The following passage is a paragraph taken from my review of Broken Sword 4: The Angel of Death (http://adventuregamers.blogspot.com/2008/09/review-broken-sword-4-angel-of-death.html), which I've only just got around to playing. I really enjoyed the game but I had a fair few complaints, and they nearly all stemmed from the fact that the game is in full 3D.
Quote from: adventuregamers.blogspot.com
The Gameplay itself is... passable. It doesn't help that my computer is low-spec so the animations were excruciatingly slow and the cursor took sometimes up to two or three seconds to obey me. I remember having the same problem with The Sleeping Dragon, the third game in the series. This isn't so much a flaw in the games as a reminder that I should splash out a bit next time I go to PC World, but it does beg the question... do such adventure games NEED to be fully 3D? You shouldn't need a hi-spec PC to play a point and click adventure... should you? And even if you have got a half decent computer, in my experience such games have always lost a certain magic when making the transition from pre-rendered backgrounds to full 3D. As well An attention to detail is so vital to games where the player is constantly looking for clues and items, but because a fully 3D game can't afford to fill the space up with intersting tidbits and red-herrings, you end up with lots of empty space and its always glaringly obvious what can and can't be clicked on or picked up.
To me, the whole nature of any good adventure game is in the details of the surroundings. If you have a fully 3D engine, you can bearly afford to have anything on screen that doesn't need to be there.
As well as this, if you're not being shot at by thugs, razzing it round a racetrack or blowing up tanks, then you have more time to admire the scenery. Pre-rendered backgrounds can fit in a lot more eye-candy, and to me they better suit the slower, methodical pace of a logic-based point and click adventure. Surely a game doesn't have to be 3D just to prove that it's modern.
What are your views on this?
I couldn't play CMI very well on my 486! As he conceded himself, it doesn't really matter what the reviewer thinks is "enough" hardware for point and clicks. On a modern computer or console these 3D adventures can run hundreds of frames a second.
3D adventure games like The Sleeping Dragon usually have heavily constrained camera angles so the overhead of 3D objects is a lot lower than in a game with a more dynamic camera. There's no technical reason why you can't have as much on screen as in a 2D game if you are aiming for computers built in the last few years. In fact you should be able to fit more into a scene when you are able to move the camera to highlight stuff. It's all the fault of the designers and artists. Don't blame the technology!
I can think of good reasons to use 3D in an adventure game but I would argue pre rendered 3D is almost never a good choice. If you have the luxury of such a static view you may as well use all the traditional illustrative and compositional techniques you can. It's tough maintaining that personal artist's touch in a renderer, and you're not getting any of the benefits of a true 3D scene, so it's the worst of both worlds.
I think Runaway and Runaway 2 used the perfect blend of 3D pre-rendered backgrounds and 2D interface that came off quite nicely. No, I do not believe adventure games as such need 3D backgrounds, for the same reasons you gave, Stupot. Adventure games are more methodical and leave the user with more time to think about their actions, lending for more time for admiring the scenery and surroundings.
If you're going to make a game 3D, it should be open-ended, like Grand Theft Auto IV.
I don't know. I'm really in two minds about this. If you're going to use static camera angles, there's really no difference between realtime 3D vs pre-rendered 3D vs "hand drawn" environments; it's just a matter of technique. Regarding artistic validity, bad graphics are bad graphics. I wouldn't agree with Scotch's view on pre-rendered graphics (though I would admit that they can come across as very sterile), as good drafting and composition skills, as well as understanding light and shadow, can make a big difference in the quality of a pre-rendered background.
As for realtime 3D, I suppose it would depend on exactly what kind of adventure game you intend to make. BS 4 took little advantage, in a design sense, of the fact that it was in 3D.
Quote from: scotch on Tue 09/09/2008 00:26:20
...it doesn't really matter what the reviewer thinks is "enough" hardware for point and clicks... Don't blame the technology!
The thing is, I'm using a brand spanking new laptop. The very reason I've waited two years to play the game is because it wouldn't work
at all on my old computer. I've finally got myself a nice little new laptop, which okay, was a cheaper option, but still modern nonetheless, and it still had issues.
If I was making a highly commercial game, especially one such as Broken Sword (which appeals to all kinds of PC owners - including my mum -and not just hardcore gamers with the most expensive hardware), then I would surely do well to make it as playable as possible on as many machines as possible.
On the question of Pre-rendered 3D graphics, there is a scope for some really beautiful scenery. I'm a fan of the Dark Fall/Barrow Hill style games which use such graphics. First, they build a fully 3D environment, dozens of times more detailed than those in BS4. This can be done because this 3D environment is never part of the actual game, it is just used to take snapshots of the screens which the game will be made up of.
One thing you could argue in favour of full-3D for adventure games could be things such as moving crates and boxes etc, but then again the Resident Evil games got away with similar gameplay elements with pre-rendered BGs... add a point and click interface and there isn't much difference.
A game can have the most beautiful 3D graphics in the world with full motion capability, but if it can't run on a typical 2-year-old computer, it's pretty useless. Most people wouldn't buy a whole new computer to play one game.
