Adventure Game Studio

This has probably been asked before, but....

How difficult would it be to incorporate the ability to use 3D... I think the word is 'realtime'... characters into the next version of AGS?

And is there a possibility it will ever be available in AGS?

I think it would be nifty. Maybe it would be horribly hard to implement, though. Or something. I don't know.

CJ mentioned 3D chars on 2d backgrounds could be possible?

he mentioned it and then i think he was talked out of it for good reason

I think the people involved felt AGS should be made the best damned 2d adventure game engine it can be and not bring up this scary new world of 3d

but, who knows [besides CJ [and me if i traveled to the future and found out]]

I don't know. I mean, the world of 3D is scary, sure. And it can be done wrong.

But 2D can be done wrong too. Look at how many atrocious 2D games are released on AGS.

But then, there are excellent ones too.

I agree that AGS should be made the best damned 2D engine out there. But I don't think by adding 3D characters (I'm using all the wrong terminology here) is going to mark it as a 3D engine. I think it's just going to make it a more flexible 2D engine.

If you're talking about Resident Evil 1 and 2 type characters.. Yea, that'd be great. But yes, twould be very very very hard to implement.. And probably only 2 people would utilize it correctly, thus making CJ's efforts futile.

i'm sure more people would join AGS to use it for it's 3d abilities, LGM

I'm not concerned of AGS being marked a 3d engine, yufster, there are a lot of things that would have to happen to make it good than just allowing 3d characters is basically what i mean, how would AGS handle lighting? would it just be up to the texture map to show light on the model or should CJ spend time developing a way to implement 3d lighting into the engine, what about animations? how are they handled? are they interpolated between each other? how many polys should be the max? will people understand that you can't have 345 billion polygons in their character and then wonder why AGS isn't working?

I'm not opposed to 3d adventure games I just think that something that was designed as a 3d engine would be a better thing to learn than learning with AGS as it slowly builds up into a useable 2d/3d engine.

If you've ever played Final Fantasy Eight you probably noticed the ugly white lines around the characters, which I believe was because they were 2d sprites (correct me if I'm wrong) and the fight scenes and world map were 3d.

I had this idea to use AGS for rooms (just like FF8) and use compiled Blender .exe games as worldmaps and action scenes. If it is possible to use AGS with other programs (like Blender running over AGS) then it is possibe to do that. You could keep the story straight by having the two apps share a file that gives relevant data.

If that wouldn't work and you still want 3d, hell, all of the models and rooms are going to be rigged and textured in 3d right? Why not just use a 3d engine? There are many free ones, and there are very competant ones like Garage Games offers that are cheap (I think that particular one is ~$40).

final fantasy 8 had 3d characters on a 2d image except for the battle screen and world map, the same with 7 and 9

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 22/05/2004 01:27:02
final fantasy 8 had 3d characters on a 2d image except for the battle screen and world map, the same with 7 and 9

I know 7 and 9 weren't that way.. but if 8 wasn't, what was the deal with the white crap around the characters? I remember that it didn't exist in the PC version. Because of that I assumed the chars were 2d sprites, rendered from a 3d prog.

EDIT:
I know this isn't the tech forum, but any info on running both AGS and a compiled 3d game together?

more character views (instead of just 2 horizontal, 2 vertical and 4 diagonal) would allow more of a 3D look, then if you've made your 3D character you just have to render the frames from the required angles...

i don't recall any whitestuff and i've played that game for more hours than i'd care to mention

http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/finalfantasy8/screens.html?page=159

maybe you had a crazy playstation?

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 22/05/2004 02:15:59
i don't recall any whitestuff and i've played that game for more hours than i'd care to mention

http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/finalfantasy8/screens.html?page=159

maybe you had a crazy playstation?

That's a shot from a battle scene, which are obviously 3d.. I'm talking about when they were walking around in rooms and such, that is, in every scene except FMV scenes, the world map, or battles.

EDIT:
Yes, they would have had to be in 3d because of the camera angles. All I see that's weird in the screenies is jagged edges, and they didn't really correct that back then. Must have been my playstation, I guess.

well just browse the picture index

http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/finalfantasy8/screens.html?page=304

http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/finalfantasy8/screens.html?page=300

http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/finalfantasy8/screens.html?page=284

but anyway, enough of this back to Mr. Topic

QuoteI know 7 and 9 weren't that way.. but if 8 wasn't, what was the deal with the white crap around the characters? I remember that it didn't exist in the PC version. Because of that I assumed the chars were 2d sprites, rendered from a 3d prog.

perhaps the version you played did not use an alpha channel, and the PC version did.

I love 3D. I love all 3D. I love 3D games. I love 3D graphics.

But I believe firmly that AGS should stay 2D. To go beyond that and implement 3D would no longer make it AGS. It was originally built with Sierra- and LEC-style games in mind. This is the same with implementing higher and higher resolutions. This debate has been done to death before. Sure, it would be nifty to have 3D characters on a 2D background, but then people will want higher resolution, more 3D. And who knows? The 2D might very well be eliminated 5 years from now.

But, of course, it's all up to CJ. :)

Well, after a certain point, if he still wants to work on AGS, there's not going to be much more to add to it as a 2d prog. I'd be interested in finding ways to use it alongside already established 3d engines still. Like maybe pulling up a different prog for a worldmap or action sequence. Even for cutscenes.. you could lose a lot of filesize by using realtime cutscenes instead of videos, and keep the quality of 3d art.

I would definitely be interested in a future AGS engine that allows 3d characters against 2d backgrounds. Being able to have different rooms at different angles without redrawing the player sprite would allow for more involving and dramatic storytelling.
I'm not so sure about the technical aspects of it. Considering the time it would take to implement, I'm not sure the idea is feasible (problems like how to import polygon models, etc).

Wintermute supports 3d characters, yufster.

[heresy]

If you really want to do 3D characters on a 2D backdrop (Grim Fandango style) - you're better of with using something else than AGS. I'd suggest DarkBasic or somesuch; it does 3D and 2D and it does it fast enough for an adventure game.

[/heresy]

Quote from: Vel on Sat 22/05/2004 09:16:04
Wintermute supports 3d characters, yufster.

I think they aren't officially supported, but I'm not sure.

If you want 3D you could try RealityFactory http://www.realityfactory.ca
I didn't test it personally, but it seems easy to use and it's free. By the way I still prefer the increase of 2D capabilities of AGS (vector graphics, for exemple) than introducing 3D.

The solution of using 2 different programs would be a good solution if there were some kind of coordination, AGS could execute another exe passing some parameters and recive a return value in order to know what has happened in the other program.

Quote from: Pau on Sat 22/05/2004 10:04:19The solution of using 2 different programs would be a good solution if there were some kind of coordination, AGS could execute another exe passing some parameters and recive a return value in order to know what has happened in the other program.

So it is possible?

Only problem I can see is CPU usage - 3d games demand a lot or a little depending on what you put in them. I guess AGS isn't that demanding on recourses, so it could make no noticible difference at all on 2-3 year old machines.

I did have a brief experiment with 3D characters. My conclusion was that it was certainly possible to do, but would require quite a bit of time and effort to integrate it properly into AGS.

The biggest stumbling block I found was trying to get a 3D program to export a file format that AGS could read in easily. Not managing to find one was what put pay to my experiment. Even 3dsmax's "ASCII export format" was hideously complicated and seemed to be missing bits.

I dont think that more than 2-3% will be using 3d characters, if implemented, that is.

I think it would be sexful.

Still, I'm not going to use a different engine. I like AGS, and I want to stick with it. I know perfectly well other engines allow 3D characters, which is why I started this thread instead of finding another engine. Because I don't want to use another engine.

Mr Colossal has a good point about lighting. I'd never thought of that. Hmm.

I still think it would be a great feature, though. I think it would be improving on AGS as a 2D engine. It would allow people to try something different, as well. Sure, as Vel said, only 2% of people may use it. Maybe more people would use it. Maybe people might find it a better feature than they thought it would be.

I guess it would require a lot of CJs time and effort. Well, CJ, I am here to say that I am prepared to make that sacrifice. For you.

Anyway. So it is possible...but is there any chance it may be added in the future?

Also:

QuoteBut I believe firmly that AGS should stay 2D. To go beyond that and implement 3D would no longer make it AGS. It was originally built with Sierra- and LEC-style games in mind. This is the same with implementing higher and higher resolutions. This debate has been done to death before. Sure, it would be nifty to have 3D characters on a 2D background, but then people will want higher resolution, more 3D.

I think that's natural for people to want more. I mean, right now we're wanting more. Not giving it to us isn't going to make us want it less. I kind of see where you're coming from, but I don't think that's a good argument for keeping AGS 2D.

I would for one make 2D games only. I can't model in 3D at all, neither can I do things right in 2D. Those who like and know how to do 3D stuff might like it though. Couldn't there be a kind of "separate" AGS for the 3D people, although it might seem pointless and be too much work.

Diablo 2 is a 2D game. It just looks 3D, and It's darn nicely done. Only the cutscenes are actually in 3D.

Quote from: Haddas on Sat 22/05/2004 21:02:07
I would for one make 2D games only. I can't model in 3D at all, neither can I do things right in 2D. Those who like and know how to do 3D stuff might like it though. Couldn't there be a kind of "separate" AGS for the 3D people, although it might seem pointless and be too much work.

Diablo 2 is a 2D game. It just looks 3D, and It's darn nicely done. Only the cutscenes are actually in 3D.

