Blasphemy

TheYak · Tue 12/07/2005 07:44:54

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]

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Tue 12/07/2005 07:46:27

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.

scotch · Tue 12/07/2005 08:13:55

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,Â 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,Â 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,Â So like artists trying to recreate Guybrush in 1998 3d they'll only be making bad artwork.Ã,Â 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

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.

Las Naranjas · Tue 12/07/2005 09:59:57

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.

Helm · Tue 12/07/2005 12:11:52

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.

Paper Carnival · Tue 12/07/2005 18:41:11

So am I the only one who loved the backgrounds of MI4? I do agree that the character models could be a lot better.

monkey0506 · 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.

Al_Ninio · Wed 13/07/2005 00:15:22

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.

Ali · Wed 13/07/2005 12:14:31

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)

Kinoko · Wed 13/07/2005 12:43:53

I repeateded it 5 times and I'm STILL not back in Kansas. What the hell?

Meowster · 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.

I'd love to see 3D character support in AGS, but I understand that it'd be a lot of work for CJ.

Helm · Wed 13/07/2005 14:50:53

Let's just say it's marginally more ok to see roger in newbie games than a HUGE ROTATING 3D POSER MODEL

Ali · Wed 13/07/2005 14:57:21

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.

Kinoko · Wed 13/07/2005 15:13:23

Oh great, now I'm in hell. What the Kansas?

monkey0506 · Wed 13/07/2005 16:05:11

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!