I agree that 3D doesn't seem to suit adventure games. I've just been reading the reviews of Gabriel Knight 3 on JustAdventure where they raved about the full range of movements the player can have - independent of the character. I didn't like it. I remember plopping Gabriel in a safe place and then going off to wander on my own, and then when I wanted him to do something I'd have to wait for him to slowly stroll over. Or suddenly appear out of nowhere. It was a jarring experience. And it made me, the player, feel like an invisible spirit or guide dog. I know it was trying to make full use of its 3D capabilities, but it just spoiled the immersion for me.
And don't get me started on the way low-res textures were pasted on super sharp and angular polygons!
Pre-rendered 3D graphics are fine, they're no different from 2D backgrounds. In fact they can be, and often are, just as rich as 2D backgrounds.
That's what saddens me. Most games nowadays are built for the newest, fastest, and best computers. When Star Trek: Legacy came out I remember being very excited. I never got to play it, as it would barely get past the menu. Even now, years later, it still runs like crap. And my computer is about 1-2 years old. I remember because I got it a month before my son was born.
I mean, Christ, if a game can't run on a computer that was built AFTER it came out... that's just wrong.
I haven't actually played any full 3D adventure games, but I think at the moment the best approach for new commercial games could be 2.5D, pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D characters. This gives the benefits of smooth 3D movement without the load used to render heavily detailed 3D backgrounds. Okay, you are restricted to static camera angles, but for most of us adventure gamers that doesn't matter because those camera angles have always been static. And with current technology you can even make the game look really good (http://www.ogre3d.org/index.php?full=1&set_albumName=album73&id=bout_screen02&option=com_gallery&Itemid=55&include=view_photo.php), meaning it doesn't just look like a pre-rendered background and cut'n'pasted 3D characters.
On the other hand full 3D gives the possibility to better stitch cutscenes to the gameplay and some other possibilities like seen in Ankh (http://www.ankh-game.com/). But the backgrounds aren't really detailed, but in Ankh it kind of works because of the graphics style.
So as long as it is candy for my eyes, runs on my machine (shouldn't be a problem now because I just updated) and plays as easily as point and click adventure should, it's good for me.
edit: Flying around in Gabriel Knight 3 sounds like a really awful gameplay ;D
I think the main problem of BS4 is not the fact, that it's 3D. It's how awful the overall controls were implemented. This mixture of keyboard and mouse just ruined it totally. You couldn't really play it with mouse alone because George was better controlled by keyboard, but you couldn't use keyboard only, either, because you couldn't do anything other then walking with it. BS3 worked much better imo.
So I guess 3D adventure games could be good, but they should either have fixed camera angles or should not be controlled with a mouse cursor.
But I like the 2.5D approach more.
Ah BS4. Still collection dust on top of my pc. My computer can handle Oblivion and Half Life 2, yet moving the mouse in Broken Sword 4 is like wading through lead. WTF.
The screens has as much detail as an Unreal level. That was 10 years ago! And those levels are ten times bigger! WTF.
TIPS FOR MAKING ADVENTURE GAMES FOR THE MASSES (i.e. making adventure games main stream again):
1.) 2D, 2.5D or 3D it doesn't matter, the detail or characters, backgrounds and animations has to be detailed. Crazy detailed. Clothes have to be layered, characters need the right weight distribution and inertia when animated, backgrounds need to be detailed and dynamic, light and shadow too.
2.) No need for those weird arcade action sequances or what not. The pointing and the clicking is hard enough.
3.) Invest in music and sound. Voice actors too.
4.) Fast controlls and loading time. There isn't a ttime pressure and most of the time the character just wanders around, but when a player gets a brainstorm and want's to try something out in another room the character needs to get there lightning fast.
5.) Super crazy details. I mentioned this before but this is the most important tip if adventure games want to be main stream again.
edit: this (http://vimeo.com/1627388) and this (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,902) seems to get the point.
Hi guys,
In my opinion, GK3 was the ONLY game I really enjoyed playing on a 3d world. And the reason I find is that it gave me the feeling that I could actually explore the entire village on a non-linear base.
Broken Sword games lost their magic when they went 3d because it doesn't really add to the playability and like you said, the controls are so bad.
And while talking about BS4, what do you guys feel about the ending?
I thought it was the worst ending ever, it made me not want to buy another sequel, the game just ends and that's it.
Ah, GK3. We meet again, my hoary old nemesis. Possibly the least well-implemented 3D engine is the history of video games.
For that, GK3, I salute you. ._.>
Quote from: jetxl
Fast controlls and loading time. There isn't a ttime pressure and most of the time the character just wanders around, but when a player gets a brainstorm and want's to try something out in another room the character needs to get there lightning fast.
SF: Tunguska's "double-click exit hotspot to instantly teleport to corresponding room" function is something
all third-person adventures should have.
LimpingFish: Runaway 2 (and perhaps Runaway, can't remember) had that double-click instant exit feature as well. And yes, it is something ALL 3rd-person adventures should have, I agree completely. It's too bad that so many people overlook the Runaway series, as they are a great example of 2.5D (somewhat, can't remember if the characters were fully 3D or just pre-rendered walk-cycles) done right. Check them out.
