Real-time 3D or Pre-rendered??? game in development...

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

View Poll Results: What do think is better for an Action/Adventure/RPG game enviorment?
Pre-rendered 3D enviorment 4 17.39%
Real time 3D enviorment 19 82.61%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2002   #1
Real-time 3D or Pre-rendered??? game in development...

Hi there

I'm working on a game (together with Banshee studio) called Stigma which is still in (pre-) production. We where wondering what kind of an enviorment would be the best for an Action/Adventure/RPG that contains fighting, searching, talking, walking and shooting. Would you go for a Pre-rendered enviorment or a real-time 3D enviorment. We would love to know since that is where we have decide which engine we will use...

Thank you.

Last edited by Sangotten : 05 May 2002 at 07:26 PM.
Old 05 May 2002   #2
Surely this would depend on the type of gameplay you're after? A moving camera and 3D environment is only really necessary if it adds to the dynamic of the game (eg, the twisting camera angles of Silent Hill add a great deal to the feeling of unease).

Prerendered backgrounds require a lot of planning so as not to make the view changes too disorientating, but they can usually hold alot more detail, so they might suit exploration and puzzle-solving gameplay better.

PS: if you haven't already, check out Dino Crisis 2 on the PS1 for some of the best prerendered backgrounds I've seen.
No, seriously, what the hell is a puddlefish?
Old 05 May 2002   #3
if you really like both....why not try and combine both, the way final fantasy X has? in games like RE and dino crisis, i found that having the camera fixed could really be a problem sometimes in battle situations. im tryin to kill the zombie, get backed into a corner, and im like, quick, where's the first person view!! how do i move the camera?! the obvious advantage to pre-rendered is that you get REALLY pretty backgrounds and can achieve a very cool cinematic experience. ...not that you can't get a really cinematic experience with all realtime.

a combination of both would be difficult, ffX didnt pull it off all that well, but they still pulled it off good. anyways, thats my 2 cents.
Old 05 May 2002   #4
I agree with Mosa the Final Fantasy approach of combining pre-render and real-time 3d gets the most bang for your buck , but takes a hell of a lot of scripting and deffinatly has limitations with camera control . I think the visuals that can be produced however more then make up for it .
Old 05 May 2002   #5
Thank you for your replies!!!

Well, the main gameplay is action, that means a lot of running, shooting and jumping. But there's also a great part of exploring, searching and talking... The running and shooting is at it's best when there is used real-time 3D, though for RPG part details and graphics play a big part. Pre-rendered background do take a lot of planning just as Puddlefish said.
I will ask what the options are for a mixed gameplay, anyway thanks!!!
Old 05 May 2002   #6
I'd say use realtime as something like Devil May Cry. That way you can get dynamic camera angles in the action scenes.
Old 05 May 2002   #7
well both could work if done right but from the way u described it id say real time sinceu said thered not only be lots of action but lots of enviroment interaction (i.e. searching teaking etc) and realtime is ussually the better fit for that kinda stuff. imo it also make for a better eviroment to be interacted with then a static image like resident evil or the likes. thats jus my two cents though
You know, not a day goes by when I don't turn to a total stranger and say "I wish somebody would take a beloved children's tale, gut it out, and fill it to the brim with fear, madness, loathing, and jumping puzzles."
Old 05 May 2002   #8
100% realtime all the way, baby. You can pull that off and FMV's a cakewalk.
Old 06 June 2002   #9
first if you don't have a clear idea of how your game is determined, and just start a game by simply trying to design one, the odds are you are not going to make a good game.
You should have a clear idea how you game runs under what environment.

other than that, about pre-rendereed, much of games in the future would be realtime, since pre rendered quality would be no different from realtime.
Old 07 July 2002   #10
pre render is bullshit

Go for realtime not just because it's easier to do stuff in but to get everything look the same.
I just hate the final fantasy approach when you see a lowpoly character running around in a scrolling, strange perspective, inacurate collisionboxes, stupid shadows, rendered background that looks absolutly from another world since it's using higher polygon count and texture size.

Just my opinion.
Old 07 July 2002   #11
Re: pre render is bullshit

Originally posted by Bilbana
Go for realtime not just because it's easier to do stuff in...

?!? Hardly easier.
Old 07 July 2002   #12
Re: pre render is bullshit

Originally posted by Bilbana
I just hate the final fantasy approach when you see a lowpoly character...

So then the task is to make realtime look like those Final Fantasy commercials we all drool over. Whoever told to this was easier is having some fun with you.

Old 07 July 2002   #13

3D realtime is much better choice , if ur company have problems
in dev. a realtime engine try this link, a free engine for comercial
use , with a renderr like Quake 3 Arena
ICQ: 99145309
Old 07 July 2002   #14
what are you talking about?

Ok spakman, you get me all wrong and i'm not sure even you know what you're talking about.

1st post
Ofcourse it's easier do do stuff (read amusedtoe) in realtime, I mean since everything you are going to interact with is so much easier to interact with if its physicaly there ie. a chair that moves when you run in to it etc. Since it's physicaly there you can apply the game physics to it or whatever. This is something that is really hard to do with the final fantasy approach. Have you ever wondered why the final fantasy games are so stiff, you can almost never interact with the screen you are in except walk on it (which it actually looks like your doing, more on this).
So it's not a question about which is easier to model and make it look nice it's a question about interactivity. Hope this clears things up.

2nd post
Since I actually work in the game industry and have for the last 2,5 years (in game 3d modeller/texturer) I very well know that higher polygon count and higher texture resolution is never easier.
On to your post, What the hell are you talking about, I never said anything about it being easier to do the pre-rendered quality of the final fantasy commercials in realtime. I just don't know where you got that from.
I said I don't like the mix of high poly/texture background and low poly/texture characters, since it looks like you walk around with you characters on a picture and not an enviroment(which is exactly what you're doing) get it?
Old 07 July 2002   #15
Re: what are you talking about?

Originally posted by Bilbana
Ok spakman, you get me all wrong and i'm not sure even you know what you're talking about.

1st post
Ofcourse it's easier do do stuff (read amusedtoe) in realtime.

2nd post
Since I actually work in the game industry

Rilly? Dood I wanna work were you work then, cos over here realtime is a biyatch. But it's sooo pretty.

peace d=^)
Thread Closed share thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Society of Digital Artists

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.