btw, 3D graphics these days are still as terrible as they have been for a long time. I have a strong feeling most graphic designers do not want to use 3D to make their games because they know it downgrades the overall quality, in other words, it has no feeling, no character, art requires finer touches than modeled shapes and rendered textures.
Now see...I agree with you about 2D adventure game graphics having a certain unmatched charm, but this statement just reeks of baseless bias. There are some absolutely STUNNING games out there that use full 3D graphics. Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect 2, Skyrim (can't wait for that one), etc.
The main problem as I see it with adventure games and 3D graphics is the matter of character control.
Telltale's engine sucks balls when it comes to controlling the character. Seriously, it's just about the worst thing ever designed. The click-drag-move control scheme is absolutely broken any way you look at it. An abomination of video gaming control schemes.
I understand the logic behind it--that traditional point and click doesn't work well in 3D environments with cinematic camera angles like Telltale uses in most of their games, but seriously...someone needs to be slapped for coming up with this control scheme as the solution. Words can't describe how terrible it is. And believe me, I'm trying.
The problem with the recent games is that the alternative sucks, too. The keyboard movement is also shitty--it's the same reason console companies started using analog sticks when they made the transition to 3D. It is unbearably clunky to only be able to move in four (or 8 with the num pad) directions in a full 3D environment.
Until computers start coming standard with analog sticks attached to their mice (or something lol), 3D adventure games in the Telltale style will always be something of a chore to play. Better to wait for the console releases.
A lot of this problem with control comes from adventure games' strict adherence to fixed camera angles for each scene. Just once, I'd like to see an adventure game attempt a full-roaming 3D environment like Red Dead Redemption or something. Keep all the traditional adventure gameplay mechanics--cut to cinematic closeups for conversations a la Mass Effect, have a traditional inventory with item combining and puzzle solving. Just put it in a full-roaming 3D environment. No fixed camera. And just see how it works. I can't think of any games that have done this yet--are there any?
I feel sorry for you if you abandoned TMI, because you missed out on a great game. I don't think adventure games are 'meant' to be in 2D or 3D. The 3D graphics are just another evolutionary step in gaming, just like from text adventures to graphic adventures, or the arrow keys and text parser to point and click. There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of 3D itself, it's just all in the execution. Admittedly, TMI had some control issues, but other games like Sam & Max worked wonderfully. However, there are many modern 2D adventure games that are also good.
Telltale's engine sucks balls when it comes to controlling the character. Seriously, it's just about the worst thing ever designed. The click-drag-move control scheme is absolutely broken any way you look at it. An abomination of video gaming control schemes.
Really? It took about 2 minutes to learn it and using it felt natural really fast. I really like the system, but this just shows that things which are easy to some are difficult to others.
Actually, the fixed angles serve many purposes. The time constraint the TT games are made under is a major factor in most of them. If the camera angle is fix, then there's no need to render the fourth wall. Also, as they are made with PC in mind as well as consoles, a free camera would mean more controls to add as well, which would require more development time. Let's not forget that any good free camera system also requires its own A.I. to keep it from getting stuck behind walls and objects.
As far as the control thing goes, plug in a console style controller. You'd be surprised at how much simpler this is than the click and drag (which is a style I never cared for).
Also, to icedan, just because there's no precedent doesn't make something impossible. All the other genre that made the transition to 3d had someone just like you who at some point said that it would never work. Heck, I remember back in the N64 days when people were ranting that "Mario will never work in 3D." People even said the same thing about Fallout 3. While I agree that it would be nice to see some 2D based games, that doesn't mean that 3D has no place. Even the creator of King's Quest believed that it needed to move into 3D to remain viable.
There was probably a time when people were saying "King's Quest is not meant to have voices", "King's Quest is not meant to be controlled with a mouse", "King's Quest is not meant to have graphics better than AGI", etc.
Telltale's engine sucks balls when it comes to controlling the character. Seriously, it's just about the worst thing ever designed. The click-drag-move control scheme is absolutely broken any way you look at it. An abomination of video gaming control schemes.
I wouldn't click-and-drag is THAT bad, but I do far prefer using the arrow keys in Telltale games. The arrow keys never give me any trouble.
And no 3D game will EVER have controls nearly as frustrating as "Escape from Monkey Island", although most of that had to do with the camera placement.
There was probably a time when people were saying "King's Quest is not meant to have voices", "King's Quest is not meant to be controlled with a mouse", "King's Quest is not meant to have graphics better than AGI", etc.
I wouldn't click-and-drag is THAT bad, but I do far prefer using the arrow keys in Telltale games. The arrow keys never give me any trouble.
And no 3D game will EVER have controls nearly as frustrating as "Escape from Monkey Island", although most of that had to do with the camera placement.
Lol...yeah, of course I'm exaggerating.
Actually, I find Telltale's games to be just as hard to control as Escape ever was. The fixed camera angles essentially mean that the keyboard controls work exactly the same way as in that game, but at least you can use the mouse to click on stuff, which was a mistake to take out of Escape (though it worked much better in Grim Fandango for some reason--or maybe it didn't, and I just think that because Grim was such a better game in every other way.)
