2D vs. 3D

[Groovy]

I’m curious how much you think the adoption of 3D graphics has helped or harmed the HoMM series. I’m asking because 3D graphics have become the de facto standard for games from this genre (and many others), to the point where I suspect that many people wouldn’t take it seriously if it were done in 2D. With Heroes 6, the 3D world certainly shines and contributes significantly to the game’s appeal. On the other hand, I find H3 and H2 graphics quite adequate for immersion in the game world, with the added bonus that they never get in the way of quick and smooth gameplay. 2D map making is also considerably easier. Even my kids (aged 6 and 9) use the H3 and H4 map editors. This leads me to conclude that HoMM games would probably be more fun to play in 2D, as antiquated as this might sound.

What do you think?

[Naki]

3D all the way!
With a 3D TV/monitor ever better...

[Tress]

3D graphic is must have our days. Sprites doesn't nearly give possibility to look at units 3d provide. Still it's all in a way how it;s made. For example in Disciples 3 I would still prefer D2 units.

[Kalah]

I still feel that we could have a "half-3D" system on the adventure map, like H4 had. Then, for battles, cutscenes and other stuff, you could go full 3D.

[Macros the Black]

To be honest, I still think the art in Heroes 3 is the best in the series (although Heroes 2 beats it in some accounts - the Phoenix, Crusader and Dragons look great in HoMM2). Plus the 3D in the newer games just gets in the way of gameplay.

And I'm 24 years old. That may make me a "sort of" video games veteran, but I certainly shouldn't be old enough to complain about these games. And yet I do.

So, overall, I feel that it has alot more to do with the art direction Ubisoft and co. have been taking with the games. Heroes 6 is certainly a step up from Heroes 5, but still not good enough for me. The units all still look very generic and boring imo, the adventure map looks dull and empty in comparison to Homm 1-3, and I don't even know why a STRATEGY game should have fancy combat animations. I don't even get that. If people wanted graphics, they wouldn't be playing strategy games

I mean, people still play boardgames and nobody ever complains about graphics in those.

[Mozared]

I reckon that as a whole it's helped the series forward. Some of the 3D environments in Heroes are astonishing and I love playing in them. Plus, it helps me immerse a lot better. That's not to say H3's 2D graphics didn't get the job done though.

You are right about the mapping thing - 2D maps are simply easier to make, and that's what makes H5 and H6 maps so much scarcer - which is a shame. On the other hand, it's kind of obvious that the 3D kind of quality requires more work before it can be released. 2D relies far more on mindgames where it plays with your brain to make you see depth where there isn't.

[Pol]

Both modes, please. 2D is the best for thinking, playing, managing and 3D for admiring, creating machinima cutscenes.

[Ell1e]

I like the 3D graphics, they look good and all, so I'm definitely in favor of them, but if Heroes 6 had 2D graphics I still would have bought it.

[maltz]

I think "better" graphics can never harm a game. It is half of the reason to play the game anyway.

I like horror movies, and frequently search for good horror movies from those "top 50" list. A lot of list are "all-time" lists, so they include classics like "The Exorcist" from 1980s or earlier. When I watched those supposedly "most horrible movie of all time", I actually laughed.
In today's standard, The Exorcist was so cheesy and tasteless, because everybody has been mimicking it and improving from it.

I think the same thing goes with older 2-D games, too. We keep thinking about the glorious classic 2-D classic games, but they are actually as boring as their graphics in today's standard.

[peta62]

I would prefer 2D, the same way as chess is better for thinking in 2D, but I understand it would be a huge risk to release 2D game today. And as was already written above, some parts are better in 3D.

[Dalai]

3D graphic is must have our days.

And this is sad.

Sprites doesn't nearly give possibility to look at units 3d provide.

Yes, right. Sprites are pre-rendered, and 3D is created on the fly. So sprites can be infinitely more detailed and beautiful.

2D is the best for thinking, playing, managing

...and that is exactly what Heroes games are about.

I’m curious how much you think the adoption of 3D graphics has helped or harmed the HoMM series.

3D hurt Heroes A LOT. Strategy game has become some garden-and-sandbox-walking game. In H2 a tree actually meant a forest. An army can pass it in one hour. In one day an army can pass by couple forests, lakes and mountains. In H5 army passes couple actual trees and couple pumpkins. Ridiculous!

[peta62]

I like horror movies, and frequently search for good horror movies from those "top 50" list. A lot of list are "all-time" lists, so they include classics like "The Exorcist" from 1980s or earlier. When I watched those supposedly "most horrible movie of all time", I actually laughed.
In today's standard, The Exorcist was so cheesy and tasteless, because everybody has been mimicking it and improving from it.

Very interesting comparison, you are right, you would have to avoid seeing later films in order to fully enjoy the film as original viewers did, there is obvious development. It is the same as Beach Boys' Pet Sounds is considered one of the best and innovative LPs ever. But you have to compare it with music before to understand why.

