Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I don't understand why is it BG3

Day/night cycle is not a difficult concept, but it can be costly and/or difficult to implement.

BG1/2 was graphically fairly crude, and did not really have a light and shadow model to speak of, so each outdoor map just flipped between light and dark versions. NWN2 had the option to activate dynamic daylight for an outdoor map, with settings for different colour temperatures for dawn, dusk, midday and so on, as well as being able to set the length of a day in real playtime. This was much more sophisticated than BG1/2, but could look quite strange with heavy blocky shadows moving in obvious steps over the landscape. It can make planned, handcrafted encounters and experiences behave oddly, when you can never be sure what they will look like, or even if the player will be able to see what they are supposed to see.

The other major problem is implementation cost, in terms of real-time processing. Lighting and shadows are some of the most costly parts of the rendering cycle. To get better quality results without trashing the FPS can require all sorts of "cheating" techniques, such as pre-calculated light maps, which simply do not work with truly dynamic lighting. Experimentation and research for cheaper and higher quality techniques are always on-going, of course, but there comes a point where a developer has to make choices based on what they have available to them.

It will be interesting to see how Cyberpunk 2077 handles day/night since they made a big thing out of that, but I don't think we have seen it yet.

Pillars of Eternity 2 Deadfire
Day/night cycle, weather, NPCs with routines etc.. budget less than BG3.

But why put aside combat mechanics? It is a core element of the game. And I was specifically making this comment with respect to combat mechanics, although such things as deviating from a core focus on single-player and reducing party size are also important considerations for me. I have already said on many occasions in this forum that I am fine with technological improvements that reflect a game being made in 2020 rather than in 1998. TB combat, as an example, is not in any way, shape, or form a technological improvement.

Neverwinter Nights and D:OS1&2 and BG3 are not isometric, nor pararel projection (I will be honest, I don't distinguish nuances, beyond that they present 3D objects in 2D enviroment.) They are 3d enviroments with camera positioned from high up.

Isometric view is beneficial to games which essencially take place on a flat plane. No need to wiggle camera around. Unless one utilises benefits on 3D engine, I see move to 3D to be detrimental (not the case with Larian works as they take an advantage of it). Different technologies are better for certain games. Heroes of Might&Magic5 gains nothing from being 3D. RTS tend to work better in isometric view. Can you imagine playing Starcraft in full 3d, and fighting camera in addition to regular management. I should also mention when talking isometric vs. 3D, I am talking about perspective, not the assets (pre-generated 2d background vs. 3D assets. Games can use 3D assets and still use parallel projection, like Civilization5, Diablo3, Starcraft2, Warcraft3, while Civ6 and D:OS1&2, NWN1&2, XCOM1&2 are 3D enviroments, with angled top down camera.) It's just as I don't see 3D platformers to be inherently better then 2D or 2,5D ones.

Camera in D:OS2 didn't impact my enjoyment, but it did annoy me. As I play games using pararel projection, I notice lack of zoom in older titles, but never feel a need to rotate the camera, as everything is perfectly well on display.

the discussion on what is and isnt isometric is a pedantic argument.
yes, a birds eye view doesnt equal an isometric view.
however, colloquial use equates the two

In user experience they are quite distinct, so I don't believe it is.

A game like Syrim is 3D, so can't quite consider DOS2 3D. A game like BG2 is isometric, but can't quite equate DOS2 to that either. I stand by the "hybrid" assessment.



Inherently? Maybe not. Overwhelmingly? Absolutely. It's like comparing a LED TV to a tube TV

If you choose to use computer graphic terms to describe player perspective, that's your choice, though it will be difficult to have meaningful argument if one has to guess if the terms you use represent their meaning, or one you made up for them.

I'm not using terms, I'm using examples.

Do you study computer graphics or work in the field?

I'm not entirely sure why you linked to first person: whatever is or isn't being discussed, it's definitely not that.

Although one could argue it's a bit of a technicality (and I might argue that as I did engineering drawing back in... well, about the 18th century), isometric is colloquially understood to mean a bird's eye tactical view as opposed to a third-person being-in-the-thick-of-it view, and that has been the situation for very many years now. Yes, the terms have been inaccurately conflated, and yes, it is often possible to switch or even zoom between views since they're both 3D, but it's just the way of things.

I suppose a true isometric view may be regarded as something like "2D isometric" nowadays even though I accept it's a tautology; but IMHO it's more of an anachronism. Though my opinion may be of dubious relevance as I am not the most widely-travelled gamer, the only "2D isometric" game I've played in recent years is Tyranny, and while I enjoyed it, for me personally the seemingly artificially limited perspective detracted from the game rather than enhancing it. Which is as subjective a point of view as can be but my feeling was one of it trying to enforce the vibe of a bygone time and succeeding in a way that didn't flatter it.

True, but Deadfire is 2D false-perspective maps, with a simple lighting model, like BG1/2. As I said above, this is technically much easier to give a day/night cycle than when using a fully 3D environment.

I suppose Deadfire is as close as anything to being an updated version of the BG1/2 technology ideas, if that's your thing, but I'm not really a fan of 2D false-perspective maps if 3D is available.

No, and it's possible my terminology is not on point, in which case I hope someone will correct me. I am just in favour of trying to use precise descriptors for the sake of the argument. For example, right now I am just trying to figure out what we are talking about in the first place. My initial response was to the following post:



And it was: "Yes, I do believe there are games which will benefit of using pararel projection/isometric view/false perspective, over 3D with real perspective, as the latter does have some drawbacks, which the former doesn't". With the response from you, that BG3 does both... which it doesn't because the two are mutually exclusive.

I apologise if I came out condecending or/and longwinded. Short answer: both have their place, depending on game design. Also you are wrong about platformers;). Snake Pass was great though,

the only real difference between 3d and isometric i see is that in an isometric perspective there tend not to be items hidden by the camera angle, i say tend because i absoluteley know some games that are isometric that can have enemies hidden by perspective (see Synthetik for a recent example)
Likewise, 3D graphics can have a fixed camera perspective and a design favoring visibility.

as such, yes i think this discussion is pedantism.

I applaud you for that. But in this case, I don't think the descriptions you linked are actually helping to clear things up. I think the misunderstanding is a lot deeper than terminology can resolve and honestly.



Same. No offense taken, no offense intended.

I was only putting it aside because there is a sticky thread for that, and I wasn't otherwise clear about what aspect of the conversation you were replying to.

My preference is also RT, single-player, but I prefer full 3D over the original BG presentation. I quite like what I see, but clearly we have TB and strong MP emphasis. In the light of this reality, my feedback and thinking are more about how I can make practical suggestions that will improve the shipping experience for me; and if it is possible to eventually make it even better with mods, everyone can be happy. Well, happier, perhaps.