(http://mage.berlios.de/projects/chaos/galleries/screenshots/location_shot2.png)
The project is called 'chaos'; Site is:
http://www.apeirongames.de.vu/
If you love loom as much as I, you might want to stop by on their forums and leave a word of encouragement.
Wow, the graphics are great! Thanks for posting this, I was unaware of its existence!
Looks good, but they really need to fix Bobbin's walk animation so the arms and legs animate opposite each other.
I've actually been part of their boards for awhile. But I never mentioned it cause they're using a Homebrew Engine called M.A.G.E.
Though it looks cool.
Quote from: TerricMoonborn on Wed 26/04/2006 01:28:46
I've actually been part of their boards for awhile. But I never mentioned it cause they're using a Homebrew Engine called M.A.G.E.
Though it looks cool.
As impressive and complete as AGS is many coders would probably prefer to write their own engine from scratch. Recently I wrote my own embeded scripting language and parser in java for a small to medium size project. Certainly writing your own engine(s) (be it a scripting, game or graphics engine) gives insight into how much work really does go into engine's like AGS. It is strange how much we take for granted. For instance people often say "Oh I hate java" or "Oh I hate .net" simply because they don't understand it or dont like the company who holds the rights to it. But there is one word for such people: ignorant.
So while AGS is absolutely wonderful I can relate to people writing their own engines for their games and projects as I am the type of person who would do just that :)
Looks ok.
Hardly 3d though - it's no more 3d than AGS is.
Wow, 3rd Loom sequel? I wasn't aware that there was a 2nd one!
not 3rd, 3d as in 3-dimensional.
though is this according to the planned trilogy?
Quote from: Hammerite on Wed 26/04/2006 07:50:32
not 3rd, 3d as in 3-dimensional.
though is this according to the planned trilogy?
No. The planned trilogy goes Loom - Forge - The Fold. And neither of the sequels would have Bobbin as the player character.
I note that the Chaos website does not say anything about the story or plot; Loom is a very tough game to write a good sequel to unless you somehow get The Professor involved. I've seen two or three earlier attempted sequels but they had rather lousy plots.
Why need another sequel? There's only one legit LoomTM sequel (http://www.sq7.org/omnipedia/images/1/1a/Boom.png). :=
Quote from: Gilbot V7000a on Wed 26/04/2006 09:24:33
Why need another sequel? There's only one legit LoomTM sequel (http://www.sq7.org/omnipedia/images/1/1a/Boom.png). :=
Ha. Haha.
Hmm, maybe it's just me but I tell you, something is wrong with this project.
I don't want to grumble and say I don't like the idea, I do, but those artworks looks, erm... weird? I can't find that specific Loom feeling which the original had. It's very important for remakes, sequels and all that fan-made-stuff to keep it alive.
Personally, I liked the first EGA version the most. The graphic was simply awesome!
edited
Guys, I really have a question: Don't you know that there _might_ be people who want to play Adventures that are not in 320x200 with 16 Colors? Would you like to see Syberia in that resolution? Come on, we have 2006 ...
Yes, but Syberia wasn't originally made in 1989-ish. I fully understand and back the idea to continue the style and looks of the original Loom. It is okay to update the graphics, but to continue in the style is a must, in my opinion.
But then there comes games like Maniac Mansion to MM2: Day of the Tentacle. The style was innovative to the series, and I would believe that everyone would choose MM2 over 1. But when you look at what was done with Loom, or Monkey Island 1 and 2, you see that you can create beautiful backgrounds that draw the gamer into the story without relying on making it a 3D game with chunky/blocky 3d characters.
But yes, it's up to the game designer of the official or fan game to decide what style will be final, and then its up to the player whether they will buy into it and play it, or not play it at all.
To be honest I don't like this graphic very much, this looks like a photoshop filters orgy.
In 1989 Loom graphics could have been rated as a 8.5, 9... 9.5.
This graphics don't reach to 7, IMO, in 2006ish standards, no matter the resolution, or the colour depth or... whatever. They aren't just appealing, for me.
I agree with Farlander. The graphics aren't mindblowing, and the character art is appalling.
I never played the 1st loom anyway. Never really had an interest in it.
I also agree.
I'm not being a retro-nazi, but the graphics really aren't that great. They're clearly going for a more modern style, but it takes more than high resolution and photoshop effects.
EDIT: Grammar, thought I was in the GiP.
EDIT (II) : GiP = Games in Production.
Quote from: Spellbreaker on Fri 05/05/2006 06:12:39
Guys, I really have a question: Don't you know that there _might_ be people who want to play Adventures that are not in 320x200 with 16 Colors? Would you like to see Syberia in that resolution? Come on, we have 2006 ...
The moral of that story would be that fan-imposed standards are significantly higher for remakes and sequels of existing games, than they would be for original games.