Future of the series

[tofudog]

What that unnecessary 2D/3D part of this thread totally obfuscated was actually my number one hope:

MODDABILITY!!!!!!!!

Ah, that felt good.
Once more, come on everybody:

MODDABILITY!!!!!!!!

It was promised a while back and I can´t wait to see what you guys will do to DW when you can actually rip out its guts, over the skinjobs that are possible now (not to belittle anybody, it is the things done now that get me excited for what is to come).

[Data]

we all have that fantasy, tofudog [:)]
in my experience no game, no matter how old, has released such a complete modability support. You're practically asking for the code....again, a fantasy we all share [;)]

[ASHBERY76]

ORIGINAL: Data

we all have that fantasy, tofudog [:)]
in my experience no game, no matter how old, has released such a complete modability support. You're practically asking for the code....again, a fantasy we all share [;)]

What?

The only thing you can mod is race relations,names and graphics.Compare it to CIV4 and SpaceEmpires and even Totalwar which you could actually alter gameplay factors.There is not a single gameplay aspect you can change with DW.

[WoodMan]

Having never modded anything but graphics (and making levels in games that come with map editors, oh and a database edit once [:D]), do you need some knowledge of programming or computer spiel or whatever to do that kind of modding?

[ASHBERY76]

ORIGINAL: WoodMan

Having never modded anything but graphics (and making levels in games that come with map editors, oh and a database edit once [:D]), do you need some knowledge of programming or computer spiel or whatever to do that kind of modding?

Depends how deep.If you are going to do a Fall from Heaven style mod that is a total conversion then yes.

[Raap]

A Half-Life style moddability would be awesome, where they pretty much released all the game code except for the engine itself. I think that's way too much to ask though. Personally I'd be happy with them moving most of the content from code and into text files, thus allowing both editing, deleting and creating new races, components, technologies, etc. Some AI editing would be required as well, for them to take advantage of any new stuff.

[Sabin Stargem]

Data, the source code to a very good game called Freespace 2 was released about a decade back. The community around that game has done quite a bit to keep the game alive, so it isn't just a fantasy.

[Lord_Astraios]

Ok,  i think we need to see some details in this 3D Fancy Eye Candy Works...  In reality,  getting a 2D game in to a 3D game or making a 3D game it means you will have to cut half of its body,  it comes automatically.with the package. 

Dont get me wrong,  many 3D games are good,  but when you get a game in to 3D you're just cutting half of its features,  fun,  and gameplay.

Can you remember those old games in 2D and semi 3D?  They had more feature than any games we have today ,  even combined and it gets you hooked up for hours.  Also we have the situation of Computer Games VS Console games,  as i hate ports because it needs to be accommodated for consoles.

If the day would come,  that someone can make a 3D engine that actually requires less,  i mean,  less resources to develop,  then this would be heaven for games and the good old days will be brought as devs will be able to expand the gameplay.

As for Distant Worlds,  if they move it to a 3D game i think this would happen.

- Less stars for a map,  or if they manage to pull a stunt for same quantity of stars it could a little dull as Lost Empires: Inmortals if thats actually the name.
- Less races and probably less shipsets - As to what happened in SE4 to SE5
- Less features so more expansions needed in less times to put all the ideas in.   I really dont care for expansions and spend the money supporting them if the people behind the game does a good job like here.
- Ive seen this sometimes,  less graphical art,  unknown reason there is on variety in some games ive seen.

[Abraxis]

ORIGINAL: Lord_Astraios

- Less features so more expansions needed in less times to put all the ideas in.

Call me naive, but the finished product is (despite the way most developers behave) the product. Expansions are just that, expansions. They're not required, nor is it acceptable for them to be used to 'complete' a game. To go around saying things which hint at a presupposition of acceptance of this industry's money-grabbing flaws is a betrayal to yourself and every other gamer.

[WoodMan]

[:D] 3D doesn't cause "Less features so more expansions needed in less times to put all the ideas in". 

