Blasphemy

[TheYak]

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.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

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.

[Kinoko]

I'd like to second Kinoko.  Let's lock Kinoko in the popular threads forum and never mention her again.

Hooray, I'm popular!

[PsychicHeart]

I've already thrown away the key.

[Mr Jake]

I think with modern 3D models and textures they could do A LOT with the GK3 engine.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

AGreed, but looks like the 3D engine that's linked in the Links section will never get out of alpha... Pity, too.

[Ali]

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.

[Helm]

(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.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

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.

[Helm]

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.

[LGM]

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!

[Babar]

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".


VS



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.

[Mr Jake]

You need to take other examples too. Not just MI4 which was pretty low-quality cartoon 3D.
Clicky

[Helm]

It was almost photographic.

nnnrgh

[Andail]

I'm quite reliefed they didn't make it completely photographic!

[Babar]

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

[Andail]

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

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

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).

[TheYak]

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.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

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?

[close]

Stuff like that. Plus, the overall look was just much, much more adventurish, and not action/rpgish.