I did NOT like the overhead view,i actually despise it because it serves NO purpose other than to cut down polycount.ONLY CHEAP game engines use the overhead/top down viewpoint.
A lowered camera view gives a more realsitic viewpoint form the players eyes,although yes it is still slightly overhead on an angle or slighty above/behind.You do need to have a PLAYABLE angle,if directly behind the eyes,you wouldn't see anything.
IMO most games do it fine with me now a days,i don't forsee any change needed.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I honestly would love to see a new isometric perspective MMO.
The "omgoutdated graphics" folks would kill it before it hatched.
I always read those guys as "I just spent $500 for a new GPU and I will justify it with all the bells and whistles!" But that's ok
I don't think outdated graphics are a requirement for an iso game. D3 is still kinda lacking on graphics but it is a recent isometric game with fair graphics.
I don't know if it would fly for anyone else but apparently Blizzard can still get away with it unless you think 10M copies sold is a low number.
Because D3 uses a 3D engine although it locks its camera at a isometric view point. You can zoom it with the "z" key and see your char and the surrounding up close.
It also have physics effects when you blow things up.
I much prefer isometric view for RPGs. I'm not really that big on first persion view, but I can live with it provided the game is good enough. 3rd person is pretty good, but an "isometric" view a la Diablo 3 is my main preference. Could be because most of the greatest RPGs of all time (Ultima 7, Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout 2) had isometric view, and it more closely resembles tabletop games where you have your miniatures on the table. People also tend to associate first person views with FPS games, and it's a challenge to make tactical, RPG die roll combat with a 1st person view.
An "isometric" view is also really good when you control a party since you have a much better tactical overview.
Also I believe a 3d rendered game isn't "true" isometric, but it's good enough for me. IIRC in a "true" isometric view things in the distance are actually the same size as things in the foreground, but due to the way the image is drawn it still looks further away, something only really possible in 2d render.
Another great advantage of the isometric view is that while you lose the "big vistas," the limited view distance makes the world seem much bigger than it really is. Take the Ultima 7 games. Their worlds seemed absolutely huge, but while they were a good sized bunch, they actually weren't super big.
First-person view is what most of us experience in real life. As I'm part of that group, I find first-person view to be much more immersive. As soon as you take the step back to third-person, you break that and there's really not much difference between that any any other non-FP view (although the more you pull away, the less immersive it tends to be.)
While I criticize a lot of their gameplay elements for being really shallow, the Elder Scrolls games have been the most immersive RPGs I've experienced.
I have pretty much the same take on FPV. It will always be more immersive. With this view I AM playing the character not I am playing THIS character(third person). There isn't as close of a connection when the view is further out. Even playing Skyrim in TPV doesn't feel right.
In some case though, ususally in PvP, I will prefer TPV for more situation awareness even though it isn't as fun or intense gameplay.
But clearly some games are designed with the intention of playing in a certain perspective. Zooming in to FPV in most MMORPGs doesn't feel righ at all. Like Vanguard or SWTOR for example, everything doesn't look like it is scaled right. The terrain looks too flat, textures are stretched, and objects look bigger than they should be.
The biggest turn off for me with UO was the awkward perspective and graphics which is why I never got into it.
I too would love to see a good ISO MMORPG. I am all for low strain graphics. I think there already are a handful of F2P ISO MMORPGs, they usually don’t have crafting or just an upgrade system, and are also of an anime style (ie crystal saga). My first non-Text and 16-Bit color game was the ISO RPG “Pool of Radiance.”
BTW UO had respawn timers just like every modern MMORPG. True it could take a month or more for some spawns to return. But there was Nothing keeping everyone from being a hero in UO. Your nostalgia comes from being 6 when it was released. UO’s programing flaws gave rise the Instanced Dungeons, Battlegrounds and Arenas. Lets not forget the Train as griefing tool and the assassination of Lord British's avatar.
Edit: The reason I say UO gave rise to instancing is that in Its open world dungeons your raid group could spend and hour to get to and kill a boss. But some jerk could run up at the last second and kill steal the loot drop. This lead to the want and need for private dungeons.