There was probably a time when people were saying "King's Quest is not meant to have voices", "King's Quest is not meant to be controlled with a mouse", "King's Quest is not meant to have graphics better than AGI", etc.
To be fair, Icedan mentions wanting to have parser in his original post
Really? It took about 2 minutes to learn it and using it felt natural really fast. I really like the system, but this just shows that things which are easy to some are difficult to others.
I also like click and drag, plus there's always WSAD. Neither solution can touch the elegance of the mouse, but they work all right.
Hah. Simon 3D is one of the ugliest games I have ever seen, which is pity because the puzzles and story are decent.
No doubt it's ugly, but it also seems to be exactly what Lambonius was interested to see - adventure game mechanics grafted onto a skeleton of 3d platformer. Except without all the platforming
No doubt it's ugly, but it also seems to be exactly what Lambonius was interested to see - adventure game mechanics grafted onto a skeleton of 3d platformer. Except without all the platforming
Lol...yeah, no platforming definitely.
I haven't played Simon 3D, so that's why I didn't think of it. I'd love to see an adventure game with current graphical technology that takes the free roam approach though. It could be amazing.
To be fair, Icedan mentions wanting to have parser in his original post
Fair enough. :P My point is, the KQ series has NEVER been about nostalgia; it has always been about pushing forward with art and technology. If anything, Telltale's game will be a break from tradition by not being cutting-edge ENOUGH, what with Telltale's limited budget and all.
It's a badly thought out title - it's more of a shout to TTG to stop with the 3D all the time.
The point about consoles is a good one, I am not aware if TTG make for consoles or not, if TTG do make for consoles then there is little choice but 3D and for me, and I think many others - an unfortunate one. I know I would never get the adventure/exploration feel out of it as I have with so many famous 2D adventure games.
Anakin's screenshots point out that when an artist creates 2D backgrounds they pay special attention to just about every pixel that goes into it, even the most detailed 3D scene can not practically achieve that - or rather, no sane artist would attempt to do that, and because of this the scenes become less mysterious and less interesting, which can often lead to less challenging as well.
3D is not supposed to be as detailed as a handdrawn background of course, it serves other purposes. The best thing is that its a virtual movie-studio, you can move in three dimensions, you are a lot more flexible, and you can work with the tricks that are used in the film-industry. You can create a whole palette moments that are a lot more difficult to do in 2D.
So, 3D is best when its in motion, so its a bit unfair proving a point with static screenshots.
I am not saying that 2D cant trigger the same emotions that 3D can do. Of course you can create space with multiple 2D-layers, and there are dozent of tricks to that. But that takes a lot more work to do, since you are busy with faking a third dimension, while you only have two.
Same thing that its a huge amount of work trying to create a beautiful handdrawn-background in 3D. Its not the same, and 2D would be the easier way indeed.
3D has a different approach than 2D, they both have pros and cons. I am not saying that one is better or worse than the other.
Everyone has a different opinion on that, but still its only fair to respect someones choice, since this is no right/wrong-argument.
I'd like to see those KQ5 backgrounds professsionally rendered in real-time 3D with all the glorious Myst-like details that the 2D artwork attempted to garner with incredible dynamic lighting and real time shadows. No way that wouldn't look far greater than the original artwork. And I love KQ5's artwork.
3D can look far better than 2D ever can if people have the right hardware and the designers go all out. Skyrim looks absolutely phenomenal. Even Oblivion and Fallout 3 are fantastic. Better than anything 2D could ever throw at you because there are incredible fine details in the art AND in the animation. There's subtle movements and nuances to the gaming world in 3D that are just unmatched and unavailable in 2D. And then there's the fixed static camera angles in 2D. 3D blows this out of the water by being able to look at and examine everything in a gaming world from every angle. There's movement, animation, detail. A 3D gaming world is alive! 2D backgrounds, no matter how pretty they are, are static motionless, restricting, and boring.
I will agree that many 2D games look better than a lot of 3D games, but that was something that was true a few years ago. Not so much anymore. Oblivion is a 2004 game and it looks glorious! You can't tell me games like Portal 2, Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Skyrim, and a lot of newer games don't look as good or don't have a better atmosphere than any 2D game. But no adventure game has done this properly yet because there aren't really that many triple-AAA adventure game studios (actually, there are none). And the ones that do exist do everything in a cartoony detail-less way. Jurassic Park looks fantastic, however, so hopefully Telltale will put the extra effort into detail for King's Quest as well. Not to the point of realism, however, so much as that incredible fantasy story-book artwork style. But not a straight disproportionate cartoon either.
I haven't played Simon 3D, so that's why I didn't think of it. I'd love to see an adventure game with current graphical technology that takes the free roam approach though. It could be amazing.
Anyone remember that SQ1 remake that one guy was making with the Doom 3 engine? I abandoned it for other projects, but it look fantastic. First person, but still. It was to have all the elements of adventure gaming; inventory, puzzles, etc. It would have been great.
Fair enough. :P My point is, the KQ series has NEVER been about nostalgia; it has always been about pushing forward with art and technology. If anything, Telltale's game will be a break from tradition by not being cutting-edge ENOUGH, what with Telltale's limited budget and all.
