http://goblin.scummbar.com/ (http://goblin.scummbar.com/)
Please, take a look to the previous URL. It's a page of a guy whose project is to make a Blood Island in 3-d (Sorry if this has been posted before).
I think it's awesome... And shows that cool things can be done in 3-d. Many old avdventures are reluctants about 3-d, but Grim Fandango is generally accepted as a good game. Monkey Island 4 generally isn't (Of course there is people who likes it, but we can say that at least 51% of the adventures don't like it that much...).
But the graphicals problems in MI4 can't be blamed to the 3-d, IMO... Look at the "sprite" of Murray.... It was awfull, three bloody polygons and no texture. The same for the pirates on Guybrush' ship, all the pirates were the same, and with the same and big-pixelled texture.
I don't know what happened to that guys, maybe they were in a hurry or something, but, even having a bad example with MI4 (IMO) 3d grpahics can be cool...
P.S. Ask Danny! :)
I'm still bemused by people taking GF and EMI as examples of 3d games.
They have polygoned characters, but apart from that, there's little difference from what's called 2d games. The backgrounds are still pre rendered.
Unless you include keyboard control.
Does that mean Space Quest is 3d? i know it was advertised that way, but do these people consider it 3d then?
And unlike the early Sierra games, GF and EMI don't require you to hide behind something, which gives meaning to the 3d epiphet.
Now GK3 and UAKM, which are both largely considered awesome, they're 3d.
Lesson, people are stupid.
But I guess if we're talking purely graphical quality, any polygoned game in existence is suitable to discuss the quality of 3d graphics, not just adventure ones. Are there any differences as to how to render a model because in one game you'll be shooting and in another you'll be talking?
QuoteAre there any differences as to how to render a model because in one game you'll be shooting and in another you'll be talking?
You can do both in Deus Ex. ;D
Broken Sword 3 is wonderful, graphically, except for some shoddy camera control. People bash 3D all the time, wishing it were just a fad that will eventually just "go away."
It's not going away. It is indeed the future. All games are being made in 3D now, because it is the future of graphics.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Fri 02/04/2004 13:23:22
I'm still bemused by people taking GF and EMI as examples of 3d games.
They have polygoned characters, but apart from that, there's little difference from what's called 2d games. The backgrounds are still pre rendered.
Unless you include keyboard control.
Does that mean Space Quest is 3d? i know it was advertised that way, but do these people consider it 3d then?
And unlike the early Sierra games, GF and EMI don't require you to hide behind something, which gives meaning to the 3d epiphet.
Now GK3 and UAKM, which are both largely considered awesome, they're 3d.
Lesson, people are stupid.
But I guess if we're talking purely graphical quality, any polygoned game in existence is suitable to discuss the quality of 3d graphics, not just adventure ones. Are there any differences as to how to render a model because in one game you'll be shooting and in another you'll be talking?
Excuse me, I didn't want to upset you... :'(
Quote from: terranRICH on Fri 02/04/2004 15:17:05
All games are being made in 3D now, because it is the future of graphics.
Not necessarily. 3D technology is a great asset, but that doesn't mean we can forget about earlier kinds of art. Think about the modern games that are cel shaded. They are 3D but they look like comic books.
Games are being made in 3d because it's the
present of graphics, and because 3D graphics best suit the most saleable type of games - fighty ones.
... and why doesn't 3d suit adventure games better than 2d?
In "fighty" games you control a character. In adventure games you control a character.
Same thing.
The question is "what does the 3-D part add to the adventure-game".
Would GF be less awesome if it was in 2-D? Yes (IMO), the camera angles would be impossible in 2-D. BS3 did a great job (IMO), moving behind the played and the zooming out from the left, beautifull.
But EfMI... The 3-D part wansn't used right. It could just as well be 2-D. (of course that wasn't the only problem. Boring story, boring characters, boring sittuations, boring backgrounds (IMO))
Last. Myst was 3-D. And the adventure-gerne was killed by the Myst-clones (IMO).
I don't think that 3D is the problem with adventure games, it's rather HOW some developers approach it. For some reason, to many of them, 3D automatically means a lot of unnecessary action, which they often don't even pull off that well.
And, obviously, 3D is here to stay. I doubt that the likes of John Carmack or Tim Sweeney (sp?) are ever going to drop 3D. The reason 3D has been the big "thing" is because it has a constant room to make great improvments, so newer games look better and better. It will eventually try to make a move to looking as good as something like "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" in real-time, and possibly beyond.