Yes, the double-click exit is always a welcome feature.
On the matter of new games being unplayable on older/cheaper hardware. A week or so ago my mum bought Overclocked (which was only recently released) and it will not work on her one year old laptop... It came up with a weird Error code which we looked up on the internet and found that a lot of other people have had the same error... and the reason being... they don't have a compatible graphics card!!!
Why on earth should anyone have to fork out for an expensive graphics card to play a point-and-click?... I can sort of understand with games like Half-life etc where frame-rates and everything are important to the players... but adventure fans just want to solve a few puzzles and be swept up in a good story.
I've just tried Overclocked on my own, newer, but cheaper, laptop and I got further than my mum did... I got past the introduction and the gameplay started. The room was fully loaded and the shadows and effects were in full swing... but then it crashed... I then tried a further 3 times, and each time I've decreased the effects and graphics to made it less hard work on my computer, but it still crashed.
Overclocked uses the 2.5D graphics with pre-rendered BGs and 3D characters... so the processing power is surely not much... but for some reason it just doesn't tick that box of having the right hardware, and so it won't work... it seems a shame, and I wonder how many normal people buy these games and never get to actually play them.
And while I'm ranting about this, I recently had a similar problem with the Lost game. Apparently my computer needs a version 3 shader and I've only got a version 2... I mean I can understand they these people want their games to look as good as possible, but why sacrafice people's ability to play the game once theyve handed over their hard-earned cash (admittedly I shouldv'e checked the requirements before buying but still...). And if it's the shader that's the problem, then fine, at least give me the option to play the game without shadows... I couldn't care less about shadows...
End rant... for the time being.
Most game's GFX card support doesn't really go beyond nVidia and ATI cards, and support for other brands is fairly limited.
Having said that, my sister's ACER laptop has an Intel GMA X3100 integrated GFX card, more or less useless for gaming, and that thing supports DirectX 10 and Pixel Shader 4.0!
For PS 3.0 support, you need at least a Geforce 6600, a Radeon X1300, or an "equivalent" spec card. And DirectX 9.0c installed, of course.
If you were to class Fahrenheit (Indigo prophey) as an adventure game, then it's a good example of how 3D matters for that game. Where as if they made a broken sword 5, I'd like it to be 2D, if all they've done with 3D so far is include climbing sections and dull block pushing puzzles.
Yes, using the controls in GK3 was like trying to control a wii remote with boxing gloves on, whilst having your arms tied behind your back.
Hey, c'mon! It wasn't that bad!
Ok, it was, but it was new and exciting!
And sometimes the interface is the puzzle!!! :=
Remember waiting 10 minutes for a game to load only to find out it had crappy graphics and horrible controls? And still you came back for it!
How many of you beat the bad guys playing Saboteur? And the dobermans?
I will defend GK3 forever dudes!
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 09/09/2008 21:14:24
Why on earth should anyone have to fork out for an expensive graphics card to play a point-and-click?... I can sort of understand with games like Half-life etc where frame-rates and everything are important to the players... but adventure fans just want to solve a few puzzles and be swept up in a good story.
Guess what: Alone in the Dark 5 has compatibility-problems with ATI graphic cards, even with the newest models.
I guess sometimes the engine of a game is plain shit, and altough it's graphics are not so great, it needs tons of RAM and CPU power.
I think all of the complaints in this thread are justified but they don't stem from 3D adventure games in principle. Bad design is bad design irrespective of game engine, and hi specifications is a matter of perspective, The Secret of Monkey Island wouldn't have played on my old ZX Spectrum.
The question of 3D adventure games compares to that of colour film. You certainly don't need colour to make a great film, but you can do things with colour that you can't in black and white.
That's true. I doubt anybody complained about films becoming color instead of black & white. They probably even applauded it because it wasn't possible until that point.
But for us, it's just, "No! We don't need it! Stay away! Ssssssssss!" :P
I agree with you all,
But that last comments made me think that we don't give the same treatment to sound than we do to graphics.
I mean, we really don't mind that MIDI is out of the way on adventure games, do we?
Maybe some of you do, but that way we could not have Guybrush speaking.
Just a thought.
Miguel, that's more like comparing blocky 2D monkey island 1 graphics to higher res 2D monkey island 3 graphics, isn't it?
I guess you're right, but I wasn't comparing anything,
I would rather play old pc games with no sound even if they are blocky 2D than some crappy 3D games.
Well, of course you would if they're crappy 3D games. By that token, I'd rather play a faithful remake of an old blocky 2D classic in nice, attractive 3D.
Note the emphasis on "faithful".
Quote from: Ali on Thu 11/09/2008 16:42:48I think all of the complaints in this thread are justified but they don't stem from 3D adventure games in principle. Bad design is bad design irrespective of game engine...
It's funny but I haven't yet come across an adventure game that uses full 3D well. Granted, I haven't been playing many (or any!) of the modern 3D games, but from what I hear they often make use of mouse+keyboard controls that sound good for first-person games. Can anyone tell me which third-person adventure games have made good use of the 3D controls? I'd like to check it out.