UO open world PvP (ganking) lead to the creation of a PvE server (Trammel). The creation of Trammel is often cited as the reason for UO decline. What do PKers want in their open world free for all? PvE players.
Modern MMO mobs can not be trained for great distance or on to other players or groups as a griefing tool.
My point is an ISO MMO won’t bring these things back.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Note there's alse different degrees on how angles the isometric perspective is. For example, I found UO's was too tilted, which made it look awkward. Compare that to Ultima VIIs where the POV is somewhat more overhead.
When I played Warcraft 3, I had a feeling that its ISO view was in fact 2.5D meaning it used 2D sprites and switched to 3D when ever I would zoom in. Maybe it was just my mind playing tricks, but I always felts I saw or noticed when it would switch from using 3D models back to 2D sprites. Maybe this was caused by the game returning to a default camera angle.
Anyways my point is it would be possible to design 3D models and structures and capture 2D images for a modern 2D ISO game. I suspect that an ISO game would require hand drawn 2D sprites. If a game feels 3D in anyways, the player would want to swing the camera. The result, of not being able to, they would feel too restricted. That's how I felt in D3.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Note there's alse different degrees on how angles the isometric perspective is. For example, I found UO's was too tilted, which made it look awkward. Compare that to Ultima VIIs where the POV is somewhat more overhead.
This is isometric...Landstalker....you have to jump to the next block, but you don't really know if you are facing it head straight.....he could jump and just land between the 2 pillar instead of on the pillar....you can't tell...in 3D you just pan the camera and check, in isometric you can't, and most of the lives lost in landstalker for me were because of the flaw that isometric has, which is not being able to judge your position very well.
What about the block behind him, is it straight behind the block he's standing on or not....you can't tell.
How far is that green wall from you?...you can't tell.
Isometric has some serious flaws as far as spacial positioning is concerned.
Maybe you're not jumping blocks in an MMO, but the spatial positioning flaws are still there, they're just less apparent.
I much prefer isometric view for RPGs. I'm not really that big on first persion view, but I can live with it provided the game is good enough. 3rd person is pretty good, but an "isometric" view a la Diablo 3 is my main preference. Could be because most of the greatest RPGs of all time (Ultima 7, Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout 2) had isometric view, and it more closely resembles tabletop games where you have your miniatures on the table. People also tend to associate first person views with FPS games, and it's a challenge to make tactical, RPG die roll combat with a 1st person view.
I agree here too. All the best RPGs I have ever played have been from the isometric view (Baldur's Gate, UO, Wasteland, Fallout, etc). I can't help but feel that the change in view introduced to to RPGs has helped move us away from that immersion.
Take Fallout 3 for example....it's the only one in the series I felt was truly inferior. Or Ultima Underword...fun, but an RPG?
I do remember launching up EQ for the first time and before any of the story came into play, I immediately felt that I was no longer playing an RPG in the sense of UO, so I don't think the change of average guy to hero emphasis was what broke it for me.
It will be interesting to see the Torchlight MMO in action. I, personally, would love the top down view to come back.
Lineage Eternal isn't isometric though, isometric is plotting a 3D image on a 2D surface, as is seen in landstalker.
Isometric is fake 3D, because at the time no console could display 3D at any reasonable framerate, so they used fake 3D on a 2D surface, isometric.
Lineage Eternal uses 3D, in the video you linked it even pans the camera back and forth to accommodate the view.
You can argue that the camera is more static though, but that isn't isometric. Having a static or almost static camera in an overview isn't isometric to me, isometric has to do with the projection of the image, not with the camera angle.
Lineage Eternal isn't isometric though, isometric is plotting a 3D image on a 2D surface and using it as a fake camera angle, as is seen in landstalker.
Isometric is fake 3D, because at the time no console could display 3D at any reasonable framerate, so they used fake 3D on a 2D surface, isometric.
Lineage Eternal uses 3D, in the video you linked it even pans the camera back and forth to accommodate the view.
You can argue that the camera is more static though, but that isn't isometric. Having a static or almost static camera in an overview isn't isometric to me, isometric has to do with the projection of the image.
Isometric is about the point of view, in my opinion, it has nothing to do if the game is 2D or 3D, Diablo 3 is 3D and Diablo 1-2 are 2D, but all of them have isometric view.
