Biggest fears over transition to 3D

[unmerged(60143)]

The things I'd like not to see in the new game:

Sluggishness - in the moves of characters and them moving around the map. They may be slow-moving, but shouldn't feel sluggish, stale or laggy.

Low number of units in the missions - heroes and monsters.

Loss in atmosphere - I'm more concerned about animations than polycount and more with environmental- and gameplay-aspects than graphics overall.


There's no question the game should be in 3D, but one strength of Majesty was just it's original atmosphere. It would be sad if it got lost in the transition.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

From what I have seen so far, MFKS2 stays truer to MFKS "atmosphere" than Legends, which is a good thing.

 

[unmerged(60143)]

From what I have seen so far, MFKS2 stays truer to MFKS "atmosphere" than Legends, which is a good thing.

True. The thread wasn't meant as criticism based on what I've seen, more of general concerns.

One specific thing from the alpha-video though was that the animation was too slow and did clip on occasion. It's probably because it's alpha, but no harm in mentioning I'd rather see smoothness and faster animation than too much detail in graphics.

 

[Alfryd]

From what I have seen so far, MFKS2 stays truer to MFKS "atmosphere" than Legends, which is a good thing.

How, exactly?

 

[Hassat Hunter]

http://static.computergames.ro/cg/assassin/images3/majesty2/majesty2-001.jpg

VS.

http://www.hcgamer.hu/gamer/images/cikkek/2003_04/majesty2.jpg

 

[Alfryd]

I don't see where you're coming from. I still find the Legends' screenshot much more recognisably "majesty-ish". (Particularly since they kept the same architecture for the temple to Dauros, and have the townhouses with decorative wooden cross-beams, similar to the marketplace/trading post, etc...) The maj2 screenshot has some buildings, none of which particularly resemble what you get in maj1. Issues of scale aside, that could be any plonk-down-base-buildings-RTS.

 

[UniversalWolf]

There's no question the game should be in 3D

I disagree.

Never once while playing Majesty did I say, "This game would be better if only the graphics were 3D."

 

[unmerged(60143)]

Majesty would have been worse if it was made in 3D, but that was what.. 8 years ago? The expectations are different now and I don't think they would sell a lot of games if they only tried to target the old Majesty-players.

 

[unmerged(109293)]

Well, the biggest fear on all transformations to 3D have ever been the handling of the camera. every time a company makes a 3D game there's a huge chance the camera and it's handling become crappy. Please, make a fixed camera, that is the best way to avoid a crappy and annoying handling of the camera.

As for the atmosphere: i think it is more an aspect for the gamedesign as for 3D.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Majesty would have been worse if it was made in 3D, but that was what.. 8 years ago? The expectations are different now and I don't think they would sell a lot of games if they only tried to target the old Majesty-players.

I don't think not switching to 3D automatically equals only targetting old Majesty-players.

I simply fail to see how switching a game like Majesty to 3D is an improvement. To me it looks like - at best - a lateral move, and at worst, mindless trend-following...but I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

For one thing, a 3D game (if it's going to be flashy enough to attract any attention) is going to limit the number of people with lower-end systems who can play it. There's an argument against the move right there.

I don't see anyone complaining that Diablo III is going to keep an isometric view. I'm not a huge Diablo fan, but I appreciate Blizzard's courage to stick to the proven vision of their game instead of doing what every other game in the universe is doing these days. As far as I'm concerned, Majesty 1 has a proven vision - it's a really simple, really good, really original game.

There are loads of things that can be improved and refined, to be sure, but switching to 3D graphics is not one of those things - rather, it's a distraction from them.

 

[unmerged(105833)]

It is not a mindless trend to improve the graphics of games. 3D lets developers do more/more easily. (physics, better terrain, terrain modulation, etc.). There are many proven examples of good games transitioning to 3D - a good example is Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3. And that was done, what, 6 years ago?

Also, who in 2008 doesn't have a computer that can handle the graphics Majesty 2? The graphics are nothing stellar, but decent - if you can't run the game on the lowest settings, your computer must be ancient.

Sure Diablo 3 will have an isometric view, but is in 3D nonetheless. I don't see how maintaining that camera angle will stick to the vision of Diablo 2, (And I could say something about their so called "courage to stick to the vision"...)

You cannot honestly expect innovation (advancement if you dislike the term) to stop because some people are unwilling/unable to keep up.

