User Avatar Image

Traditional animation vs. 3D animation...

posted by Leplaya on - last edited - Viewed by 4.2K users

I am not that big of King's quest, but I have seen bits of pieces of the games. The only game of King's quest that I remember playing was the 7th one, and that one was the Princeless Bride. I'm not that big into the animation of that one(Since I dislike it when people mimic the Disney style) but my sister likes it and it reminds her of Don Bluth's style. I know the game is likely to be done in 3D but will there be certain parts of the game that will use 2D? Or even better, used for the cutscenes of the game? It would be sweet if that would happen.

164 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @thom-22 said: Sorry, but that just doesn't square with economic logic. If there was a sufficient market for big-budget adventure games with state-of-the-art graphics, the game industry would have moved to fill that demand by now. But it was not better graphics alone that led to shooters and other genres eclipsing the popularity of adventures among video gamers.

    We're not talking about widgets here, we're talking about works of art. There was a sufficient market for more seasons of Sopranos and Seinfeld, why didn't that happen?

    Nobody in a position to do so has any strong desire to make a AAA adventure game at the moment (that we know of), economics is not the only factor. There is also a bit of chicken and egg here, as there has never been a 3D AAA adventure game failure to base anything on, at least in the last 11 years.

    You can pooh-pooh the Heavy Rain example all you want, but it's valid. Is your position that there would have been a precipitous drop in sales had there been less QTEs and more traditional adventure game elements?

    Incidentally, how is it you see an explanation, which is what I offered whether accurate and not, as somehow a "defense of mediocre graphics"? (If someone explains the political and economic reasons for why the healthcare system sucks, do you conclude that they are defending poor healthcare?)

    I believe that adventure gamers in general are very much in favor of high-quality graphics, but some define that differently than you do (and each other for that matter). It's not really fair to equate those views as "defending mediocrity".

    Semantics? Obviously I don't believe that you are a huge fan of sub-par graphics.

  • @wilco64256 said: Not remotely. That's actually the main complaint that people who are concerned about what Telltale's KQ game will look like have. PC adventure games let you walk around and explore and stumble into deaths and get stuck. Telltale is against all of those things.

    :confused:

    I have more than 50 adventure games and with the exception of early Sierra adventures constant dying is rare. Most adventure games either don't have deaths or those can happen only in specific places in the game (for example fist fighting in Fate of Atlantis or end sequence of Gabriel Knight 3). Also TTG's seasons have offered at least as many game hours and places to explore as many recent full adventure games have offered. Individual episode naturally offers less to explore, but lately they have linked the episodes better with each other and they feel more like one game than collection of minigames (I compare here first two seasons of Sam & Max and Wallace & Gromit to Tales and Devil's Playhouse).

    While it's true that their previous games aren't like Sierra games of 80's and early 90's, their games aren't very different from rest of the adventures of 2000's. While it's true that TTG's games have been easier than early Sierra games, I have played several recent adventures and IMO many of those weren't more difficult than TTG's games, but had much worse story and jokes than what TTG's games had. TTG has made enjoyable games, so I will give them chance to prove themselves with KQ.

  • @Olaus Petrus said: Yes, but most of TTG's games follow PC adventure game traditions. I'm not very familiar with console gaming as whole, but to me it seems that consoles have their own traditions which are different than PC's traditions. It doesn't just apply to adventures, but also to console RPGs etc. What I have read about Heavy Rain gives me impression that it's more a console game than traditonal computer adventure game.

    You can't make an opinion about a game just by reading about it. And what about Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit? (Quantic's first game) That had a non-ported PC release as well as console (just like Telltale's games) and it has just as many if not more QTE's which are actually a lot more comprehensive and complex than Heavy Rain's. I don't think the differences you're pointing out here are "PC vs Console" based but rather "developer vs developer."

    @Olaus Petrus said: :confused:

    I have more than 50 adventure games and with the exception of early Sierra adventures constant dying is rare. Most adventure games either don't have deaths...

    That is not true. Maybe half. But not "most." And he said more than just 'deaths.' He listed quite a few things that Telltale have no intention of improving on, based on official statements.

    Also TTG's seasons have offered at least as many game hours and places to explore as many recent full adventure games have offered.