I'd like to bring up the Telltale Sam & Max series, as well as Bone 1 and 2. They use 3D... but they play like a 2D a 2D point and click game.
I'd like to bring up TellTale's up-and-coming Wallace & Gromit's Grand Adventures. It's full3D and it looks gorgeous, and better than it would in 2D, because it looks pretty exactly the same as the show itself. I'm not usually an advocate of full3D, but TellTale is special :D. Now, if only DoubleFine would make a game that's a little more adventurey, and less platformy (though, Brütal Legend is looking awesome as well).
http://www.telltalegames.com/wallaceandgromit (http://www.telltalegames.com/wallaceandgromit)
Adventures are just not created to allow total camera manipulation, they are created to show a story from someone's point of view and camera if staying in a certain place serves that purpose..hopefully.
Quote from: auriond on Fri 12/09/2008 02:23:10
It's funny but I haven't yet come across an adventure game that uses full 3D well.
I know it damages my point, but while Telltale's engine is
almost perfect it can be annoying to get out of a closer camera position. You have to click on the edge of the screen, and the character takes two steps. Then you click again, and the character takes two steps. And so on and so forth until the camera pulls out to a wider position. There are also a few very tricky places to click in the (largely hilarious) Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People.
I know the Myst series is not universally popular here, but Myst V uses full 3D very well. It even gives the user the option to play like a fps or like the earlier pre-rendered Myst games.
And I forgot to say before: I love GK3 to!
At last! I am not alone!
GK3, with all its faults, allowed total immersion on the story.
I guess that if the story and the flow of the narrative are well-balanced, even old 3D GFX like GK3 are enough.
Ali, I love you in a manly way.
Well, I am not very fond of most "full 3d" games, but I was amazed for quite a while after playing UAKM (of the other Chris Jones) and the other Tex Murphy games...still back in the XXth century... Also, for quite a long time, I only remember Normality as being the only other one adventure game to feature full 3d. In both cases, I think they were done rather well, rather well indeed! Normality was not such a strong game, but I liked it and its 3d implementation anyway...
(I am not counting as full 3d those Cryo games, like Atlantis, which, although quite beautiful, were "omni 3d" which I don't think counts, right?)
Anyway, I must confess that the overall quality of the game (perceived by me, anyway) influences my opinnion on the production, but the vice-versa is true - , in more recent terms, I loooved gk3 and the watchmaker (top games in my book) so I do think that they benefited from the immersion that they managed to get from the full 3d perspective...
One exception is Culpa Innata - it was one of those games I could not put down, it was a fascinating, fascinating game! can't wait for CI 2- but the camera movements et al are quiet poor and the worst aspect of the game IMO....
BTW, is Culpa Innata considered full 3d?!?
edit: in conclusion, while a well done full3d can improve playability and therefore make a better game, the opposite is not necessarily true, i.e, a bad 3d implementation won't necessarily destroy a good adventure game; also, most good 3d implementations (IMO, anyway) were done - surprisingly - in the past.
(This is my first post in some 4 or 5 years, so I should be (re)presenting myself, but I am a bit lazy for that... in terms of game creation I didn't do anything apart from Uncertainty Machine, which I did in 2003)
It's very interesting to read some views about what an adventure game is. I never imagined that the engine mattered when it came to making an adventure game or that the camera can't move because that is important to the gameplay.
As far as I recall the majority of games are created to tell a story from one person's point of view and they do it just well in 3d or 2d.
"I would rather play old pc games with no sound even if they are blocky 2D than some crappy 3D games."
But would you rather play a crappy 2d game from the 90s over a good 3d game?
Ratracer - Watchmaker was pretty good, I'll give you that.
MrColossal - I see what your saying, that the main purpose of an adventure game is to tell a story and the style of the graphics shouldn't really affect one's enjoyment of the game... but I believe it can... and does. I suppose it depends on what type of player you are... I like to spend more time clicking and less time walking. I personally prefer a detailed and beautifully rendered or drawn 2D background over a blocky and sparse 3D environment that has nothing in it because in a 3D world details cost filesize and performance.
I believe that the extra visual detail allowed for in a 2D adventure game can really help in telling the story... they say "a picture speaks a thousand words"... but a sparse picture with only the very necessary details can't really 'speak' as much as a picture that is full of wonderful things to look at and interact with.
I think a lot of the problem I'm having with this discussion is the words people use.
"I personally prefer a detailed and beautifully rendered or drawn 2D background over a blocky and sparse 3D environment that has nothing in it"
Sure, I agree. But I also prefer a beautifully rendered or drawn 2d background to a badly rendered or drawn 2d background. I also prefer a beautifully made 3d world to a crappily made one.
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2007/08/the_world_of_indie_games/b12.jpg
This is a bad 3d room
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/beneath-a-steel-sky/screenshots/gameShotId,213194/
This is a bad 2d room
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/grim-fandango/screenshots/gameShotId,7635/
This is all kinds of bad by some people's standards but it's Grim Fandango so... Maybe it's the game that makes a game good and not the art style that is chosen to play it in?