 

[unmerged(60143)]

I don't think not switching to 3D automatically equals only targetting old Majesty-players.

I simply fail to see how switching a game like Majesty to 3D is an improvement. To me it looks like - at best - a lateral move, and at worst, mindless trend-following...but I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

For one thing, a 3D game (if it's going to be flashy enough to attract any attention) is going to limit the number of people with lower-end systems who can play it. There's an argument against the move right there.

I don't see anyone complaining that Diablo III is going to keep an isometric view. I'm not a huge Diablo fan, but I appreciate Blizzard's courage to stick to the proven vision of their game instead of doing what every other game in the universe is doing these days. As far as I'm concerned, Majesty 1 has a proven vision - it's a really simple, really good, really original game.

There are loads of things that can be improved and refined, to be sure, but switching to 3D graphics is not one of those things - rather, it's a distraction from them.

PetitB.. has already made some good points for 3D. I just thought I'd clarify that making the game in full 3D does not necessarily mean they will include free camera-movement. I expect an isometric view, similar to the one in Majesty, preferably locked, but with a few different set zooms and possibly a similar feature as in Warcraft3 where you could look around corners to find hidden units. This view went back as soon as you released the button though.

If free camera-movement is one of your biggest fears of what could be introduced with 3D graphics, feel free to voice that concern, but 3D doesn't mean free camera-movement.

 

[Draxynnic]

PetitB.. has already made some good points for 3D. I just thought I'd clarify that making the game in full 3D does not necessarily mean they will include free camera-movement. I expect an isometric view, similar to the one in Majesty, preferably locked, but with a few different set zooms and possibly a similar feature as in Warcraft3 where you could look around corners to find hidden units. This view went back as soon as you released the button though.

If free camera-movement is one of your biggest fears of what could be introduced with 3D graphics, feel free to voice that concern, but 3D doesn't mean free camera-movement.

Something like the Warcraft 3 camera would certainly have its advantages - a default mode, an option to zoom in for a closer view of the action (which seems very in-flavour for the style of the game), and maybe an option to switch the view to one side or the other. However, the game should have a default angle that is easy to return to (getting 'lost' with the camera was one of the big problems in the gameplay of the earlier games with free-floating cameras), and the maps should be designed so that there's no problem with just sticking to the default angle permanently.

 

[Alfryd]

.

There are a couple of legitimate benefits to 3D over 2D, but most fall under the heading of greater realism. You can do realistic shadows, interpolate animations and blend models more smoothly, have a dynamic day/night cycle and lighting effects, etc. etc.

The important question is what features are likely to be important to your user base. Okay: you can add realistic physics. That's nice. But: hands-up, how many people originally thought: "ragdoll physics would greatly enhance my majesty gaming experience?"

*crickets chirp*

Sure, it gives you some variety in death animations and siege demolitions, but majesty doesn't even have siege weapons, and your units aren't supposed to be dying left, right, and centre. Majesty was a game that was meant to encourage taking good care of a relatively small number of heroes (by imposing guild housing limitations.) Graveyards are there as a sign that you are doing something wrong.

Seriously, why does realistic physics matter here? If you just want to have limbs and viscera flying off in all directions, Myth II managed to do that 10 years ago (and, I would add, didn't require a different physics engine for Mac and PC.)

Universal's point is perfectly valid here. If the sole benefit of a 3D engine is to ensure that the game looks good by modern standards, I would like it if the buildings and sprites looked nicer than they would if pre-rendered in 2D. I'm not certain they do. Failing that, I would like a list of gameplay features that are inherently dependant on a 3D engine (such as a day-night cycle, precise parry animations, or the ability to interchange armour and weapons.) If none of this is the case, then why couldn't Paradox simply license an existing engine (AoE3's would do nicely,) and spend their remaining budget on content, AI, gameplay changes, and balance testing? (Or did they? ...I dunno. Nobody tells us anything!)

 

[Alfryd]

Low number of units in the missions - heroes and monsters.

Actually, I will be greatly disappointed if the game revolves around having dozens upon dozens of heroes in the field at once. It's impossible to do effective babysitting under those circumstances.

 

[unmerged(60143)]

There are a couple of legitimate benefits to 3D over 2D, but most fall under the heading of greater realism. You can do realistic shadows, interpolate animations and blend models more smoothly, have a dynamic day/night cycle and lighting effects, etc. etc.

These features probably contribute to sell games.

