Why isometric?

dimentox

Hey all,
So it seems to me a new trend is top down mmos. Having come from Ultima times this feels like a step backwards. You have fully immersive games these days which allow any camera you wish really. Why do these new games feel cheap to me when it's limited like this? Going from uo to eq1 Wlwas like a omg moment. This seems to just rob of the experience.  Also seems cheaper where textures and models can be well done faster and quicker. Not to mention pathing without a z axis. 

Call me odd? Am I the only one who does not like this? I can't really get myself to play these and it's a no go for me. How do the rest of you feel?

Tiller

I enjoy both. Isometric games tend to give more focus on the character and what happens immediately around them than the actual world as a whole.  A game such as FFXIV for me plays better from iso perspective in dungeons where the action is more focused around you, but out in the world I play from a more linear perspective. I don't mind it, you just have to be able to allow your brain to accept it as the only perspective you can play and for some that might be harder.

Quizzical

Welcome to the forums!  Even though you created your account in 2015.

There's a big difference between an overhead view with 3D graphics, and true isometric with 2D graphics, typically sprite graphics.  The former is often called isometric, but that's a misnomer.

An overhead view with graphics that are fundamentally 3D mostly doesn't necessarily mean skipping work on textures.  For the most part, it's about the same graphics work as if a game is played from a first-person perspective or a close third-person one.  There are likely to be some exceptions for things that can't be seen because the camera view makes it impossible.  But that goes in both directions:  if a first-person perspective makes it impossible to see the tops of buildings, then the developers might not bother to implement them at all.

The difference between a camera view that is near to your character and one that is far away is a matter of personal preference.  The high overhead view gives you a much clearer view of what is going on.  I generally don't like first-person games because you can't see what is going on very well, and a close third-person camera has a milder version of the same problem.

If the question is why there are games made with each approach, the answer is that different gamers have different preferences.  If half of gamers strongly prefer A to B and the other half strongly prefer B to A, and developers overwhelmingly implemented A rather than B, then there would be a lot of money to be made catering to the underserved market that prefers B.  Even if it's a 90/10 split in what players prefer, if essentially no developers cater to that 10%, that's still tens of millions of gamers, and there's a lot of money to be made if you can make a game that they'll like.

dimentox

Thanks for the input. Lost arc to me seems interesting but the top down view I fear is gonna hurt. I love rpgs but games like boulders gate 3 and poe I can only stand so much of the view. Guess I am odd?

Theocritus

I am not a fan of top down at all....It just cuts off too much field of view.

Brainy

I agree I am not a big fan of the dated looking graphics.  However these games usually have much better gameplay and deeper systems than their counterparts.

I generally overcome my dislike for the low graphics in exchange for the gameplay.  So I end up buying a lot of these kinds of games and enjoying many of them long term.

On the other end, the high end 3d graphics usually grab my attention, but ultimately disappoint with their shallow gameplay.  So I tend not to buy these games unless they have extremely positive reviews.  Most of them are a huge disappoint to me in the long run also.

Dibdabs

dimentox said:

Thanks for the input. Lost arc to me seems interesting but the top down view I fear is gonna hurt. I love rpgs but games like boulders gate 3 and poe I can only stand so much of the view. Guess I am odd?

Nah, it does seem a step backwards to me, too.  I've seen quite a few interesting-looking games get a mention, but as soon as I see it's using top-down graphics I ignore it.  I liked the graphic style years ago, in games such as Torchlight II, but times have moved on.  I have a shiny new, VR-ready gaming PC and want games that make use of the rig's capabilities.

Scot

Even though I think gameplay is all, if a game is not 1st or second person I have problems accepting it as worthy of play. I make all sorts of exceptions to that rule but even then I always think it would have been much better if they had used top notch graphics.

Isometric is a graphics standard from yesteryear reintroduced to us by indie gaming, gameplay is all though so that can make a game shine. It is a quandary and we will just have to make our minds up on a case by case basis.

Adamantine

How immersive a game is depends upon how well it was designed, not about how it looks. Thats why the most immersive game I've ever played is chess.

Furthermore designing graphics is extremely work intensive. Either you need to spend a LOT of money on artists, or you have to reuse graphic objects heavily, or you cannot have as much of a game as would be otherwise possible.

Thats why games with low graphics requirements are a good idea and probably always will be a good idea.

P.s.: Oh - or you could generate graphics randomly, like for example No Man's Sky does.

Scorchien

IMO ( relative to mmos), they still cannot get the depth of systems from a game like UO  into the sparkly ,shiny , graphic , eye candy in today's 3d offerings , the better the graphics and animations the less goes into the systems under the hood . New World being the latest offender , great looking game , very shallow,limited restrictive gameplay .It's actually really odd also that no one can hit a happy medium on this .. The fact that best MMORPG Virtual World is 25 years old isometric game just should not be.. 

Kyleran

Adamantine said:

How immersive a game is depends upon how well it was designed, not about how it looks. Thats why the most immersive game I've ever played is chess.