It doesn't have to be one way or the other, so there wouldn't be a split in the program.

I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how complicated it is, but you can download the Blender sources and get a really good idea of how this stuff works Chris.

Hey Chris, have you tried www.planetsourcecode.com ? They may have some usefull source code for you to look at.

My suggestion would be that rather than using 3ds, you might want to use Milkshape or Blender files, or even MD2. Blender is opensource, so knowing the file format shouldn't be as difficult as 3ds. MD2 is widely used, and in fact, I model in MD2. Plus it has all frame animations set. All you would have to do is just choose which frame is for walking, talking, picking up etc...

I would find 3d characters and objects useful. I use blender (With MakeHuman) to make some other 3d comics and games(Escape from Godzilla, Transformers), and I animate them using MED (MD2 editor) for actions.

So in my opinion, 3D characters and objects is something I would use. Only thing is, I am not currently planning on making a 3d game. Atleast not until my Simpsons game is released.

JD

Using .blend files is a bad idea. It'd be best to use a standard like .obj or .dxf, maybe VRML. Not .blend though. Why? Because if you do that, people who don't use Blender will have to export their files to a format Blender will read, then open with Blender, sort out the weird things that happen with file conversions, and then save as a .blend. Not fair.

You wouldn't be able to use the MakeHuman models in realtime either, unless you decimated them, which would look not so great. Realtime models need 5000 triangles or (most of the time much) less.

Yufster, what do you think about releasing two versions of the game? If everything was already in 3d rigged and posed, why not make another version in a 3d engine? The only new work would be coding the 3d engine.

Has anybody given any thought to just how much work this is going to be? Making a full game in 2D is a task many of us have trouble finishing. Throwing 3d characters in the mix  is gonna make the task only bigger and bigger. Building character models, boning and skinning, keyframing and animating ... it's a huge task.
It would be cool to have this feature in AGS - but will it be used to it's full potential? I doubt it.

I absolutely ditto Miez, it is not worth it at all.

I would.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a NICE thing to have, I was just wondering if the time CJ will have to invest, outweighs the amount of time people are going to be using it ... I just have my doubts.
But, again, as GF is one of my fave games: it would be awesome to have the power...

As has been said, I think AGS should become an absolutely freaking fantastic 2d engine, as opposed to a pretty-darn-good 2d engine with basic 3d capabilities. Though at the same time, I think the possibility of 3d is quite exciting.

Maybe there could be 2 versions of AGS or something? Of course the primary emphasis would be to improve it the way it is, and the second would be with some minimal 3d capabilities that would slowly be added to. That way, people who only want to work with 2d aren't bogged down with theÃ,  extra file size, and those who want 3d can't complain.

Yeah - I know that'd require a lot of extra effort, but this is a Great Suggestiong - not a Great Commission.

EDIT: Admittedly I don't know how the lighting etc would be handled, but that doesn't mean no-one else does...

Miez, making 3d characters isn't all the work you make it out to be once you get used to it. I made the model in Yufster's avatar in about 3 hours, then spent another three unwrapping (but due to new tools just being released - that's probably about 1 and a half hours now). Yufster painted the texture over a couple of days, and had never painted a 3d texture before. Rigging and posing it will take a few more hours once I get time to work on it again. I think that's comparable time to painting and animating a good 2d walkcycle in 8 different views - plus you get much more work cut off for cutscenes etc. 3D is the way to go, even if there isn't a 3d engine in AGS. Once I have the walkcycle done it's just a matter of aiming the camera and rendering the walkcycle.

The magic words there are "once you get used to it" :)
There are many different skills to learn - modelling, rigging, mapping, texturing and animating.
Big game companies have a different person doing each of these.
And then there's the software.
I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Although, we could have the equivalent of Eric's walkcycle - just slap a new texture on the supplied animated character and bingo, new main character.

I think it might be quite interesting to have a Moho like character system - supply a body, heads, and broken up limbs, and the game animates them in 2d. That could be useful and speed up development. Of course, it's not for everyone.

Quote from: Vel on Sat 22/05/2004 09:16:04
Wintermute supports 3d characters, yufster.

No it doesn't.

How do I know?

I use Wintermute.

WME will support 3D characters in the future, though. At the moment it uses 3D acceleration for faster alpha blending and such. But no actual 3D objects.

Nobody will be forced to use 3D if that is implemented. You could continue using 2D and maybe use 3D in some details, making a mix to get something new.

Imagine a scene in the space, the characters and background are 2D but the spacecraft  is 3D and you can push it and make it rotate in order to find the entrance.

In 3D you can have an idle animation (the radar of the spaceship moving...) and combine it with the rotation if the character pushes, and continue with the idle animation in a new angle, once it's stopped by the character.

In 2D to make this you'll need a animation of the rotation and an animation of the idle animation for each rotation...

So I think the key is not to use the features just because they exist. I know 3D features could became the new lens-flare fever (and some of you are afraid of that), but it also could bring us a lot of possibilities to create innovative concepts and improve the adventure games.

I also understand that is not a HI priority task as I said before, but it could be interesting.

For an easy 3D format, you cold take a look at the .egg format. It's used by the panda3D engine http://www.etc.cmu.edu/panda3d/ (a engine released opensource by Disney). This format has exporters for max and maya. I'm not an expert in 3D but that maybe could be useful.

I really hope that AGS does incorporate capability for 3D characters.

I was originally going to argue that AGS didn't need 3d characters for the following mentality:

"You can already render your characters doing their different animations, and then use sprites.Ã,  This will give greater character detail than is possible by using a runtime rendered 3d character."

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was wrong.

1) Using game rendering could allow for much smoother animations.

2) There are a lot of technical pains I went through to get my animated walkcycle into the game.Ã,  First of all, my rendered cycle was 30 frames...but I can only used 20 in the game.Ã,  This means I had to use only 10 frame animations because I wanted to have the start/stop animations be the correct ones, while mainting even frame spacing.Ã,  The process is quite painstaking also...the character has to be set up to walk through a path that is evenly lit from all sides, and the camera must be animated to follow at the rate that the character is moving, then each frame must be rendered which took me an hour or so, then each frame needs to be cropped...this is difficult because the centerlines must be maintained, I used actions but even so it's a lot of work and a lot of room for error.Ã,  Then all the walkcycles must be scaled to the same level.Ã,  Then they all need to be imported into AGS.

2) It would drastically conserve file space.Ã,  Using a SPARTAN 10 frame walking animation with 1 standing still animation, it costs 10 MB for each character (suing 800x600 alpha channel blended) just to have sprites for walking in the 4 directions and standing still, not counting diagonal animations, and animations for other things such as opening doors, gesturing, idle animations, handing things, taking out of pocket, stooping down to pick things up, random cutscene animations, etc.Ã,  AGS does not compress the sprite images internally, unlike backgrounds etc, so these 10 MB's go straight to the file size.Ã,  Using 3d rendering, only the small 3d information would need to be downloading.Ã,  In a well-made game that used 3d rendering and had equivalent animations to a game like Broken Sword or something, this could reduce the downloaded file size by hundreds of MB's.

3) People would take advantage of it, making many more animations in their games.Ã,  I love animations, they bring the character to life...and I feel there should be animations for basically everything the character does...this is really discouraged in AGS presently.Ã,  ALL of the newer adventure games are doing this.Ã,  Not only would people have MORE animations, but I think it would be less work to do all these animations than to do a single frame by frame animation for walking in AGS...because once you've spent all the hard time of modelling, texturing, and rigging a character....making new animations is easy, and only takes a few seconds to make him bend down, walk, whatever.Ã,  It's such a struggle with sprites.Ã,  I find errors with my animation, but it takes so many hours just to re-render, re-crop, re-put into AGS (and keep having to start over the uploading into AGS because I can't tell what frame # I am looking at from the sprite so I ahve to keep starting alll over)....so instead of fixing them, I say screw it.Ã,  This is not the kind of problem an engine should be encouraging.

4) It would allow for more advanced character shading/lighting.Ã,  Not a big issue for me, but a point nonetheless.

5) AGS already seems to have the most well developed fanbase and forum life.Ã,  Why force people who want to make modern-quality adventure games to leave the dear AGS community, or not become involved in it from the start?

6) There are enough people here with 3D knowledge already, I think, that would really take advantage of this.Ã,  There would also be more people coming to AGS from other engines, or choosing AGS from the start, to make this worthwhile.

7) People keep saying that there are other programs for 3D, use those for that, use AGS for 2D.Ã,  First of all...if you already know AGS...you don't want to learn some other program.Ã,  But, I did some looking into this...Wintermute isn't 3D, and it has no forum presence, meaning that it's going to be much more of a pain to learn when you don't have a community like this one to help beginners along.Ã,  I looked at Reality Factor too...the games made with that are 3D sure enough, but they're all first person (yuck) and they suck, and I couldn't find any real adventure games made with it.Ã,  So there doesn't really seem to be any other good options for people who just want to have good character animations.Ã,  Why would you want to push these people away from the AGS community anyway?Ã,  AGS should evolve with the times, I'm not saying it should be the end-all-be-all of freeware game engines....but shouldn't it live up to it's name, and be the end-all-be-all of adventure games?

