Future of the series

[gargoil]

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]

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]

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

[Setekh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Gameplay over graphics any time.

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

[Sgt.Fury25]

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.

[Kayoz]

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

[Simulation01]

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.

[Abraxis]

ORIGINAL: Simulation01

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.

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

[Data]

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 [:)]