Furthermore designing graphics is extremely work intensive. Either you need to spend a LOT of money on artists, or you have to reuse graphic objects heavily, or you cannot have as much of a game as would be otherwise possible.

Thats why games with low graphics requirements are a good idea and probably always will be a good idea.

P.s.: Oh - or you could generate graphics randomly, like for example No Man's Sky does.

Every graphic design decision has its pros and cons in terms of development time, performance, cost etc. 

Resources aka funding tend to be limited so few game devs can take the Star Citizen approach of realistic looking cloud formations and functional toilets.

Choices have to be made, knowing some decisions will alienate a portion of the potential customer base (hopefully small) and still be a success.

Sovrath

dimentox said:

Thanks for the input. Lost arc to me seems interesting but the top down view I fear is gonna hurt. I love rpgs but games like boulders gate 3 and poe I can only stand so much of the view. Guess I am odd?

You can't look at it as a progression 2d, to isometric to full 3d.

While at one point computer power was an issue, each view type delivers a very unique experience.

For some who want to "live in a world" then sure, full 3d games, especially if they are in 1st person (though some scream bloody murder about that as they want to SEE their characters) help with that.

But a 2d world or isometric world can also be a preference and its own unique experience. It might lean more toward "game" than feeling like you are standing in a world but that is indeed its own thing.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

The_Korrigan

Isometric works quite well with action (MMO)RPGs.

It's no longer the old crappy "two and half D" of Ultima VII or Ultima Online, which was great in its time but hasn't aged well, even with the improvements made. A modern isometric engine is actually 3D, you can see it in Diablo III for instance.

But for my non-action MMORPGs, I prefer a true 3D world, where you can turn the camera and see the sky. That's so much more immersive than a locked camera where you can't see the horizon or the sky.

olepi

I have a hard time with isometric view now too, in an RPG. I played a lot of Baldur's gate, etc, and it was fine at the time. But I really prefer full 3-d worlds that I can "live and move and have my being in". Except I don't like 1st person either.

Games like Civilization are fine as top-down view games. To me, those are just games, and the graphics don't matter as much as the gameplay. For an RPG though, I want to live in the world.

That also brings up another consideration: how realistic did they try to make the world? Is it realistic? or stylized? I definitely prefer more realistic, so I really like LoTRO and didn't like WoW. If they are going for realistic, then they have to implement real-looking water and clouds. Put in a realistic weather system, seasons, day/night cycle. And my pet peeve, wind that blows in a real direction.

Adamantine

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

Amaranthar

Adamantine said:

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

I totally agree. 
American football is very much like a medieval battle, especially along the line of scrimmage. Having played it in high school, I and others can tell you that you are very much aware of almost everything going on around you, with the exception of something directly behind you. 
Your mind follows the action, so you may even be aware of that guy right behind you even though you can't see them in the moment. 

Other sports are pretty much the same, you are aware because you can quickly turn your head, you have peripheral vision, etc. 
You even know where your feet are, and if you might step on something. 

1sr person views don't allow that in an MMO, as you can't turn and look quickly, and you have no peripheral view. 

Amaranthar

Scorchien said:

IMO ( relative to mmos), they still cannot get the depth of systems from a game like UO  into the sparkly ,shiny , graphic , eye candy in today's 3d offerings , the better the graphics and animations the less goes into the systems under the hood . New World being the latest offender , great looking game , very shallow,limited restrictive gameplay .It's actually really odd also that no one can hit a happy medium on this .. The fact that best MMORPG Virtual World is 25 years old isometric game just should not be.. 

Yes. 
As others have pointed out, performance is also an issue. 
In modern 3D games, while the graphics are great, it can start to lag your comp. 
In Skyrim, I always get very laggy when I have too much candle flickering going on, as an example. I'm sure having a great gaming computer makes a huge difference, but not everyone can afford that. 

Imagin UO's "items on the ground" in one of these 3D games. Performance or graphics, something's got to take the hit. 

I think there are solutions for 3D, though. 
Slightly less quality, more "fog" in closer distances, and items on the ground clumping into piles that replace the numbers of items with a single piece of art that functions like a container. 

There are times that I prefer the UO style of 2.5D, because you can see better around you. Current 3D games limit your view, even in second person, way too much for a realistic interpretation to RL awareness. 

The_Korrigan

Adamantine said:

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

This is not true most of the time, the FOV in games is generally higher than 50 degree and often 70 degree or more. Most 3D games even give you a setting to change it to your liking.

But of course, you've never experienced immersion before you've played a 3D game with a VR headset, specially one with a large field of view matching human vision like e.g. the PiMax models.

EDIT

Example in a first person game, Overwatch, where the FOV slider ranges from 80 degrees to 103 degrees.

Amaranthar

The_Korrigan said:

Adamantine said:

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

This is not true most of the time, the FOV in games is generally higher than 50 degree and often 70 degree or more. Most 3D games even give you a setting to change it to your liking.

But of course, you've never experienced immersion before you've played a 3D game with a VR headset, specially one with a large field of view matching human vision like e.g. the PiMax models.

EDIT

Example in a first person game, Overwatch, where the FOV slider ranges from 80 degrees to 103 degrees.

