Why does everything need to be in 3D??

I loved the old Monkey Island games, and I was annoyed when the fourth went out as 3D. When I play these new episodes - it's annoying even more.
You may say I'm old fashioned, but it's not only that - today TV has 2D and 3D animations together co-existing - each one of the techniques has its place. In 2D, the game looked smooth and was funny, comics like. But in 3D it looks awful - the non-smooth circles, the jittery movements, the fire on the boat in the start of the game that looked totally unrelated to the boat - it just doesn't look right.
What do you think?
«13

Comments

  • edited July 2009
    The non smooth circles? What?

    Also, if your movement is jittery, turn down the graphics details until they are smooth.


    Generally 3D is preferred over 2D because it's faster and easier to develop for, and is cheaper.
  • edited July 2009
    He means that you can see polygon edges on stuff that's supposed to be round.

    Both have their place and hopefully once the whole chaos around adventure games as settled, we'll get both kinds as well. The adventure-revival movement is still in its infancy :)
  • edited July 2009
    Why does everything need to be in 3D??

    'cos you will probably see a line if you are looking a character from his/her side.
  • jmmjmm
    edited July 2009
    jp-30 wrote: »
    The non smooth circles? What?

    Also, if your movement is jittery, turn down the graphics details until they are smooth.


    Generally 3D is preferred over 2D because it's faster and easier to develop for, and is cheaper.

    Plus, you can reuse models and scales better (if the engine is good enough) to different resolutions
  • edited July 2009
    There should be an official statement about this, because it has been said a lot of times.

    2D is too expensive for such a small-time company, because, surprise, Telltale doesn't have the resources for that, especially not with the episodic formula.
  • edited July 2009
    smashing wrote: »
    Why does everything need to be in 3D??

    'cos you will probably see a line if you are looking a character from his/her side.

    If you can see it from the side it isn't 2D.
  • edited July 2009
    Um, how is 2D too expensive? It's *simpler* than 3D -- one fewer dimensions to worry about.
  • edited July 2009
    Um, how is 2D too expensive? It's *simpler* than 3D -- one fewer dimensions to worry about.

    For 3D games, once the models and environment is in place, the script will just manipulate these elements and camera angles for the game. The reusability of models can be very high in a game, especially apparent in ToMI, where two character model template are pretty much used through the games for a number of characters.

    For 2D game, every single scene is an image. In order to do close-up for instance, you have to draw another scene. In order to change a perspective, you have to make another scene as well.

    It used to be that 2D games are cheaper to produce. But nowadays, with off-the shelf 3D illustrators, anyone can generate 3D atmosphere easily.

    Anyway, any good machinima on ToMI yet?
  • edited July 2009
    Not really, with 2D drawings you have to simulate perspective as well. It's just that it isn't generated automatically but instead has to be imagined and created by a human. A human who wants to get paid and who can only do so many drawings in a given timespan.

    In 3D you create the model, the bones and if you want to animate it, you just push the bones around. (It's not quite as simple, but that should give you a general idea of the differences)

    Edit: Sorry, didn't refresh before posting.
  • edited July 2009
    Some guy called Ron Gilbert answers why 2D is no longer the adventure-game style of choice these days:

    http://grumpygamer.com/4904226
  • edited July 2009
    jp-30 wrote: »
    Some guy called Ron Gilbert answers why 2D is no longer the adventure-game style of choice these days:

    http://grumpygamer.com/4904226

    Bah, what does he know about adventure gaming anyway?
  • edited July 2009
    Agree! Just a grumpy guy who cherry pick figures from the air.
  • edited July 2009
    Maybe episodic series could be done in 2d, but that would mean that they would look like South Park which is done very quickly (I don't know how cheap it is to make each episode).

    But really, as big a fan of South Park as I am would you like Monkey Island to look like that better than it being 3d?

    And the 3d animations are realy cool anyway. I also think that certain stuff should be in 2d, but this is how things are these times and we better get used to it instead of having no adventure games at all.
  • edited July 2009
    jp-30 wrote: »
    The non smooth circles? What?

    Also, if your movement is jittery, turn down the graphics details until they are smooth.


    Generally 3D is preferred over 2D because it's faster and easier to develop for, and is cheaper.

    and it looks better :D
  • edited July 2009
    It looks better.
    It gives a lot of freedom to the designers.
    It's faster.
    It's 2009.

    Ok, ask yourself this. If TMI was 2d, what would be different? Static camera, fixed resolution, less cutscenes and a lot more time to develop. On the other hand you have... umm... nostalgia factor I guess? The ball isn't that jagged, the fire is ok, so shut it and stop making up reasons to bash a perfectly good game.
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    It's 2009.