Dalai Exactly !

[Tress]

Yes, right. Sprites are pre-rendered, and 3D is created on the fly. So sprites can be infinitely more detailed and beautiful.

Sprite is static picture. 3 model is nothing short of digital actor. If someone would want to get even nearly same effect and amount of moves with 2d graphic that he gets with 3d he could release it on3 blue ray discs.

Many so called 2d games are created by creating 3d model and aplying appropriate filter to flatten things down. Imo 3d gives bigger possibilities and immersion, but if game lags, is clumped and is impratical to play becasue of it, it's devs fault not 3d. 3d can easly be better than 2d. To be other way around devs really must screw up big time.

[Kristo]

3D hurt Heroes A LOT. Strategy game has become some garden-and-sandbox-walking game. In H2 a tree actually meant a forest. An army can pass it in one hour. In one day an army can pass by couple forests, lakes and mountains. In H5 army passes couple actual trees and couple pumpkins. Ridiculous!

[Macros the Black]

Maybe I can articulate my words a bit better.

1. I don't mind 3D.
But it also isn't a must for me, especially not in a strategy game. Do people complain that a unit in Risk is just a piece of plastic? I don't.
--
As long as being in 3D doesn't hurt a game too much, then it's an improvement. Otherwise, I don't see why it can't be kept it in 2D.


2. The 3D as implemented in the Heroes games is actually less attractive to me than the sprites available in Heroes 2 and 3.
Objects have become symbols (i.e. trees are too big, heroes are too small, the adventure map looks barren and empty, there's nothing personal or interesting about the units).
On the other hand, the 2D art style was full of heart: there were green pastures, rivers leading into water wheels, windwills and frolicking leprechauns, lakes with ducks in them, etc. etc. It looked like a painting of a fantasy land. The units were all drawn by hand, and you could tell it was a labor of love.
--
Back when Heroes 2 first came out, I fell in love with how beautiful the game looked, and with Heroes 3 I fell in love all over again. With the 3D games I just get annoyed at the generic looking graphics. In HoMM 1-4, you could actually become immersed because the game looked believable. In Heroes 5 and 6, there is no immersion at all for me. Zero.


3. Now, don't get me wrong. The 3D art has been improving.
Heroes 4 is the worst imo, I can't even play that game anymore without getting disgusted at the art style. Heroes 5 is better but everything is too bland. Heroes 6 has alot more character, but still not enough variety (partly due to their only being 5 factions and 2 neutral creatures - not counting bosses).
--
I do believe it's possible to achieve the same level of character with 3D art NWC did with 2D art, it's just that I haven't seen it yet in a Heroes game.


4. The 3D hurts the gameplay.
The adventure map camera in Heroes 5 was awful for strategic purposes because you have to move it around too much to see everything. The combat map camera in Heroes 6 is awful for strategic purposes because the combat map doesn't even fit on it!
Both games have annoying combat animations at times, although this is luckily completely avoidable in Heroes 6 now.
The town screen in Heroes 5 was way too annoying in 3D because you could never find a building and it took too long to load up. The town screen in Heroes 6 is, well, not even a town screen at all but just a window that looks completely sterile and dull.
Note that this flaw was not present in Heroes 4 at all - maybe with exception to the larger battlefield grid and hexagons instead of squares, but I personally never had a problem with that.
--
Sure, Heroes 4 was not in full 3D, but then again why should a strategy game be in full 3D? After all, Diablo 3 will have a fixed camera. Why not Heroes 7?
Why not make the town screen an actual town screen again, where you can see every building lined up easily and don't have to fiddle with the camera to click on them? And if the camera in the town screen is fixed, then you don't have to actually make the back of buildings, which saves on the amount of effort put in by both the developer as well as one's computer to actually load up the darn things.
Why are we able to move the camera around a tiny inch in the combat map in Heroes 6 when it might as well be static and give us a better overview of the battle?
Props on the adventure map camera in HoMM 6 btw. They seem to have gotten it right there, at least.


5. The map editor in Heroes 5 is completely useless.
(Note that I don't even remember if Heroes 6 has a map editor, and if it does I haven't taken a look at it yet as I'm not done with the campaigns yet)
This is partly because of 3D, partly because the terrain editing and triggers are too ambitious, and partly because of incompetence on the designers' side.
Compare the editor to earlier Heroes games where it was very easy to work with and you could make amazing maps with them. And btw, where's the campaign editor?
--
This is a bigger issue than one might think, because for some people making maps was half the fun.
If Blizzard could make an easy, intuitive map editor for Warcraft 3, so should Ubisoft.