For me isometric is just mapping a 3D world on a 2D surface and thereby avoiding the heavy calculations that old games couldn't handle.
If for someone isometric simply means a viewing angle, then I agree that isometric is not inferior to 3D, because it simply is 3D, you can pan most 1st person games into an overview mode.
I can't even begin to be emmersed in a world with an isometric view. I feel like some outside entity looking down on the whole thing, rather than feeling like I am in the game world. I can't even play games like Diablo because of this.
Granted, I did come to MMOs from the FPS genre, but it seems to me that the 1st and 3rd person views are much more engaging. It bothers me that GW2 doesn't have a 1st person view for me to use. During combat and stuff, I prefer 3rd person, but when I am running around and exploring, I much prefer 1st person and having a full view of the land.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I can't even begin to be emmersed in a world with an isometric view. I feel like some outside entity looking down on the whole thing, rather than feeling like I am in the game world. I can't even play games like Diablo because of this.
Granted, I did come to MMOs from the FPS genre, but it seems to me that the 1st and 3rd person views are much more engaging. It bothers me that GW2 doesn't have a 1st person view for me to use. During combat and stuff, I prefer 3rd person, but when I am running around and exploring, I much prefer 1st person and having a full view of the land.
I find Diablo 2(yes Diablo 2) more immersive than trash games like WoW, it's just about tastes. But I am not able to like FPS/RPG-MMO, I prefer TPS MMO instead.
When I played Warcraft 3, I had a feeling that its ISO view was in fact 2.5D meaning it used 2D sprites and switched to 3D when ever I would zoom in. Maybe it was just my mind playing tricks, but I always felts I saw or noticed when it would switch from using 3D models back to 2D sprites. Maybe this was caused by the game returning to a default camera angle.
Anyways my point is it would be possible to design 3D models and structures and capture 2D images for a modern 2D ISO game. I suspect that an ISO game would require hand drawn 2D sprites. If a game feels 3D in anyways, the player would want to swing the camera. The result, of not being able to, they would feel too restricted. That's how I felt in D3.
D3, Marvel Ultimate Alliance and the Xmen Legend games all have limited zoom. I suppose the way they optimize the engine and texture, they won't let you do a free look camera.
Note there's alse different degrees on how angles the isometric perspective is. For example, I found UO's was too tilted, which made it look awkward. Compare that to Ultima VIIs where the POV is somewhat more overhead.
Better-looking perspective IMO, even more dated graphics aside.
Are you saying that looks better? I have to hold my head crooked just so that it looks right.
D3 I can do but that is terrible.
I think it looks better. But since it's a "true" isometric perspective that's probably the reason it doesn't sit right with you. Diablo 3 isn't really isometric because it's rendered in 3d, so it doesn't have the perspective flaws isometric view has. That's probably why you like it better. I think what people usually mean when they talk about an "isometric view" is a fixed camera that isn't directly above, like in Diablo 3 or StarCraft 2. In fact, the Diablo and StarCraft series are excellent examples of how to seamlessly go from a true 2d isometric perspective to a view that simply emulates the same camera angle in 3d. And I'd love to see more games doing it that way.
And no stinking moving the camera about. Locked view IMO. Having to constantly tinker with the camera in this type of setup isn't fun.
I've been an avid player of all the old Ultima games, up to and including Ultima Online, but let's be honest, that technology is now two decades old. I just can't get immersed in games like Diablo or even UO anymore - and that's the main and only reason why I don't play UO anymore.
Full 3D is now the norm for MMORPGs.
There are even crazy german developers who made a full 3D client for UO:
So it IS possible - if hobby devs can do it, a multi-billion company can do it even better. The only reason why it doesn't happen is because EA is both lazy and stupid.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
In some case though, ususally in PvP, I will prefer TPV for more situation awareness even though it isn't as fun or intense gameplay.
But clearly some games are designed with the intention of playing in a certain perspective. Zooming in to FPV in most MMORPGs doesn't feel righ at all. Like Vanguard or SWTOR for example, everything doesn't look like it is scaled right. The terrain looks too flat, textures are stretched, and objects look bigger than they should be.
The biggest turn off for me with UO was the awkward perspective and graphics which is why I never got into it.