Quote from: stuh505 on Sun 23/05/2004 22:00:31

2) It would drastically conserve file space.  Using a SPARTAN 10 frame walking animation with 1 standing still animation, it costs 10 MB for each character (suing 800x600 alpha channel blended) just to have sprites for walking in the 4 directions and standing still, not counting diagonal animations, and animations for other things such as opening doors, gesturing, idle animations, handing things, taking out of pocket, stooping down to pick things up, random cutscene animations, etc.  AGS does not compress the sprite images internally, unlike backgrounds etc, so these 10 MB's go straight to the file size.  Using 3d rendering, only the small 3d information would need to be downloading.  In a well-made game that used 3d rendering and had equivalent animations to a game like Broken Sword or something, this could reduce the downloaded file size by hundreds of MB's.

True, to a point: the 3D model itself would not take up much filesize. But keyframe information and textures might still take up quite some space.

I feel saying that AGS doesn't need 3d support because you can use rendered images is a bad arguement also, however some of your points are awkward

1: I think I have very smooth animations and I'm using 320x200 256 colours. It's all the amount of work you want to put into the game.

2: If you have a 30 frame walk cycle why can't you just cut out ever other frame and knock it down to 15? I've done this many times with 30 frame walk cycles and they always look well. Guess I'd have to see your animation

also you say that it's annoying to have to set up a camera to follow the character and lighting and all that... Why don't you just make a walk cycle not an animation of the character actually moving through space? A stationary figure with his arms and legs moving as if he's walking. If this isn't how you work how is supporting 3d characters going to help this? You're still going to need to make a stationary walk cycle anyway.

5: It's not like not allowing 3d characters would force anyone to leave. AGS doesn't support importing GIFs and all this has done is people had to make a sprite sheet. People can come and go and do what they please, if CJ doesn't really see the desire to have 3d support in AGS he's not doing it to push people away.

7: Just because there aren't other adventure games made with other engines doesn't mean they aren't worthy engines. I don't think AGS has to evolve with anything because there are tons of free engines out there that already do millions of things AGS can't and won't be able to do for years. DarkBasic and BlitzBasic are cheap and very worthy engines that support a lot of advanced 3d features, people have made tons of things out of them, people have made programs out of darkbasic that help you make darkbasic games, the same with blitz. People have made word processors and physics simulations and tons of things, if these engines can do this then why can't you use them to make adventure games? You'll have to learn a new engine and coding system but... Well.. Tough. You'd have to learn all new parts of AGS if it supported 3d anyway.

To imagine AGS having 3d support next year, let's say you can import .X models and animate them and some how you can set up lighting. What about particles? What about collision detection? What about advanced shaders? What about what about what about? Other engines already do all this and for all the time you spend waiting for AGS to get up to speed with them you could have learned another engine [as well as AGS, you don't have to leave] and made significant progress on your 3d game, and you could even use fully 3d environments.

Blitz and Darkbasic have huge forums with a lot of members and a lot of users and they are quite helpful. So why not check them out?

Also, there are things AGAST can do that AGS can't, so AGS isn't the best engine out there in a few situations.

Quote from: miez on Sun 23/05/2004 23:07:52
True, to a point: the 3D model itself would not take up much filesize. But keyframe information and textures might still take up quite some space.

Yes, for a grand total of about 3mb per model (maximum).

I don't expect 3d to ever be implemented, though it would be nice.

I'm more interested in ways to take advantage of AGS's plus sides and combine it with another 3d engine for the other things I mentioned (action sequences, cutscenes, world maps). I'm not familiar with any other 3d engines, but Blender requires quite a bit of scripting that you wouldn't have in AGS for simple things like dialogue and GUI. It is pretty easy to make a short racing sequence or a world map though.. thus the niceness of combining them.

Has anyone done anything like this before (executing another program to work with AGS)?

ook ook: he was replying to my topic numbers, his numbering is correct

miez:  Sure, it would be POSSIBLE to make a humongous texture to have the other way take up more space...but take this simple example...

The desired goal is to have a character 300 pixels high be able to walk, open doors, shake hands, stoop, wave, and have an idle animation.

Using sprites, with an alpha channel, that would probably be over 20 MB.

But using 3d,

I don't think the size of the keyframes would even be signifcant enough to take note of.

Let's say a 500x500 JPG was used as a texture (64 KB)

And the model takes up about 200 KB (probably less than this, I was looking at a high poly char for ref)

Then you now have all the same animations, and possibly more animations, for about 300 KB...this is 67 times less space, and I think this is a fairly median case.

MrColossol:

these other programs that support 3d are not really designed with adventure gaming in mind...im not suggesting AGS ever become a full 3d program like them, but having 3d characters just seems like a really prominent adventure game feature and deserving of being in AGS.

They weren't designed with anything in mind stuh... If you load up blitz basic there isn't anything precoded for you, there's nothing that says you have to make an FPS or a racing game...

If you just want someone else to make an engine specifically for adventure game creation then that's fine, it's not gonna happen for a while I don't think but you can wish for it.

Is there a way this could be handled by a plugin? Maybe some of you could take it upon yourselves to develop the tools needed for support of 3d characters?

Quote from: modgeulator on Mon 24/05/2004 01:40:07
Is there a way this could be handled by a plugin? Maybe some of you could take it upon yourselves to develop the tools needed for support of 3d characters?

Thats a good idea, since there are open source gaming engines that a plugin could be derived from.

I still like my dual-prog idea though.

Stuh, Mr. Collosal is correct, 3d game engines are rarely designed with a specific type of game in mind (disregarding the FPS engines like quake and etc). The Tony Hawk Pro Skater engine (PS1) was used to make the Spiderman game. The main aspects of a game engine are lighting, bones, and physics. The rest is usually coded on a game by game basis because it isn't that complicated and they can basically copy/paste code.

Your estimations of filesize are close, but a little underdone. Modern game models mostly use 1024x1024 textures, one for color, one for bump mapping, and a 512x512 for specular shading. Typically you'll see people using lossless formats like PNG because jpgs show artifacts, and the filesize would be a little higher. Consoles are different because of the vast differences in speed and RAM.

Quote from: miez on Sun 23/05/2004 11:25:19
Has anybody given any thought to just how much work this is going to be? Making a full game in 2D is a task many of us have trouble finishing. Throwing 3d characters in the mix  is gonna make the task only bigger and bigger. Building character models, boning and skinning, keyframing and animating ... it's a huge task.

Your limitations aren't everyone's limitations. Just because you or I couldn't make use of a feature doesn't mean the feature shouldn't exist. A great program like AGS should at least intend to allow everyone to work at their full potential. Allowing someone who's better then you at something to shine doesn't reduce any sort of functionality of AGS for those who arent using that particular advanced funtionality. It's not like if 3D was added, all the sudden he's going to remove 2D and now everyone has to get with the program. It just opens a new feature for 3D artists.

Quote from: Davis on Wed 26/05/2004 20:35:20
Your limitations aren't everyone's limitations. Just because you or I couldn't make use of a feature doesn't mean the feature shouldn't exist.

Well put. That is exactly what I was thinking.

Bravo Davis. Good stuff.

JD

QuoteYour limitations aren't everyone's limitations. Just because you or I couldn't make use of a feature doesn't mean the feature shouldn't exist. A great program like AGS should at least intend to allow everyone to work at their full potential. Allowing someone who's better then you at something to shine doesn't reduce any sort of functionality of AGS for those who arent using that particular advanced funtionality. It's not like if 3D was added, all the sudden he's going to remove 2D and now everyone has to get with the program. It just opens a new feature for 3D artists.

and that's exactly why I said:

Quote from: miez on Sun 23/05/2004 11:25:19
It would be cool to have this feature in AGS

AGS should definitely stay 2D.  Adventure games NEVER fare well in the 3D arena.  Current games like the Nancy Drew series, Sherlock Holmes: Mystery of the Mummy, & Asylum use the 3D images, but are still in the 2D game plane.  AGS already supports this

You could, probably, get close to the results you're looking for if future versions of AGS simply supported raster layers such as psd's or psp's:  Walk-Behinds would be "pixel perfect",  full lighting & transparency benefits of rasters,  different layers could scroll at different speeds, characters and items would be flawlessly blended to their backdrop and entire regions of the background could be animating constantly.  Rasters are really the only difference AGS  has to current high-end engines commercial companys are designing.

NEVER FORGET KING'S QUEST 8 - THE GAME KEN AND ROBERTA WILLIAMS MADE AFTER PLAYING SUPER MARIO 64!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Adventure games NEVER fare well in the 3D arena."

this, in my opinion, is another terrible arguement.

That doesn't mean anything since adventure games don't fair well at all.

Just because you feel it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it will never happen. I bet you 27 thousand dollars that there were people saying RPGs will NEVER work on a computer or something silly like that.

And besides. Grim Fandango seems to have done very well and many many many people love the crap out of it.

I dont think personally that adding 3D characters and objects to the game would be a bad thing. I dont think it would effect the game at all.

I think it would be the same becouse the background will always be 2d, therefore the game itself and its story and game play is not altered at all.

Besides, it might be a good addition for anyone who does program in 3D. Maybe they could add an object in a room that could animate a certain way and have less sprite limitations or something. Did that last part make sense?

JD

Adding 3d characters COULD add atmosphere to adventure games. It also can be used to enhance the story and mood of a game. If you don't understand how, watch some movies and notice how all the scenes aren't from a straight on angle.

And for those that are interested, http://www.ogre3d.org

About the lightning, someone said that a 3D model of the room was needed, but as far as the camera doesn't moves in 3D, you can use a mask (256 levels of gray for example) to determine the z coordinate of each pixel of the backgroud. So you can do it easilly using the degradation tool of any paint program. This way tou can have moving lights with real-time shadow casting.