THIS. King's Quest was always about innovating new technology and, failing that, pushing the boundaries of technologies that already existed.
I just love the idea behind a KQ5 art direction going into 1080p 2-dimensional animated backgrounds. Like the Monkey Island Special Editions but with the beauty of the KQ5-style artwork. Why can't Telltale make THAT game??!
I'd like to see those KQ5 backgrounds professsionally rendered in real-time 3D with all the glorious Myst-like details that the 2D artwork attempted to garner with incredible dynamic lighting and real time shadows. No way that wouldn't look far greater than the original artwork. And I love KQ5's artwork.
3D can look far better than 2D ever can if people have the right hardware and the designers go all out. Skyrim looks absolutely phenomenal. Even Oblivion and Fallout 3 are fantastic. Better than anything 2D could ever throw at you because there are incredible fine details in the art AND in the animation. There's subtle movements and nuances to the gaming world in 3D that are just unmatched and unavailable in 2D. And then there's the fixed static camera angles in 2D. 3D blows this out of the water by being able to look at and examine everything in a gaming world from every angle. There's movement, animation, detail. A 3D gaming world is alive! 2D backgrounds, no matter how pretty they are, are static motionless, restricting, and boring.
I will agree that many 2D games look better than a lot of 3D games, but that was something that was true a few years ago. Not so much anymore. Oblivion is a 2004 game and it looks glorious! You can't tell me games like Portal 2, Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Skyrim, and a lot of newer games don't look as good or don't have a better atmosphere than any 2D game. But no adventure game has done this properly yet because there aren't really that many triple-AAA adventure game studios (actually, there are none). And the ones that do exist do everything in a cartoony detail-less way. Jurassic Park looks fantastic, however, so hopefully Telltale will put the extra effort into detail for King's Quest as well. Not to the point of realism, however, so much as that incredible fantasy story-book artwork style. But not a straight disproportionate cartoon either.
The KQ series has NEVER been about nostalgia; it has always been about pushing forward with art and technology. If anything, Telltale's game will be a break from tradition by not being cutting-edge ENOUGH, what with Telltale's limited budget and all.
THIS. King's Quest was always about innovating new technology and, failing that, pushing the boundaries of technologies that already existed.
I agree with all of this. And you know, I hadn't thought of the fact that King's Quest was well known for pushing the boundaries of current technology in video games. With that in mind, I have to concede that 3D should work for KQ, so long as it's done well.
...and I can't believe people are using Escape from Monkey Island as an example of why 3D video games are crap.
EMI is eleven years old; it was created when 3D adventure games were only in their infancy; it used pre-rendered backgrounds whose camera angles did not dynamically change as the character moved; and the control scheme for the game was developed specifically (and however poorly) so that it would easily port to consoles of the time (ie. PS1), meaning that everything ingame- even navigating the Menu- required the use of WASD. Zero mouse control in EMI. At all.
Why would you use EMI as an example of 3D not working? That game is terrible, yes, but it's terrible for many more reasons than just having 3D sprites.
Telltale's engine sucks balls when it comes to controlling the character. Seriously, it's just about the worst thing ever designed. The click-drag-move control scheme is absolutely broken any way you look at it. An abomination of video gaming control schemes.
I agree, which is why I play with WASD keys one hand on the keyboard, the other on the mouse.
I think the art style with the lavish paintings is cool and all and I agree a bit about the 3D thing in this case at least. Monkey Island I think can get away with it a bit more just because it was cartoony.
I don't think 3D can't ever be done, but rather I think Telltale should update the bejeesus out of their engine to pull it off as well. I think it should look a bit like Oblivion but slightly more whimsical/fantasy. I doubt that Telltale is gonna get all the people to make the graphics on par with Skyrim or anything, but I'm just saying I think it would look better like this of course. It shouldn't look as cartoony as Sam n Max or Monkey Island ideally...
But heck, who am I kidding, we have come a long way since -
I still think Telltale will probably do a better job than Sierra did as far as the actual game experience, but that's just my opinion and feel free to call me a worthless sack for having it if you like.
Not to mention that WASD came first. Click&Drag was added as an afterthought when people complained about not being able to play the game with one hand on the mouse. I always thought it was horrible and couldn't understand why people would strive for it so much.
Fair enough. :P My point is, the KQ series has NEVER been about nostalgia; it has always been about pushing forward with art and technology. If anything, Telltale's game will be a break from tradition by not being cutting-edge ENOUGH, what with Telltale's limited budget and all.
If that's true, it has fallen short. Monkey Island progressed much faster and better than KQ did. My favourite episode is number 2, and number 3 appears to be the most favourite of all for most others and the reasons you will hear is because..... of the 2D artwork and animations!
In 20 years, there will be a thread full of whining about voice control. "Click and drag is the way to go" the purists will scream at the top of their lungs.
My favourite episode is number 2, and number 3 appears to be the most favourite of all for most others and the reasons you will hear is because..... of the 2D artwork and animations!
