What do you prefer -- 2D or 3D?

edited February 2007 in Sam & Max
Since the advent of S&M being in 3D in the last installment, what do you prefer, and why?

---

Edit: ehm, apparently I can't spell :)

Comments

  • edited February 2007
    I used to prefer 2D, but that was because all the games I'd played were in 2D and my computer could only handle 2D. I now prefer 3D. It looks better and when it works, it works.
  • edited February 2007
    Tempted to click on 'text only', but that would be too obvious. :P
  • edited February 2007
    Since the cost and development time for 2D animation necessitates a substantial investment without any guarantee of cost recovery, I prefer 3D, since not many small companies can afford to pay for every scene to be painted. This is why so many movie studios are putting out 3D cartoon movies (low cost, low risk) after the success of Pixar (fun fact: a Lucas spinoff, and current employer of Steve Purcell), while very few studios were willing to risk putting money in making 2D movies (high cost, high risk), with the exception of Disney, with its big budgets and near monopoly.
  • edited February 2007
    2D just because I love 2D graphics, espacially the details you get.
  • edited February 2007
    I honestly can't answer that. I find the 3D graphics of Sam and Max, combined with the point and click system to be effective (albeit with performance issues on my laptop), but I equally find the ultimate incarnation of the old 2D SCUMM system - Curse of Monkey Island - to be just as good. Its whether its 3D and not point and click where I have issues: as brilliant games as they were, the arrow controls for Grim Fandango and Escape from Monkey Island were awful.
  • edited February 2007
    S@bre wrote: »
    Its whether its 3D and not point and click where I have issues: as brilliant games as they were, the arrow controls for Grim Fandango and Escape for Monkey Island were awful.
    Agreed. Also with the third Broken Sword.
  • edited February 2007
    Sorry, didn't write a comment of my own when I started the thread.

    I prefer 2D since I like the amount of detail you can get. And I also appreciate the artwork.
  • edited February 2007
    Agreed. Also with the third Broken Sword.

    Oh yeah, I agree too. It was ok in Grim Fandango, but the other two I couldn't be bothered to play for very long.
  • edited February 2007
    2d costs more to produce and more time.. telltale couldnt release an episode each month doin 2d.. they've done a good job with 3d..time to move on
  • edited February 2007
    Love the 3D style of S&M. 2D has its charm to be sure, but the cartoony 3D style Telltale made is very fitting.
  • edited February 2007
    I prefer 2D, like a huge majority of adventure gamers, but as Hero1 said, and it has already been discussed, 2D costs so much more. By the way, I love the way sam&max is done in 3D, rounded and detailed, it let us have much cinematographic scenes (like we can see in the thirsd episode) and we have now enough power in our computers to have great 3D Games. I love 2D adventure games because of Ron Gilbert. I think when the GPU will be more powerfull, we could have something that crazy, but in 3D.
  • edited February 2007
    2D / 3D? I couldn't care less what style of graphics a game uses, so long as the game is fun to play.

    And Telltale's games are fun to play.

    But as the poll says " Wold you like the next installment to be in...", clearly I would want the next installment to continue to use the Telltale engine. So 3D as far as the poll is concerned, no doubt!
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited February 2007
    "I like both and think it's a style choice that should be determined game to game and not as some steadfast rule." 1 vote :)
  • edited February 2007
    Jake wrote: »
    "I like both and think it's a style choice that should be determined game to game and not as some steadfast rule." 1 vote :)

    Yeah, that. :)
  • edited February 2007
    I wouldn't mind seeing an expensive hand drawn Sam and Max by Steve Purcell in high resolution, but I'm also perfectly content with the way things look right now, in 3D.
  • edited February 2007
    We need both. There are things you can do in 3D that you could never do in 2D.

    I do want to see 2D games make a comeback, though. With today's technology, there is huge potential to make an absolutely beautiful 2D game, yet for some reason all the companies assume people don't want to see it. Stylistically, you just can't beat the drawn look. There are great 3D styles too (like Prince of Persia... Sam & Max...), but 2D styles aren't obsolete at all.