Maybe that was the idea when you were talking about a 3D model of the room, but I was trying to clarify that there is no need for a complete one (like a character would need)

I'd be interested in 3D engines for adventure games but how would you make 3D characters? I don't think you can easily configure that.

Quote from: Edwinxie on Mon 31/05/2004 22:14:49
how would you make 3D characters? I don't think you can easily configure that.

What I was talking about was how the character shadow could interact realistically with the background.

In order to create a character you'll need a 3D modeler program that could export to the proper 3D format.

and that wouldn't be easy like 2D

for someone who doesn't know what they are doing 3d would be hard, yes.

for someone who doesn't know what they are doing 2d is hard so... yea.

Quote from: Edwinxie on Mon 31/05/2004 22:14:49
I'd be interested in 3D engines for adventure games but how would you make 3D characters? I don't think you can easily configure that.

Well, I use poser for one to create the characters. I also use Blender and the MakeHuman plugin and then I skin and export the model.

As far as rooms go, I use a program from www.revolution3d.net forums which is called New World.

I download freeware objects. I create walls, ceiling, floor,lighting and set the camera angle and then I place all those objects into the newworld editor and make a scene.

For terrain stuff, I use genesis terrain editing capabilities. And occasionally bryce.

All this takes a while to do, but it is satisfying. If AGS supported 3d Characters, I could import the characters rather than just take snapshots of each frame.

Then again, I wont be making a 3d game until after I release my Simpsons game and even that could be a while.

JD

Quote from: Joseph DiPerla on Tue 01/06/2004 03:21:43Well, I use poser for one to create the characters. I also use Blender and the MakeHuman plugin and then I skin and export the model.

Well, actually, your method would not work for realtime gaming. I'll give a short description of why that is.

Programs like Poser and MakeHuman are for creating realistic people - and they use a high amount of detail in the mesh to accomplish this goal. However, game models are usually blocky and underdetailed in comparison to rendered scenes. The reason for that is simple. How long does it take you to render a makehuman model? Do you think a computer could do that 5 times in a second? (Human) Game models will fall in the range of 500-5000 triangles, depending on the computer they are made for (Games in production now are shooting for 3 ghz machines and use up to 8000). In comparison, the MakeHuman female model has 13,610 triangles. The last game model I made had just under 2000.

For me, this actually makes it easier to create models because there are fewer vertices to place and fewer faces to unwrap for UV mapping. Unfortunately for people who get most of their stuff from other people, it could complicate things.

One way to get the MakeHuman model down to par is to decimate it, but that gives IMO terrible results.

Here is a comparison, the model on the left is mostly Yufster's creation, and the one on the right is a generic MakeHuman model I nabbed back when they were programming it:

(http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/shbazjinkens/screenshot.png)

Plus, hi-poly models tend to be made up of squares instead of (like many low-poly models) triangles.

Am I the only one who believes in the old-fashioned belief that AGS should stay true to 2D? I mean, it was intended for 2D Sierra- and LEC- style adventure game in the beginning. Then again, it's all up to CJ. But if it were up to me (which of course it isn't) I would keep it 2D. There are other 3D engines out there, a few of them freeware.

Quote from: Moebius 5.18 on Tue 01/06/2004 18:31:40
Am I the only one who believes in the old-fashioned belief that AGS should stay true to 2D? I mean, it was intended for 2D Sierra- and LEC- style adventure game in the beginning. Then again, it's all up to CJ. But if it were up to me (which of course it isn't) I would keep it 2D. There are other 3D engines out there, a few of them freeware.

No, you're not.  I, too, thought one of the highlights of AGS was to recapture the style and spirit of the old-school adventure games.  Frankly, I'm surprised so many people think AGS should go 3d.  To me, a 3d AGS doesn't make sense.  Use another engine if you want to make a 3d game.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Migs.

Going back to the point of the makehuman. I was just stating that becouse thats how I use my sprites in a game. I take snapshots of the frames. But I didn't intend to use that for AGS. I only posted it cause someone said or asked how to make characters.

Although, 3ds, poser, and MD2/3 files wouldn't be so bad to use in a game. I use MD2's all the time.

Going to the point of wanting AGS to be 2d.... I am also sure that some people didn't want it to be converted to linux either, but that happened. Listen, I dont want to seem sarcastic here, but the truth of it all is: All the 2D features that AGS has, well it will always have them. And you know even if 3D was introduced, all those great games that AGS created, will they will still keep on coming. And you wont be confused if 3d is added becouse you will still know how to program all the 2d stuff.

I really dont see how adding 3D will make things worse. Something to think about is that a lot of people didn't want the plugin system or 32 bit graphics either. But now we have it and it doesn't make a difference for those people.

If you wonder about what priority Chris should should worry about when it comes to upgrading the engine and fixing bugs, I think Chris will fix the 2D stuff and 2D features first, and then the 3D stuff will be next on the priority list of bug fixes and new 3d features to add.

Maybe we should atleast even give it a beta try and if noone is happy, Chris can then remove the feature.

JD

People actually didn't want 32 bit graphics, a plugin system, or a Linux port?Ã,  Adding 3d character support (assuming that's ALL the "3d support" that'd be implemented) would take an enormous amount of work for CJ, too much to simply remove if beta testing decided it "just wasn't right."Ã,  I would rather see AGS continue to be the best darn 2d adventure-making program than see it venture into the still-relatively-new 3d world.

If you really want 3d character support so you can make your own Grim Fandango-like game, make a plugin for it.Ã,  (Good luck.)

I think 3D support is the kind of thing that should be right at the bottom of the 'to do' list. One day it might be nice, but extra 2D features would benefit a far greater number of people in the short term.

Quote from: Migs on Tue 01/06/2004 23:39:19
People actually didn't want 32 bit graphics, a plugin system, or a Linux port?Ã, 

32 bit graphics didn't recapture the style and spirit of the old-school adventure games (which was your argument against 3D).

I think the only problem here is to determine if the great effort of introducing 3D capabilities will repercute in better games. As I also said before, I prefer more 2D features to be introduced first, but I think 3D characters could be a great feature if it's used correctly.

And, in last term the screen is a 2D surface and you always see the game on it so real-time 3D chars, pre-rendered ones or even scaled sprites are the same, emulations of the real behaviour of the perspective over 3D objects.

Look, I agree, the priority should be 2D. But if 3D was implemented properly it wouldn't be a bad thing.

Not only that, but if you make 3d support, more people would join the community and make some outstanding games. Think about it, alot of people like wintermute cause they heard there was 3d character support, and that was their biggest attraction. Of course now it doesn't support it anymore.

All I am saying is, lets not knock 3D away. AGS is still the greatest 2D engine out there. But 3D wouldn't be so bad.

Also, as far as implementing 3D and taking it away, I think CJ said he made a private build with 3d support for testing purposes earlier in this thread. So yes it would be hard and a bit time consuming, but maybe not as bad as we think.

Yeah, believe it or not (Going back to the 32bit and plugin and linux thing) there were some that didn't want it. And then it turned out to be a great thing. Maybe this would be a blessing in disguise.

As far as using other engines to make pnc adventure games (Someone stated this earlier), it wouldn't be a good idea becouse almost all engines are 3d shooters and plus, I would never abandon AGS as my number one adventure maker. Its just so great. So if I ever create anything in 3D, it would have to be released with AGS or not at all. I love AGS that much. (Plus I am slow and wouldn't be capable of learning to use another engine :p )

Implementing 32 bit graphic support is a whole lot different than introducing 3D into AGS. You would essentially be changing the entire point of AGS. Instead of being a classic adventure game creator, you would probably be able to eventually make another Gabriel Knight 3. Personally, the game that I am working on uses pre-rendered 3D graphics. Why not just go with a regular 3D engine, you ask? Because it's a challenge. If I wanted to go the easy route and continue with a 3D game, I'd give AGS a pass and go with something else. But I stay with AGS because of the fact that it's 2D, and I love the challenge of pushing the 2D engine to its limits of capabilities.

To me, introducing 3D would ruin the uniqueness and the overall appeal of the engine for me. It just wouldn't be the same.

Quote from: Moebius 5.18 on Wed 02/06/2004 02:04:16
Implementing 32 bit graphic support is a whole lot different than introducing 3D into AGS. You would essentially be changing the entire point of AGS. Instead of being a classic adventure game creator, you would probably be able to eventually make another Gabriel Knight 3. Personally, the game that I am working on uses pre-rendered 3D graphics. Why not just go with a regular 3D engine, you ask? Because it's a challenge. If I wanted to go the easy route and continue with a 3D game, I'd give AGS a pass and go with something else. But I stay with AGS because of the fact that it's 2D, and I love the challenge of pushing the 2D engine to its limits of capabilities.

Terran, this may sound harsh, but you are going the easy route, making a real-time game would be going the hard route. You can't use Poser to make any kind of unique (realtime) game characters.

I just don't understand why progress is so often seen as a bad thing. I can't even bother to argue it, because I think your minds are already made up.

AGS is already Unique and nothing can take that away. In fact every engine is unique in its own way.

By adding 3D support to it, you are making AGS even more Unique by having it be the only engine for people to download to create 2d point and click adventures with 3d characters and objects.

Again, I would like to stress that 2d games will always be made. I dont see it as something that would interfere with 2d. AGS already is good enough to make any game SCUMM/AGI/SCI/AGAST/SLUDGE/SAGE/Wintermute/Visionaire can make and has made. So in realty if you think about it, you dont really need to add many more 2d features, just bug fixes.

adding 3d would open up a whole new world of games and developers using AGS. We might actually see commercial games made with AGS. Who knows, maybe Sierra and Lucasarts will abandon their engines and use AGS (This is a longshot, but a possibility none the less).