Yeah I was purely talking about which was more immersive. I actually don't have a strong preference when it comes to which is more fun (although specific cameras certainly work better for certain types of gameplay.)
The perspective in UO did seem awkward, which is weird because I sorta like isometric (I especially like how easy it makes it for developers to implement content, which gives them a ton of flexibility to just try a bunch of new stuff; as much as H&H's art style was pretty mediocre, they were able to just shove a ton of stuff into the game easily.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've been an avid player of all the old Ultima games, up to and including Ultima Online, but let's be honest, that technology is now two decades old. I just can't get immersed in games like Diablo or even UO anymore - and that's the main and only reason why I don't play UO anymore.
Full 3D is now the norm for MMORPGs.
There are event crazy german developers who made a full 3D client for UO:
So it IS possible - if hobby devs can do it, a multi-billion company can do it even better. The only reason why it doesn't happen is because EA is both lazy and stupid.
Note there's alse different degrees on how angles the isometric perspective is. For example, I found UO's was too tilted, which made it look awkward. Compare that to Ultima VIIs where the POV is somewhat more overhead.
Better-looking perspective IMO, even more dated graphics aside.
Are you saying that looks better? I have to hold my head crooked just so that it looks right.
D3 I can do but that is terrible.
I think it looks better. But since it's a "true" isometric perspective that's probably the reason it doesn't sit right with you. Diablo 3 isn't really isometric because it's rendered in 3d, so it doesn't have the perspective flaws isometric view has. That's probably why you like it better. I think what people usually mean when they talk about an "isometric view" is a fixed camera that isn't directly above, like in Diablo 3 or StarCraft 2. In fact, the Diablo and StarCraft series are excellent examples of how to seamlessly go from a true 2d isometric perspective to a view that simply emulates the same camera angle in 3d. And I'd love to see more games doing it that way.
And no stinking moving the camera about. Locked view IMO. Having to constantly tinker with the camera in this type of setup isn't fun.
I don't even... What? "true" isometric perspective isn't that. If anything, "true" Isometric is the quivalent of taking the side view and rotating it on X 45 degrees and Y 35 degrees. That view skipped a rotation step and instead offset the height.
As said before Isometric can be in 2D or 3D it is still the same perspective.
Games, in the begining there was top down 2d, then there was side view 2d, next Isometric came with the illusion of 3D, which evolved into true 3D for any perspective possible.
Comments
I did NOT like the overhead view,i actually despise it because it serves NO purpose other than to cut down polycount.ONLY CHEAP game engines use the overhead/top down viewpoint.
A lowered camera view gives a more realsitic viewpoint form the players eyes,although yes it is still slightly overhead on an angle or slighty above/behind.You do need to have a PLAYABLE angle,if directly behind the eyes,you wouldn't see anything.
IMO most games do it fine with me now a days,i don't forsee any change needed.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Because D3 uses a 3D engine although it locks its camera at a isometric view point. You can zoom it with the "z" key and see your char and the surrounding up close.
It also have physics effects when you blow things up.
I much prefer isometric view for RPGs. I'm not really that big on first persion view, but I can live with it provided the game is good enough. 3rd person is pretty good, but an "isometric" view a la Diablo 3 is my main preference. Could be because most of the greatest RPGs of all time (Ultima 7, Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout 2) had isometric view, and it more closely resembles tabletop games where you have your miniatures on the table. People also tend to associate first person views with FPS games, and it's a challenge to make tactical, RPG die roll combat with a 1st person view.
An "isometric" view is also really good when you control a party since you have a much better tactical overview.
Also I believe a 3d rendered game isn't "true" isometric, but it's good enough for me. IIRC in a "true" isometric view things in the distance are actually the same size as things in the foreground, but due to the way the image is drawn it still looks further away, something only really possible in 2d render.
Another great advantage of the isometric view is that while you lose the "big vistas," the limited view distance makes the world seem much bigger than it really is. Take the Ultima 7 games. Their worlds seemed absolutely huge, but while they were a good sized bunch, they actually weren't super big.
I have pretty much the same take on FPV. It will always be more immersive. With this view I AM playing the character not I am playing THIS character(third person). There isn't as close of a connection when the view is further out. Even playing Skyrim in TPV doesn't feel right.