Again, I think this is all down to preference on the individuals part, rather than any one technique being more suitable than another. Early pre-rendered backgrounds such those in Grim Fandango, or the original Resident Evil (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/resident-evil/screenshots/gameShotId,122909/), look garish when compared to later examples such as the Resident Evil (http://www.mobygames.com/game/gamecube/resident-evil-/screenshots/gameShotId,67097/) remake or Syberia (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/syberia/screenshots/gameShotId,28317), but this is mostly down to advances in 3D rendering and higher resolutions. A vast percentage of early pre-rendered 3D simply doesn't stand up anymore, largely due to restrictions with the original technologies. Traditional 2D work seems to have fared better.
But rubbish graphics are rubbish graphics, regardless of media, and rubbish 2D isn't somehow more valid than rubbish 3D; although if you have a preference for one over the other...
I'd be more inclined to play a good game over a bad game, really. :-\
What I'm saying is the obvious fact that a 2D background can have much more going on in it than a 3D one because it's developers don't have to worry so much about sacraficing the little touches in order to keep things economical and efficient... and in adventure games, which tend to be slower paced, you need little these touches to keep the player entertained and immerse them in the story that is being told.
Keeping Broken Sword as my example... In the 2D games you are faced with a screen ram-packed full of little touches, any one of which could be useful to help you progress in the game. In the 3D games many of the normal items you would find lying around any location (whether it be a bedroom, or a factory) has been whittled down to the occasional potted plant or cardboard box... I guess it's a personal preference - I like detail - and in general having 3D graphics some of this detail understandably has to be sacraficed.
Every one of these little details could, if the makers have been thoughtful enough, help to tell the story in which the game is set. So in making BS3&4 3D they cannot do this so much. And from a purely business point of view, they have made a game which runs on fewer computers, meaning they've lost customers.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 12/09/2008 19:36:33
Again, I think this is all down to preference on the individuals part, rather than any one technique being more suitable than another.
You are mostly correct. Most of what I have been arguing is just a reflection of my own preferences, but there are ways in which 2D is more suited to adventures than 3D... for example:
Most of us play adventures for a) the story, and b) the brainwork... I'm sure most of us don't play them for all the walking about that can be done. In all the 3D games I've played there is a LOT of walking to be done. A very high percentage of your clicks are being used to control the character... and if the camera is swinging about and faces in all kinds of directions then you have to navigate around that... this is neither telling me a story nor helping me solve a puzzle... I'm just walking.
Whereas in a 2D game, yes there is a bit of walking to be done, but 9 times out of ten you can click ON an item to walk towards it... thus covering your navigation and puzzling in one fell swoop as you have no camera to walk around. Sure occasionally in a 2D game you have a scrolling screen which makes for slightly more walking, but this isn't all that often used as 2D game developers seem to have acknowledged this as a bit of a nuisance.
Quote from: Stupot on Fri 12/09/2008 20:27:59
Most of us play adventures for a) the story, and b) the brainwork... I'm sure most of us don't play them for all the walking about that can be done. In all the 3D games I've played there is a LOT of walking to be done. A very high percentage of your clicks are being used to control the character... and if the camera is swinging about and faces in all kinds of directions then you have to navigate around that... this is neither telling me a story nor helping me solve a puzzle... I'm just walking.
Whereas in a 2D game, yes there is a bit of walking to be done, but 9 times out of ten you can click ON an item to walk towards it... thus covering your navigation and puzzling in one fell swoop as you have no camera to walk around. Sure occasionally in a 2D game you have a scrolling screen which makes for slightly more walking, but this isn't all that often used as 2D game developers seem to have acknowledged this as a bit of a nuisance.
Most adventure games contain pointless walking between screens; Tunguska, as I mentioned earlier is the exception, rather the the rule. I don't think walking has become more intrusive since the move to 3D, though if it has it's most likely down to bad game design, rather than an inherent flaw with 3D. Everything from Monkey Island to Syberia has moments of navigating through a number of otherwise superfluous screens to complete a puzzle, and I've seen little change, either way, in how adventure games deal with this. Having said that, fully 3D enviroments are often more expansive, which may or may not be a mistake when used with the adventure game.
I think the core problem with fully 3D adventure games is that few designers use the concept well, relying on well-worn game mechanics which arguably may be better suited to a 2D playing enviroment.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 12/09/2008 20:59:34
Most adventure games contain pointless walking between screens
I'm not so much talking about walking
between screens. That was discussed above. Rather, I'm talking about walking
within them. If every clickable item is there on the screen in front of you rather than dotted around a 3D environment then you can concentrate on solving the puzzles rather than wandering around the room in order to get something into view so that you can click on it.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 12/09/2008 20:59:34
I think the core problem with fully 3D adventure games is that few designers use the concept well, relying on well-worn game mechanics which arguably may be better suited to a 2D playing enviroment.
I suggest that those 'well-worn game mechanics' ARE what we refer to as the 'adventure game'. And I'm suggesting that, yes, they are better suited to 2D.
At least 2D games don't age as badly in the graphics department.
I'd like to play Simon the Sorcerer 3 to see what happens after 2, but those graphics are so badly aged now I am hoping that 2D remake will see the light of day. Looking at badly dated 3D characters ruins any immersion for me, and instead usually makes me laugh. At least I can still happily enjoy the graphics in Maniac Mansion to a degree.