I think we are concentrating on the negatives rather than the positivies here.

JD

Quote from: Joseph DiPerla on Wed 02/06/2004 01:48:33

As far as using other engines to make pnc adventure games (Someone stated this earlier), it wouldn't be a good idea becouse almost all engines are 3d shooters

again, I'm am not against AGS having 3d at some point in the future [not that it matters cause it's up to CJ and I really don't care] but again... NO! Will you stop believing this?

There are tons of 3d engines out there and they are not ment for 3d shooters. So stop.

Also. Please explain to me why someone would be willing to wait for CJ to implement all this stuff into AGS when there are engines out there that do it already? Because you like AGS? That's not good enough. What if you had to wait 8 years for AGS to even handle 3d characters in an acceptable way? And then you realize that maybe normal mapping is something you'd like to try [because if you want to sell a 3d adventure game you're going to have to offer the latest tech, right?] so now you have to wait for CJ to add normal mapping functionality. And then you want to have a dynamic pony tail and then you want and then and then...

I asked this before and no one answered... Just saying you like AGS isn't a good reason to want to wait for years while AGS would stay 300 steps behind even GRIME [the engine they made Grim Fandango with]

I'm not against AGS adding 3d support at some point, I'm against people waiting. If you're that gung ho about making a 3d adventure game, waiting for Chris to please you is the silliest idea I've ever heard.

Also, Joseph, adding 3d support doesn't make game creation easier or anything, AGS has had 1 commercial adventure game, why would adding 3d support mean we'd see more AGS commercial games?

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 02/06/2004 03:13:25
Also. Please explain to me why someone would be willing to wait for CJ to implement all this stuff into AGS when there are engines out there that do it already? Because you like AGS? That's not good enough.

Because the game engines I've found ask for a lot of scripting for simple things like message boxes. The answer is that it would be ease-of-use. The point and click interface would already be programmed, the message boxes would be a simple matter, no scripting a pathfinder, and more.

Timewise, it's not really practical without people to help or source code to rip from somewhere else.. but 8 years? Come on. That's overkill, single people have programmed good 3d engines from nothing in less than two.

A good way around the open-source hinderances would be to use a plugin and make it opensource. I don't know how this stuff works though.

For anyone who wants a free engine that isn't made specifically for any genre of game, just search and filter out words like "quake." Seriously, there are a lot. Blender, Crystal Space, Panda3d (developed by Disney), and others. Just search.

Quote from: Joseph DiPerla on Wed 02/06/2004 02:32:46
adding 3d would open up a whole new world of games and developers using AGS. We might actually see commercial games made with AGS. Who knows, maybe Sierra and Lucasarts will abandon their engines and use AGS (This is a longshot, but a possibility none the less).

Professional companies with staff positions dedicated to engine development would never use a free tool - using their own allows them an even greater degree of control, customisation and optimisation.

As for the other comment quoted, I really don't see what the big thing is about developing commercial games in AGS. Has it occured to people that perhaps people merely choose not to release their game commericially. I've seen several games that could easily have been sold with only a little more work. Hell, if it makes people happy, then I'll make a commerical AGS game. But I really don't see why you'd want that, if I could release a game of the same quality for free...

Going to Mr Col (I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic or as if I am angry. I am just trying to defend my points):

Well, I would wait 8 years for AGS to support 3D for the simple fact that I dont wish to make a 3D game right now, and yes becouse I like AGS. And as someone else said, I would wait cause all the adventure features are in AGS and its easy to use. If I really wanted to use complicated scripting I would just use SCI Studio then. Plus I can be satisfied just taking snapshots of my models like I have been saying I have been doing.

Your also right, there are a ton of 3d engines for us to make games, not just shooters. And someone mentioned Blender. But here is the deal. I dont feel like learning a new scripting language when I am comfortable not just with c/c++ but with AGS in general. And granted that there is a 3d adventure game engine (http://3das.noeska.com/), only thing is that the whole world has to be in 3d. I just want characters and some objects to be in 3D.

Oh and I never said that adding 3D support would make making games easier. I said it would attract more people to develop in AGS becouse of the feature, not the ease of use. If I said it wouldmake it easier, I apologize, cause I didn't mean that.

And also regarding the 8 years to implement... Please scroll through this thread to see Chris's post and you will notice that he tried out 3D. Yes it wasn't practical and it wasn't something he wanted to implement at the time. But I dont think it would take 8 years for him to implement.

And of course we all agree that it is really upto Chris on whether he decides to add 3d to AGS. And I will remain one of the happiest AGSer's whether he adds 3d or not.

Laceyware:

Why I would rather play commercial games from AGS is becouse the person making the game or the team making the game will put an enormous amount of effort and features into their games becouse they are getting paid. Even though AGS has created some of my most favorite games, some still dont compete with some commercial games like CMI, Grim Fandango, Runaway just to name a few. I think the commercial aspect motivates people to make some good games cause there is a profit involved.

Also, I have been in this community since the beginning. I still have the first version of this engine when it was the ACeditor or something like that. For Nostalgic reasons I would love to see AGS be so popular that it makes commercial games. Thats just a personal desire I have.

JD

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 02/06/2004 03:13:25There are tons of 3d engines out there and they are not ment for 3d shooters. So stop.

I completelly agree. And even if an engine is focused in 3D shooters could be used for creating adventures. Just don't use the shooter features.

I think the problem is that a great number of engines require C/C++ and you need to go throu compiling, linking, dependencies, segmentation faults...

So for making a 3D adventure the most appropiate engines will be the ones that could be completelly accessed with a scripting language because programming complex puzzles could be done easilly.

For example the ones shbazjinkens said are scriptable using Python (I don't know if a full game could be done with Crystal Space using only scripting). If you prefer lua (the language used to program the scripts in GF) you can try Apocalyx engine (http://apocalyx.sourceforge.net/) .

Actually, I think Crystal Space is the only one that doesn't use Python that I listed.. I thought it used C++. I may be wrong, I don't use it, I'm only developing models for a demo game they're making.

Python is supposed to be one of the easiest computer languages there is, even easier than Java. That's why a lot of engines use it for scripting.

I think support for 3d characters would be cool, though I can't make 3d graphics :P Make AGS faster instead so that hi-res and hi-colour games run faster on my computer ;)

Quote from: Pumaman on Sat 22/05/2004 19:15:50
The biggest stumbling block I found was trying to get a 3D program to export a file format that AGS could read in easily. Not managing to find one was what put pay to my experiment. Even 3dsmax's "ASCII export format" was hideously complicated and seemed to be missing bits.

Have you tried the forums at gamedev.net?Ã,  People there are bound to know the best 3D format for your needs.

I understand why some people say that AGS should maintain its focus, and that if you want 3D, go to a different engine like DarkBasic.Ã,  However, there is a very good reason for some of us to wish and hope that AGS adds 3D character ability rather than forcing us to go somewhere else, and that is that AGS has unsurpassed facilities specifically built for writing adventure games.Ã,  Something as broad as DarkBasic simply will not be as easy as AGS for this type of game.

Some may argue that the purpose of AGS is to make old-style adventure games.Ã,  But today, even games like The Longest Journey (my all time favorite) is quickly becoming an old game, and has 3D characters atop pre-rendered graphics.Ã,  Adding new technologies will allow AGS to attract the younger generation that doesn't know what a Sierra or Lucas adventure game is, and longs for the olden games of crisp pre-rendered graphics and 3D real-time characters.

I congratulate CJ for adding modern features like high resolutions, true color support, and transparency effects.Ã,  Ultimately, having all the modern features to make the best adventure games possible will bring much more attention to AGS, something that will benefit the entire AGS community--including those that choose not to use the latest features.

I wait with fingers crossed for 3D character support.Ã,  I don't want to have to go to a different engine that is less efficient at making this type of game.

Atlas

There would be a lot to change if AGS were to support 3d characters on 2d backgrounds, aside from getting it to draw 3d models.  I'd love it to, and I'd make a 3d AGS if I had the ability, but it's not easy simply to add it on top of the current AGS.  3D characters need to be drawn correctly to fit in with the background graphics, so you need to set the camera FOV and position that fits the background, and to have the walkable areas and regions planned out with some sort of 3d structure, lighting would have to be placed in 3d space.  The whole editor would have to be different, 3d animations work differently to 2d ones, not just replacing the character model with a different one, as you do with sprites (not these days anyway).

I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I'm not sure it's worth it, considering most people are happy with 2d, and AGS is designed for Classic adventure game styles.  I do think 3d hardware accelerated 2d graphics is a good idea for AGS though.

I'm surprised there isn't a single engine available for 3d adventure games of the more modern kind.  If anyone does make a game like this in darkbasic or anything else would they consider keeping the engine as customisable as possible, and open it up for others to use?

Quote from: Edwinxie on Tue 01/06/2004 01:51:51
and that wouldn't be easy like 2D

That's the crappiest argument against 3D I've ever heard.

(I did not make that model on the left. Shbaz lies.)

Quote from: scotch on Sat 12/06/2004 07:55:17
I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I'm not sure it's worth it, considering most people are happy with 2d, and AGS is designed for Classic adventure game styles.Ã,  I do think 3d hardware accelerated 2d graphics is a good idea for AGS though.