Don't forget the enchanting PC speaker rendition of Greensleeves. Those Amiga peasants with their unsophisticated tastes ruined it for all of us with their 32 colors
3D is not supposed to be as detailed as a handdrawn background of course, it serves other purposes. The best thing is that its a virtual movie-studio, you can move in three dimensions, you are a lot more flexible, and you can work with the tricks that are used in the film-industry. You can create a whole palette moments that are a lot more difficult to do in 2D.
So, 3D is best when its in motion, so its a bit unfair proving a point with static screenshots.
I am not saying that 2D cant trigger the same emotions that 3D can do. Of course you can create space with multiple 2D-layers, and there are dozent of tricks to that. But that takes a lot more work to do, since you are busy with faking a third dimension, while you only have two.
Same thing that its a huge amount of work trying to create a beautiful handdrawn-background in 3D. Its not the same, and 2D would be the easier way indeed.
3D has a different approach than 2D, they both have pros and cons. I am not saying that one is better or worse than the other.
Everyone has a different opinion on that, but still its only fair to respect someones choice, since this is no right/wrong-argument.
As I stated earlier, 3D is best when in motion, so there we can agree, but in adventure games, motion is NOT important, it's hardly even needed. 3D's pro's don't fully work well in an adventure game, but 2D's does and I can't think of many 2D con's, maybe more difficult to do? I don't know if I would agree with that either.
I'd like to see those KQ5 backgrounds professsionally rendered in real-time 3D with all the glorious Myst-like details that the 2D artwork attempted to garner with incredible dynamic lighting and real time shadows. No way that wouldn't look far greater than the original artwork. And I love KQ5's artwork.
3D can look far better than 2D ever can if people have the right hardware and the designers go all out. Skyrim looks absolutely phenomenal. Even Oblivion and Fallout 3 are fantastic. Better than anything 2D could ever throw at you because there are incredible fine details in the art AND in the animation. There's subtle movements and nuances to the gaming world in 3D that are just unmatched and unavailable in 2D. And then there's the fixed static camera angles in 2D. 3D blows this out of the water by being able to look at and examine everything in a gaming world from every angle. There's movement, animation, detail. A 3D gaming world is alive! 2D backgrounds, no matter how pretty they are, are static motionless, restricting, and boring.
I will agree that many 2D games look better than a lot of 3D games, but that was something that was true a few years ago. Not so much anymore. Oblivion is a 2004 game and it looks glorious! You can't tell me games like Portal 2, Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Skyrim, and a lot of newer games don't look as good or don't have a better atmosphere than any 2D game. But no adventure game has done this properly yet because there aren't really that many triple-AAA adventure game studios (actually, there are none). And the ones that do exist do everything in a cartoony detail-less way. Jurassic Park looks fantastic, however, so hopefully Telltale will put the extra effort into detail for King's Quest as well. Not to the point of realism, however, so much as that incredible fantasy story-book artwork style. But not a straight disproportionate cartoon either.
Wow. I don't agree with that at all.
Anyone remember that SQ1 remake that one guy was making with the Doom 3 engine? I abandoned it for other projects, but it look fantastic. First person, but still. It was to have all the elements of adventure gaming; inventory, puzzles, etc. It would have been great.
THIS. King's Quest was always about innovating new technology and, failing that, pushing the boundaries of technologies that already existed.
Do you know what i'm reading when I read this? "3D is cool, so it's better". But here you have missed the point. I did not say that 3D was bad, I said adventure games operating under a 3D environment is bad. It's okay if the artists have to make their worlds in pre-rendered 3D, sometimes that realistic look works, like it did for Syberia. But as you can see TTG don't go for real, they go for a cartooned art style. I guarantee the vast majority of those who play TTG's version of KQ will still prefer the original titles in the end and my argument is because the original KQ has a better "feel" to it - that is the important word here. I'd love to see KQ in full 3D too - as long as it's pre-rendered.
As I stated earlier, 3D is best when in motion, so there we can agree, but in adventure games, motion is NOT important, it's hardly even needed. 3D's pro's don't fully work well in an adventure game, but 2D's does and I can't think of many 2D con's, maybe more difficult to do? I don't know if I would agree with that either.
I can't agree with that. Why is motion unimportant for adventures? Why can't we move around free roaming in adventure environments and TRULY explore the game world? That's real immersion in my book, and immersion is what adventure games are all about.
Do you know what i'm reading when I read this? "3D is cool, so it's better". But here you have missed the point.
If that's all you got out of my post you completely missed my point.
I did not say that 3D was bad, I said adventure games operating under a 3D environment is bad.
I don't agree. You can have the exact same fixed camera scene reproduced from KQ5 or any other game but the added natural animations of objects in those scenes would make them very much more alive. I think you're underestimating the power of 3D. The camera doesn't have to be in motion, though I don't see why it shouldn't.
It's okay if the artists have to make their worlds in pre-rendered 3D, sometimes that realistic look works, like it did for Syberia.
Syberia has got to be one of the most boring adventure games I've ever played. The backgrounds so dead and dry and without colour or movement. I hated those games, though the graphics were the least of my qualms.
But as you can see TTG don't go for real, they go for a cartooned art style. I guarantee the vast majority of those who play TTG's version of KQ will still prefer the original titles in the end and my argument is because the original KQ has a better "feel" to it - that is the important word here. I'd love to see KQ in full 3D too - as long as it's pre-rendered.