Quote from: Stupot on Fri 12/09/2008 21:38:31
I'm not so much talking about walking between screens. That was discussed above. Rather, I'm talking about walking within them. If every clickable item is there on the screen in front of you rather than dotted around a 3D environment then you can concentrate on solving the puzzles rather than wandering around the room in order to get something into view so that you can click on it.
Yes, but that's not how 3D works. So a fully 3D adventure is indeed going to be different to a 2D one, but I still fail to see why a 2D environment is inherently better suited to adventure games. Not all 2D environments are well defined, and a lot of them are prone to pixel-hunting; something that could partly be attributed to a fixed perspective, but largely attributed to inept design. And that's the nub of my argument right there. Good design will always shine through, be it within a 2D or 3D environment. A badly designed 2D background is going to end up just as frustrating as a 3D one. An individual may have more tolerance for one or the other, but neither technology is inherently flawed.
But design problems aside, it still boils down to how you as an individual prefer to play a certain type of game.
Colossal:
"But would you rather play a crappy 2d game from the 90s over a good 3d game?"
The answer is obviously, no.
I mentioned the graphics ageing better than midi because it is really a fact that we all agree. Ok, some of us will say no, they love the sound of midi sound effects on Loom, or Indiana Jones, but they sound like crap.
Most of us are the result of generations of people that were eye educated and can tell an egiptian art form than a renaissance one. We know what Miguel Angelo did or who Dali was and can separate different time periods or styles.
Now, use your imagination and think of a world that stood still in the early 90s in terms of technology, can you imagine what great 2D master pieces could have emerged? What great games could have been made?
I have nothing against 3D, I even say GK3 was the best adventure game I played, but I think that 3D is not the right way to build an adventure game.
Like Stupot said, in 2D games you may have to walk through a scrolling screen, but if well done, it just adds to the story.
The problem with 2D graphics today is that to make them would require a dedicated artist (or artists) to work on each and every single screen individually. When you compare this to 3D, where textures are all done from beforehand, and room/level design basically only involves deciding which shape which polygon should be in which place, I think it can be seen why a company would prefer 3D- it is less work. Besides, unless you are catering to mobile games or gameboy or something, who uses 2D?
(That's all my own personal feeling, and I may be wholly ignorant about this specific aspect of game design. I wouldn't know).
Unfortunately "Broken Sword, Sleeping Dragon" would not run on my PC, The irony is though that I got that version on DVD because it was cheaper than the original compilation. Myst Uru was a 3D adventure game as I recall, though it seams there are less inventory based puzzles in the 3D adventure games that I've played so far. The first 3 Alone in the Dark games had that 2.5 d with nicely drawn backgrounds but low poly models. Number 4 stuck with the drawn backgrounds, but saw significant improvement with the models.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Fri 12/09/2008 21:52:45
At least 2D games don't age as badly in the graphics department.
Questionable, depends on definition of "aged".
3D has one end that's immortal: realism. For photorealistic 3D game, all you can improve is texture size, some shaders and polycount.
Max Payne 2 for example... released in 2003. By today's standards, and how much technology has improved over 5-6 years, game should be old as hell.
But it doesn't look like one. It's realistic. Still very good looking. So what if there's no HDR shaders? I find it looking even better without one. 3D has a definable end to its looks, just like 2D.
I'm not too sure about 3D games being able to emulate realism all that well. I'd think a photo-realistic 2D game would look a lot more real than most 3D. Even with the latest games, unless you have a really high-end PC, aside from the cutscene videos (sometimes not even those), none of it looks very real. I always found that the most 'pretty' 3D games were the ones that didn't go too strongly after realism, and incorporated the flaws of the 3D that they used at the time to make it into the 'style' of the game....
I don't think the problem of recent commercial adventure games is the 3D graphics and in my opinion commercial adventure games have far more important issues to solve than the real 3D environment vs 3D rendered two dimentionnal graphics debate. I haven't played a lot of recent commercial adventure games, but from the handful of games I played:
For one, all the good people from the golden ages, those that moved this genre forward, have all been fired, retired or moved on different genres. People who make adventure games nowadays only copy the Monkey Island 2 and Myst formulas but with more recent graphics and different stories. You can't blame people when they say this genre hasn't evolved a single iota in the last 10 years contrary to the other genres out there.
For two, there's simply not enough details and writing except when it's revelant to the story, you will hardly see mountain of jokes and injokes hidden in adventure games anymore, something LucasArts and some designers at Sierra were champions at. There used to be a time where you'd type something silly or use the zipper icon on everything just to see if Al Lowe planned a funny message to this action. There used to be a time where you'd still have fun, even if you were stuck on a puzzle for hours, just by fooling around and finding these funny messages. Nowadays if an object is not revelant to a puzzle, you won't even be able to interract with it, that's just not right. And if someone say it's because it would ruin the mood of the stories, well, maybe it's time they learn to write something other than murder or paranormal investigations.
