3D adventure games.

[Stupot]

The following passage is a paragraph taken from my review of Broken Sword 4: The Angel of Death, which I've only just got around to playing.  I really enjoyed the game but I had a fair few complaints, and they nearly all stemmed from the fact that the game is in full 3D.

The Gameplay itself is... passable. It doesn't help that my computer is low-spec so the animations were excruciatingly slow and the cursor took sometimes up to two or three seconds to obey me. I remember having the same problem with The Sleeping Dragon, the third game in the series. This isn't so much a flaw in the games as a reminder that I should splash out a bit next time I go to PC World, but it does beg the question... do such adventure games NEED to be fully 3D? You shouldn't need a hi-spec PC to play a point and click adventure... should you? And even if you have got a half decent computer, in my experience such games have always lost a certain magic when making the transition from pre-rendered backgrounds to full 3D. As well An attention to detail is so vital to games where the player is constantly looking for clues and items, but because a fully 3D game can't afford to fill the space up with intersting tidbits and red-herrings, you end up with lots of empty space and its always glaringly obvious what can and can't be clicked on or picked up.

To me, the whole nature of any good adventure game is in the details of the surroundings.  If you have a fully 3D engine, you can bearly afford to have anything on screen that doesn't need to be there.

As well as this, if you're not being shot at by thugs, razzing it round a racetrack or blowing up tanks, then you have more time to admire the scenery.  Pre-rendered backgrounds can fit in a lot more eye-candy, and to me they better suit the slower, methodical pace of a logic-based point and click adventure.  Surely a game doesn't have to be 3D just to prove that it's modern.

What are your views on this? 

[scotch]

I couldn't play CMI very well on my 486! As he conceded himself, it doesn't really matter what the reviewer thinks is "enough" hardware for point and clicks. On a modern computer or console these 3D adventures can run hundreds of frames a second.

3D adventure games like The Sleeping Dragon usually have heavily constrained camera angles so the overhead of 3D objects is a lot lower than in a game with a more dynamic camera. There's no technical reason why you can't have as much on screen as in a 2D game if you are aiming for computers built in the last few years. In fact you should be able to fit more into a scene when you are able to move the camera to highlight stuff. It's all the fault of the designers and artists. Don't blame the technology!

I can think of good reasons to use 3D in an adventure game but I would argue pre rendered 3D is almost never a good choice. If you have the luxury of such a static view you may as well use all the traditional illustrative and compositional techniques you can. It's tough maintaining that personal artist's touch in a renderer, and you're not getting any of the benefits of a true 3D scene, so it's the worst of both worlds.

[TerranRich]

I think Runaway and Runaway 2 used the perfect blend of 3D pre-rendered backgrounds and 2D interface that came off quite nicely. No, I do not believe adventure games as such need 3D backgrounds, for the same reasons you gave, Stupot. Adventure games are more methodical and leave the user with more time to think about their actions, lending for more time for admiring the scenery and surroundings.

If you're going to make a game 3D, it should be open-ended, like Grand Theft Auto IV.

[LimpingFish]

I don't know. I'm really in two minds about this. If you're going to use static camera angles, there's really no difference between realtime 3D vs pre-rendered 3D vs "hand drawn" environments; it's just a matter of technique. Regarding artistic validity, bad graphics are bad graphics. I wouldn't agree with Scotch's view on pre-rendered graphics (though I would admit that they can come across as very sterile), as good drafting and composition skills, as well as understanding light and shadow, can make a big difference in the quality of a pre-rendered background.

As for realtime 3D, I suppose it would depend on exactly what kind of adventure game you intend to make. BS 4 took little advantage, in a design sense, of the fact that it was in 3D.

[Stupot]

...it doesn't really matter what the reviewer thinks is "enough" hardware for point and clicks... Don't blame the technology!

The thing is, I'm using a brand spanking new laptop.  The very reason I've waited two years to play the game is because it wouldn't work at all on my old computer.  I've finally got myself a nice little new laptop, which okay, was a cheaper option, but still modern nonetheless, and it still had issues.

If I was making a highly commercial game, especially one such as Broken Sword (which appeals to all kinds of PC owners - including my mum -and not just hardcore gamers with the most expensive hardware), then I would surely do well to make it as playable as possible on as many machines as possible.

On the question of Pre-rendered 3D graphics, there is a scope for some really beautiful scenery.  I'm a fan of the Dark Fall/Barrow Hill style games which use such graphics.  First, they build a fully 3D environment, dozens of times more detailed than those in BS4.  This can be done because this 3D environment is never part of the actual game, it is just used to take snapshots of the screens which the game will be made up of.