The important question is what features are likely to be important to your user base. Okay: you can add realistic physics. That's nice. But: hands-up, how many people originally thought: "ragdoll physics would greatly enhance my majesty gaming experience?"

Sure, it gives you some variety in death animations and siege demolitions, but majesty doesn't even have siege weapons, and your units aren't supposed to be dying left, right, and centre. Majesty was a game that was meant to encourage taking good care of a relatively small number of heroes (by imposing guild housing limitations.) Graveyards are there as a sign that you are doing something wrong.

Who wanted ragdoll physics? It could be a neat effect, but nothing worth too much devtime. Furthermore, the physics would most likely involve the enemies too, goblins' heads flying from the explosion of a mage's fireball, how could that not be fun?

Seriously, why does realistic physics matter here? If you just want to have limbs and viscera flying off in all directions, Myth II managed to do that 10 years ago (and, I would add, didn't require a different physics engine for Mac and PC.)

I know, I think I've pointed to the mythgames before as an good example of what could be done that long ago. The physics, or the notion of physics, in the mythgames did contribute significantly to the combat. There was more chaos and a more realistic feeling in Myth than most other rts:s of that time. They needed to get a free shot to shoot, the dwarves lobbed their molotovs toward the target, but the explosives could bounce back or be influenced on their way to their targets. If you compare the warlocks fireball to what was in Majesty, I think there's a lot of room for improvement when it comes to spelleffects. This is still in comparison with a game that was made ten years ago.
To make the new visuals to feel powerful, they'll have to make them affect the surrounding area.

Universal's point is perfectly valid here. If the sole benefit of a 3D engine is to ensure that the game looks good by modern standards, I would like it if the buildings and sprites looked nicer than they would if pre-rendered in 2D. I'm not certain they do. Failing that, I would like a list of gameplay features that are inherently dependant on a 3D engine (such as a day-night cycle, precise parry animations, or the ability to interchange armour and weapons.) If none of this is the case, then why couldn't Paradox simply license an existing engine (AoE3's would do nicely,) and spend their remaining budget on content, AI, gameplay changes, and balance testing? (Or did they? ...I dunno. Nobody tells us anything!)

I'm not sure about licensing an existing engine, I wouldn't mind, but perhaps it was more expensive, didn't suit their needs, etc.

One certain benefit of the 3D is that if the game is successful, making expansionpacks to it must be a lot easier, wouldn't it?! And expansionpacks are good for making money, which is good for devs and publishers trying obscure franchises, which is good for consumers tired of most other games.

Actually, I will be greatly disappointed if the game revolves around having dozens upon dozens of heroes in the field at once. It's impossible to do effective babysitting under those circumstances.

The problem isn't that it's impossible to do effective babysitting, it's that people babysit when they shouldn't. If people do - there's too much control.
Aside from that, I think there will be a bit less, but more powerful enemies, as they've introduced parties into the game.

 

[unmerged(105833)]

You're totally right about Myth, there was just so much fun in watching your enemies explode from the molotovs or the wights. I would love it if Majesty's effects felt like that.

 

[unmerged(56970)]

I disagree.

Never once while playing Majesty did I say, "This game would be better if only the graphics were 3D."

So true, in my experiences 3D transition also always brings sluggish AI path finding.

 

[Alfryd]

Furthermore, the physics would most likely involve the enemies too, goblins' heads flying from the explosion of a mage's fireball, how could that not be fun?

You're totally right about Myth, there was just so much fun in watching your enemies explode from the molotovs or the wights. I would love it if Majesty's effects felt like that.

While I've had my share of gripes with maj2's cartoonish, quasi-slapstick art style, I didn't want to see graphic violence in the sequel either.

One certain benefit of the 3D is that if the game is successful, making expansionpacks to it must be a lot easier, wouldn't it?!

Actually, I don't see how a 3D engine would make expansion packs easier to make or sell.

The problem isn't that it's impossible to do effective babysitting, it's that people babysit when they shouldn't. If people do - there's too much control.

Loppan, babysitting is pretty much the ONLY direct control you have over the action in this game. You have very few direct offensive spells, mostly useless against anything but henchmen. If you can't babysit heroes, the game would devolve into a match to see who can spawn units fastest then fling them in vaguely the right direction.

 

[Alfryd]

(Well, assuming you have no subtler directives at your disposal than bounty flags, at least. That, or you could alter sovereign spells so that they have more gradual/persistent/delayed effects, so that the player is obliged to think ahead.)