by date
Viability of ISO
Viability of ISO
| Name: | Neo Binedell |  |
|---|---|---|
| Date Posted: | Apr 19, 2006 | |
| Rating: |  4.0 out of 5 | |
| Public: | YES | |
| Comments: | YES | |
| RSS Feed: |  or Subscribe with  . | |
| Profile Page: | View profile page for Neo Binedell |
Blog post
Finally finished a contract and got back to some game dev and started playing with some new Isometric (well DI-metric to be exact) stuff and the more I played with it the more something in the back of my mind kept nagging at me: would all this actually be worth it?
Would artists still be willing to invest time and effort to create isometric tiles, etc, when it would be much easier to just do a correctly setup camera on a 3D world? Sure you can have much more detail using sprites/tiles, but are there still games that will benefit from it? I'm asking here.
If you made say an isometric view casual game, but each map fits onto the screen then it would be
a lot quicker to just write some custom code to provide the effect you're after. Are there still people out there that would want to create an RPG using 2.5D tiles/sprites?
After creating some basic iso stuff like a proper isometric map with correct depth rendering, overlays and a well defined world space independent of the view I toyed with the idea of creating an ISO code pack, complete with world, tile, object editor, correct depth levels, world collision detection and a ton of other things when that backbrain nagger bit me. (Although it sure was fun tho;)
Lemme have it then, what's the consensus?
Would artists still be willing to invest time and effort to create isometric tiles, etc, when it would be much easier to just do a correctly setup camera on a 3D world? Sure you can have much more detail using sprites/tiles, but are there still games that will benefit from it? I'm asking here.
If you made say an isometric view casual game, but each map fits onto the screen then it would be
a lot quicker to just write some custom code to provide the effect you're after. Are there still people out there that would want to create an RPG using 2.5D tiles/sprites?
After creating some basic iso stuff like a proper isometric map with correct depth rendering, overlays and a well defined world space independent of the view I toyed with the idea of creating an ISO code pack, complete with world, tile, object editor, correct depth levels, world collision detection and a ton of other things when that backbrain nagger bit me. (Although it sure was fun tho;)
Lemme have it then, what's the consensus?
Recent Blog Posts
| List: | 03/05/08 - Iso-phagus 11/12/07 - Theora Video Seek, Loop And Callback Support 06/17/07 - FX Composer 2 - Public Beta Released 04/27/07 - TGB Isometric Add-On Pack - Part 6: nxAnimator! 02/20/07 - TGB Isometric Add-On Pack - Part 5 11/23/06 - TGB Isometric Add-On Pack - Part 4 08/16/06 - TGB Isometric Add-On Pack - Part 3 06/14/06 - TGB Isometric Add-On Pack - Part 2 - Cont. |
|---|
Submit your own resources!| Russell Fincher (Apr 19, 2006 at 01:20 GMT) |
Russell Fincher
Lead Artist | Co-owner
Sickhead Games
Edited on Apr 19, 2006 03:04 GMT
| Neo Binedell (Apr 19, 2006 at 01:26 GMT) |
| Unk (Apr 19, 2006 at 03:07 GMT) |
From an artistic POV... ISO potentially provides greater artistic control without the limitations of 3D meshes. (If you know how to draw you can make 2D art.) The level of detail you can add to 2D terrain and characters simply can't be obtained in 3D.
On top of this there is a entire rant I could go on regarding the industries push towards ever more realistic worlds and characters (to support the ever more advanced hardware industry). I would like to have the option of exploring the boundaries of what can be done with stylized worlds and characters than to always feel compelled to be 'on the cutting edge of graphic realism' just so hardware vendors can push their latest wares.
So I vote, yes. ISO == Good. Built in physics and editors would rock too.
You should build an ISO kit... bet it would sell like hotcakes. Or work with GG to integrate it with TGB directly. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
-Unk
Edited on Apr 19, 2006 03:07 GMT
| Phil Carlisle (Apr 19, 2006 at 09:30 GMT) |
So I guess there's still players who want it.
| Neo Binedell (Apr 20, 2006 at 01:33 GMT) |
And as they are from some upstanding citizens I'll multiply it by 10.
Works for me. (And of course I'm biased as I've just been itching to do this)
Iso pack it is then...
~neo
| Russell Fincher (Apr 20, 2006 at 14:04 GMT) |
Russell Fincher
Lead Artist | Co-owner
Sickhead Games
| Tom Bushby (Apr 20, 2006 at 14:09 GMT) |
- Tom.
| Kevin Rogers (Apr 25, 2006 at 00:55 GMT) |
2D isometric is such a hack, in so many ways! I think the virtues of using a fully 3D environment far outweigh any reason to use a 2D isometric view. Except perhaps, nostalgia... =)
The #1 reason I'm not a big fan: The fixed perspective into the environment, i.e. you can't really look around corners or behind things.
To adequately show the player or items behind things, you have to fade out foreground objects, which always looks hokey and can often be confusing. (i.e. "Why can't I go through this doorway? Oh, it's really a wall..." etc.) When playing the Diablo games, this often became an issue...
#2 reason: Non-scaleable art. You have to decide before-hand, at what resolution do I create my art content? Then, the player is either forced to play at the resolution you've decided upon, or if you allow them to zoom (ala Diablo) you end up with a pixely and/or blurry mess. (I make a point of this because the one thing I hated more than anything in Diablo was when I dropped my rings... finding which pixel-piles were my rings was hell! Especially behind a wall!!!)
I think a fully 3D "isometric" view can provide a clear and effective view of the environment. You can provide an "isometric" view to the player, while still allowing the freedom to rotate and zoom. Three games that come readily to mind that accomplished this wonderfully are Darkstone, Dungeon Seige, and Neverwinter Nights.
Even if you don't want to allow rotation or zooming, an "isometric" view can be set up with an orthographic projection and you still retain all the flexibility that a fully 3D environment provides.
One more thing to consider: Design. You may initially think that a fixed 2D perspective is fine... By keeping a fully 3D environment available, you'll have the choice to play around and try different views, with the possibility of discovering that your gameplay really is better from a different view. And you won't have to completely re-do your art if you do decide to change things up...
| Neo Binedell (Apr 25, 2006 at 01:36 GMT) |
and I agree with you on most of them.
However I've come to see some merit in still going 2.5D for a lot of projects.
Note also that the isometric pack will not be specific to say an RPG or RTS, but
will be generic enough for any genre, e.g. puzzle games, point and click, adventure,
and other projects in the casual space, and this prompted me to explore it further.
The world is basically a normal 3D space and is simply mapped for viewing. All
interaction, collision, etc is done in world space NOT isometric space and so is quite
simple to implement (as opposed to the rather convoluted approaches in the old
days)
Let's not forget that there is still a large chunk of people out there that are
intimidated by a 3D viewpoint and prefer a nice static view and nostalgia
should not be a dirty word if one can reinvent and build on past successful ideas.
There are tons of other reasons for doing isometric but I will leave that to
the users of the pack (if any;)
Thanks for your responses and I will keep em all in mind.
~neo
| Johannes Pauw (May 05, 2006 at 18:52 GMT) |
| Neo Binedell (May 06, 2006 at 15:11 GMT) |
Look out for my upcoming plan on it where I will be in a better position to guage timelines.
| C. N. (May 24, 2006 at 03:01 GMT) |
I think the Isometric add-on for TGB is brilliant. It's gonna be alot of fun, for sure.
You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.