For three, the art of puzzles designing has been completly lost after all these years. We're very far from the witty and original puzzles from the good old days, those that made you feel smart and creative. Nowadays makers can design 3 kind of puzzles: nonsensical Myst-kind of puzzles, far-fetched combination puzzles you cannot guest without a walkthrough and no brainer puzzles that are either fetch quest, either clues collection, either involve the cliché keys, sticks, rocks, ropes, credit card, crowbars, knives and screw drivers.
As long these issues remains unsolved, the real 3D environment vs 3D rendered two dimentionnal graphics debate will be entirely pointless in my opinion. They should first learn to make adventure games good again, then they should concentrate on this problem.
QuoteI mentioned the graphics ageing better than midi because it is really a fact that we all agree. Ok, some of us will say no, they love the sound of midi sound effects on Loom, or Indiana Jones, but they sound like crap.
You forget that even nowadays iMuse is still praised by the people working in the industry and that the Monkey Island 2 soundtrack is still considered to be one of the best use of music in video games.
blueskirt: I think you wrote what I also believe is correct. You have focused something that is the MAIN ingredient on a good Adventure Game: Humour. Somehow in the way it got lost. Bad writers? Yes, I think so.
"You forget that even nowadays iMuse is still praised by the people working in the industry and that the Monkey Island 2 soundtrack is still considered to be one of the best use of music in video games."
I preferred the Amiga version back then, it sounded way more professional and with «real» instruments. I'm sorry, it's just the way I feel about Midi, it sucks.
I've just been reading this preview of the recently announced Black Mirror 2 (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,918) and it's interesting to note that the developers had started making this a 3D game, but discarded the idea and reverted to 2.5D.
Quote
The original plan to develop Black Mirror 2 completely in 3D was dropped early in development. Fans of the first game in particular will thank the developer, as the game looks great and manages to keep the visual style of its predecessor. The pre-rendered backgrounds and the 3D characters are elaborately designed and left us with the same good impression as the graphics engine, which was specifically developed for Black Mirror 2. According to the developer, players will be able to explore about 150 scenes during their adventure.
According to this article they did this purely for aesthetic - rather than functional - reasons but, for me, if a good story is the most important feature of an adventure game, then I'm more likely to get drawn into it if the backgrounds are easier to look at and more believable... and the makers of BM2 presumably think along the same lines.
That is awesome news. I have the Black Mirror, but never played it. Perhaps I should finally.
I agree that to create a thoroughly detailed environment in realtime 3D would be more of a challenge than 2D or pre-rendered 3D. It has been achieved though, I feel. When I mentioned Myst 5, I should have mentioned Dreamfall. The game had it's peculiarities (including no actual puzzles at points) but it's locations were delightfully detailed and atmospheric. I also found the environments in Broken Sword 3 and 4 to be very likeable.
I think if we set this debate a few years in the past the argument would be, "we don't need 3D at all, Monkey Island 4 was terrible." Since we've seen some gorgeous 2.5D games like Syberia, the argument is now, "We want 2.5D, but not full 3D, Broken Sword 4 wasn't up to scratch."
As I said, I agree with most of the observations in this thread. I just feel that peoples' disappointment with recent games is probably a consequence of their lack of wit, charm and originality rather than engine. By that measure, there are a lot more poor 2.5D adventures than full 3D.
yeah, I played a demo of "Belief and betrayal" and on most thing's I'd just select "use" and 90% of the time he'd say "No I don't think so.". The man is bare footed at the beginning, so lets use the shoes. "No I don't think so." Oh, okay. Well lets play that piano in his apartment and hear a little song. "No I don't think so." Oh.. well lets eat some cold pizza. "I don't think so." and so on. The main thing I wanted to implement in Limbo (When I go back to it next year.. maybe) is exactly what you guys miss in most commercial games these days. I want every single item in my characters inventory to be able to have a different response on every NPC, so you have fun goofing around.
Belief and Betrayal:
(http://static3.filefront.com/images/paiiohytma.jpg)
Quote from: ManicMatt on Mon 15/09/2008 10:14:19
I want every single item in my characters inventory to be able to have a different response on every NPC, so you have fun goofing around.
Yes, this is something which a lot of games fail to do, but which there is no excuse... and to me, a 2D or 2.5D game has the capacity for a lot more such interactions than 3D because these little extras don't cost as much in terms of filesize and performance... in a 2(.5)D background you can create dozens of hotspots with nothing more than an extra few lines of code... but to have such an interactive environment in a 3D game you have to make each of the 3D items first, and if you want dozens this gets expensive... which is why in BS4 there are very few items to click on unless they are vital to the advancement of the game (apart from the occasional bookshelf or something).
This 'goofing around' can be a very useful feature, because, okay the plot might not necessarily be advancing, but it helps to set the tone, and create the atmoposhere in which the story is set, and makes the player feel more involved. So this is definately a reason why 2D is more suited to adventure games.
The only problem is perhaps the lack of time to add in every possible interaction response, especially when they're red herrings or just plain useless. With commercial games created by big companies, they have deadlines, and sometimes useless responses just aren't put in because they're not crucial to the game-play.
Yeah, but then you pay those big companies 50 bucks for unfinished products.
I would like to see those games pass our forums evaluation and critics.
