Why has there never been a 2.5d engine to top the BUILD engine? Why did such a potent engine go relatively unused? Did the ugly box shaped 3d era really overshadow the potential for higher resolution 2.5d games?
What if development for 2.5d games had stayed relevant to the industry as a whole? What could be possible today?
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.is
gamejolt.com
fabiensanglard.net
twitter.com
Uhhh, same reason why 2d platformers made way to 3d platformers?
And then the platformer genre became completely saturated and died until it came back in indie form and now it's getting a very minor reinassance here and there?
What, are you retarded or something?
This is basic video game history, even a baby knows this shit.
Stop asking stupid questions, dumb son of a bitch.
This isn't an answer, because I also think that 3d platformers have always been badly done. The only exception has been 3d platformers that retain 2d mechanics. 3d platformers (barring exploration/collect'o'thons) are a terrible implementation of a 2d concept.
You obviously have pretty bad reading comprehension, or perhaps you only read the first sentence.
Does it look like it even remotely matters what you think, you goddamn retard?
History is history, things don't go a different way just because you have a different opinion, manchild.
At the time devs were like "what the fuck is this 2.5d shit, we're making 3D shooters now".
And so they did.
nobody gives a shit that you wanted it to go a different way.
Well golly gee fucknuts, thanks for contributing that nugget of wisdom to the topic. Why did you even bother replying at all? You cancerous kike.
You didn't understand the topic, you couldn't even read more than two sentences, and you don't even make any good points. You just toss your bait out there, without finesse, like it somehow makes up for your miserable life.
Now, either answer the real question (hint: try reading the whole OP) or GTFO my thread.
Oh wow, it's actually a "what if" thread.
That was your big point here.
What a good thread you made.
Might as well have been a template thread, what a shitshow, it adds absolutely nothing to the board.
What if your mom wasn't a whore?
Then you probably wouldn't have been born, and thus wouldn't have been able to make this shitty ass thread.
That's a good what if right there.
Wasn't Impressive.
Fuck off gook.
What worthwhile threads are you bumping with meaningful discussion? I bet it's just the tits with what you've shown in here.
Compared to what? Quake, where every object is a poorly shaped polygon?
Ah, another faggot that barely looked at the OP.
There's been plenty of games using the Build Engine, and some of them did a pretty good job with it (Shadow Warrior and Blood especially). I think it just vanished because computer games were slowly going toward 3D with the arrival of 3D cards.
3D Realms is planning to make a small prequel to their TPS BombShell using EDuke32. They posted some screenshots some time ago (pic related)
There was Retro Blazer too (I don't know if the project is still on tracks), which is powered by a modified version of the Quake engine, but uses sprites for most objects in the game (the level design looks dull as shit though, which is a shame)
Two last I have.
A better question is why hasn't there been a duke3d sourceport that isn't feces.
eDuke32?
Why don't you try reading and thinking instead of just spewing insults, it's you who adds fucking nothing at all
Though early 3D could easily be seen as ugly, I think the move from 2.5D to 3D was a positive one for shooters and other first person action games. The addition of depth is an important one for simulations which try to immerse the player, as it brings the modelled reality closer to their own. The area where I think 2.5D could really shine is in the strategy or RPG genres, where there's no need at all to represent the physicality of the actors. Units and entities in those games are more apt to be modelled as single points which could be rendered in a billboard fashion for quite a nice effect. It also cuts down on the effort needed to produce content, for example the Dominions series is presented in 2.5D and has thousands of visually compelling units. Nowhere near that many could be created by a small team if they all had to be 3D modelled, and the value gained by modelling them would be minimal anyway.
It's shit.
Stupid question, except for the broken support for the original demos and the missing multiplayer, what makes it shit exactly? (or is that all there is?)
...
I had none of these issues… not saying they don't exist, but it's going to be hard having a discussion about that.
Well it's not very optimized. The polymer renderer has ended up being a slideshow at times, while doom sourceports doing the same things run perfectly fine while handling much more at the same time.
Very interesting, but still that all appears to be within the same visual representation of the original games. I was talking about if development for 2.5d games were developed to take advantage of technology as it became available. Higher resolution textures, sprites, more frames for sprites, more animations, dynamic lighting, etc. etc.
Fan source ports have done a lot of things in this vein, but usually they are just slapping a new coat of paint on an older game. They aren't putting out a brand new crafted game with an art budget.
In general 2.5d assets are far less resource heavy than millions of polygons. In theory it should be possible to create very good looking 2.5d games that run on practically anything.
For a more immersive and realistic environment sure fully 3d environments and enemies are better, but why exactly does every FPS need to be realistic? Isn't that thinking part of why FPS games turned into no fun gritty shit where you can only carry two guns "because that's more realistic"?