TTG do go for a more cartoony look most of the time, hopefully that's not where they take King's Quest. But we can't make any judgments at this point on the "feel" because it doesn't even exist yet.
I don't really understand your hardcore defense of pre-rendered graphics. Or static graphics in general. I have nothing against 2D or 3D but I definitely see 3D as the way to go from here. Like I said before, no adventure company has truly done adventures correctly with a AAA production quality. Pre-rendered is just so incredibly lifeless looking. Even compared to hand painted art. There's just so much more possibilities with 3D. Nobody has really approached it properly yet, however, except for a few FPS's. And The Elder Scrolls.
Really makes you wonder that, if some of these people were born a generation earlier, if they would have been the ones ranting about the original King's Quest because "adventure games are supposed be in text form. They're dumbing it down for people who can't read." Believe it or not, people did actually make this argument. Also it's ironic that the original King's Quest was touted as having a "3D graphical engine" because it could layer graphics.
Really makes you wonder that, if some of these people were born a generation earlier, if they would have been the ones ranting about the original King's Quest because "adventure games are supposed be in text form. They're dumbing it down for people who can't read." Believe it or not, people did actually make this argument. Also it's ironic that the original King's Quest was touted as having a "3D graphical engine" because it could layer graphics.
I hear you. The point and click thing was a huge deal for some people. I've heard people say that the mouse driven games killed adventure gaming and that no one could afford to own a system that would even play them. People (including myself) used to say that DOS was never going to be replaced by Windows too. It's not all bad and I think KQ could do well with a 3D environment.... Or bad, it really all depends on TT.
I think 2D and 3D are both perfectly fine and valid. However, at least right now I am much more intrigued by the prospect of a great King's Quest in 3D. But getting the art style right is very important.
Really makes you wonder that, if some of these people were born a generation earlier, if they would have been the ones ranting about the original King's Quest because "adventure games are supposed be in text form. They're dumbing it down for people who can't read." Believe it or not, people did actually make this argument. Also it's ironic that the original King's Quest was touted as having a "3D graphical engine" because it could layer graphics.
There's nothing wrong with text-only adventure games, it's more like an interactive story. I personally don't enjoy it because as an artist I like to see art.
I think I've stated my point thoroughly enough to get it across, I have to assume that MusicallyInspired simply prefers adventure games in a 3D world and that's cool too. I'm just fighting for what I think is best for KQ.
I think I've stated my point thoroughly enough to get it across, I have to assume that MusicallyInspired simply prefers adventure games in a 3D world and that's cool too. I'm just fighting for what I think is best for KQ.
I think you are more of fighing for nostalgia. The technological advancements that KQ brought included much more than just graphics. Though they did that too, when IBM asked Sierra to develope a graphical game for their new PC system. Sierra was developing better musics and sound with Adlib and MT-32, then they brought full voice acting with CD version of KQ5 when CD wasn't yet that common yet. When came the time, they went in 3D.
If Sierra was up and about today, and making the new KQ game, they'd do it full 3D environment.
I have to assume that MusicallyInspired simply prefers adventure games in a 3D world and that's cool too. I'm just fighting for what I think is best for KQ.
I don't always agree with Musically - in fact I rarely do - but are you aware of who he is and what projects he's been involved in? Does AGDI ring a bell? I believe he does not *prefer* 3D, he simply defends it as a valid form of presentation for adventure games.
Really makes you wonder that, if some of these people were born a generation earlier, if they would have been the ones ranting about the original King's Quest because "adventure games are supposed be in text form. They're dumbing it down for people who can't read." Believe it or not, people did actually make this argument. Also it's ironic that the original King's Quest was touted as having a "3D graphical engine" because it could layer graphics.
Then the same people protested in the early 90's that Sierra is ruining it's beloved franchises when they made remakes of KQ1 and other AGI games. Those protests were quite succesful and Sierra abandoned completely it's plans to update their AGI games, because the remakes sold badly.
Then the same people protested in the early 90's that Sierra is ruining it's beloved franchises when they made remakes of KQ1 and other AGI games. Those protests were quite succesful and Sierra abandoned completely it's plans to update their AGI games, because the remakes sold badly.
Is that a fact? The word I've heard is that they abandoned their plans for an SCI KQ2, but PQ1, LSL1 and SQ1 still came out, despite the outrage over KQ1. I left out QfG1 since it wasn't AGI
Come to think of it, your version of the story does make sense, as there weren't any remade sequels. However, I would appreciate if you could share your source. Not because I don't believe you, only because I'm curious
Is that a fact? The word I've heard is that they abandoned their plans for an SCI KQ2, but PQ1, LSL1 and SQ1 still came out, despite the outrage over KQ1. I left out QfG1 since it wasn't AGI
Come to think of it, your version of the story does make sense, as there weren't any remade sequels. However, I would appreciate if you could share your source. Not because I don't believe you, only because I'm curious
I said practically the same thing and I don't make sense? I guess I was bit vague, what I meant was that they updated first entires of the series (="remakes of KQ1 and other AGI games" in my previous post), but AFAIK those remakes generated hostility and sold badly and they abandoned the project to update also the sequels. I'm working at the moment, but after work I'll check if I remember the sources which told me that remakes were badly received and didn't sell enough, so they focused to new games instead.
