FAQ Search
Memberlist Usergroups
Profile
  Forum Statistics Register
 Log in to check your private messages
Log in to check your private messages
Moonpod Homepage Starscape Information Mr. Robot Information Free Game Downloads Starscape Highscore Table
Starscape 3D or 2D?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Starscape View previous topic :: View next topic  

Poll Result
  How many Ds do you want?  
 
2 is enough
74%
 74%  [ 23 ]
Gimme 3 or nothing!
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
 
  Total Votes : 31  

 Author
Message
Magnulus



Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway



PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a very interesting discussion, this. Seems like you're getting no help as far as statistics go, guys. 4 to 4 in the votes. I trust you guys will make the best decision.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Chibi



Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States



PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:37 am    Post subject: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

Have you played Homeworld, Fargate, Descent, and Tekken?

3d outer-space games can be wildly confusing, especially when you note that the Aegis only has TWO docking bays, one on each lateral side. Homeworld and Fargate were good games, but they were Strategy. Descent was good for it's time, but MASSIVELY confusing. And that doesn't even bring into account the twisted map feature. Toggle on the map, and you see something that resembles a giant knot of kite string. That's no fun. And the camera controls and interface for most 3d games are absolutely HORRID.

Have you played Starcraft, Star Sonata, and Alien Hominid?

2d games have always been more fun, because there's more action to be had. The goals are simple to figure out, there are no confusing 3d elements, camera controls, or interfaces to get twisted around or lost within. With two docking bays, you know you have to come in on the side, and you don't have to Twist and Twirl your ship to get it on the right side at the right angle for approach. Sure, Kamikaze the Aegis if you want, but I'd prefer to dock knowing the Aegis and I are already oriented properly for docking. The camera controls are straightforward to program, and I can honestly say I've NEVER blamed anything on "The Cameraman" in Starscape. I can't say the same for games like Katamari Damacy, Grand Theft Auto, or Kingdom Hearts.

2d games are easier and faster to develop, and that means that the programmers can spend MORE time developing the storyline, and sequels, and NOT worrying about deadlines. I would rather play 2d than 3d, any day of the week. (And NOTE: StarScape already takes advantage of 16 megabytes of Video Memory. You can NOT play StarScape on a run-of-the-mill 2mb "2d" video card, on laptops older than the y2k pentium 266. You NEED a 3d card to run Starscape.)

As for the results, after reading this, I'm sure 4 of 4 people who voted '3d or no d' will want to CHANGE their vote back. Unfortunately, the voting system does not take this into account. So you can be certain that the odds are now in your favour. Starscape stays 2d. Otherwise, say goodbye to your precious Battlescape, your Mr Roboto, and your War Angels. Bye bye!

I say if the fans want a 3d version, they get off their bums and make a 3d fansequel version themselves, like the people at Star Control 2: The UrQuan Masters did. Now THOSE are fans. I'll be glad to help out. I know some C++, some PHP, etc, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Rup



Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 363
Location: London, UK



PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:21 am    Post subject: Re: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

I don't follow all of your arguments but Fost means replacing the 2D graphics engine with a 3D graphics engine, not changing the gameplay from 2D to 3D. In fact that'd be the easiest way to get a rotating Aegis you asked for elsewhere.

Of course if you want a rotating Aegis you'll have to accept strafing around it to dock Elite-style Smile
Back to top
View user's profile
Chibi



Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States



PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strafing should be an extra side-engine you install on each side of your ship. Wink

What I mean is that,
Priority 1: The Aegis ALWAYS spins the closest door directly toward your incoming vector, unless enemies, asteroids, or minerals are nearby or incoming. When you ask the door to open, The Aegis immediately suspends all other priorities and spins the closest door directly toward your ship or incoming vector.
Priority 2: Turret corners turn toward incoming bogeys and asteroids (if two are arranged on opposite corners, they turn to the sides so they can both fire at once).
Priority 3: Scoop corners turn towards minerals (if two are arranged on opposite corners, they turn to the sides so they can both fire at once).

