I bet you that in 2 weeks from now, people will still be talking about 2D portraits vs 3D portraits in this thread, or the thread will be dead.
- 3
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I bet you that in 2 weeks from now, people will still be talking about 2D portraits vs 3D portraits in this thread, or the thread will be dead.
Two weeks from now people would start new anti-3d topic because they will not find any previous one, because the title was changed from negative to neutral.
- 2
- 1
My CK3 models are not fine, they are not bad, but for a game about characters they are decent at best. 3D add more complexity, its really difficult to make garments and vestiments work together with all the shapes of bodies, clipping is normal, and happens to everyone campaign, you easily find around the world or in the events where the characters have to do more complex movements, and the worst thing about that is 3D models make more difficult to modders do add new assets, new animations, entirely new models of other types of living species, you cant just make a dragon model and expect to work with the dna system that is for humans, the same to every fantasy species, you need to make new cloths, new hair and everything, and they usually work even worse than the normal ones, clipping a lot of more times. Some big mods dont even bothered to create new assets, they just use vanilla medival cloths, garments in a bronze age era, fall of rome, or fantasy worlds. This would be easily solved with 2D, I just want the devs to make easy to modders to replace the 3d models with 2d, because in CK3 and VIC3 its to much complex to try it
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 1
So devs shouldn't embrace good looking modern 3D in their game because someone will have difficulty adding fantasy dragon characters to their mod few years after game's release (it takes ages to make a working, good quality mod)?
Sorry, but that doesn't convince me.
- 8
- 8
Maybe I'm speaking out of ignorance here, but how do all the modders for Bethesda games or games like Baldur's Gate 3 manage to make high quality 3D models for use in game so quickly? Look at Starfield, people were making in game replacers practically on release day. Now obviously, these are way less refined than the things that Skyrim/Fallout modders are getting up to, but evolution and improvement over time is to be expected. Are the tools for CK3/V3 3D modeling just worse? Is it that the community hasn't needed to bother in the past and doesn't have a large enough pool of 3D modelers to allow them to be made quickly/at scale? Something else?
I'm not going to deny that making 3D models is harder than making 2D portraits. But it's clearly not some insurmountable obstacle. Some clipping in certain situations isn't a horrible deal breaker if the rest of the experience is excellent. When I was playing unmodded Dragon Age Inquisition, some of the armor attachments caused my character's arms to detach in cut scenes. Sometimes unexpected things happen.
I'm not going to deny that making 3D models is harder than making 2D portraits. But it's clearly not some insurmountable obstacle. Some clipping in certain situations isn't a horrible deal breaker if the rest of the experience is excellent. When I was playing unmodded Dragon Age Inquisition, some of the armor attachments caused my character's arms to detach in cut scenes. Sometimes unexpected things happen.
- 4
.png){kind=avatar}
I think the pragmatic solution is just to have a compromise; i.e. having an option to turn portraits on or off, with - unless tinto want to invest the effort into it - leaving 2D portraits to modders perhaps. Surely that's not too hard to do?
I'm just guessing - but do Baldur's gate have some kind of DNA like CK3? Maybe the whole system, not just the models is a problem?
- 1
I never said to the devs to scrap 3d models, I said that the devs could make it easy to modders to replace 3d models with 2d or whatever they want, BECAUSE in CK3 its really hard to modders to work with 3d models, and is not just dragons, its dozens of different species, with different vestiments and garments, its a huge work, not even counting mod that just make another start date earlier era or later era that need completely new assets too
Last edited:
- 6
Depends on the game tbh - the tools and what is allowed from one an other varied. I think having an opptional 2d mode will solve most possible issues - although to be fair, some DLC in Ck3 got their price increased due to 3d assets that should had been their own thing.
- 4
I don't personally know, as i haven't looked at the code, but having played the game my guess is no. The DNA system that paradox uses is there to help make sure that descendants look like they're related to their parents and grandparents. Baldur's Gate doesn't have descendants or heritability so it doesn't strictly speaking need a DNA system, just one where you pick customizable parts for your Tav character or Dark Urge.
It is possible that the DNA system has flaws in it that just makes it more predisposed to make freaks of nature but if that's the case i really can't tell you. In theory it certainly shouldn't be doing that. I think that if paradox used a "parts" system like most 3D games, people would definitely see a lot less freaky looking models, it's essentially the same as the paper-doll system in ck2, just in 3D. That said there would be issues with everyone looking a lot more similar in all likelihood, so it's a bit of a trade-off.
I think the most comparable system is the baby system in sims, where you can either splice two sims together to make a child in create-a-sim, or you can uhhh make a baby in-game. That system also produces either normal looking-ish sims, or truly strange looking creatures, because what you put in is what comes out. There is probably some way to help skew the system towards more average looking characters, but the very nature of genetics in real life is that it is unpredictable.
- 2
- 1
To me the size of the elements seems outsized for the idea that they are a supporting element. Why do I need such a detailed and large image of a ruler in a throne room.
Wasn't this part of the thinking that got us the infamous information ball of doom that started in CK3? (Emphasis added).
It can't be that infamous. I don't know what this is referring to.
- 1
- 1
So, yes. CK2 portraits were ass. There are a few crucial differences I think are worth noting, though:
- CK2 portraits were small. They looked terrible, but for all that it's a supposedly character-centric game you never actually look all that closely at them; the game does a very good job actually of leading your eyes back out towards the places that things are actually happening (the map, other menus), and your character in the top left mostly became a quick button to reach familial interactions. The 3D models always seem to end up being enormous, for reasons known only to Paradox. No one yet knows what the UI will look like for this game or how it will impact the UX; it could be as tight as EU4 and the 3D will hardly matter or it could be as bloated as V3 where vast tracts of screen real estate are dedicated to portraying unattractive images that convey no information. What little we have seen does seem to indicate that it's not huge, referring to the family tree image on the dev diary, but I'm the very last person to blame people for being sensitive to UI/UX issues from Paradox of late (even if Johan himself has had a pretty good track record on that, to my awareness).
- CK2 alone was seen in such a poor light. Vic II has no shortage of both praises and criticisms thrown its way but the one thing I've never even heard someone say in the context of it is character portrait (lest anyone argue they don't get them - generals and admirals did). They were at least innocuous. HoI4's lavish oil paintings are, even I must confess, a little impractical for a more widely scoped game but are also clear evidence of what 2D art Paradox has put out in the past.
- 5
- 1
- 1
- 1
I curious about the value of the inheritance mechanics to the end user.
How many of you notice the the visual inheritance thing when you are playing ck3?
Have you noticed it more it less than you did in ck2?
How many of you notice the the visual inheritance thing when you are playing ck3?
Have you noticed it more it less than you did in ck2?
- 1
Not in the same way. One of the purported benefits of the CK3 system is that it's got in-depth appearance inheritance.
Have you noticed a difference between the system in CK2 and in CK3?
- 1
Not really. Unless you make some kind of hideous monster in the ruler designer the kids don't look that much like the parents. And even then, after a few generations it all sort of evens out.
- 3
- 1
Personally, it is one of my absolute favourite mechanics in CK3. Its a fundamental part of playing a dynasty, especially when browsing family trees. Some of my playthrough are built around it - Can I create the Giant Kings of Scotland and so forth.
I'm very serious about wanting to see an alien breeding programme
And I find it much more enjoyable with parametric modelling (as is done with the CK3 3D models), than with a 'kit of parts' model (as was done with the CK2 2D models).
- 1
- 1
- 1