I don't always agree with Musically - in fact I rarely do - but are you aware of who he is and what projects he's been involved in? Does AGDI ring a bell? I believe he does not *prefer* 3D, he simply defends it as a valid form of presentation for adventure games.
I'm not very aware of AGDI, only stumbled upon on it once upon a time. I don't recall him stating that he's likes 2D backgrounds, so I ended up presuming he's not for them as much as he is for 3D worlds.
I think you are more of fighing for nostalgia. The technological advancements that KQ brought included much more than just graphics. Though they did that too, when IBM asked Sierra to develope a graphical game for their new PC system. Sierra was developing better musics and sound with Adlib and MT-32, then they brought full voice acting with CD version of KQ5 when CD wasn't yet that common yet. When came the time, they went in 3D.
If Sierra was up and about today, and making the new KQ game, they'd do it full 3D environment.
It's not about the technology. There are a bunch of adventure games that use new technology that I enjoy, and especially the upcoming L.A. Noir looks very interesting. When I say 2D backgrounds are more mysterious in nature - I mean it.
Comments
Now see...I agree with you about 2D adventure game graphics having a certain unmatched charm, but this statement just reeks of baseless bias. There are some absolutely STUNNING games out there that use full 3D graphics. Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect 2, Skyrim (can't wait for that one), etc.
The main problem as I see it with adventure games and 3D graphics is the matter of character control.
Telltale's engine sucks balls when it comes to controlling the character. Seriously, it's just about the worst thing ever designed. The click-drag-move control scheme is absolutely broken any way you look at it. An abomination of video gaming control schemes.
I understand the logic behind it--that traditional point and click doesn't work well in 3D environments with cinematic camera angles like Telltale uses in most of their games, but seriously...someone needs to be slapped for coming up with this control scheme as the solution. Words can't describe how terrible it is. And believe me, I'm trying.
The problem with the recent games is that the alternative sucks, too. The keyboard movement is also shitty--it's the same reason console companies started using analog sticks when they made the transition to 3D. It is unbearably clunky to only be able to move in four (or 8 with the num pad) directions in a full 3D environment.
Until computers start coming standard with analog sticks attached to their mice (or something lol), 3D adventure games in the Telltale style will always be something of a chore to play. Better to wait for the console releases.
A lot of this problem with control comes from adventure games' strict adherence to fixed camera angles for each scene. Just once, I'd like to see an adventure game attempt a full-roaming 3D environment like Red Dead Redemption or something. Keep all the traditional adventure gameplay mechanics--cut to cinematic closeups for conversations a la Mass Effect, have a traditional inventory with item combining and puzzle solving. Just put it in a full-roaming 3D environment. No fixed camera. And just see how it works. I can't think of any games that have done this yet--are there any?
Simon 3 fits the bill, I suppose?
Really? It took about 2 minutes to learn it and using it felt natural really fast. I really like the system, but this just shows that things which are easy to some are difficult to others.
Hah. Simon 3D is one of the ugliest games I have ever seen, which is pity because the puzzles and story are decent.
As far as the control thing goes, plug in a console style controller. You'd be surprised at how much simpler this is than the click and drag (which is a style I never cared for).
Also, to icedan, just because there's no precedent doesn't make something impossible. All the other genre that made the transition to 3d had someone just like you who at some point said that it would never work. Heck, I remember back in the N64 days when people were ranting that "Mario will never work in 3D." People even said the same thing about Fallout 3. While I agree that it would be nice to see some 2D based games, that doesn't mean that 3D has no place. Even the creator of King's Quest believed that it needed to move into 3D to remain viable.
2D world
3D world
2D world
3D world
2D world
3D world
Do you need more examples?
There was probably a time when people were saying "King's Quest is not meant to have voices", "King's Quest is not meant to be controlled with a mouse", "King's Quest is not meant to have graphics better than AGI", etc.
I wouldn't click-and-drag is THAT bad, but I do far prefer using the arrow keys in Telltale games. The arrow keys never give me any trouble.
And no 3D game will EVER have controls nearly as frustrating as "Escape from Monkey Island", although most of that had to do with the camera placement.
Lol...yeah, of course I'm exaggerating.
Actually, I find Telltale's games to be just as hard to control as Escape ever was. The fixed camera angles essentially mean that the keyboard controls work exactly the same way as in that game, but at least you can use the mouse to click on stuff, which was a mistake to take out of Escape (though it worked much better in Grim Fandango for some reason--or maybe it didn't, and I just think that because Grim was such a better game in every other way.)
To be fair, Icedan mentions wanting to have parser in his original post
I also like click and drag, plus there's always WSAD. Neither solution can touch the elegance of the mouse, but they work all right.
No doubt it's ugly, but it also seems to be exactly what Lambonius was interested to see - adventure game mechanics grafted onto a skeleton of 3d platformer. Except without all the platforming
Lol...yeah, no platforming definitely.
I haven't played Simon 3D, so that's why I didn't think of it. I'd love to see an adventure game with current graphical technology that takes the free roam approach though. It could be amazing.
no. You clearly proofed that 2D is better.
