creates more work for them, but it usually rewards them, too. Some people just don''t take part in the evolution, and that''s a pity. They regret that good old DOS graphics (VGA) using 2D 16x16 sprites is now considered stone age and they would love to stick to this era of programming forever. My point is that you should always try to understand the evolution. Actually, everything is getting faster and more comfortable. It''s up to you, what technique you want to use. Just make sure that you profit from the power today''s graphics cards provide. To be more precise, use DirectX or OpenGL. With these APIs, you can do everything that was possible in the good old days... and much more. And you don''t have to worry that CPU or graphics card power be wasted.

Regarding the choice of the viewing angle/paradigm. I already pointed out that taking part in the hardware evolution doesn''t necessarily mean to lose the old paradigms. Nobody forces you to build a fully-featured 3D landscape/indoor engine using models and so on. You can still program with bitmaps and sprites, but make sure they are represented as textures and processed by the graphics card using 3D acceleration. To gain more visual quality, you may also mix paradigms and use some models on a large background texture (or better tile map) from a strict birds-eye perspective to recreate some of the nice console game feeling.

Believe it or not, improvements in graphics hardware are not your enemy, they are your friend. What you actually want to fight is the fixation on a single game design paradigm, the fully-featured, multi-angle 3D world. At least I would be very glad if somebody could create a game with the same flair of a game like Secret Of Mana or Zelda, but with turning the new graphics possibilities into account.

Erm, it''s late and I''m not very good at speeking English... I guess I should come to an end now.

quote: Original post by kieren_j
I was just thinking, after seeing the Doom 3 video with the GeForce 3, is this really where we want games to go? Is the idea of games to be as realistic as possible, or to be as fun and as playable as possible? Can they both happen at the same time?

You''ve failed to make the crucial distinction between realism and believability. Being hunted by demons who came through a portal to Mars is not ''real life''. Unless you know something about NASA that I do not.

Doom 3 is essentially going the same way as Thief, System Shock, and Deux Ex in that the gameplay will hinge heavily around fear and surprise. So by creating a very believable and internally consistent world, the player will feel more immersed and will feel more of the atmosphere. It''s not competing with the gameplay, it''s augmenting it, because how you feel while doing the basic tasks is just as important as how many different tasks you have to perform.


[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

quote: Original post by MatrixCubed

Wolfenstein - get keys, collect weapons, kill Nazis
Doom - get keys, collect weapons, kill monsters
Doom II - get keys, collect weapons, kill monsters. better game engine
Quake - get keys, collect weapons, kill monsters. 3d engine
Quake II - get keys, collect weapons, kill other online players. accelerated 3d engine
Quake III Arena - go online, collect weapons, kill other players. advanced 3d engine

Doom III - kill monsters. Next generation 3D engine.

Hehe... I guess you have a point. But then again, killing monsters has never looked so real. Is there a problem with graphics being a large part of the experience, especially if the gameplay is still pretty good?

First the game must be fun and playable
(These two things relate somehow )

3d Does not always add something to the expirience?

Tetris is fun and 2d...
Still imho the "original" tetris is better than
the 3d-tetris games.
( I still think that 3d-tetris can be as good as the 2d if its well made)

Or scorched earth in 3d??? Again IMHO 2d is better
If it makes the game better then it is good

And well made "realistic games" are fun...