I don't use Polymer, I think the lighting looks like crap: between the over saturated colors, and light rays going through walls, I decided to only play in classic rendering with no HRP
why do the furries have to inject their goddamn fetish into everything
Because if they used humans, they would have problems because: the main character isn't black, there's no stronk female, how dare you use a minority as an enemy, why isn't the heroine fatter, etc.
But I get where you're coming from. Starfox was shit, Mouse Souls: Ghost Of A Tale needs the whole cast to be replaced with humans and there are also some characters in Beyond Good and Evil that should be thrown in the oven as they totally discredit the game /s
Looks neat, maybe that game will actually be something like… fun? instead of the shit-turd tps they released that i didnt even bother to pirate considering how bad it seemd from simple jewtube vids.
Build engine was shit with shit physics. Friction sucked compared to the Doom Engine, let alone Quake. Get over it.
I don't particularly care about visuals as long as it doesn't look like garbage and is consistent but if enemies were all high res sprites instead of highly detailed 3D models then the FPSs that try to cater to nostalgia like NuDOOM and the new Shadow Warrior would be able to have 100+ enemies per level without spawning them in waves inside locked down arenas like they do currently.
Well it's not so much that FPS should be realistic in the sense of representational, I agree that gritty shooters and most "real war" themed shooters are tripe, it's just that more of an effort made to immerse you pays off that much more when it's presented in a first person perspective. The mixing of 3D and 2D elements puts a tension between the environment and its inhabitants that can subtract from that immersion. I don't think that this is always for the worst, and I agree it's criminally underutilized as a style.
That's a valid point, but "Get over it"? Why not "improve upon it"?
Does anyone here have any experience working the the Build Engine or other 2.5D engines from a development perspective? Are there any solid modern 2.5D engines that are viable for amateur development?
oh yeah, this game is absolutely terrible.
Looks fun potentially.
What said. In addition, 2.5D has always been just a hack from the start. In a real 3D engine you can have proper level design instead of having to fiddle around with portals and designing your level so that the player can never look at the room "below". I guess 3D games are also easier to make because you don't use 2D to fake a sense of 3D, you actually model things the way they are meant to be. Just compare playing Duke 3D in its original engine to playing Quake in its original engine and you will see how much nicer Quake plays, even if it looks like shit.
I love build engine and almost all games based on it (for sure Duke 3D, Blood and Shadow Warrior) But Quake has bunnyhoping.
Except the build engine can have room over room. As far as being able to see a room below you (or above you) that could be done. The reason why it wasn't done in early 2.5d engines is due to hardware limitations and time constraints. 2.5d FPS development had a short lifespan compared 3d. Serious development only lasted for about 7 years (91-98). Since that time ram, hard drive, gpu, and cpu have improved exponentially. Can we really say that the limitations 2.5d had in the early and mid 90s still apply?
I can't really comment either way on the build engine specifically, but I think it's a misconception that making 2D assets, or at least decent looking ones, is easier or less time intensive, especially at larger scales. In particular, large amounts of 3D animation can be done in much less man-hours than large amounts of 2D animation.
Maybe one improvement could be to use more voxels, would it still work to add a lot of enemies if they were voxels?
Something tells me that you're autistic.
Just by your demeanor and little temper tantrum trying to derail this poor guy's thread not understanding what exactly is he trying to talk about due to being another typical moronic shit-skinned millennial that thinks coming here will somehow make you get the respect you 'think' you deserve, when in reality what you need is to be euthanized.
Go back to whatever third world shit hole you crawled out of bud.
You're just a bitter fucking retard because you're not 'White', you know, being apart of the Europoid race.
The fact you disrespected the build engine and this guys thread was more than enough for me to lay down the law on your deformed kumquat peanut shaped skull.
Put a rag innit, cunty.
On a side note, maybe I'm just autistic, but when I think "good graphics", I think of early 3D games. Anything after that just starts to look…messy. Blurry.
The crispness and clarity is lost in a jumbled heap of details.
Why can't low poly 3D with simple shading and texturing make a comeback? 16 bit pixel games did to the point of nauseum, so why not early 3D?
What's the first screenshot's game?
That's Yume Nikki 3D.
archive.is
gamejolt.com
Because it's a mess made by one guy.
I think it much less boring than the Doom engine tbqh. A bit broken maybe, but it works.
But there's still no engine that is as expendable as Bethesda's XnGine. It has been used for sandbox RPG games, FPS games, ocarina of time like sword fighting game, and even a racing game.
Interesting thread, I wondered the same thing lately while playing brutal doom. For me, it fells better than most modern/3d games.
I would assume creating content for it is easier too, it's nice to see the focus being on gameplay and feel rather than models.
I wish the creator would stop sperging about trying to make brutal doom 64