Big companies use 3D.  Big companies also deliberately leave out parts of their game so they can charge you extra for them afterwards.

[Sabin Stargem]

I don't think that 2D vs 3D is to clear cut as "it is cheap/expensive", nor is it about features. I think it lies in execution, the ability of an developer to figure out what actually works and making it happen. "Ocarina of Time" is equal or superior when compared to "Link to the Past", and when you view their basic structure, they share many similarities. 3D isn't limited to a 3D perspective, but is a process by which it renders a perspective - which may be 3D or 2D in appearance.

As I said before, I advocate the switch over to a 3D engine so that it can take the processing burden away from the CPU and place it upon the GPU, which should allow Distant Worlds II to perform better and hopefully look nicer, be it with a 3D or 2D viewpoint. I am not saying that we need 1 bajillion megapixels for graphics, I think that it is possible to deliver reasonably good performance and aesthetics at once. The games with the most memorable graphics do so through good presentation, not technical superiority. (though it helps, if optimized properly)


As usual, a couple of video links. These are centered around platformers primarily, which have been at the forefront of using 3D graphics in a 2D space.

Fez - the 2D & 3D platformer

Megaman 2.5d trailer

Super Paper Mario - Wii Tour

[Simulation01]

ORIGINAL: WoodMan

[:D] 3D doesn't cause "Less features so more expansions needed in less times to put all the ideas in". 

Big companies use 3D.  Big companies also deliberately leave out parts of their game so they can charge you extra for them afterwards.

That's capitalism. It is like fire. It has the potential for great good and...well...not good. Without capitalism a great many games both good and bad would not be made at all. The unfortunate truth also is that it takes cold hard cash to make something good and worthwhile. Expansions like you mentioned...with content deliberately left out....is meant to generate more money for company's that have become so large that massive sums of profit is all they care about....errr...EA. There has to be a happy middle ground. Where is that.....only the consumer can decide that...and it is done by either continuing to buy their 'honeypot' games or by investing in quality found elsewhere.....like NZ and Codeforce.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Sabin Stargem

I advocate the switch over to a 3D engine so that it can take the processing burden away from the CPU and place it upon the GPU...

What makes you think graphics is the bottleneck? From what I've seen - based on my own and people's experimentation to try and make it run a bit smoother - the problem is in the game's data handling.

What you're saying is akin to a doctor saying that you should have your appendix out because you have a stomach ache - without bothering to examine you first.

[Abraxis]

ORIGINAL: Simulation01

The unfortunate truth also is that it takes cold hard cash to make something good and worthwhile.

Not necessarily, both Aurora and Dwarf Fortress are completely free, and both were coded by a single person in their spare time, just because they wanted to make a game. Both games make any other game look like a small puddle in terms of depth. Steep learning curves, sure, but both are extremely rewarding and worthwhile. That is of course, so long as you can get past the graphics, or lack there-of.

[Sabin Stargem]

I never said that it was solely the graphics that was responsible for the game's performance. However, I do feel that it is one of the many aspects that could be improved for performance, and of course, appearance. I focus on that aspect because what it offers to me, as a player: fun, which is equal parts watching my empire change, and seeing things blow up. Having the game chug and looking ugly at the same time takes away from both, so I want the situation to be improved.

Of course, Distant Worlds I can't be changed to a completely new engine, but that isn't what I am asking for. What I do want is that Distant Worlds II to be built with performance and looks in mind, since there is no better time to determine what goes into a gaming engine than when it is on the drawing board. That engine would presumably be the platform upon which the initial game and the following expansions will be built upon, thus it ought to aim high.

[Raap]

ORIGINAL: Sabin Stargem

I don't think that 2D vs 3D is to clear cut as "it is cheap/expensive", nor is it about features. I think it lies in execution, the ability of an developer to figure out what actually works and making it happen. "Ocarina of Time" is equal or superior when compared to "Link to the Past", and when you view their basic structure, they share many similarities. 3D isn't limited to a 3D perspective, but is a process by which it renders a perspective - which may be 3D or 2D in appearance.