6. Cutscenes are badly done.
Yes, I do realise that in a game with so much story, you can't expect the cutscenes to be handmade. But in-game cutscenes (especially shoddy ones) are to handmade cutscenes what a documentary (or more fitting: the blairwitch project) is to an actual movie.
Not to mention, since none of the units have more than 3 animations, and they get blocky up close, you just end up getting annoyed watching it.
Now, I know what you're going to say here, the old Heroes games had no cut-scenes at all, so can they be anything but an improvement? Well, to me half-assed cutscenes are worse than no cut-scenes. Yes, the old games just had a bunch of text you could read. But reading that text made me use my own imagination to see these events take place.
Anyway, props to the dialogue boxes in Heroes 6. These are actually very enjoyable.
--
I think the best solution here is a compromise - Heroes 6's way of characters communicating with each other and the old way of doing any other cutscenes (i.e. text describing what happens).

[Dalai]

3 model is nothing short of digital actor.

Not even near. You can have a ton of servers calculating one move of a digital actor for a day, and it will result in just 1 perfect second in a movie. But when you have 1 second to calculate 1 second (real-time, it is) on a modest home hardware - it's a very different story. Yes, modern hardware is better than yesterday's, but screens are getting bigger and expectations rise. In the end you get much worse picture than with digital actor. Take Terminator 2, for example, and consider how old that movie is.

And what's worse - it takes millions of dollars and tens (hundreds?) of thousands man-hours from developers. Instead of things which made this game what it is.

If someone would want to get even nearly same effect and amount of moves with 2d graphic that he gets with 3d he could release it on3 blue ray discs.

Big overstatement.

Many so called 2d games are created by creating 3d model and aplying appropriate filter to flatten things down.

Heroes 4. The most beautiful and detailed graphics in whole series. Including M&M:H-VI. You can discount it as a matter of personal taste, of course.

It is not how it's made, it is how it works when you play it, how it is displayed. In H4 it is a set of frame sequences (short movies), prerendered, and because of that, of high quality. It does not actually calculate anything in real-time - shadows, sizes, angles and all the stuff which should not be in Heroes game in the first place.

Imo 3d gives bigger possibilities and immersion, but if game lags, is clumped and is impratical to play becasue of it, it's devs fault not 3d.

Ok, 3D has nothing to do with it. Is it any easier for you to blame developers if you still fail to immerse every single time? Do halos around ordinary things help you to immerse?

Strategy games are played on the map. Map is ... a map - sheet of paper, 2D. There is a reason for that.

But if you think that rotating the camera to find more wood of crystal is an integral part of Heroes game... There is no need to solve a lot of problems which never existed before Ubi decided that they should be like everyone else.

3d can easly be better than 2d. To be other way around devs really must screw up big time.

For Heroes - it's every time. I am inclined to agree that there must be a way of implementing it properly.

Blizzard moved SC to 3D in SC2 and it is still a brilliant game. But in SC2 immersion expectations are different, so they had an easier situation and did much better job at the same time. And you have to remember that SC2 does not have free camera. Blizzard is not doing like everybody else if it's against common sense - they know what they want in the end. Unlike Ubisoft.

[Angelspit]

And you have to remember that SC2 does not have free camera.

I meant to talk about that earlier. The Heroes V camera was great to take screenshots, but at time it was also a nuisance.

[Spin]

3D is a must these days really. Sprites would look ridiculously awful at today's resolutions.

The graphics have really helped Heroes, in particular Heroes VI, which has made it so it doesn't feel like you're playing a board game on the adventure map. The map is very seamless and it's harder than ever to spot tiles on a map.

The big question really is how far to go with the 3D graphics. I know a lot of heroes players don't have the latest hardware and play on systems with relatively outdated graphics cards. However, to make a AAA game Ubisoft needs to make the game look good and therefore look like it was a game made in 2011.

Making strategy look good has proven an extremely hard thing to do so far. The 2 biggest success stories I can thing of at the moment are Company of Heroes and Civilization V.

[Pitsu]

2D

It takes a lot of skill to get things correct in 3D. And as has been said many times before, what we call 2D is in fact nD, where n is any number. In 3D or pseudo-3D one needs to have the height, width and length dimensions of every individual object match the dimensional directions of all other objects. In "2D" like the first 3 Heroes games, every individual 2D object is independent on others. Combination of individual 2D images into a map generates space, which in summary has more dimensions than 3. I the sense of info presentation and object recognition it is better.

[ywhtptgtfo]

2D
In "2D" like the first 3 Heroes games, every individual 2D object is independent on others. Combination of individual 2D images into a map generates space, which in summary has more dimensions than 3.

Sorry, I totally don't understand what you are saying here. However, I agree that 2D or isometric 3D is the best representation of information for a strategy game.

Also, I disagree that it's that much harder to get things right with 3D. I think the correlation between 3D and bad game design in M & M genre is largely coincidental, as there are many 3D strategy games out there that actually managed to get things right (i.e. Age of Wonders, Civilization 4, King's Bounty remake).

Don't forget that there are many 2D games that actually failed as miserably as the 3D games you all reviled.