Would it be a blasphemy if I say that it would be cool if AGS would enable support for 3d characters (like wintermute did)?
??? ??? ???
Oh no, did I say that?? What was I thinking????
... wow...
No... not really. But CJ has no interest in doing that, personally I'd be against any tacked on 3d... a 3d game engine needs to be 3d entirely for it to work well enough for me. We discussed it a lot, and it won't be done.
Anyone who wants to use 3d characters is encouraged to use Wintermute instead.
I believe it's blasphemy just creating this thread. What a silly question! 3D animation has been supported in EVERY adventure game since the early AGI games! So of course AGS is already capable of doing so!
I mean, it says here at the top of the box: "A 3-D Animated Adventure Game!" (http://www.mobygames.com/game/space-quest-iii-the-pirates-of-pestulon/cover-art/gameCoverId,215/)
That's the main strength of having multiple engines. They can specialise to a degree to suit different people.
As long as your walkable area covers 4 pixels then you have 3D. :D This is of course in reply to what lgm said. I mean, you can walk, up, down, left, right, and diagonally. That pretty much covers 3D, eh?
Yeah, I know, you were asking about 3D characters. I think that if you can render individual frames, you could use the views AGS provides (including diagonal views) to create a decent 3D character. But then I don't know anything about 3D.
haven't you ever played the more recent Ben Jordan games?
They aren't behind-shoulder, but they are 3d nonetheless.
Blasphemy?
3D characters is a thing about graphical side of AGS games, so I rely on that.
Blasphemy?
Well, asking for such thing, yeah.
Not only because it has been discussed about 1000 times or so...
Look --
we have totally free, powerful and flexible engine, right?
Why --
keep asking for something that majority can't, doesn't want or simply are not able to (professionally) use?
If --
you want such improvement, which will most likely make a huge change in AGS overall...
Do --
Push the engine into limits! Drain it dry!
Make --
So good, so pretty, so damned good 2D game, using everything that engine is capable to do, so you
Will --
show people that such improvement could do wonders, that there's absolutely nowhere to go on with your game, and you - and we all definetly
Need --
to get something entirely new to make better games.
...
what the hell am I doing? This looks like a weird commercial :P
Anyway, It's nice to dream sometimes, and I confess making such sin myself, but I'd prefer a simple great 2D game instead of all these horrid polygon messups all the newbs will start to release since the moment 3D characters will be integrated.
Heh.Ã, Actually, while I was reading that, all I could think about was William Shatner on Star Trek.
There's nothing wrong with 2D. Actually, what's the difference? Do you play games because they look cool with all their polygon whatnots and doodads? Or do you play them because the story is good, and it keeps you intrigued? 2D can be just as quality (if not better sometimes) than 3D.
I think another reason why 3D isn't a good idea for this engine, is not only because it would take a massive overhaul of the engine, but because adventure games are traditionally 2 dimensional point and click games. (There are some exceptions, like "The Longest Journey" which sported 3D characters, and 3D rendered backgrounds.) But anyway, keeping it 2D is probably best because it would stay true to tradition.
Hyde is right. There is too much focus on graphics in big game industry now. most of them usually suck because the only real effort is put in the graphics. But then, a lot of little kids prefer good graphics to good gaming.....what have we become!?
tututututututututut.
Um. What so special about the BJ games that make them more "3D"?
Also, there is alot of work put into graphics in the commercial market and for good reason. You won't sell games with good gameplay. You don't feel the game play when watching an advert, reading the box. Recently games have become balanced between graphics and other aspects.
Quote from: Hotspot on Mon 11/07/2005 02:27:59
You won't sell games with good gameplay.
You are right, but there is just something so awfully wrong with that.
[false TV commercial]"Hey, kids! Go out and buy Poo Slingers 3D Turbo! It has no storyline, plot, or point in being to speak of, and frankly the controller scheme sucks, but you should still buy it anyway because it's got awesome 3D graphics!"[/false TV commercial]
Do you see what I mean?
I would totally buy the Poo Slingers 3D Turbo.
But yeah, I know what you mean.
I think the market is changing recently tho. Not so much of a focus on one area of the game.
[false TV Commercial shown after last] "And, if that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, play DeathWraither 6! It is extremely violent, has no plot, just mindless murder, has a high level of coarse language, and is rated PG at your local game store". [/false TV Commercial shown after last]
...
sorry, i sorta wandered off topic there didn't i?