As I said before, I advocate the switch over to a 3D engine so that it can take the processing burden away from the CPU and place it upon the GPU, which should allow Distant Worlds II to perform better and hopefully look nicer, be it with a 3D or 2D viewpoint. I am not saying that we need 1 bajillion megapixels for graphics, I think that it is possible to deliver reasonably good performance and aesthetics at once. The games with the most memorable graphics do so through good presentation, not technical superiority. (though it helps, if optimized properly)

Hardware acceleration would take care of any performance problems( letting the video card do the 2D graphics instead of the CPU). This would also allow for higher resolution sprites, which in turn makes better graphics. Everyone's happy, and they only spent a fraction of the work and resources they would have by going to 3D, and they wouldn't have to remake any features!

[Sabin Stargem]

As I understand it, 2D graphics are simpler to handle, but modern videocards are mostly dedicated to dealing with 3D operations. As such, you can say that performance with 2D has a much lower cap than that of 3D. Furthermore, it seems that AMD is beginning to integrate videocard 3D rendering into their CPUs with their Fusion initiative with ATI, which may be a factor to take into consideration in 3 or 4 years, when it has had time to mature.

[Raap]

Modern videocards are mostly dedicated to dealing with shader operations, actually. The reason for that is because shaders really are the biggest problems in games these days; 2D graphics/sprites/textures, 3D geometry, etc., they're all pretty much covered to the extent they're used. Also keep in mind that 3D models use textures, which is effectively the same as a sprite when it comes to rendering. They usually use bigger textures than you need sprites, since you have to cover the entire model instead of just making one side, effectively making them more demanding assuming same quality sprite and texture.

At any rate, with hardware acceleration today's video cards would run this game many, many times faster than the CPU can. So graphical performance would effectively stop being a problem, period.

As for Fusion, Intel are already doing this on some of their CPUs. Problem is that you end up with a crappy GPU(graphical processing unit); there's a reason, after all, why we're using dedicated video cards instead of integrated ones. Take a look at most laptop computers for instance, the vast majority have integrated Intel graphics and they are so slow they can't even be compared to the cheapest dedicated video cards. Not to mention they're lacking a lot of features, like SM3.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Raap

... hardware acceleration today's video cards would run this game many, many times faster than the CPU can. So graphical performance would effectively stop being a problem, period.

You're making a huge assumption in that statement - that the graphics in DW is anything more than a tiny sliver of the processing load. What are you basing your assumption on?

Game optimization is not a simple cut-and-dry issue, and hardware acceleration is not the magic bullet.

An example of a book - and it's only scraping the surface.

http://www.gamedev.net/page/books/index ... tion-r1381

[Raap]

I'm basing my 'assumption' on the fact that graphics require a lot of the CPU. There are several ways we can confirm this. For instance the scenario suggested by another user on this forum who had performance problems; make 100 military ships, and one hostile space port with 200 area weapons using the editor. Attack the space port, and watch as the performance comes to a halt as soon as the space port fires its AoE weapons. Now do it again, but this time quickly move your view to an empty space in the same system so that you can't actually see the battle; this time the performance is completely smooth.

What does this tell us? Well, effectively it tells us that having to render all those graphical effects is grinding the CPU to a halt. CPUs are not made for rendering graphics( obviously), and when forced to do so they do it very slowly. Another example of this is to simply open a non-hardware-accelerated rendering or picture program. Load a big picture into Photoshop and watch how the CPU struggles with it if you try to move it around and whatnot. This is effectively what's happening in the game, just with smaller pictures. Now activate hardware acceleration and see how it becomes completely smooth.

Now, there are of course other factors to the general performance of the game; if you're running a really slow CPU which is bottlenecking you then you will experience low fps even with hardware acceleration. But that's why I did say that graphical performance would stop being a problem.