Would you not consider Grim Fandango to be a classic adventure game? Because quite frankly I would. It is one of the greatest examples of how adventure games are done RIGHT.

Even trying to create the atmosphere in Grim in a 2d game would require a hell of alot more effort to the character animation and scripting of the game.

Quote from: Yufster on Sat 12/06/2004 09:11:53(I did not make that model on the left. Shbaz lies.)

Well yeah, except this is what it looked like when I was through with it, and I created it from your drawing, therefore it is mostly your creation.

(http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/shbazjinkens/niko.jpg)

For those interested, here (http://www.theboomshelter.com/pbg.html) is a tut on how to accomplish the 2d background in Blender's game engine (though if you've never used the Game engine you won't know how the hell to do what it's talking about). It's a simple method, should work with many other game engines too.

This is quite an interesting discussion and I wish I joined it sooner but many people have made excellent arguments on why adding 3D character support is a good idea. I support that idea as well. It's not like those who don't like 3D would be forced to use it anyway but it would make AGS that much better. Of course, graphics don't make a game, so don't misinterpret what is being said here. No one says it would be easy for Chris, so, obviously, it's not a demand, just a really big wish. :P

And I would like to paste this bitÃ,  from "The Inventory" Chris Jones interview:

- It is rather obvious that you like adventure games.
Could you tell us some of your favourites
(commercial and non-commercial ones).

There have been loads of good adventures over the
years. I have particularly fond memories of Space Quest
4, the Quest for Glory series (especially the first one),
and also a couple of lesser known ones such as
Bioforge. Bioforge was a very interesting game at the
time because as I recall it was pioneering the use of 3D
characters moving over pre-rendered 2D backgrounds,
and managed it surprisingly well considering the
hardware available at the time.

I won't make full assumptions for CJ but it's obvious that he has an appreciation for 3D characters over pre-rendered 2D backgrounds. It's just a matter of finding a good way of implementing it into AGS. ;)

I also wanted to mention that a long time ago I e-mailed Funcom about how TLJ was done and the response was that the backgrounds and characters were made in 3DStudio MAX, then the lightmaps were imported into the game engine (among other things), so that when April walks around, all the lighting around here changes accordingly without having to set it up manually.

I hadn't seen that interview with CJ, it's nice to see he likes the idea, I can think of loads of cool stuff I'd like to do with a 2d/3d adventure game engine.

But when you really consider how much has to change to make 3d character/2d background support work then I think you'll come to the conclusion that it may as well be done in a seperate program.Ã,  That would be the easiest way.

Of course rendering a 3d model for the character with no adjustment for perspective and flat ambient lighting straight onto the background would be possible, and would require very little to change from the way things are now, there would be very little point in it.Ã,  The character may as well be pre rendered.

The advantages of 3d are in having the characters adjusted for perspective correctly, lit correctly, perhaps casting a shadow.
For this you need to set the camera position and FOV so that the character is drawn with the correct scale and perspective as he walks around, perhaps this could be done in the editor by displaying some 3d perspective grids and moving the camera around until they fit the room, but it'd be hard.
The walkable areas would probably have to be layed out as 3d shapes (it could work with the current system, but not as well).
Character animation and texture systems would have to be completely different from AGS now, importing skeletal (probably) animations, blending between lip sync frames for speech etc.Ã,  It's quite different to the sprite based system.
Lighting would have to be placed in 3d space, the editor would have to be very different to allow for that, and there's not really any way around it that would look any good.
For more advanced 3d effects like shadows there are many other problems, but assuming people just want Grim Fandango level 3d this is what would be needed.
The whole AGS graphics engine would have to be ported to a Direct3d or OpenGl, not sure how much work that would be but it wouldn't be easy (a software renderer might be possible, but probably even harder).Ã,  And presumably people would still want compatability with non 3d accelerated hardware for their 3d games, so there would have to be two graphics engines.
The editor would have to have different panels for 2d and 3d games, for the room editor, views system, sprite/model import.

So there's just so much that is different I think, although I'd love to see a 3d AGS, it's more likely to be made as a seperate program.

If CJ wanted to do that as his next big project, or anyone else, I'd be overjoyed :)Ã,  I'd definately help out with anything I could (test models/scenes etc)

I do think some 3d hardware acceleration would be great in AGS, for more advanced 2d effects, but 3d changes too much of the underlying way things work.

Quote from: scotch on Tue 15/06/2004 20:31:26
Of course rendering a 3d model for the character with no adjustment for perspective and flat ambient lighting straight onto the background would be possible, and would require very little to change from the way things are now, there would be very little point in it.Ã,  The character may as well be pre rendered.

This is just it - I could probably implement that without too much trouble.. but then, without lighting and perspective there's no real advantage to it, as you say. And all the engine and editor adjustments that would be necessary to accomodate it do pretty much rule it out.

If I do ever add 3D character support to AGS, it is likely to be just to the basic level where a View is replaced by a 3D model - anything further would just complicate things too much to be worthwhile.

One of the main advantages for 3D characters (if done right) would be a much more fluid motion and anti-aliasing. Enabling 4x, 6x or 8x anti-aliasing in your video card's graphic options (or within a game with newer games) and then playing older games like Grim Fandango and TLJ brings a whole new look to them -- the jaggies around characters and interactive 3D objects are gone, everything looks smoother and fits in with the background. If you just pre-render a 3D character, it would either have to have jaggies on its edges or be pre-rendered against light or dark background, which means you will notice the light or dark edge on the opposite color backgrounds in a game, so definitely not as good as the real thing, even if it was just a basic polygonal character without fancy shadows and such.

One of the things I like about 2D Flash adventure games on the internet is that everything looks anti-aliased and without jaggies. But they have other limitations. That's where 3D characters come to the rescue in dedicated adventure engines.

Whether it'll require a seperate 3D AGS engine or modification of the current one, I hope Chris finds the way. :)

Crichton, AGS now allows for 32 bit support so characters do not have to have jagged edges, but obviously there's a noticable difference between real time 3d and prerendered

No 3D characters. Or only as a plugin, maybe.
I think that AGS has proven itself very well to be elite of 2D GCS's. Now, there's no reason to lower this state by making it semi-3D engine which can do some 3D, but is still uncompareable to other, fully 3D engines. This sucks. Modern technology?

Well, drawing with a pen onto paper is still alot easier and comes more naturally than dragging mouse around or use tablet. Some things are immortal.

In my opinion, AGS should stay in its frames and reach the perfection of making 2D games, instead of being a little bit of everything - thus being actually nothing.
To be honest, many games are pretty awful too. 3D-character means new graphical (visual) improvement. I can't imagine what happens if people who are really lazy even to learn proper use of mspaint right now, all get some 3d-modelling progs and start flooding world (and us) with their "My 1st gaem!!1!1"s.

Quote from: InCreator on Wed 16/06/2004 00:50:42
Well, drawing with a pen onto paper is still alot easier and comes more naturally than dragging mouse around or use tablet. Some things are immortal.

That's not natural, they teach you to do it at such an early age that you just think of it as such. I've had a computer since I learned to write, and everything about it is just as natural to me as a pencil, including the mouse.

QuoteCrichton, AGS now allows for 32 bit support so characters do not have to have jagged edges, but obviously there's a noticable difference between real time 3d and prerendered

MrColossal, I think you misunderstood. I was not talking about banding, I was talking about aliased edges of characters, so 32-bit has nothing to do with it. You can have anti-aliased 3D characters in 16-bit too.

QuoteI think that AGS has proven itself very well to be elite of 2D GCS's. Now, there's no reason to lower this state by making it semi-3D engine which can do some 3D, but is still uncompareable to other, fully 3D engines. This sucks. Modern technology?

It's one thing when you personally either don't like 3D or aren't good with it, it's another when you outright assume that anything 3D is "lowering" itself. That's only your opinion, so no need to "lower" yourself to be rude. Also, why does it automatically have to have the best 3D out there? What exactly do you mean by "others"? Is it Doom 3, Half-Life 2 or Unreal 2004 engine, all of which cost an insane amount of money to license? If you mean stuff like "Neoengine", which is 3D but is not optimized for adventures then it's far from commercial engines. And why have a fully 3D engine anyway? We're not asking to make full 3D games, just a 2D-3D hybrid.

QuoteIn my opinion, AGS should stay in its frames and reach the perfection of making 2D games, instead of being a little bit of everything - thus being actually nothing.

That doesn't make sense to me. You've already said that AGS has proven itself to be elite of 2D GCS's, so how would it be a little bit of everything if it's already a lot of 2D? Besides, 3D chars on 2D backgrounds is a little bit of both, that is its essense and in games like Grim Fandango it is certainly not "nothing", even though it's not a "fully" 3D engine.

QuoteTo be honest, many games are pretty awful too. 3D-character means new graphical (visual) improvement. I can't imagine what happens if people who are really lazy even to learn proper use of mspaint right now, all get some 3d-modelling progs and start flooding world (and us) with their "My 1st gaem!!1!1"s.

And you think there aren't enough crappy games with the current AGS? I don't think that reasoning works very well because you cannot prevent lazy people from being lazy by leaving out a certain features from the engine. They will still be lazy. Besides, is anyone forcing you to play bad games? They are free after all. And if they're not, they'll get a review first, so you can decide. Would you leave out an ability to have speech because voice acting in computer games can be very sucky? It has nothing to do with MsPaint in particular -- people that can't draw or are not willing to learn will suck with any program. It has nothing to do with AGS "reputation"either -- bad games won't make it to top 5 on the website, and they certainly won't get any rewards.