...
No need to apologize for normal behavior.
normal or normal for me?
I think [am hoping] that the gaming industry is going to realize that, now, anybody can make snazzy looking graphics and they will go back to making games with plots and characters that are actually good.
Kind of like the movie industry, as I mentioned in the War of the Worlds thread, has finally reached a point where the fancy shmancy CGI no longer takes center stage and the characters/plot are now sitting in the driver's seat again. (in some cases)
If computer games can get back to what they were before the 3D craze started, but maintain the fancy shmancy graphics of today, I think we're really in line for some fantastic games soon ...
exactly. that's why amatuer game makers sometimes get spotted by big games industries.
Quote from 'The Simpsons':
Homer: Marge [Big game Industries], you don't know what it's like for me [amatuer game makers]. I'm the one putting my ass on the line all the time, i'm the one who has all the pressure!
Oh god, not this bloody discussion again @_@ Can't we stick it in popular threads and ban all further mention?
Dude, I heard you guys were selling Poo Slingers 3D Turbo in here.... sweet. I want one!
Bt
I'd like to second Kinoko. Let's lock Kinoko in the popular threads forum and never mention her again.
On 3D, aside from allowing some smoother animation, I don't see much advantage provided you're still using a static background. If you can put forth the effort to make a 3D character with a full animation set, why not just pre-render and use frames. Certainly less system demand that way, regardless.
I think the greatest advantage of a 3D character would be lighting and POV issues (it's certainly easier to get creative on room angles with a 3D character, you don't need to constantly draw new views). But, like everyone keeps saying, a pre-render with a lot of views will give you basically the same result, and as for lighting... yeah, it's a nice thing, but I can't see the fact that a character can get lit from the waist up and remain in shadow from the waist down will be a deciding factor in whether or not to get the game.
Quote from: YakSpit on Mon 11/07/2005 07:47:56
I'd like to second Kinoko. Let's lock Kinoko in the popular threads forum and never mention her again.
Hooray, I'm popular!
I've already thrown away the key.
I think with modern 3D models and textures they could do A LOT with the GK3 engine.
AGreed, but looks like the 3D engine that's linked in the Links section will never get out of alpha... :P Pity, too.
It would be a lot of fun if AGS did support 3D, but it's no tragedy that it doesn't. Though 3D animation can be quicker to produce, 3D is no more 'easy' to produce than 2D. Amateur 3D work is also consistently less visually pleasing than amateur 2D work.
If there was really a need for AGS to be 3D, I suspect there would be alot more pre-rendered 3D games made with AGS. Riven and Blade Runner are some of the best looking 3D adventure games around and neither are realtime.
Quote(it's certainly easier to get creative on room angles with a 3D character, you don't need to constantly draw new views).
Adventure games can be a lot of things. But personally I like the specific aesthetic of the early graphical adventure game, where the view pane is CONSTANT in gameplay, with the one vanishing point and the sequentiality that occurs when you stick to the simple rules. You walk off to the left in one screen, you come in on the right on the same level on the next. These things are underappreciated. Everybody's rushing to make their game full of easy eye-candy, neglecting how much more ADVANCED early AGI games were in terms of immersion and continuity because they stuck to simple rules. Sure, weird angles like GF or MI4 might make a game more cinematic... but guess what... adventure games are not movies. Think more of the computer game aesthetic. Stop trying to emulate reality.
Matter of opinion now. I much prefer how games have evolved, and have always had a soft spot for the "movie-ish adventure game". Sure, easy eye-candy is as big a no-no as gratuitous lens flare (which is just eye-candy anyway, come to think of it), but I welcome the evolution that made the gamers think in new ways. We are not the gamers of yesteryear - none of us. We appreciate the old ones, but we ourselves have moved beyond that. Now, there are those that prefer the way old games did it. That's fine, but I, for one, applaud all the innovations that have come since then, including interesting camera angles. There's a screen I love in Longest Journey, for instance, because it has you watching and controlling April through a monitor of a security panel. Also, when nicely applied, inventive camera shots may be very atmospheric. Sure, if this is not carefully done then gameplay WILL suffer... but it's not necessarily so, and that is only up to the game's creator.
do whatever you want that is innovative in the gameplay. I like 'computer game' presentation. I dislike computer games that try so hard to be movies/reality. Aesthetics are not gameplay.