One thing you could argue in favour of full-3D for adventure games could be things such as moving crates and boxes etc, but then again the Resident Evil games got away with similar gameplay elements with pre-rendered BGs... add a point and click interface and there isn't much difference.

[auriond]

A game can have the most beautiful 3D graphics in the world with full motion capability, but if it can't run on a typical 2-year-old computer, it's pretty useless. Most people wouldn't buy a whole new computer to play one game.

I agree that 3D doesn't seem to suit adventure games. I've just been reading the reviews of Gabriel Knight 3 on JustAdventure where they raved about the full range of movements the player can have - independent of the character. I didn't like it. I remember plopping Gabriel in a safe place and then going off to wander on my own, and then when I wanted him to do something I'd have to wait for him to slowly stroll over. Or suddenly appear out of nowhere. It was a jarring experience. And it made me, the player, feel like an invisible spirit or guide dog. I know it was trying to make full use of its 3D capabilities, but it just spoiled the immersion for me.

And don't get me started on the way low-res textures were pasted on super sharp and angular polygons!

Pre-rendered 3D graphics are fine, they're no different from 2D backgrounds. In fact they can be, and often are, just as rich as 2D backgrounds.

[TerranRich]

That's what saddens me. Most games nowadays are built for the newest, fastest, and best computers. When Star Trek: Legacy came out I remember being very excited. I never got to play it, as it would barely get past the menu. Even now, years later, it still runs like crap. And my computer is about 1-2 years old. I remember because I got it a month before my son was born.

I mean, Christ, if a game can't run on a computer that was built AFTER it came out... that's just wrong.

[zabnat]

I haven't actually played any full 3D adventure games, but I think at the moment the best approach for new commercial games could be 2.5D, pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D characters. This gives the benefits of smooth 3D movement without the load used to render heavily detailed 3D backgrounds. Okay, you are restricted to static camera angles, but for most of us adventure gamers that doesn't matter because those camera angles have always been static. And with current technology you can even make the game look really good, meaning it doesn't just look like a pre-rendered background and cut'n'pasted 3D characters.
On the other hand full 3D gives the possibility to better stitch cutscenes to the gameplay and some other possibilities like seen in Ankh. But the backgrounds aren't really detailed, but in Ankh it kind of works because of the graphics style.
So as long as it is candy for my eyes, runs on my machine (shouldn't be a problem now because I just updated) and plays as easily as point and click adventure should, it's good for me.

edit: Flying around in Gabriel Knight 3 sounds like a really awful gameplay

[nihilyst]

I think the main problem of BS4 is not the fact, that it's 3D. It's how awful the overall controls were implemented. This mixture of keyboard and mouse just ruined it totally. You couldn't really play it with mouse alone because George was better controlled by keyboard, but you couldn't use keyboard only, either, because you couldn't do anything other then walking with it. BS3 worked much better imo.

So I guess 3D adventure games could be good, but they should either have fixed camera angles or should not be controlled with a mouse cursor.

But I like the 2.5D approach more.

[jetxl]

Ah BS4. Still collection dust on top of my pc. My computer can handle Oblivion and Half Life 2, yet moving the mouse in Broken Sword 4 is like wading through lead. WTF.
The screens has as much detail as an Unreal level. That was 10 years ago! And those levels are ten times bigger! WTF.

TIPS FOR MAKING ADVENTURE GAMES FOR THE MASSES (i.e. making adventure games main stream again):
1.) 2D, 2.5D or 3D it doesn't matter, the detail or characters, backgrounds and animations has to be detailed. Crazy detailed. Clothes have to be layered, characters need the right weight distribution and inertia when animated, backgrounds need to be detailed and dynamic, light and shadow too.
2.) No need for those weird arcade action sequances or what not. The pointing and the clicking is hard enough.
3.) Invest in music and sound. Voice actors too.
4.) Fast controlls and loading time. There isn't a ttime pressure and most of the time the character just wanders around, but when a player gets a brainstorm and want's to try something out in another room the character needs to get there lightning fast.
5.) Super crazy details. I mentioned this before but this is the most important tip if adventure games want to be main stream again.

edit: this and this seems to get the point.

[miguel]

Hi guys,
In my opinion, GK3 was the ONLY game I really enjoyed playing on a 3d world. And the reason I find is that it gave me the feeling that I could actually explore the entire village on a non-linear base.
Broken Sword games lost their magic when they went 3d because it doesn't really add to the playability and like you said, the controls are so bad.
And while talking about BS4, what do you guys feel about the ending?
I thought it was the worst ending ever, it made me not want to buy another sequel, the game just ends and that's it.

[LimpingFish]

Ah, GK3. We meet again, my hoary old nemesis. Possibly the least well-implemented 3D engine is the history of video games.