A lot of "buzz" about 3D is technological, which also visually translates into looking better than something a few years before, so it's hard to ignore it. But in the end, it's just another way of bringing us the worlds to lose ourselves in. Eventually, when it settles down, it'll stop being more about technology and start being more about creativity. Kind of like what 2D has become. Not that 3D can't be creative. 3D can be a form of art too.
Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with 3D in adventures, as long as it doesn't automatically translate into unnecessary (and bad) action sequences. I enjoy action mixed with adventure in games like Deus Ex but that is very different than something just tacked on in a game that was designed as an adventure from the ground-up.
Just IMO. ;)
Quote from: Ghormak on Fri 02/04/2004 15:56:04
why doesn't 3d suit adventure games better than 2d?
In "fighty" games you control a character. In adventure games you control a character.
Same thing.
I'd say 3D can suit adventure games just as well as 2D, but not better. It's not about controlling a character it's about types of interaction.
In most fighty games you need direct control of a character in order (and this is a little symplistic) to react to what the game throws at you. Real-time 3D is particularly good for this because things can be 'thrown' in more ways and with greater flexibility.
In adventure games the real action is in your head - the stories and the puzzles. The simulated physical freedoms of real-time 3D are not essential for that kind of action, though they can be a boon.
Have I explained myself well?
EDIT: Myst rules all
Ali, I don't think you're thinking enough about the possibility of 3d and adventuring enough. The simulated physical freedoms of a 3d world, i feel, is what's lacking in adventure games [at least many of them].
I always liked controlling my character directly in AGI games with the keyboard than with a mouse click, a mouse click is so vague. Now, controlling an adventure character from a 3rd person perspective who can run, jump, climb trees, crawl, and hide in a 3d world has opened up TONS of adventure possibilities that doesn't involve shooting things.
Let's pretend moving through the forest maze in Monkey Island was from a 3rd person 3d perspective, I could move guybrush around and have him jump over a ravine to get to the other side, or push a tree trunk over to the ravine and walk across maybe, maybe he'd have to climb a tree to see in what direction some smoke is coming in the trees [the sword master's house] or crawl under some thorn bushes. Can this all be done in 2d? Yes, does that mean that there's no reason to even make it in 3d? No. 3d is a style just like 2d is a style. The chain shouldn't be "If we can do it in 2d we don't need to use 3d." You can more than likely take any 3d game and make it 2d but you'd lose a lot of style and a lot of what the game originally was ment to be and how it was ment to be played. Quake needed to be 3d or it wouldn't have been Quake, it would just look like Doom or if that's to 3rd for ya, Area 51 or worse Revolution X.
also in many people's opinions graphics ruined adventure games, in a text based adventure you had thousands of ways to interact with your surroundings, in a graphical adventure you have what? Average of 8? Even less with a verb coin.
http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/shbazjinkens/mi.jpg
This is a shot from an abandoned game that was intended to be a sequel to MI. I think it rules.. I guess that's just my opinion though. One person did it using the old version of Blender (Publisher) which has a game engine. The open source version doesn't have it because it used a physics engine that was not written by NaN and so they couldn't release it.. the next Blender release is anticipated to include the game engine again. Tuhopuu Blender (an experimental version) already has it. Once this is out of it's buggy stage (probably next year) I'm planning to use it to make an adventure/RPG. I think it has value, it makes the experience seem more real. My characters are still going to be toonish, but the presence of percievable space somehow adds flavor to the game for me.
I disagree MrColossal, adventures which can't be seen and which require carefully controlledspeech style commands to use aren't fun.
I played one such game once, I very nearly never tryed graphic adventure games. But then, like all art, it's a matter of taste isn't it? You prefer more interactivity, I prefer better things to look at and easier control.
Shbazjinkens, where is the ngine that you mentioned? I'd like to get more info.
Since games like GF and MI4 only use 3d characters i was wondering what it'd be like if they only used 3d backgrounds instead.
I was watching an anime called "Wonderful Days" and it uses 3d backgrounds with 2d cel animation on top. It's one of the nicest looking movies i've ever seen. I wonder what an adventure game would be like flipped around with 2d characters and 3d bgs.
http://wonderfuldays.co.kr/english/
Wonderful Days - WMP High res (http://wonderfuldays.co.kr/movie/eng_teaser_trailer_high.wmv)
Wonderful Days - WMP Low res (http://wonderfuldays.co.kr/movie/eng_teaser_trailer_low.wmv)
Wonderful Days - Quicktime High (http://wonderfuldays.co.kr/movie/eng_teaser_trailer_high.mov)
Wonderful Days - Quicktime Low (http://wonderfuldays.co.kr/movie/eng_teaser_trailer_low.mov)
Quote from: IntentInsane on Fri 02/04/2004 22:41:15
I disagree MrColossal, adventures which can't be seen and which require carefully controlledspeech style commands to use aren't fun.