I actually enjoy a game that can break the line between game and movie. Like the Metal Gear Solid games. They are very cinematic and I thorougly enjoy them. The Silent Hill series is also cinematical and actually a movie adaptation is in production!
The day that 3D actually (practically) looks better than 2D (ie. when they can have about 2 zillion polygon's per character), I'll accept it. Right now, the only "look" that 3D can accomplish is the "3D look".
(http://www.tentakelvilla.de/news/pcgames6.jpg)
VS
(http://www.babar.squarespace.com/resource/guyscared.gif?userId=6127&fileId=66524)
Now that MI1 Close up totally blew me away. It was almost photographic. However, anytime in MI4 there was a close up, it was just a blown up version of the normal character.
Question:
Does 3D HAVE to be the way? Is the door to 2D (which will probably be lot more work now, with higher res, but also a lot more beautiful) closed forever? I can't remember the last "New commercial level game" that came out with 2D.
You need to take other examples too. Not just MI4 which was pretty low-quality cartoon 3D.
Clicky (http://deadcats.teamut.com/Half-Life2Shots-2/d2_prison_070002.jpg)
QuoteIt was almost photographic.
nnnrgh
I'm quite reliefed they didn't make it completely photographic!
hehe...ok...let me rephrase that:
It was of perfect aesthetic quality, pertaining to the specific style that it was trying to achieve, verses a bunch of spheres and triangles making up people
I agree totally. I'm not sure 3D will ever do it for me. I don't know why people in general seem so excessively fascinated by the poserism
Well, 3D in general allows for quite remarkable things. Beyond Good and Evil would not be possible any other way, and I found myself totally immersed in REALMyst - then I played Riven and was rather disappointed. REALMyst actually feels like a world.
But for adventure games in general? No, it's not really necessary. But when it's done properly... it CAN be quite an experience, because it can give 2D a certain... thing... that 2D can never have (well, not that much, anyway).
Still must get RealMyst. I was terribly surprised how close they came to the pre-rendered backgrounds of the original (played the demo). Some 3D games are quite gorgeous with the technology used for immersion instead of just being used because it's popular. While I loved GF, MI4 definitely suffered because of the 3D move.. MI3 was a nice blend of more modern tech (svga, better sound) and the classic cartoony look. I'm sure MI4 would've been a lot more graphically impressive if it didn't have to peg out at such low system requirements.
I still haven't played the 8th King's Quest.. I tried a demo for about 5 minutes before being bored to tears and the look/feel and non-adventure-esque changes. Unfortunately VII bit the proverbial monkey testes as well, despite not having the 3D handicap.
Going off-topic a bit, I saw a "making of" of KQ8 in the Roberta Williams Anthology collection. It was waaay in its early stages. Looks a hell of a lot different, and that's a pity. The way it was back then was MUCH more like a KQ8. Do you know,
Spoiler
the swamp witch was supposed to transform into a beautiful woman and lure you back into her lair?
Stuff like that. Plus, the overall look was just much, much more adventurish, and not action/rpgish.
I still can't quite put my finger on why GF in 3D worked so well and MI4 didn't. I have to admit that part of it is due to nostalgia (there wasn't exactly a GF franchise for them to eff up). The overall feel of the game, the way it unfolded and the visuals all make the 3D choice seem the natural one whereas MI4 seemed to lower standards and wonder to itself - "Dammit, how can we make this 3D thing work for this game?" [Note: I liked MI4.. just not nearly as much as 1st 3]
GF actually used 3D as a part of gameplay, in many subtle ways. ALso, it had a wonderful story, characters and plot development. MI4 went totally commercial. I think it really boils down to this.
GF is my favorite adventure game and I firmly believe that 3d has a lot of potential to enhance adventure games which is why I'm working on using 3d in my own games, but I wouldn't say GF made much use of it being 3d, for gameplay purposes.
Speaking about the graphics only I think the reason people don't hate how it looks when they dislike EMI (which is on the same engine) is because GF worked with the 3d technology of the time, not against it.Ã, You can't make an expressive cartoon character in low poly software 3d, not one good enough for Guybrush who everyone had seen before as a sprite.Ã, The characters in GF are completely different, the artists seem to have realised all they could do was blocky shapes with simple textures on them and worked with that to produce a constent style that isn't trying to be something it can't.