Anyway, why be so negative? Why assume that there would only be bad games with 3D chars? Why not assume there will be good games too? Glass half-empty, glass half-full...

Chrichton, MrColossal is refering to alpha blending in 32 bit sprites, which gives an even nicer antialiasing effect than FSAA on realtime 3d.Ã,  Not banding in colours.

The are many advantages of pre rendered sprites over realtime, in lighting, texturing, animation setup, mesh detail and other things.Ã,  The only thing the kind of realtime 3d AGS could have has over pre rendered sprites is generally a higher framerate for smoother animation.
Antialiasing already works just fine.

I don't agree with increator's comments either, but we probably would see lot of poserish, poor quality 3d.. somehow the MSpaint graphics we currently have seem much more preferable to that ;)
If it was Grim Fandango style 3d, with perspective and lighting, that was a possible addition to AGS it would be worth it, but that's not going to happen.

scotch, are you talking about "scaled sprites" only or can AGS anti-alias 2D sprites at any size, including native sprite size? If so, which games use it? So far, all the games I tried have jaggies around sprite edges. But if you're only talking about scaled sprites then it's not the same as it would be with 3D characters. Smoother animation is actually the biggest reason I'd like 3D characters. ;)

I don't think we'd see crappy 3D characters. People that would attempt it would probably be embarrassed to try it without any sort of effort. In fact, I believe if any game did feature a 3D character, it would probably be done with skill.

Why is Grim Fandango 3D style engine not possible? I'm only referring to the graphical part, of course. I'd much prefer to have a mouse control. It certainly is possible from programming point. But if you mean that it would be too hard and too much work to not get paid for then I guess I can understand that... It would be nice to start somewhere though -- the initial 3D character support doesn't have to be overly complicated.

No, I do not mean scaling "antialising" which does not blend the edges of a character with the background, just blends interior details into one another for a nicer scaling effect.
I am talking about alpha blended antialiasing.  The same kind that is in Runaway: A Road Adventure. http://www.agagames.com/scotch/alphablended.zip has an alpha blended character, if you look closely you can see the edges are antialiased, it's a bit messy so it's not the best example, but it is there.
I don't know of any games that use it yet, most AGS games are pixelled using old fashioned methods, so it's extra work to make them antialiased, and 32 bit colour is fairly new in AGS, so alpha blending hasn't been around long.

A Grim Fandango style engine is not easy to add on top of the current AGS engine for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.  There is probably a lot more that goes into setting up a real 3d scene than you are considering.
It's not impossible, but for all the trouble it would cause it may as well be a different program entirely.

I'm not that negative, as it could seem.
Just, I'm talking for myself, and I really love AGS the way it is right now, so I'm maybe afraid of major "reforms" which could change it too much. But it's just me, okay?


But yes,
Poser - the source of doom and
  keyboard movement - okay only in AGI

For the second time, you can't rely on programs like Poser or MakeHuman for game models. They would work, but would be horribly slow (maybe not if you used only one on a 2d background, but the more there are the worse the performance gets). The deforms on their complicated bone structure combined with the sheer amount of polygons would be far too much for most computers.

Game models are very custom works, made balancing low-polygon-density with sufficient detail, and texture maps to match.

What you would be more likely to see is a square form with square arms and square legs from newbs.

Telling me that it's a bad idea because newbs will use it is.. I don't know. My comprehend doesn't that reasoning brain.

Quote from: scotch on Thu 17/06/2004 00:03:55
I don't know of any games that use it yet

Crypt by Mätzyboy (http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?action=detail&id=368)
Evil Enterprises by Geoffkhan (http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?topic=12518.0)

:)

Thanks for the examples, scotch and petteri. This looks much more promising. Although to tell you the truth, I can still see jaggies even in the 640x480 example more than at 4x anti-aliasing setting with 3D characters and objects in games like Grim Fandango. Also, in the Alpha example by scotch I can see the character sprite edges losing some detail when the charater is smaller (further distance) than original size, the black outline has noticable gaps in it (the effect is somewhat of a "dotted" line). I have to say also that at 320x240 games, it seems anti-aliasing is actually hurting it a bit, the effect is a little strange, so it's much more suited for 640x480 and 800x600, at least the alpha-blended 2D style. I have not used AGS heavily yet and I'm undecided on which engine to use because right now I'm working on game resources in their highest quality and making sure they look good at 640x480 and above, so I sticktly go by the listed features on the site, and while AGS did mention use of alpha-blended sprites and scaled anti-aliasing, that does not automatically translate to anti-aliasing at native sprite size. It is nice to know it is there. But I still prefer the effect of 3D anti-aliased characters with fluid motion. :)

As for a lot of work on top of AGS to enable a complex GF-like 3D support, I too have already said that I understand it would be difficult, so I'm not disputing that. I'm just hoping a basic start can be given to some 3D char support and eventually become better one way or another, even if it means a seperate AGS 3D engine.

The antialiasing being built into the sprite can be better than 4 or 8x antialiasing on your graphics card in GF, it just depends on how you antialias it yourself in your paint or 3d rendering program, if you can see jaggies it's because I drew them.  My example was to test if it was working when it was first released, it's not the best kind of effect you could get with it.

Gaps in the outline are due to no scaling filtering, it didn't work on the first version that supported 32 bit (that that example was made in), I'm not sure if it works now or not.

Antialiasing doesn't generally look right in 320x240 because it's such a low resolution.  Try playing a 3d game with antialiasing on in that resolution, you'll see the same blurryness.

3d would be nice of course, but if it's mostly the antialiasing you want then 2d is just as good/better.
There are other reasons I'd like real 3d (lighting, smoother/smaller animations,shadows, perspective adjustment, being able to use lots of different angles with the same character etc etc), but it's a lot of work considering only a few games would probably use it :/

That's what I was hoping for. Initially I believed you provided an example with its AA limitation, even if it wasn't a best example. Although 4x or 8x isn't what 3D is limited to forever, it's being increased with newer generations of cards, such as to 16x and so on. Of course, it would take a bigger framerate hit with action games but adventure games can handle it easily.

I think you misunderstood what I said about 320x240 with AA, I wasn't trying to say that a 3D game would look better with it, I was saying that it would look strange anywhere. There aren't many 3D games that support 320x240 with AA. Perhaps modern Direct3D and OpenGL Doom/Doom2 ports and maybe even Quake2, not sure.

As I said, it's not just AA that I'd like 3D for, it's mostly much more fluid motion than 2D sprites. Now, of course, I'd love it for all the other things you mentioned but I was talking stricktly if we only had a basic 3D character support. A lot of times different review sites complain about "wooden" animations of characters in adv. games, and a fluid 3D character would help with that, IMO. I realize that it's also a fault of a designer but 3D would allow for a much more room for smoothness, and more walking directions. As for only a few games using quality 3D, I wouldn't mind that at all. Do you prefer quantity or quality? Personally, I'd rather have one great game per year than ten mediocre. :)

People's criticism of 2d adventure game animation being wooden is probably less to do with the low framerate than poor animation though.Ã,  For example, there are many Japanese 2d animations that look very high quality and expressive, but use comparatively low framerates due to the time it takes to draw.Ã,  It doesn't detract much from good animation with frames used in the right places.

I agree with you that the fluid, interpolated motion you get with 3d would be nice, also combining facial animation and lip sync animations together with movements could be possible, it could look very slick.
But there's a big drop in expressiveness and animation quality between amateur 2d and amateur 3d games imo, I'm not sure more fluid animation would really make up for it. (it's possible a great 3d animator could make a game with it, but it's not very likely imo)

I think this feature is only likely to be added if lots of people ask for it, and I'm not sure many people but you would want non adjusted for perspective, non lit correctly realtime 3d, unfortunately.

But if moving to supporting 3d models had the side effect of bringing in 3d hardware accelerated 2d graphics, then I'd be all for it, I can see that actually being used :)

Quote from: scotch on Fri 18/06/2004 15:21:50
But there's a big drop in expressiveness and animation quality between amateur 2d and amateur 3d games imo, I'm not sure more fluid animation would really make up for it. (it's possible a great 3d animator could make a game with it, but it's not very likely imo)

Once again, I'm going to be forced to respectfully disconcur.

Please look at one of my walkcycles (http://www.geocities.com/trouble1201/shewalks.html)

The expressiveness is in the style and textures.

This is well within the range of amateurs, I did this totally with free programs (pardon the textures, which Yufster did in Photoshop). Those who can't figure out the supposedly obfuscated 3d app I use will pirate another, like many have and will continue to do. The same results are feasible from any half-respected 3d app.

Shbaz, don't think I don't know that there are good modellers and animators out there in the amateur community, I've worked on stuff with some very good ones. I also know that poser models are not suited to realtime graphics (doesn't make them less likely to be used by newbies).  I am speculating on how many of the good 3d artists would want to model for what is on the cards here. We're talking about a non perspective adjusted, non lit 3d model on a 2d background.  I wouldn't and I'd love to make a 2d/3d adventure game.
Of course the model and textures make up a large part of the style of a character, but they can be done better in pre rendered 3d, we're only talking about advantages in animation here.  Smoothed out animation is nice but good animation is more important, people shouldn't assume realtime 3d is going to make their animations look much better, it probably won't make up for the losses in rendering quality.
So my position is that only a few people are probably going to get anything decent out of this feature if it were to be added, and considering that it's rather a large suggestion to implement, I don't think it's worth it.