    Is it?
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    It looks better.
    It gives a lot of freedom to the designers.
    It's faster.
    It's 2009.

    Ok, ask yourself this. If TMI was 2d, what would be different? Static camera, fixed resolution, less cutscenes and a lot more time to develop. On the other hand you have... umm... nostalgia factor I guess? The ball isn't that jagged, the fire is ok, so shut it and stop making up reasons to bash a perfectly good game.

    Right... how dare anyone criticize anything about ToMI... It's not like Telltale regularly surfs the forums for ideas to improve their games... Oh wait... It's exactly this kind of mindless fanboy attitude that helps absolutely no one.

    And before you completely misinterpret my post, no I'm not saying the game should be 2D. I'm saying that your attitude towards any criticism in general (which seems to be "Shut up and die!") isn't helping anyone. Especially Telltale.
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    It's 2009.

    Shit, how long have I been asleep?!
  • edited July 2009
    It's been discussed before, I think even with some Telltale people, but it's clear that there are different advantages to both 2D and 3D. On a purely artistic basis, 2D games may be much nicer at times. But there's also a lot of freedom in 3D to do things a 2D game can't, and LSN alone, just the first fifth of the game, has already showed us a lot of that.

    What matters isn't whether it's 2D or 3D, but rather, if the developer can play on the strengths of the format. ToMI's cinematic nature and highly expressive characters would be impossible in a 2D game. Look at all the fantastic detail in the silly things Guybrush's hand does. Could CMI have done that? Not outside of the animated scenes, and it would be impossible to make everything out of those. Other characters, like De Singe, seem created with a 3D presentation in mind. Not to mention the actual environments, which have far more depth and cinematic quality than something like EFMI. Don't put ToMI in the same boat. I too wish we had more 2D games (like the new A Boy and His Blob and Muramasa, both on the Wii), and that the format was more appreciated instead of ignored by idiotic masses so that more developers could do that, but Telltale made the appropriate choice for this game.

    Oh, and why is 2D harder than 3D? Well, imagine if you create a character in 2D, and draw a bunch of sprites for him. In the SNES days, this wasn't a lot, and mostly involved some mirroring and a few animations. But now, for those really beautiful 2D games, we expect smooth, detailed, expressive animations and great artistic detail - because it's exactly that which makes 2D "better" than 3D in some ways (see the aforementioned Wii games, also Wario Land: Shake It). Now, let's say some element of the character's design changes. You have to redraw EVERY SINGLE SPRITE, which can be dozens or hundreds if you really want good animation - and certainly if you wanted it to be anywhere near as good as the great character movement in ToMI. In a 3D game, it's as simple as modifying one model, as that model is basically just told how to behave, rather than being manually drawn for each frame. And really, how would you produce a 2D game on a schedule like Telltale's, anyway? Things could go to hell easily, trying to get games released monthly.
  • edited July 2009
    Shit, how long have I been asleep?!

    *smashes guitarsareboring with bass guitar*

    Go back to sleep!
  • edited July 2009
    Ok, and that about ends the thread. Hurry and lock it before someone says something stupid again!
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    It looks better.

    Well 2D ages better. Look at a 2D-Game from 2000 and compare it to EMI. What looks better today?
  • edited July 2009
    der_ketzer wrote: »
    Well 2D ages better. Look at a 2D-Game from 2000 and compare it to EMI. What looks better today?

    EMI is a bad example. It's not even pretty when it first came out.

    Grim Fandango ages nicely for a 3D game.

    'though I would still kill for some 2D games too, like TLJ.
  • edited July 2009
    TLJ is 2.5D
  • edited July 2009
    smashing wrote: »
    EMI is a bad example. It's not even pretty when it first came out.

    Grim Fandango ages nicely for a 3D game.

    'though I would still kill for some 2D games too, like TLJ.

    Um... The Longest Journey was all "3D". The backgrounds were prerendered CGI and the characters and some items were real time.
  • edited July 2009
    der_ketzer wrote: »
    Well 2D ages better. Look at a 2D-Game from 2000 and compare it to EMI. What looks better today?

    Well, the 3D in 2000 and the 3D in 2009 are rather different. Right now, the amount of poligons and the details are high enough to stand their ground for the next 20 years. I mean, it's pure eyecandy. Ofcourse if one makes a 2D game in 2009, it would look awesome too, no doubt about that. Still 3d offers the ability to rotate, zoom, move the camera where the action is and allows to make great looking cutscenes while a 2d game camera is stuck in a corner most of the time. That kind of tilts the scales for me.
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    Well, the 3D in 1997 and the 3D in 2006 are rather different. Right now, the amount of poligons and the details are high enough to stand their ground for the next 20 years. I mean, it's pure eyecandy. Ofcourse if one makes a 2D game in 2006, it would look awesome too, no doubt about that. Still 3d offers the ability to rotate, zoom, move the camera where the action is and allows to make great looking cutscenes while a 2d game camera is stuck in a corner most of the time. That kind of tilts the scales for me.