For that, GK3, I salute you. ._.>

Fast controlls and loading time. There isn't a ttime pressure and most of the time the character just wanders around, but when a player gets a brainstorm and want's to try something out in another room the character needs to get there lightning fast.

SF: Tunguska's "double-click exit hotspot to instantly teleport to corresponding room" function is something all third-person adventures should have.

[TerranRich]

LimpingFish: Runaway 2 (and perhaps Runaway, can't remember) had that double-click instant exit feature as well. And yes, it is something ALL 3rd-person adventures should have, I agree completely. It's too bad that so many people overlook the Runaway series, as they are a great example of 2.5D (somewhat, can't remember if the characters were fully 3D or just pre-rendered walk-cycles) done right. Check them out.

[Stupot]

Yes, the double-click exit is always a welcome feature.

On the matter of new games being unplayable on older/cheaper hardware.  A week or so ago my mum bought Overclocked (which was only recently released) and it will not work on her one year old laptop... It came up with a weird Error code which we looked up on the internet and found that a lot of other people have had the same error... and the reason being... they don't have a compatible graphics card!!!

Why on earth should anyone have to fork out for an expensive graphics card to play a point-and-click?... I can sort of understand with games like Half-life etc where frame-rates and everything are important to the players... but adventure fans just want to solve a few puzzles and be swept up in a good story.

I've just tried Overclocked on my own, newer, but cheaper, laptop and I got further than my mum did... I got past the introduction and the gameplay started.  The room was fully loaded and the shadows and effects were in full swing... but then it crashed... I then tried a further 3 times, and each time I've decreased the effects and graphics to made it less hard work on my computer, but it still crashed.

Overclocked uses the 2.5D graphics with pre-rendered BGs and 3D characters... so the processing power is surely not much... but for some reason it just doesn't tick that box of having the right hardware, and so it won't work... it seems a shame, and I wonder how many normal people buy these games and never get to actually play them.

And while I'm ranting about this, I recently had a similar problem with the Lost game.  Apparently my computer needs a version 3 shader and I've only got a version 2... I mean I can understand they these people want their games to look as good as possible, but why sacrafice people's ability to play the game once theyve handed over their hard-earned cash (admittedly I shouldv'e checked the requirements before buying but still...). And if it's the shader that's the problem, then fine, at least give me the option to play the game without shadows... I couldn't care less about shadows...

End rant... for the time being.

[LimpingFish]

Most game's GFX card support doesn't really go beyond nVidia and ATI cards, and support for other brands is fairly limited.

Having said that, my sister's ACER laptop has an Intel GMA X3100 integrated GFX card, more or less useless for gaming, and that thing supports DirectX 10 and Pixel Shader 4.0!

For PS 3.0 support, you need at least a Geforce 6600, a Radeon X1300, or an "equivalent" spec card. And DirectX 9.0c installed, of course.

[ManicMatt]

If you were to class Fahrenheit (Indigo prophey) as an adventure game, then it's a good example of how 3D matters for that game. Where as if they made a broken sword 5, I'd like it to be 2D, if all they've done with 3D so far is include climbing sections and dull block pushing puzzles.

Yes, using the controls in GK3 was like trying to control a wii remote with boxing gloves on, whilst having your arms tied behind your back.

[miguel]

Hey, c'mon! It wasn't that bad!
Ok, it was, but it was new and exciting!
And sometimes the interface is the puzzle!!!
Remember waiting 10 minutes for a game to load only to find out it had crappy graphics and horrible controls? And still you came back for it!
How many of you beat the bad guys playing Saboteur? And the dobermans?

I will defend GK3 forever dudes!

[nihilyst]

Why on earth should anyone have to fork out for an expensive graphics card to play a point-and-click?... I can sort of understand with games like Half-life etc where frame-rates and everything are important to the players... but adventure fans just want to solve a few puzzles and be swept up in a good story.

Guess what: Alone in the Dark 5 has compatibility-problems with ATI graphic cards, even with the newest models.

I guess sometimes the engine of a game is plain shit, and altough it's graphics are not so great, it needs tons of RAM and CPU power.

[Ali]

I think all of the complaints in this thread are justified but they don't stem from 3D adventure games in principle. Bad design is bad design irrespective of game engine, and hi specifications is a matter of perspective, The Secret of Monkey Island wouldn't have played on my old ZX Spectrum.

The question of 3D adventure games compares to that of colour film. You certainly don't need colour to make a great film, but you can do things with colour that you can't in black and white.

[TerranRich]

That's true. I doubt anybody complained about films becoming color instead of black & white. They probably even applauded it because it wasn't possible until that point.

But for us, it's just, "No! We don't need it! Stay away! Ssssssssss!"