BTW, if you come onto IRC sometime I'd like to ask some stuff about Blender ;)

Well, yeah, you're pretty much correct in that regard (that it won't be worth much until improved upon lots).

The thing to gain is that once it is there the ease of use will be LOADS better than other freely available game engines.

/me adds a couple pennies to the jar..

My opinions in list order because I feel like presenting them that way.

1. This is in no way a horrible idea. Many great games have used 3d characters on 2d scenes and it worked very well. Not just adventure games either.. Opens up AGS in more ways.

2. Just because you personally won't use the feature doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the engine.

3. Of course it is a huge task but CJ has proven resilient to many requests that would have crumbled many other freeware developers. High-res support, High-Color, Windows Engine, Windows Editor.. Many major improvements to AGS. I was here for all of them. The whole time before they were added there was much shit throwing and "Palettes 4ever!!" and "Who needs high-res?? FUG THAT!".. Now they just hang out on the couch and have casual conversations... 3D characters are the obvious next big step for AGS. Embrace it and support CJ to the fullest or sit in a corner and cry.

4. My only problem with throwing 3d characters in. Seems like the next step is 3d objects then 3d guis and then full blown 3d all together. The difficult part, for CJ, lies in that creating an engine that accommodates 2d and 3d and doesn't make your head bleed is a cumbersome task.. (Without the problem of 3d being hell in the first place)

Scotch, the same argument about quality 2D can be applied for quality 3D. Yes, there are experienced Japanese 2D animators that can make the motion look fairly smooth, and that is actually strengthening the point that, with great skills, 3D difficulties or limitations can be overcome too. Certainly, just because you think that there won't be many experienced 3D modellers and animators using AGS if it only had the most basic 3D support, doesn't mean that we'll have the same quality 2D as you see with top Japanese animators. But there will still be gems coming out once in a while, whether they use 2D on 2D or 3D on 2D.

I do see what you're saying about not being as inclined to use the most limited 3D character support as opposed to full-featured. However, it would only be a start (to being testing things) with better, more improved support to follow, unless a better 3D support is planned at a later time anyway, then I guess we can skip the "poor man's 3D". As for amateurs using 3D, if you look at old games like Doom 1 and Doom 2 and their modern ports (written by amateurs), you can see that there are a lot of people willing to contribute to that with 3D models and such, considering the engine's limitations.

3D hardware accelerated 2D graphics would be even better with 3D character support. ;) Don't fight the 3D, scotch. Build it and they will come! (j/k) By the way, you mentioned Runaway before, I think (or perhaps I'm thinking of another thread)... Did you know that even though it looks like 2D, the characters and their animations were actually done in 3D?

Syplher, good points but I don't think it will get out of hand. After all, GUIs aren't as critical as 3D characters, since they are mostly stationary. If Chris will want to add them, fine, if not, I won't complain. :)

On 3d GUIs.. In all of the Blender games I've played, they actually emulated 2d GUIs by using an orthographic camera and rendered textures. I don't think people care so much about the GUI being 3d.. I mean, it's relatively unimportant.

Guis didn't [don't?] take advantage of alpha blending and people want it, so saying that the gui is unimportant isn't correct.

Saying that you can make a 2d GUI is like saying why use a 3d character. Since it can all be done in 2d why go 3d? Silly arguements I know but so is saying GUIs aren't important

to... uh... make my point twice apparently

I agree with Slyphers #3. I saw the same thing.

JD

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 19/06/2004 22:38:26
Guis didn't [don't?] take advantage of alpha blending and people want it, so saying that the gui is unimportant isn't correct.

Saying that you can make a 2d GUI is like saying why use a 3d character. Since it can all be done in 2d why go 3d? Silly arguements I know but so is saying GUIs aren't important

to... uh... make my point twice apparently

With a 3d character you can change the viewpoint to any angle you please and not need to redraw the character 40 times (assuming 4 frames of walkcycle animation and 8 directions, plus standing still) just to achieve that. The animation is smoother. You can turn in more directions. Once refined, the lighting changes, you can apply normal maps, and the character becomes part of the environment.

With 3d GUIs, you can have some kind of special spinny effect possibly. Maybe zoom in on an item inside an inventory menu in 3d. The latter is the only part I'd find useful.

or maybe you're just not thinking cleverly enough...

a GUI doesn't just have buttons on it for saving games as AGSers have shown, why can't i have lighting change on my GUI or normal mapping?

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 20/06/2004 01:26:46
or maybe you're just not thinking cleverly enough...

a GUI doesn't just have buttons on it for saving games as AGSers have shown, why can't i have lighting change on my GUI or normal mapping?

Then just let me say that I personally don't see it as necessary.

I guess you're referring to the type that hover around the character as floaty things, or other innovative types that get on my nerves.

again, i'm talking about anything that isn't a save load gui or something covered in buttons...

like the Englewood Stone from my game Spellbound, that's a GUI, if it was 3d the wells could actually be depressed into the stone, lighting from the hand creating magic could shine and light up the pits and grooves in the stone's surface. Particles pinging off of it as they flow from the hand's magic build up

this is an innovation that gets on your nerves?

anyways, if you don't see 3d guis as necessary for personal reasons that's fair enough. I'm just trying to make what I mean more clear not pick at you.

I would label that as a special effect or an interaction. If you label that as a GUI, then you label everything you see as a GUI. Possibly technically correct, but confusing terminology.

I know you're not picking at me. Do I seem defensive?

It is a GUI, also as far as AGS is concerned it is a GUI. I made the majority of it in the GUI editor.

It's also a Graphical User Interface for making spells inside the game Spellbound, so it's still a GUI. A special effect would be the particles and lighting much like on the characters. If you haven't played Spellbound then maybe I'm not explaining what the stone does well enough. It's like the staff Bobbin Threadbare carries. You use it to make spells with.

I was just saying as a just in case that I wasn't picking, to avoid anyone else or yourself from thinking I am.

I'll play it and get back to you.Ã,  :)

EDIT:
Oh wait, I played that. I had no idea how to use that system though.  :-\

heh did you read the book that comes with the game? it's all explained in there

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 20/06/2004 02:18:52
heh did you read the book that comes with the game? it's all explained in there

Working on it now.  :)

I played it a long time ago when it was first released, solved a couple of puzzles, and then gave up on the pushbutton thingy.

3D GUIs would actually be quite nice. I think shbaz was trying to say that they wouldn't be as critical as 3D character support but you could definitely do neat effects with them. So, perhaps, if people were asking for "everything 3D", it wouldn't be such a bad thing, except it'd be a lot of work for Chris. However, no one said that great engines are easy to program, especially when you don't get paid for it. That is why when such an engine comes out, it makes people extremely happy and grateful. :)

I just wanted to point out another advantage of adding 3D character support. This is an excerpt from a long article about future of adventures on AdventureGamers site:

"...It seems like this feature was lost in time [Ed: Speaking of NPCs moving about their own business in a gameworld rather than being stuck at their "posts" waiting for you to talk to them]. I remember Revolution tried to innovate with their (primitive) Virtual Theatre system. I remember The Last Express, in which characters more or less lived a life of their own. There's even the much-forgotten Kingdom O'Magic. From what I recall, it wasn't an excellent game per se, but its game world was alive with lots of characters randomly moving about. Where has that gone? Why do other genres do succeed in putting some AI-based or cleverly scripted elements in the game?


Once again, 3D comes peeking around the corner. AI becomes very powerful when combined with 3D, as it makes it easier to animate characters than with traditional frame-by-frame animation. You can actually design a flock of birds to fly around according to some basic routines and not have them locked in a looped pattern. And that's not just eye candy for the techno-savvy. Ambient AI agents can be used to inhabit the game world with believable creatures, resulting in a living world and an additional subtle layer of interaction."

So, you see, scotch, there's another advantage to using even a basic 3D. :)

AI isn't 3d dependant though, just looks better in 3d and maybe easier to program.

QuoteAI isn't 3d dependant though, just looks better in 3d and maybe easier to program.

I think that's what the article clearly said though. ;)

I would say AI is harder to program in 3d than 2d, it's just another dimension to have to think about.  "The easier to animate" comment isn't necessarily true either, some things are easier in 3d, such as not having to re draw for each frame.  But there are other complicated, technical things to think about.

The only possible advantage that this simple 3d characters thing has over pre rendered or hand drawn is the smooth animation.  Nothing 3d programming related is relevant since the 3d is only cosmetic, all the calculations etc would still be done in 2d.

3D doesn't simplify flocking or pathfinding.

"AI becomes very powerful when combined with 3D, as it makes it easier to animate characters than with traditional frame-by-frame animation."

Yeah. Because we all know that animation is inherant to AI.

You can have the most intelligent AI on the face of the planet applied to a simple square if you want to. The animation is purely secondary. I guess that they mean interaction animations, in which case 3D can become useful thanks to inverse kinematics, skeletal animations and similar technologies. A character can be made to reach out their hand and touch a certain position a lot more easily in 3D, because it's not an 'animation' as such, it's a mathematical calculation. The same idea of calculation over animation can be applied to many parts of a game, and that's where 3D becomes powerful.

I'm doubting that this would be implimented into AGS with 3D character support, though.

Flocking, pathfinding and random paths are all possible in 2D, as are AI creatures that wander independantly. As far as I remember, PQ1 had cars that drove around the streets on random paths. And if it wasn't random, then GTA's were. Both of these games were 2D.

Not that 3D is a bad thing, it's just that the article didn't really present valid reasoning.

- Punch