Nowadays a lot of the limitations of realtime 3d are lifting, we can shade characters however we like and put so many polygons in you wouldn't really notice they are polygonal at all... and the animation front has come a long way, we can merge various skeletal animations at run time, even blending them with morph targets for the mesh. Unfortunately most developers are still trying to make their characters look photographically real, which they won't be able to do... it hasn't really been done in pre rendered 3d.Ã, So like artists trying to recreate Guybrush in 1998 3d they'll only be making bad artwork.Ã, Those who understand the technology will be able to produce pretty games... I hope one day I'll prove to those of you skeptical about 3d adventures that they can be as graphically pleasing, and as expressively animated, along with the other benefits of working in 3 dimensions.
QuoteThe day that 3D actually (practically) looks better than 2D (ie. when they can have about 2 zillion polygon's per character), I'll accept it. Right now, the only "look" that 3D can accomplish is the "3D look".
which you follow with a magazine scan of a game developed 5+ years ago :P
Graphics card demos aren't known for their excellent artwork, but at least you get an idea of the detail level that will run just fine on new cards:
http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark05/images/3dmark05_shot03_big.jpg
http://www.nzone.com/docs/IO/23049/screenshot2.jpg
might not be able to make a good guybrush even targetting new machines, because 3d would just be too different, but new games designed for 3d with skilled animation... they could look nice.
I reckon a huge part of the relative successes in "3d" [I dispute that either are really much different to a 2d adventure] especially in terms of interface, is that GF eliminated all visual elements of the interface, so you were more integrated into the game.
When EMI put text on screen with command sentences, and even the floating in space GUI, it put an element between the player and Guybrush that wasn't there before.
Which ruins the point of the keyboard interface.
that's a good point. AGI games didn't have an invasive interface either. Well.. it was there, but you had to press esc first to see it. If you just wanted to walk around and type things, you could. I never considered how a big interface kills immersion before.
So am I the only one who loved the backgrounds of MI4? I do agree that the character models could be a lot better.
EMI backgrounds were hand-drawn. Which is why they looked so much better than the rest of the rest of the graphics.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 12/07/2005 21:54:43
EMI backgrounds were hand-drawn. Which is why they looked so much better than the rest of the rest of the graphics.
No... no they were not.
They were prerendered 3D scenes.
They were pre-rendered and they ruined the game for me. I could forgive them low-poly characters (machines didn't have enough welly back then) but the crude, technicolour pre-rendered backdrops were unforgivable and, with a few exceptions, had none of the charm or style of the previous 3 games.
Remember the (edit:) 'rhyme':
When 3D looks good it looks very very good,
But when it looks bad it looks awful
(Repeat x 5)
I repeateded it 5 times and I'm STILL not back in Kansas. What the hell?
That doesn't rhyme.
Also, I understand why CJ wouldn't want to implement 3D blah blah blah, but the argument "erm n00bs will make shit-looking games with it" and other similar ones are just silly and you should stop saying that. N00bs make shit looking games anyway.
I'd love to see 3D character support in AGS, but I understand that it'd be a lot of work for CJ.
Let's just say it's marginally more ok to see roger in newbie games than a HUGE ROTATING 3D POSER MODEL
Quote from: Yutzster on Wed 13/07/2005 14:47:21
That doesn't rhyme.
Also, I understand why CJ wouldn't want to implement 3D blah blah blah, but the argument "erm n00bs will make shit-looking games with it" and other similar ones are just silly and you should stop saying that. N00bs make shit looking games anyway.
Indeed it does not rhyme, but I didn't mean to say that "erm n00bs will make shit-looking games with it". I too would love 3D character support, but the proponents of this often seem to suggest that animation &c is
easier in 3D than 2D. It is technically more complex and of equal difficulty in terms of asthetics. I think Helm is right too, that graphically weak games would be more palatable in 2D.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 13/07/2005 12:43:53
I repeateded it 5 times and I'm STILL not back in Kansas. What the hell?
Try saying it backwards.
Oh great, now I'm in hell. What the Kansas?
Did you read each word forwards, but read the sentence in reverse order? Or did you read each word backwards?
Because he definitely meant the second one. If you need help...oh crap. I was going to try and tell you to use the StrReverse function that I implemented into my StrAdditions SM, but I haven't updated it yet since I'm a lazy...erm...person. So basically...LOOK BEHIND YOU A THREE HEADED MONKEY!