Note to Devs: I am not talking about Turrets or Scoops turning (though I do still believe that each corner should be pointing away from the center of the Aegis by default out of hyperspace, and return to those directions when no enemies are on the radar. And when enemies are on the radar, I believe the turrets should turn to the closest red dot). I am instead talking about the entire Aegis spinning.

The particle engine, at least, is already done via 3d graphics methods. That's why the minimum video requirements are 16mb video cards. Aren't the hyperspace scaling methods already done with vidram too?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

Chibi wrote:
Have you played Homeworld, Fargate, Descent, and Tekken?

3d outer-space games can be wildly confusing, especially when you note that the Aegis only has TWO docking bays, one on each lateral side. Homeworld and Fargate were good games, but they were Strategy. Descent was good for it's time, but MASSIVELY confusing. And that doesn't even bring into account the twisted map feature. Toggle on the map, and you see something that resembles a giant knot of kite string. That's no fun. And the camera controls and interface for most 3d games are absolutely HORRID.


HOW DARE! You insult Homeworld and Descent!

Shure it is annoying to give horizontal move orders in Homeworld but you rarely have to do that. And shure the automap is a bit confusing at first but navigating in 3d is an good skill to learn.

The whole point of those games is freedom to go anyware and do anything.
Decent was like a twisted roller coaster of 360 degrees of freedom. DooM was just flat and boring by comparison. Homeworld was the most butefull game i have ever seen. Starcraft on the otherhand is just plain dull.


I am not saying i hate starscape is a bad game beacause it is 2d i am just saying that 3D freedom beats boring flatness anyday.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Magnulus



Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway



PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

icarus wrote:
navigating in 3d is an good skill to learn.

Oh heavens, yes. I use that skill EVERY day when I fly my space-buggy to work!

icarus wrote:

Decent was like a twisted roller coaster of 360 degrees of freedom. DooM was just flat and boring by comparison. Homeworld was the most butefull game i have ever seen. Starcraft on the otherhand is just plain dull.

Two things:
1- I disagree. I thought Descent was boring and bland with badly implemented 3D, though interesting at times while Doom was full of colours and variety and hordes of monsters coming at you at once. The one-on-ones (and sometimes maybe even THREE-on-ones!) of Descent are okayish, but I never fell for it the way I did for Doom.
2- What the hell are you doing here if Starscape is just plain dull?


Icarus wrote:
I am not saying i hate starscape is a bad game beacause it is 2d i am just saying that 3D freedom beats boring flatness anyday.

Freedom is an illusion.
Why can't SOME games work better in 2D while SOME work better in 3D? One of Starscape's strong points was that it didn't adhere to the ultra-real and ultra-modern approach of other new space shooters, but rather took a step back to give us its awesome retro goodness. I'm not sure why you like Starscape (if you do at all.) but that's party of the reason I do.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Fost
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734



PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

Magnulus wrote:
I thought Descent was boring and bland with badly implemented 3D

Quiet! You'll wake up Lothar! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Magnulus



Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway



PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heh. Nothing personal, just pointing out that different people like different things.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Lothar
Starscape Jedi
Starscape Jedi


Joined: 21 Dec 2003
Posts: 522



PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:50 am    Post subject: Re: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

Fost wrote:
Magnulus wrote:
I thought Descent was boring and bland with badly implemented 3D

Quiet! You'll wake up Lothar! Smile


And my wife, who, by the way, I met while playing Descent.

I don't see where you get "boring", "bland", or "badly implemented 3D" -- the 3D engine was solid, and the worlds were plenty colorful and textured as long as your computer could handle the game at reasonable detail levels. The combat was also intense. I don't see how you get "one-on-ones... or even three-on-ones". Maybe in Descent3, but not in D1. Unless, of course, you only played the first like 3 levels in trainee, which is what it sounds like.

Now, I do agree Descent (at least SP) could never hope to live up to DooM... but then, comparing ANY game to DooM I/II is hopelessly unfair to the other game. DooM is quite possibly the most incredible gaming masterpiece ever created.

As for Starscape... it's a 2D game. It should be. That's the way it plays; that's the way it feels. Making the graphics 3D wouldn't fit, and wouldn't give you any benefit that I can see. High-quality particle-based 2D graphics, like you currently have, are perfectly appropriate.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:25 am    Post subject: Re: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

Magnulus wrote:

2- What the hell are you doing here if Starscape is just plain dull?