    But you just know they're gonna make some 2D game with really bland and un-detailed backgrounds and it'll sell poorly and they'll declare 2D dead, just like what happened with animated movies.
  • edited February 2007
    A Vampyre Story has 2D hand drawn backgrounds (with 3D characters), it's gonna be great if the story & puzzles live up to the promise / premise.
  • edited February 2007
    I think 2D allows for more beauty in individual scenes, whereas 3D gives the game a more open feeling. I think Sam and Max benefit from the subtle movement nuances that 3D allow, something that Hit the Road lacked.
  • edited February 2007
    2D is always very pretty, and comes out looking far more artistic. But ultimately 3D is the only way to go. Releasing a game in 2D is like a bespoke game, most people wont touch them. Plus the guys look so much cuter in their 3D forms; if ya ask me.
  • edited February 2007
    axelkothe wrote: »
    2D just because I love 2D graphics, espacially the details you get.

    I truly love 2D games, or games with 2D backgrounds, specifically for the amount of detail thrown in to the scenes.

    However, my vote goes to 3D for S&M just because it is being implemented so well in the current releases. While there is a lack of detail in some areas, it is hard to notice due to the fitting cartoony style. However, with an adventure game, I would not appreciate a user-controlled camera much, as in an over the shoulder 3D view. I prefer the side-scrolling variety... although I might be interested in a first person adventure game...
  • edited February 2007
    Derwin wrote: »
    although I might be interested in a first person adventure game...
    There are already a small number of first person 3D adventures out there, such as the Agon series and Sherlock Holmes: the Awakened. IMO the first-person view doesn't really help immersion much; in fact the opposite is often true as you seem never to notice everything you should, giving an experience not unlike hunt-the-pixel. I must say, the "cinematic-view 3D" used in Sam and Max is an excellent way of avoiding that problem while having a more dynamic and immersive feel than in "pre-rendered backdrop" games like Syberia and Keepsake (which were absolutely gorgeous but felt static and, frankly, empty at times).
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited February 2007
    There are a million first person adventure games (for instance, Telltale's CSI games are first person). Though many of them are in the Myst "series of empty rooms full of whirling gears and levers" style, there are quite a few mystery/suspense style adventures told through first person.

    I don't enjoy that many first person AGs, but my favorite first person adventure game by a long shot is The Last Express (a game which many LucasArts-style adventure fans would probably really like) followed by Riven (the second Myst game, which I love because, in true Day of the Tentacle style, nearly the whole game is actually one giant intertwined puzzle).
  • edited February 2007
    Really?? Is Riven good? I really hated myst and I sorta gave up on even looking at the other mysts without much thought. Was I mistaken? Are the other mysts better?
  • edited February 2007
    I used to love the ICOM first person adventure games like Deja Vu, Shadowgate, and Uninvited, but they're definitely more puzzle games than story ones.
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited February 2007
    matan wrote: »
    Really?? Is Riven good? I really hated myst and I sorta gave up on even looking at the other mysts without much thought. Was I mistaken? Are the other mysts better?

    I don't know. I tried Myst 3 afterwards and, for some reason, Myst 5, but neither of them did it for me, though I really enjoy Riven. I don't think it's for everyone, by any means. I put Riven down multiple times in frustration before taking the plunge and really trying to make sense of it... but there's a lot of love and a lot of cleverness in that game, and if you have the patience/free time to make sense of the initial string of challenges and see the bigger structure, it is a pretty cool experience.
  • edited February 2007
    Of course I'd like the game to be in 2D, but making 2D at today's standards would cost a fortune, so it's not going to happen.
  • edited February 2007
    As long as they utilize the camera-style of the reasent sam&max games #D can look quite good. So my vote goes for that.
    Allthough, if it ever ends up looking like MI4 i'll be kinda dissappointed.
  • edited February 2007
    For First Person Adventures, let's not forget the Shivers series :D For some reason I have very fond memories of Shivers 2, even though the game was heavily flawed, and the major standout was the music... (Which I still listen to regularly)

    Also, Phantasmagoria 2, which was great in a b-movie way. (Wasn't entirely FP, but many scenes of it were)
  • edited February 2007
    Primary i don't care if it's 3d or 2d because as you can do good adventures with both techniques, actually the best adventures are still 2d.

    But when i would have to make one i would go for 3d as it simplifies the whole animation process and gives you total freedom for different camera angles, perspectives, scaling, independent of the screen resolution, ...

    It only would be nice to have a little bit more detail and less blurred textures here and there. But this will come for sure time after time as the average users gfx capabilities increase.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.