Fair enough. :P My point is, the KQ series has NEVER been about nostalgia; it has always been about pushing forward with art and technology. If anything, Telltale's game will be a break from tradition by not being cutting-edge ENOUGH, what with Telltale's limited budget and all.
The point about consoles is a good one, I am not aware if TTG make for consoles or not, if TTG do make for consoles then there is little choice but 3D and for me, and I think many others - an unfortunate one. I know I would never get the adventure/exploration feel out of it as I have with so many famous 2D adventure games.
Anakin's screenshots point out that when an artist creates 2D backgrounds they pay special attention to just about every pixel that goes into it, even the most detailed 3D scene can not practically achieve that - or rather, no sane artist would attempt to do that, and because of this the scenes become less mysterious and less interesting, which can often lead to less challenging as well.
So, 3D is best when its in motion, so its a bit unfair proving a point with static screenshots.
I am not saying that 2D cant trigger the same emotions that 3D can do. Of course you can create space with multiple 2D-layers, and there are dozent of tricks to that. But that takes a lot more work to do, since you are busy with faking a third dimension, while you only have two.
Same thing that its a huge amount of work trying to create a beautiful handdrawn-background in 3D. Its not the same, and 2D would be the easier way indeed.
3D has a different approach than 2D, they both have pros and cons. I am not saying that one is better or worse than the other.
Everyone has a different opinion on that, but still its only fair to respect someones choice, since this is no right/wrong-argument.
3D can look far better than 2D ever can if people have the right hardware and the designers go all out. Skyrim looks absolutely phenomenal. Even Oblivion and Fallout 3 are fantastic. Better than anything 2D could ever throw at you because there are incredible fine details in the art AND in the animation. There's subtle movements and nuances to the gaming world in 3D that are just unmatched and unavailable in 2D. And then there's the fixed static camera angles in 2D. 3D blows this out of the water by being able to look at and examine everything in a gaming world from every angle. There's movement, animation, detail. A 3D gaming world is alive! 2D backgrounds, no matter how pretty they are, are static motionless, restricting, and boring.
I will agree that many 2D games look better than a lot of 3D games, but that was something that was true a few years ago. Not so much anymore. Oblivion is a 2004 game and it looks glorious! You can't tell me games like Portal 2, Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Skyrim, and a lot of newer games don't look as good or don't have a better atmosphere than any 2D game. But no adventure game has done this properly yet because there aren't really that many triple-AAA adventure game studios (actually, there are none). And the ones that do exist do everything in a cartoony detail-less way. Jurassic Park looks fantastic, however, so hopefully Telltale will put the extra effort into detail for King's Quest as well. Not to the point of realism, however, so much as that incredible fantasy story-book artwork style. But not a straight disproportionate cartoon either.
Wow. I don't agree with that at all.
Anyone remember that SQ1 remake that one guy was making with the Doom 3 engine? I abandoned it for other projects, but it look fantastic. First person, but still. It was to have all the elements of adventure gaming; inventory, puzzles, etc. It would have been great.
THIS. King's Quest was always about innovating new technology and, failing that, pushing the boundaries of technologies that already existed.
I agree with all of this. And you know, I hadn't thought of the fact that King's Quest was well known for pushing the boundaries of current technology in video games. With that in mind, I have to concede that 3D should work for KQ, so long as it's done well.
...and I can't believe people are using Escape from Monkey Island as an example of why 3D video games are crap.
EMI is eleven years old; it was created when 3D adventure games were only in their infancy; it used pre-rendered backgrounds whose camera angles did not dynamically change as the character moved; and the control scheme for the game was developed specifically (and however poorly) so that it would easily port to consoles of the time (ie. PS1), meaning that everything ingame- even navigating the Menu- required the use of WASD. Zero mouse control in EMI. At all.
Why would you use EMI as an example of 3D not working? That game is terrible, yes, but it's terrible for many more reasons than just having 3D sprites.
also this thread is really suffering from the "My opinion is fact" epidemic...
I agree, which is why I play with WASD keys one hand on the keyboard, the other on the mouse.
I think the art style with the lavish paintings is cool and all and I agree a bit about the 3D thing in this case at least. Monkey Island I think can get away with it a bit more just because it was cartoony.
I don't think 3D can't ever be done, but rather I think Telltale should update the bejeesus out of their engine to pull it off as well. I think it should look a bit like Oblivion but slightly more whimsical/fantasy. I doubt that Telltale is gonna get all the people to make the graphics on par with Skyrim or anything, but I'm just saying I think it would look better like this of course.
But heck, who am I kidding, we have come a long way since -
I still think Telltale will probably do a better job than Sierra did as far as the actual game experience, but that's just my opinion and feel free to call me a worthless sack for having it if you like.
And how can we ever forget the classic:
If that's true, it has fallen short. Monkey Island progressed much faster and better than KQ did. My favourite episode is number 2, and number 3 appears to be the most favourite of all for most others and the reasons you will hear is because..... of the 2D artwork and animations!