Man, I'd like to see those games go through Snarky comments!
LOL, you have a point, but keep in mind that deadlines are in place for a reason.
Also, keep in mind, there's an old saying... something about a piece of art (equally applicable to games) never being truly finished, only ready for the public.
Quote from: blueskirt on Sat 13/09/2008 21:38:45
For one, all the good people from the golden ages, those that moved this genre forward, have all been fired, retired or moved on different genres. People who make adventure games nowadays only copy the Monkey Island 2 and Myst formulas but with more recent graphics and different stories. You can't blame people when they say this genre hasn't evolved a single iota in the last 10 years contrary to the other genres out there.
Well, actually, Dave Grossman (
Monkey Island,
Day of the Tentacle) works for Telltale, Ron Gilbert (
Maniac Mansion,
Monkey Island) is creating the semi-adventure
DeathSpank, Jane Jensen (
Gabriel Knight) is designing the upcoming
Gray Matter, Hal Barwood (
Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis) designed the soon-to-be released
Mata Hari, Simon and Mike Woodruffe (
Simon the Sorceror) consulted on
Simon the Sorcerer 4: Chaos Happens, the latest game in the series, Lee Sheldon (
The Riddle of Master Lu) designs all those Agatha Christie games, Bill Tiller (
Monkey Island 3 graphics) is making
A Vampyre Story, the
Broken Sword games (last installment 2006) are still designed by Charles Cecil, and Steve Ince (who did graphics for
Broken Sword, as well as
Beneath a Steel Sky) is responsible for
So Blonde. And Chris Jones and Aaron Conners (the
Tex Murphy series) just announced
Three Cards to Midnight, a new adventure game. A lot of the greats from the golden age are still working in the field.
Quote from: miguel on Sat 13/09/2008 22:26:47
"You forget that even nowadays iMuse is still praised by the people working in the industry and that the Monkey Island 2 soundtrack is still considered to be one of the best use of music in video games."
I preferred the Amiga version back then, it sounded way more professional and with «real» instruments. I'm sorry, it's just the way I feel about Midi, it sucks.
MIDI is just a protocol (used in nearly all electronic instruments and equipment), it doesn't determine how music sounds. You can play MIDI on an Amiga, too. While MIDI music didn't sound great on the Adlib or Soundblaster cards back in the day, you could get much better sound on an MT-32, and these days, with dynamic wavetable sample support on standard sound cards, you can get almost completely realistic music on a PC with MIDI. There's actually been some call for games to return to MIDI for music, as a way to again enable the dynamic effects of iMuse and similar systems.
The OTHER Chris Jones I idolize! I haven't heard about his new company or his new game yet! That's awesome!! The Tex Murphy games were some of the best adventure games of all time. ;D
Snarky, I didn't know that, thanks for the technical info.
But you have to agree with me that some people praise those retro sounds and bips like it's the coolest sounds and music in the world, and fair enough, taste is something personal,
but isn't Monkey 3 the best game in the series? Why? It had top 2D graphics and an amazing sound score and voice-overs!
The vinyl vs digital battle has a reason to be, but late 80s PC music and sound vs modern sound output?
Quotebut isn't Monkey 3 the best game in the series? Why? It had top 2D graphics and an amazing sound score and voice-overs!
You'd be surprised by the number of people who prefer the first or the second one. :)
Personally, I have no preference when it come to music, a good music is all I ask for, no matter what instruments were used. I have fond memories of the CMI soundtrack, with its banjo and its accordion, just like I have fond memories of the MI2 soundtrack. I have game soundtracks on my HD that range from the C64 era all the way up to recent games.
The only thing I have a problem with is when someone change the sound of a music I grew up with. Generally, I don't like MT-32 or orchestrated versions of soundtracks that I grew up on the Adlib/soundblaster versions, just like I wouldn't like midi or C64 rendition of the CMI soundtrack. There are of course several exceptions to that, but in general, I prefer the sound I grew up with, no matter how bad people might say it is.
I guess that's fair enough for me.
I understand what you're saying and I also get attached to the sounds I grew up with.
Mind, the "no matter how bad people might say it is." wasn't directed to you, miguel. :)
Generally when I say I like the adlib or soundblaster version of a soundtrack, someone tell me the MT-32 version is better. :)
I knew that, it's cool.
And I've learned some stuff from this thread!
Quoteyou can get almost completely realistic music on a PC with MIDI.
The obvious problem here is that no two soundcard developers use the same instrument set (hell, quality differs widely between the sb16 and awe32), resulting in widely different playback quality. These days, General MIDI is just not a logical choice for any musician who wants his music to sound the same for everyone.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Thu 25/09/2008 07:23:57
Quoteyou can get almost completely realistic music on a PC with MIDI.
The obvious problem here is that no two soundcard developers use the same instrument set (hell, quality differs widely between the sb16 and awe32), resulting in widely different playback quality. These days, General MIDI is just not a logical choice for any musician who wants his music to sound the same for everyone.
Wasn't the first "plug-in" for ags some driver that made all the midi sound the same on every system? And by the way, what can be done with midi can also be done with modules.
And now for something completely different. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiss9Z_hJWE)