    Ironitized.:p
  • edited July 2009
    I'm sorry, you are saying 9 years from now TMI would look as blocky as EMI?
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    I'm sorry, you are saying 9 years from now TMI would look as blocky as EMI?

    [irony]Yes! The game will be old - just imagine all the rust and everything. In about 9 years it will look just as EMI. If you wait 9 more years, it will look just like first Larry and after some time it will become a text-adventure![/irony]
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    I'm sorry, you are saying 9 years from now TMI would look as blocky as EMI?

    Why not? We will never know how much gaming and graphics will advance or regress in another 9 years. Look at the gulf in game design from 1982, 1991 2000 and 2009. Who knows what games will be like in 2018!
  • edited July 2009
    der_ketzer wrote: »
    Well 2D ages better. Look at a 2D-Game from 2000 and compare it to EMI. What looks better today?

    Have you ever seen the original monkey island on a 26-40 inch hd monitor?
    There is a limit to aging and that is resolution scaling ;-)
    Excellent example is if you press f10 on the MI:SE...
  • edited July 2009
    Novotnus wrote: »
    [irony]Yes! The game will be old - just imagine all the rust and everything. In about 9 years it will look just as EMI. If you wait 9 more years, it will look just like first Larry and after some time it will become a text-adventure![/irony]

    Larry interactive fiction? That would be so out of the point.
    Give me those pixelated babe anyday! :P
  • edited July 2009
    werpu wrote: »
    Have you ever seen the original monkey island on a 26-40 inch hd monitor?
    There is a limit to aging and that is resolution scaling ;-)
    Excellent example is if you press f10 on the MI:SE...

    You know Guybrush was downright handsome then, not cartoony like in EMI.
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    Well, the 3D in 2000 and the 3D in 2009 are rather different. Right now, the amount of poligons and the details are high enough to stand their ground for the next 20 years. I mean, it's pure eyecandy. Ofcourse if one makes a 2D game in 2009, it would look awesome too, no doubt about that. Still 3d offers the ability to rotate, zoom, move the camera where the action is and allows to make great looking cutscenes while a 2d game camera is stuck in a corner most of the time. That kind of tilts the scales for me.

    Actually there was a time when 2d was aging really fast that was between 1980 and 1990 then it became somewhat stable and now it is aging again thanks to HDTVs. 3d has been in a similar cycle so far, until 2005 it was aging fast due to swiftly developing technology. Nowadays the 3d improvements are not so fast anymore. Partially because the images almost look like movies, secondly consoles gave the technology a standstill. Things might change again but the aging cycle has slowed to a significant degree.
  • edited July 2009
    smashing wrote:
    Larry interactive fiction? That would be so out of the point.

    I meant the semi-text Leisure Suit Larry : )
    smashing wrote:
    Give me those pixelated babe anyday! :P

    "Tales of Monkey Island: Special Edition" with classic interface and pixeled graphics? Thad'd be something : )
  • edited July 2009
    smashing wrote: »
    You know Guybrush was downright handsome then, not cartoony like in EMI.

    Actually the last time I ran the game in 1920x1200 full screen guybrush looked like a pixel blob, sitting in front of 26 inch does not really help there.
    And the last time was exactly yesterday by hitting f10 in mi:se, so my memory is not shadowed by time.
  • edited July 2009
    Novotnus wrote: »
    "Tales of Monkey Island: Special Edition" with classic interface and pixeled graphics? Thad'd be something : )

    Oogling at pixelated babes was probably my biggest motivation to complete Larry. Come to think of it, I'd really wasted my youth.
  • edited July 2009
    Nah; My youth was fine with all those games. And Larry is just as old as myself (1986)
  • edited July 2009
    werpu wrote: »
    Actually the last time I ran the game in 1920x1200 full screen guybrush looked like a pixel blob, sitting in front of 26 inch does not really help there.
    And the last time was exactly yesterday by hitting f10 in mi:se, so my memory is not shadowed by time.

    You mean this is missing?

    849472-guybrush_and_elaine_super.jpg

    Sighz~! I'm still screwed with no XBOX360 or Steam availability. I miss pixelated graphics...
  • edited July 2009
    Spadge wrote: »
    I'm sorry, you are saying 9 years from now TMI would look as blocky as EMI?

    No I'm saying that three years ago you would have been saying basically the same thing you are today.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.