In some case though, ususally in PvP, I will prefer TPV for more situation awareness even though it isn't as fun or intense gameplay.
But clearly some games are designed with the intention of playing in a certain perspective. Zooming in to FPV in most MMORPGs doesn't feel righ at all. Like Vanguard or SWTOR for example, everything doesn't look like it is scaled right. The terrain looks too flat, textures are stretched, and objects look bigger than they should be.
The biggest turn off for me with UO was the awkward perspective and graphics which is why I never got into it.
I too would love to see a good ISO MMORPG. I am all for low strain graphics. I think there already are a handful of F2P ISO MMORPGs, they usually don’t have crafting or just an upgrade system, and are also of an anime style (ie crystal saga). My first non-Text and 16-Bit color game was the ISO RPG “Pool of Radiance.”
BTW UO had respawn timers just like every modern MMORPG. True it could take a month or more for some spawns to return. But there was Nothing keeping everyone from being a hero in UO. Your nostalgia comes from being 6 when it was released. UO’s programing flaws gave rise the Instanced Dungeons, Battlegrounds and Arenas. Lets not forget the Train as griefing tool and the assassination of Lord British's avatar.
Edit: The reason I say UO gave rise to instancing is that in Its open world dungeons your raid group could spend and hour to get to and kill a boss. But some jerk could run up at the last second and kill steal the loot drop. This lead to the want and need for private dungeons.
UO open world PvP (ganking) lead to the creation of a PvE server (Trammel). The creation of Trammel is often cited as the reason for UO decline. What do PKers want in their open world free for all? PvE players.
Modern MMO mobs can not be trained for great distance or on to other players or groups as a griefing tool.
My point is an ISO MMO won’t bring these things back.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Note there's alse different degrees on how angles the isometric perspective is. For example, I found UO's was too tilted, which made it look awkward. Compare that to Ultima VIIs where the POV is somewhat more overhead.
http://sergorn.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/u7codex.png
Better-looking perspective IMO, even more dated graphics aside.
Yea...
When I played Warcraft 3, I had a feeling that its ISO view was in fact 2.5D meaning it used 2D sprites and switched to 3D when ever I would zoom in. Maybe it was just my mind playing tricks, but I always felts I saw or noticed when it would switch from using 3D models back to 2D sprites. Maybe this was caused by the game returning to a default camera angle.
Anyways my point is it would be possible to design 3D models and structures and capture 2D images for a modern 2D ISO game. I suspect that an ISO game would require hand drawn 2D sprites. If a game feels 3D in anyways, the player would want to swing the camera. The result, of not being able to, they would feel too restricted. That's how I felt in D3.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Are you saying that looks better? I have to hold my head crooked just so that it looks right.
D3 I can do but that is terrible.
This is isometric...Landstalker....you have to jump to the next block, but you don't really know if you are facing it head straight.....he could jump and just land between the 2 pillar instead of on the pillar....you can't tell...in 3D you just pan the camera and check, in isometric you can't, and most of the lives lost in landstalker for me were because of the flaw that isometric has, which is not being able to judge your position very well.
What about the block behind him, is it straight behind the block he's standing on or not....you can't tell.
How far is that green wall from you?...you can't tell.
Isometric has some serious flaws as far as spacial positioning is concerned.
Maybe you're not jumping blocks in an MMO, but the spatial positioning flaws are still there, they're just less apparent.
I see no problem with isometric MMO. Jumping? Jumping is useless in an isometric game. Examples of new isomeric MMOs coming:
Lineage Eternal(sequel to Lineage 1):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCdbdsFgNGI
MU 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COB--bE_r-E
In my opinion, isometric MMOs can provide a better action gameplay than a non-isometric action MMO, like TERA, for example.
I agree here too. All the best RPGs I have ever played have been from the isometric view (Baldur's Gate, UO, Wasteland, Fallout, etc). I can't help but feel that the change in view introduced to to RPGs has helped move us away from that immersion.
Take Fallout 3 for example....it's the only one in the series I felt was truly inferior. Or Ultima Underword...fun, but an RPG?