Don't forget the enchanting PC speaker rendition of Greensleeves. Those Amiga peasants with their unsophisticated tastes ruined it for all of us with their 32 colors
As I stated earlier, 3D is best when in motion, so there we can agree, but in adventure games, motion is NOT important, it's hardly even needed. 3D's pro's don't fully work well in an adventure game, but 2D's does and I can't think of many 2D con's, maybe more difficult to do? I don't know if I would agree with that either.
Do you know what i'm reading when I read this? "3D is cool, so it's better". But here you have missed the point. I did not say that 3D was bad, I said adventure games operating under a 3D environment is bad. It's okay if the artists have to make their worlds in pre-rendered 3D, sometimes that realistic look works, like it did for Syberia. But as you can see TTG don't go for real, they go for a cartooned art style. I guarantee the vast majority of those who play TTG's version of KQ will still prefer the original titles in the end and my argument is because the original KQ has a better "feel" to it - that is the important word here. I'd love to see KQ in full 3D too - as long as it's pre-rendered.
King's Quest V came out the same year as Secret of Monkey Island. You really think SMI is a bigger technological achievement than KQ5?
(I *do* think SMI is a better game, but that's not what this discussion is really about. :P )
I can't agree with that. Why is motion unimportant for adventures? Why can't we move around free roaming in adventure environments and TRULY explore the game world? That's real immersion in my book, and immersion is what adventure games are all about.
If that's all you got out of my post you completely missed my point.
I don't agree. You can have the exact same fixed camera scene reproduced from KQ5 or any other game but the added natural animations of objects in those scenes would make them very much more alive. I think you're underestimating the power of 3D. The camera doesn't have to be in motion, though I don't see why it shouldn't.
Syberia has got to be one of the most boring adventure games I've ever played. The backgrounds so dead and dry and without colour or movement. I hated those games, though the graphics were the least of my qualms.
TTG do go for a more cartoony look most of the time, hopefully that's not where they take King's Quest. But we can't make any judgments at this point on the "feel" because it doesn't even exist yet.
I don't really understand your hardcore defense of pre-rendered graphics. Or static graphics in general. I have nothing against 2D or 3D but I definitely see 3D as the way to go from here. Like I said before, no adventure company has truly done adventures correctly with a AAA production quality. Pre-rendered is just so incredibly lifeless looking. Even compared to hand painted art. There's just so much more possibilities with 3D. Nobody has really approached it properly yet, however, except for a few FPS's. And The Elder Scrolls.
I hear you. The point and click thing was a huge deal for some people. I've heard people say that the mouse driven games killed adventure gaming and that no one could afford to own a system that would even play them. People (including myself) used to say that DOS was never going to be replaced by Windows too. It's not all bad and I think KQ could do well with a 3D environment.... Or bad, it really all depends on TT.
There's nothing wrong with text-only adventure games, it's more like an interactive story. I personally don't enjoy it because as an artist I like to see art.
I think I've stated my point thoroughly enough to get it across, I have to assume that MusicallyInspired simply prefers adventure games in a 3D world and that's cool too. I'm just fighting for what I think is best for KQ.
I think you are more of fighing for nostalgia. The technological advancements that KQ brought included much more than just graphics. Though they did that too, when IBM asked Sierra to develope a graphical game for their new PC system. Sierra was developing better musics and sound with Adlib and MT-32, then they brought full voice acting with CD version of KQ5 when CD wasn't yet that common yet. When came the time, they went in 3D.
If Sierra was up and about today, and making the new KQ game, they'd do it full 3D environment.
I don't always agree with Musically - in fact I rarely do - but are you aware of who he is and what projects he's been involved in? Does AGDI ring a bell? I believe he does not *prefer* 3D, he simply defends it as a valid form of presentation for adventure games.
Then the same people protested in the early 90's that Sierra is ruining it's beloved franchises when they made remakes of KQ1 and other AGI games. Those protests were quite succesful and Sierra abandoned completely it's plans to update their AGI games, because the remakes sold badly.
Is that a fact? The word I've heard is that they abandoned their plans for an SCI KQ2, but PQ1, LSL1 and SQ1 still came out, despite the outrage over KQ1. I left out QfG1 since it wasn't AGI
Come to think of it, your version of the story does make sense, as there weren't any remade sequels. However, I would appreciate if you could share your source. Not because I don't believe you, only because I'm curious
I said practically the same thing and I don't make sense? I guess I was bit vague, what I meant was that they updated first entires of the series (="remakes of KQ1 and other AGI games" in my previous post), but AFAIK those remakes generated hostility and sold badly and they abandoned the project to update also the sequels. I'm working at the moment, but after work I'll check if I remember the sources which told me that remakes were badly received and didn't sell enough, so they focused to new games instead.
I'm not very aware of AGDI, only stumbled upon on it once upon a time. I don't recall him stating that he's likes 2D backgrounds, so I ended up presuming he's not for them as much as he is for 3D worlds.
It's not about the technology. There are a bunch of adventure games that use new technology that I enjoy, and especially the upcoming L.A. Noir looks very interesting. When I say 2D backgrounds are more mysterious in nature - I mean it.
I said you DO make sense
You can find games made by AGDI at http://www.agdinteractive.com/games/games.html