I played one such game once, I very nearly never tryed graphic adventure games. But then, like all art, it's a matter of taste isn't it? You prefer more interactivity, I prefer better things to look at and easier control.
Shbazjinkens, where is the ngine that you mentioned? I'd like to get more info.
I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my post. Please clarify a bit?
Quotealso in many people's opinions graphics ruined adventure games, in a text based adventure you had thousands of ways to interact with your surroundings, in a graphical adventure you have what? Average of 8? Even less with a verb coin.
Sorry I thoight you said in MY opinion, rather than many.
Quote from: IntentInsane on Fri 02/04/2004 22:41:15
Shbazjinkens, where is the ngine that you mentioned? I'd like to get more info.
Blender, in my sig. The only official release supporting the game engine right now is Publisher, which is an older version. You can still use Blend files from 2.32 (the new version) in it though, so I make all of my game models there, because the old interface blows in comparison. The bad part about making a 3d game is that it is way more intensive to make good graphics. You first must make a good base mesh (with as few faces as possible for speed) and then you must paint a texture of not just the front, but the entire model.
Quote from: TheDude on Fri 02/04/2004 22:42:50
Since games like GF and MI4 only use 3d characters i was wondering what it'd be like if they only used 3d backgrounds instead.
It'd look something like Doom. That's probably not a good way to do a game, since scaled 2d sprites look quite shit compared to polygons, and it makes animation more difficult. A lot of early FPS games used 2d sprites, but that's only because computers weren't powerful enough to show 2 billion polygons/second. We don't have those technical restraints now..
> Adventures in 3d? not necessarilly bad...
So you played the new adventure "The Westerner", too?. ;)
Example of a bad 3d pseudoadventure: Mask of Eternity
Example of a good 3d pseudoadventure (although it was supposed to be an rpg) : Ultima Ascention
Its really too bad they never released the Ultima 9 engine, someone could make a better Mask with it (kidding)
I agree with what has been said already, 3d has to add to the experience. Its like movies, the editors ask "does this cut add to the story, or just lengthen it?"
The biggest problem with adventure games that is worsened by 3d is the inability to predict what the player will do. I had a battleaxe in Ultima and tried to cut this stupid fence I ran ito. NOTHING HAPPENED. Casted fireball at a cornfield, "poof!" nothing. "Oh yes, I will throw a loaf of bread in the water and sail across the ocean on it." lol I think perhaps the best idea is to have beta testers keep a journal (or perhaps make it automatic) to record what they tried, and make it give SOME response regarding that action, whether it allows you to ignite the field or tells you "That would be unvirtuous"
;D
Yes, one of the problems with 3D is that it offers perhaps TOO MUCH interactivity and therefore higher expectations.
Here here. but some offer very little, like Myst 3 Exile.
Quote from: Jet X.L. on Fri 02/04/2004 16:54:09
Myst was 3-D. And the adventure-gerne was killed by the Myst-clones (IMO).
Myst wasn't 3-D, at least not until "RealMyst" or "Uru - Ages Beyond Myst".
Sure, the graphics were 3-D rendered, but interface-wise you just clicked your way through pictures. Whether those are rendered or painted is just an aesthetical difference.
However, I do agree that the lack of interactivity (i.e. "the cursor pretty much does all the thinking for you") contributed to the demise of the classic puzzle-solving genre.
Quoteinterface-wise you just clicked your way through pictures
I agree, and the characters look a bit cut and pasted(In Myst 3 at least)
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 02/04/2004 21:16:47
3d is a style just like 2d is a style.
You're absolutely right, that's the point I was trying to make when I first posted in this thread, obviously so poorly that in arguing against me
you made it. I wanted to make the point that artistically, 2d graphics can be just as effective as 3d. It's just that some games are more suited to one or the other.
An adventure with a high level of environmental interactivity might well be better in 3d. Plus, it'd be great to finally play an adventure game where when the Maitre'D won't give you his hairpiece you can just push him down and snatch it.
Here's a new one http://www.qfg3d.com/
Just by looking at the name can u tell what game it is??? (hmm)
Although I haven't seen much more of the game, and it is only a CONCEPTUAL image, I think the waterfall/'Enry's cave should really be left alone...
I think mosdt people will agree
QuoteHere's a new one http://www.qfg3d.com/
That is a still shot.. in-game those blocks will be coming from the top and falling at a fast rate to simulate water, you wouldn't see them like that. Whoever modelled this isn't very good though, because the cave looks terrible, the shape is wrong, and the textures are bad.