StarCRAFT not StarSCAPE. Evil or Very Mad

Lothar wrote:

Now, I do agree Descent (at least SP) could never hope to live up to DooM... but then, comparing ANY game to DooM I/II is hopelessly unfair to the other game. DooM is quite possibly the most incredible gaming masterpiece ever created.


DooM is not that good. Its a good game.... Just overrated. Half Life is better and Deus Ex is better still (and halo is worse).
Magnulus wrote:

Freedom is an illusion.
Why can't SOME games work better in 2D while SOME work better in 3D? One of Starscape's strong points was that it didn't adhere to the ultra-real and ultra-modern approach of other new space shooters, but rather took a step back to give us its awesome retro goodness. I'm not sure why you like Starscape (if you do at all.) but that's party of the reason I do.


Smartass. If you are presented with a choice than you have freedom. I like starscape beacause it took an arcady style game and then broke all the rules and gave you the freedom to play however you wanted. Thare was not right or wrong way to build your ship. I do not respect a game beacause it is "retro". In fact i find it hypocritacal that if a game is 2d then pepple will love it 50 years latter and say grafics do not make a game great, but if a game is 3D than pepple will complain that it is dated after 5 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Chibi



Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States



PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:07 am    Post subject: Re: Vote after reading this; Reply with quote

icarus wrote:
StarCRAFT not StarSCAPE. Evil or Very Mad


My bad, I shouldn't have brought that game up. ;p
For future reference, I shall refer to StarCRAFT with the capitalized CRAFT surname. StarCRAFT was a game like WarCraft where you build a town hall, and order peasants to harvest crystals so you can build a barracks and order archers to shoot at Zerg... Or vice versa.

icarus wrote:
DooM is not that good. Its a good game.... Just overrated. Half Life is better and Deus Ex is better still (and halo is worse).


Halo is worse, even though the graphics are better. Case in point.

DeusEx had a wildly more interactive environment, but everything seemed meticulous, because you needed 10 points in every skill to do what you wanted to. I hear the wife of the producer of All Dogs go to Heaven quit playing videogames altogether because she accidentally shot a dog in the game, and a kid in the game started crying.

HalfLife 2 is better than DeusEx, and just about any other game you will ever mention. Sorry Starscape. Halflife 2 is better. But you're right up there in second place!

icarus wrote:
I like starscape beacause it took an arcady style game and then broke all the rules and gave you the freedom to play however you wanted. Thare was not right or wrong way to build your ship. I do not respect a game beacause it is "retro". In fact i find it hypocritacal that if a game is 2d then pepple will love it 50 years latter and say grafics do not make a game great, but if a game is 3D than pepple will complain that it is dated after 5 years.


OMFG, Pong needs to be 3d! And Archon! And jaws, breakout, space invaders, asteroids, galaga, lode runner, centipede, dig dug, pitfall, pacman, ms pacman and lemmings!!

Have you heard of any of these games? No? But you've heard of the Originals, right? They DEFINED gaming. Gaming evolved through these games, and they are lovable. If they are so lovable, why haven't you heard of the 3d versions?

What you notice in most of these games, reviews, and your own playing of them, is that people are picky. Different people want to see the 3d done in different ways. Sometimes those ways just aren't feasible. Sometimes it's easier to do something Isometric, or on a 2d plane with 3d graphics. Sometimes the programmers didn't think of those ways, or couldn't afford the product cycle that involved 3d coding and graphics. And sometimes, different fans want two different things. How can you appease someone who wants to fly over and under the aegis, when all you want is a ship that looks cool and 3d when it banks?

You know, after watching this video you should agree; there ain't no school like the old school.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Magnulus



Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway



PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I don't think I ever did play beyond the first few levels of Descent. Mostly because it didn't really draw me in. Personally, I always found the extra degree of movement kind of constricting, in that I felt I always had to pay attention to that as WELL. That probably just says more about my mental capacity for coordination than anything else, though.

