Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by nariusseldon

But an isometric view offers better tactical considerations for combat. It is easier to judge AOE radius, use terrain to hide, and so on.

You can do that in most first-person-view MMO (including in the example of the OP, Everquest) by simply zooming out, it will pan the camera overhead. It's the same angle as an isometric view but in 3D.

This is the same tactical advantage of isometric view, and on top of that you can pan the camera around setting it higher or lower or spinning it around to your liking.

I would argue this system has more advantages over isometric, since first-person-view has advantages of mob tabbing and controlling adds.

Most people will switch view depending on need.

(this is EQ)

I like my first-person-view it is much more immersive.

Too bad you are wrong and you can't play in an isometric view such as the one everyone is reffering too. Your screenshot only proves this. I am actually not quite sure if you are kidding or not. And if you try to argue it further, anyone with experience also knows the camera moves when you are up against a wall, it spins around and things block the camera (kinda like clipping issues).

Also, you (and anyone else) may argue which is "better"... but again, whats with you people? Why can't there be both? Why can't there be more than one type of gameplay style? Why is there only one right way? One could argue that Tab-targetting is stupid. One could also argue that Isometric allows a better gameplay experience because it offers a more tactical view of the playing field. Thing is... both play different.

Originally posted by nariusseldon 

But an isometric view offers better tactical considerations for combat. It is easier to judge AOE radius, use terrain to hide, and so on.

I like my RPG combat isometrics, better than 1st person (except Borderland). Moreover, 3rd person is also better in a RPG for me .. because i want to SEE all my gear on my toon.

I am playing games .... it does NOT have to mimic real life.

I'm not saying what's better.  Just what's more immersive.  I enjoy all games.

Immersion clearly has value.

Originally posted by Axehilt

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 find first person in every game i've tried to be too distant from my natural non-gaming experience.

for me third person more closely matches what i experience out of game and i find 1st person disorienting.

different folks are different i guess.

Originally posted by madazz

Too bad you are wrong and you can't play in an isometric view such as the one everyone is reffering too. Your screenshot only proves this. I am actually not quite sure if you are kidding or not. And if you try to argue it further, anyone with experience also knows the camera moves when you are up against a wall, it spins around and things block the camera (kinda like clipping issues).

No idea what you mean by that. In EQ, you can just pan the camera out to a view similar to isometric.

Yes it's 3D, but the angle is static and you can get the exact same camera angle as in isometric and you get the exact same tactical advantage.

The camera moving while you're up against a wall isn't an issue at all, since you can swivel the camera around whenever you want. And being up against a wall where the camera was blocked is something that rarely happens in EQ, all it takes is one flick of the mouse to adjust. Not to mention this now happens automatically in games, modern games realise when the viewing angle to your character is being blocked and will swivel the camera to the opposite side.

Nor is isometric invulnerable to a character being out of view, I would argue it happens more in isometric games.

This camera view is actually superior to isometric, since you can pan in and out, you can pick your own angle, you can choose the distance to your character to your liking and you can go in and out of first-person-view whenever you choose.

A movable camera that lets you go in and out first person is far superior to a static isometric view. So many times I have been frustrated by old games like Landstalker where I couldn't judge distance correctly because the isometric view does not allow you to judge the scenery from more than one angle.

A static first-person-view might be a good argument for tactical disadvantage, but many games let you use both overhead and first-person-view, overhead view in 3D is at least as good if not better than isometric.

Isometric view always bugged me in games. I felt so restricted. I also dislike, immensely, driving behind trucks because they obscure my view :) I don't like the fact that walls and other obstacles block my view.

When playing games, I prefer 3rd person. I spent time creating my character so I want to see him :) I also get a better field of view in 3rd person. It may not be realistic, but neither is 1st person. Looking at my screen right now, there is 1/3 of my view covered by the screen. 2/3 is peripheral vision and not covered by what I see on screen. I dislike running from place to place constantly holding down my right mouse button and swinging from left to right to see what I normally see with my "real" face straight forward. I do envy those gamers with the 3 screen set-up :)

The bad thing about 3rd person is I have a tendency to "cheat" every so often :) I'll get next to a doorway and swing the view around so I can "peek" into the next room without actually showing myself :) I do use 1st person view when I am shooting at something. Looking down the barrel or bow is the only way I can feel accurate.

Isometric just doesn't "feel right" to me.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by madazz

Too bad you are wrong and you can't play in an isometric view such as the one everyone is reffering too. Your screenshot only proves this. I am actually not quite sure if you are kidding or not. And if you try to argue it further, anyone with experience also knows the camera moves when you are up against a wall, it spins around and things block the camera (kinda like clipping issues).

No idea what you mean by that. In EQ, you can just pan the camera out to a view similar to isometric.

Yes it's 3D, but the angle is static and you can get the exact same camera angle as in isometric and you get the exact same tactical advantage.

The camera moving while you're up against a wall isn't an issue at all, since you can swivel the camera around whenever you want. And being up against a wall where the camera was blocked is something that rarely happens in EQ, all it takes is one flick of the mouse to adjust. Not to mention this now happens automatically in games, modern games realise when the viewing angle to your character is being blocked and will swivel the camera to the opposite side.

Nor is isometric invulnerable to a character being out of view, I would argue it happens more in isometric games.

This camera view is actually superior to isometric, since you can pan in and out, you can pick your own angle, you can choose the distance to your character to your liking and you can go in and out of first-person-view whenever you choose.

A movable camera that lets you go in and out first person is far superior to a static isometric view. So many times I have been frustrated by old games like Landstalker where I couldn't judge distance correctly because the isometric view does not allow you to judge the scenery from more than one angle.

A static first-person-view might be a good argument for tactical disadvantage, but many games let you use both overhead and first-person-view, overhead view in 3D is at least as good if not better than isometric.

Well my apologies. My memory stated that the camera did not stay static. One point I'd like to make though is it wasn't made for an isometric view. Really the 2 views offer 2 different play styles.

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.

Originally posted by jusomdude

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Rednecksith

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.

Originally posted by Axehilt

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.

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.
 

Originally posted by Axxar

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.

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.

Originally posted by Axxar

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.