Immersion in a game, to me, is much more than just the view or high quality art. 
Much, much more. 

Sovrath

Adamantine said:

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

depends. I personally don't think a player should be able to see in back of them IF the game requires situational awareness. 

If you need to constantly be looking at your surroundings, what the terrain is like as well as keep track of your enemies locations then being able to see 360 kind of makes all of that a non-issue. 

If however, the game is like Diablo where it doesn't matter then sure, no problem.

The_Korrigan

Amaranthar said:

The_Korrigan said:

Adamantine said:

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

This is not true most of the time, the FOV in games is generally higher than 50 degree and often 70 degree or more. Most 3D games even give you a setting to change it to your liking.

But of course, you've never experienced immersion before you've played a 3D game with a VR headset, specially one with a large field of view matching human vision like e.g. the PiMax models.

EDIT

Example in a first person game, Overwatch, where the FOV slider ranges from 80 degrees to 103 degrees.

Immersion in a game, to me, is much more than just the view or high quality art. 
Much, much more. 

Go figure, I've played Diablo III a lot with my VR headset... Since Diablo III is true 3D it works just fine, and you get that feeling of depth you don't get on a monitor.

It's very funny, it feels like you're playing in a model.

Aeander

Isometric is the perspective that gives players the most information. Making it ideal for genres that want to put a lot of characters on screen. 

Nothing cheap about it. That's just your interpretation. Whenever I try a first person RPG, like The Outer Worlds or Elder Scrolls, I'm always overcome by a subjective feeling that everything is cheap and lackluster.

Quizzical

The_Korrigan said:

Adamantine said:

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

This is not true most of the time, the FOV in games is generally higher than 50 degree and often 70 degree or more. Most 3D games even give you a setting to change it to your liking.

But of course, you've never experienced immersion before you've played a 3D game with a VR headset, specially one with a large field of view matching human vision like e.g. the PiMax models.

EDIT

Example in a first person game, Overwatch, where the FOV slider ranges from 80 degrees to 103 degrees.

To the extent that games make the field of view adjustable, it's mostly by making it way wrong.

Suppose that you have a 24" monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio.  The game can draw any arbitrary field of view less than 180 degrees by assuming that both of your eyes are at exactly the same spot and some fixed distance from the center of the monitor.  For a 60 degree field of view, it assumes that you're about 18 inches away from the monitor.  For a 90 degree field of view, under 10.5 inches.  For 120 degrees, about 6 inches.  Do you really sit that close to your monitor?

If the field of view that you select doesn't match your distance from the monitor, then it's not perspective correct.  In most cases, it will be wildly wrong.  Even if you are 6 inches away from your monitor, your eyes being a few inches apart will mean that it is still wildly wrong.  Or rather, it could be correct for one eye if you sit off center, but at the expense of being even more wildly wrong for the other.  Is that really so immersive?

dimentox

Thanks all for the input. Maybe I just need to change my mindset. However as yall have said taste is what it is. I really hope eventually devs will find a medium ground.

The_Korrigan

Quizzical said:

The_Korrigan said:

Adamantine said:

I will never, ever understand why people claim it would help getting into a game if you have a very limited view of what the heck is even going on thanks to being in first person.

Human beings have a 170 degree view of the world. A monitor gives me what, maybe 30 degree ? Thats highly unnatural and doesnt help at all to get into a game.

I switch to first person when I have to, mainly for aiming. The rest of the time, third person is MUCH better and MUCH more natural and MUCH closer to reality.

This is not true most of the time, the FOV in games is generally higher than 50 degree and often 70 degree or more. Most 3D games even give you a setting to change it to your liking.

But of course, you've never experienced immersion before you've played a 3D game with a VR headset, specially one with a large field of view matching human vision like e.g. the PiMax models.

EDIT

Example in a first person game, Overwatch, where the FOV slider ranges from 80 degrees to 103 degrees.

To the extent that games make the field of view adjustable, it's mostly by making it way wrong.

Suppose that you have a 24" monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio.  The game can draw any arbitrary field of view less than 180 degrees by assuming that both of your eyes are at exactly the same spot and some fixed distance from the center of the monitor.  For a 60 degree field of view, it assumes that you're about 18 inches away from the monitor.  For a 90 degree field of view, under 10.5 inches.  For 120 degrees, about 6 inches.  Do you really sit that close to your monitor?

If the field of view that you select doesn't match your distance from the monitor, then it's not perspective correct.  In most cases, it will be wildly wrong.  Even if you are 6 inches away from your monitor, your eyes being a few inches apart will mean that it is still wildly wrong.  Or rather, it could be correct for one eye if you sit off center, but at the expense of being even more wildly wrong for the other.  Is that really so immersive?

It's true for the perspective of course, but most people don't care really, and the human brain is a marvelous tool of adaptation too, don't underestimate it.

If we go to the extreme, nothing on a monitor is immersive then, since it's not 3D vision. Only a VR headset with human eye field of view AND eye tracking to adjust the perspective when you move your eyes without moving your head would bring that to you.