I do remember launching up EQ for the first time and before any of the story came into play, I immediately felt that I was no longer playing an RPG in the sense of UO, so I don't think the change of average guy to hero emphasis was what broke it for me.
It will be interesting to see the Torchlight MMO in action. I, personally, would love the top down view to come back.
Lineage Eternal isn't isometric though, isometric is plotting a 3D image on a 2D surface, as is seen in landstalker.
Isometric is fake 3D, because at the time no console could display 3D at any reasonable framerate, so they used fake 3D on a 2D surface, isometric.
Lineage Eternal uses 3D, in the video you linked it even pans the camera back and forth to accommodate the view.
You can argue that the camera is more static though, but that isn't isometric. Having a static or almost static camera in an overview isn't isometric to me, isometric has to do with the projection of the image, not with the camera angle.
Isometric is about the point of view, in my opinion, it has nothing to do if the game is 2D or 3D, Diablo 3 is 3D and Diablo 1-2 are 2D, but all of them have isometric view.
For me isometric is just mapping a 3D world on a 2D surface and thereby avoiding the heavy calculations that old games couldn't handle.
If for someone isometric simply means a viewing angle, then I agree that isometric is not inferior to 3D, because it simply is 3D, you can pan most 1st person games into an overview mode.
I can't even begin to be emmersed in a world with an isometric view. I feel like some outside entity looking down on the whole thing, rather than feeling like I am in the game world. I can't even play games like Diablo because of this.
Granted, I did come to MMOs from the FPS genre, but it seems to me that the 1st and 3rd person views are much more engaging. It bothers me that GW2 doesn't have a 1st person view for me to use. During combat and stuff, I prefer 3rd person, but when I am running around and exploring, I much prefer 1st person and having a full view of the land.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I find Diablo 2(yes Diablo 2) more immersive than trash games like WoW, it's just about tastes. But I am not able to like FPS/RPG-MMO, I prefer TPS MMO instead.
D3, Marvel Ultimate Alliance and the Xmen Legend games all have limited zoom. I suppose the way they optimize the engine and texture, they won't let you do a free look camera.
I think it looks better. But since it's a "true" isometric perspective that's probably the reason it doesn't sit right with you. Diablo 3 isn't really isometric because it's rendered in 3d, so it doesn't have the perspective flaws isometric view has. That's probably why you like it better. I think what people usually mean when they talk about an "isometric view" is a fixed camera that isn't directly above, like in Diablo 3 or StarCraft 2. In fact, the Diablo and StarCraft series are excellent examples of how to seamlessly go from a true 2d isometric perspective to a view that simply emulates the same camera angle in 3d. And I'd love to see more games doing it that way.
And no stinking moving the camera about. Locked view IMO. Having to constantly tinker with the camera in this type of setup isn't fun.
I've been an avid player of all the old Ultima games, up to and including Ultima Online, but let's be honest, that technology is now two decades old. I just can't get immersed in games like Diablo or even UO anymore - and that's the main and only reason why I don't play UO anymore.
Full 3D is now the norm for MMORPGs.
There are even crazy german developers who made a full 3D client for UO:
http://www.iris2.de/index.php/Main_Page
So it IS possible - if hobby devs can do it, a multi-billion company can do it even better. The only reason why it doesn't happen is because EA is both lazy and stupid.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Yeah I was purely talking about which was more immersive. I actually don't have a strong preference when it comes to which is more fun (although specific cameras certainly work better for certain types of gameplay.)
The perspective in UO did seem awkward, which is weird because I sorta like isometric (I especially like how easy it makes it for developers to implement content, which gives them a ton of flexibility to just try a bunch of new stuff; as much as H&H's art style was pretty mediocre, they were able to just shove a ton of stuff into the game easily.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
pre Tram UO in 3d and i'm there
I don't even... What? "true" isometric perspective isn't that. If anything, "true" Isometric is the quivalent of taking the side view and rotating it on X 45 degrees and Y 35 degrees. That view skipped a rotation step and instead offset the height.
As said before Isometric can be in 2D or 3D it is still the same perspective.
Games, in the begining there was top down 2d, then there was side view 2d, next Isometric came with the illusion of 3D, which evolved into true 3D for any perspective possible.