Or this could be called A Tale of Two RPG''s. I bought Anachronox after reading reviews that it was a funny console style RPG. Sounds right up my alley. I played it for about six hours and the question kept running through my mind "Why 3d?" It didn''t add a single thing to my game experience except motion sickness and getting lost. Playing fetch can be annoying in normal games, but in a 3d maze its much worse. 3D made sense in Deus Ex, because the combat was FPS style. But this game cuts to a more FF style combat anyway. So what was the point?????? After six hours of motion sickness I went to EB spent the same amount of money for FF Chronicles. I''m now playing FFIV which originally was on the SNES. And I''m much more into it, and enjoying it more than the more graphically advanced game. (and when I finish I still have Chrono Trigger Now don''t get me wrong graphics are important -- FF7 thru 9 captured my imagination a bit quicker and more completely than FF4 has, but whats up with 3d? And on the subject of graphics, the backgrounds in FF7 thru 9 looked much much better and has style that 3d can''t much (yet anyway). I guess my point is if its not an FPS, why not use fixed perspective? And one other thing, when you have the FF style 3d battles, have an option to stop the camera from moving. In Anachronox the camera was constantly moving. It was crazy. Rant over...... Jack

For starters, I don''t think most people get motion sickness from games. At least I couldn''t get it from anything as today games are still so far off from reality.

A lot of people don''t like to look at others playing FPS'' and similar, because of the fast and unexpected motion changes. I feel a bit uneasy my self, though it''s not as bad as real motion sickness. I''ve never felt it when I''m playing though, only when watching others play.

3-d along with sound make the computer game what it is today!!!! just because you've been burned by a funkey RPG don't assume all 3-d games are unnessary. Games like Myth do wonderful jobs with 3-D and add a level to the game that you just can't get with 2-d, also many of today's flashy game effects are simply not available outside of directX and OpenGL etc.

Edited by - Captan_Carnage on July 31, 2001 5:44:51 AM

Sandman:
3d vs. prerendered is a matter of taste. Resident Evil obviously could do better as first person 3d. But I''m thinking more of FF9 style. The screens looked more like a painting than cgi.

Captan_Carnage:
Well, first let me say I''m not saying we shouldn''t have 3d, I''m just saying a lot of games that use it use it because its the thing to do not because it really makes sense. Obviously games like System Shock 2 and Half-Life have to be 3d. And many games make sense in a fixed perspective 3d (in fact the game I''m writing is true 3d but at a fixed iso perspective)


bemmu and anonymous:
Maybe motion sickness was a little strong -- lets just say after playing a while it was uncomfortable, yeah, I know thats just me, but what does it is the many changes in perspective just to move. If I''m moving and turning in combat, I''m not paying attention to the scenery spinning around. (In fact the Descent games are among my favorites). The motion sickness stuff may have pushed it over the edge for me, but my point was IMO 3d added nothing to the gameplay except more time spent going from place to place and getting lost (there''s no automap).


Jack

Having to add my own two cents here, I agree with sandmand that is a matter of taste. I love and miss 2d but in some instances I enjoy 3d a great deal more. Some examples of good use of 3d: Metal Gear Solid for the PS (and im sure ps2''s version will be just as great if not better). This used the great cinematic effects that 3d can provide while providing great depth to different views for different types of game play. I''d say black and white made good use of 3d. and of course any FPS. The bad 3d games are (to my experience) any real time strategy game. I have never liked a RTS in 3d and probably never will (although I am holding my breath for warcraft III, hoping it will break the chain for me). As it stands now, give me a 2d RTS any day. So yep a matter of taste and preference, im sure there are those out there where a 2d rts makes them want to puke and they love the 3d rts''s.

On another note, I didnt enjoy Darkstone (was that the 3d diablo wannabe?) half as much as i enjoyed the 2d diablo''s. Go figure.

Some games are very much more endering in 2d, where as 3d doesnt do them injustice it just seems that the 2d versions had something that is missing in 3d updates. Prime examples would be final fantasy games. I loved the 2d series, and love the Final Fantasy Anthology (still want the chronicles). Where as final fantasy 7, and 9 were not bad they just didnt have as lasting imperssion on me as FF 2 or 3 or 5 did. (Final Fantasy 8 was diliberatly left out becasue I couldnt stand how the screwed the game play over in that game, it was the most asinine way of doing things and completely rejected everything people have known and loved about the FF series, although the graphics were good.)

OH well ending of my ramblings...

Shane