Oh, sorry, Icarus. Of course. StarCRAFT! That makes it all much better. It's arguably one of the best-looking RTSes in the world. Of course it's just dull. I mean, duh! It's 2D! How could it ever look GOOD?! How silly of me.

I will agree that Doom isn't the best game ever to be created, and it does show signs of being dated, but with Doom, what they did was take what they had, and they pushed it as far as they possibly could. They implemented the gameplay superbly and they appealed to people in a manner that no game had ever done before. Still, to this day, there are few games that live up to the MENTALITY of Doom. The sheer in-your-face attitude of it. It's a game that goes beyond its graphics or even its gameplay, though the frenetic, crazy fragfest that the game is, is definitely the bigger part of why I'm STILL playing this game today.

Much like Citizen Kane is getting an exaggerated amount of praise for simpy being the first to implement certain things in a certain way, it gets a lot of clout for being a game that directly influenced most of the FPSes on the market. But isn't that also something?

Half Life? Don't get me started on Half Life. I haven't played the second one, but the first one, I thought was boring, boring, boring.

Now, for your suggestion that people are hypocrites for liking the retro:
I'll give you some very specific samples here. Quake looks like ****. It's fully 3D, you can jump and fall and swim and everything all in full 3D. It's this "full freedom" you are so in love with. Yet it still looks dated and full of ****. Tomb Raider (the original), is a good game. But it looks like it shot out a horse's rear end. Interesting how people are constantly "updating" old 3D games with higher-res graphics, etc, and not the 2D games. And yes, I'm aware that some of the REALLY old 2D games are recieving the same treatment, but they are the exceptions.
The point here is that if you put effort into the graphics of a 2D game, it would never look dated, because there are no "poly-counts", there is no "pixel shading", etc etc. 3D games from mid-to-late nineties more often than not look very bad compared to today's games. However, I don't find the same is true for newer 3D games, because the technology has finally caught up with the vision. These days, you see (almost) direct transitions from sketches on paper to in-game models, so you're less and less likely to find the 3D games made today to be out of date in five years. I think Metal Gear Solid 2 still looks bloody brilliant.

One of the reasons people are into the "retro" is that to them (or should I say US) there's more to "retro" than just "looking back". To me, at least, 'retro gaming' carries an essence of playability before graphics. When they created Archon, the graphics took very little time to create, because there WAS no more to do after creating two or three frames of animation for each one-coloured, 8x8 pixelled character. So gameplay recieved the attention. This is why Archon is one of the best games every created. M.U.L.E? Also considered a "perfect" game by many. Would Archon be better if it were made with fully 3D graphics? I hardly think so. Would MULE be better if you could park your outfitted MULE in three dimensions? I doubt it.
Retro gaming is associated with Gameplay Before Graphics.
2D retro games don't NEED pixel shaders and normal maps, because the graphics are hand-crafted in advance, so you could say that 2D also offers a kind of freedom that 3D does not.

I went off on a bit of a tangent there, and I'mnot sure I stated my point clearly enough. Not that I think you'd actually "hear" me anyway, Icarus. Oh, you'll read it, and then you'll call me a hypocrite or otherwise try to make me seem like the lesser gamer. But that wouldn't be different had I stated my cases differently.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Hamish
Pod Developer
Pod Developer


Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 570
Location: Auckland, NZ



PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arguing about what game is 'better' is like arguing over your favourite colour. A game is (arguably) the most complex form of entertainment around. They can tell a story, have brilliant graphics, addictive gameplay, they can even provide a new society full of real people for somebody to 'live' in... there's lots of traits which give a game value, which change over time as new games are released. And these are ultimately judged differently by every player, who likes and dislikes completely different things to the next. Clashing opinions about it is really a waste of time.
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
Magnulus



Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway



PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old school games SUCK.

I play games because a game can simulate reality. I do not want to simulate running thro a maze and popping pills.

I do NOT give 2 **** about graphics. In homeworld the poly count was in the double digits and the textures looked like ****, yet it is still the most Beautiful game ever.

What I want in a game is to be able to do evrything I could do in real life and more.


And real life is in 3D.


Now this pointless argument has gone on long enough. Icarus out. Arrow
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Starscape All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group