    :rolleyes: I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. Not even close. Yes, even with all 5 episodes of a season together. There's no way they can match up to a full-length Sierra or LucasArts adventure. They concentrate too much on a 'cinematic experience' and as a result the actual gameplay suffers enormously.

    While it's true that their previous games aren't like Sierra games of 80's and early 90's, their games aren't very different from rest of the adventures of 2000's. While it's true that TTG's games have been easier than early Sierra games, I have played several recent adventures and IMO many of those weren't more difficult than TTG's games, but had much worse story and jokes than what TTG's games had.

    Any adventure game created since 2000 (with the exception of the Myst games) has all been absolute garbage. I won't even give those Adventure Company games the time of day. I bought a couple recent ones because I was hopeful, they were on sale, and they looked good. But as soon as I started the game frustration ensued. Adventure Company games are utter trash and completely miss the mark of what and adventure is supposed to be. Telltale have come the closest since the golden age itself, but that's not saying much, especially with how their latest games are/have been turning out.

    TTG has made enjoyable games, so I will give them chance to prove themselves with KQ.

    As am I. But if they screw it up that's the last straw for me.

  • @JuntMonkey said: You can pooh-pooh the Heavy Rain example all you want, but it's valid. Is your position that there would have been a precipitous drop in sales had there been less QTEs and more traditional adventure game elements?

    Yes. I see Heavy Rain's sales as a product of growth in the market for casual games, not a resurgence of interest in adventure games. That is absolutely not intended as an insult to Heavy Rain, btw -- you can't argue with success and they've clearly found an exemplary combination of strong story, stellar graphics, and accessible gameplay. (I think TTG's BTTF represents the same phenomenon, except there you have strong story, accessible gameplay, and not-so-stellar graphics, though they're much better than the crap cranked out by casual game publishers.) Nor am I saying that it only appeals to casual players; it clearly draws fans from segments of the adventure gaming community as well as video-gamers in general. But I just don't see how Heavy Rain's success tells us much about the market for adventure games as they're more traditionally defined, or the impact better graphics might have on its size.

  • @MusicallyInspired said: You can't make an opinion about a game just by reading about it. And what about Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit? (Quantic's first game) That had a non-ported PC release as well as console (just like Telltale's games) and it has just as many if not more QTE's which are actually a lot more comprehensive and complex than Heavy Rain's. I don't think the differences you're pointing out here are "PC vs Console" based but rather "developer vs developer."

    Then I can't really comment Fahrenheit either as I haven't played it, but it doesn't really sound traditional adventure game. It sounds more like action-adventure.

    That is not true. Maybe half. But not "most." And he said more than just 'deaths.' He listed quite a few things that Telltale have no intention of improving on, based on official statements.

    Dying in adventures has became more and more rare since mid-90's.

    And we know almost nothing yet about the future KQ as they haven't revealed much. Based on my understanding they try to get old Sierra stuff to help them, so at least they are trying to do something to keep the game loyal to the franchise.

    :rolleyes: I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. Not even close. Yes, even with all 5 episodes of a season together. There's no way they can match up to a full-length Sierra or LucasArts adventure. They concentrate too much on a 'cinematic experience' and as a result the actual gameplay suffers enormously.

    It seems that we define word recent differently. I compared TTG's season to recent adventures. By that I meant games published in last few years, not to games which were published over decade ago. Only recent Sierra :) or LucasArts adventures I have played were Monkey Island Special Editions, which didn't last more than few hours, because I already knew every puzzle and I spent that time listening dialogue and watching new graphics. It's rare than solving new adventure game takes more than a week (with casual playing, max two or three hours per evening)

    Any adventure game created since 2000 (with the exception of the Myst games) has all been absolute garbage. I won't even give those Adventure Company games the time of day. I bought a couple recent ones because I was hopeful, they were on sale, and they looked good. But as soon as I started the game frustration ensued. Adventure Company games are utter trash and completely miss the mark of what and adventure is supposed to be. Telltale have come the closest since the golden age itself, but that's not saying much, especially with how their latest games are/have been turning out.

    I don't think that modern games are absolute garbage, but I think that games could have little more difficulty. Many games have good stories, but puzzles are bit on the easy side. For example, Gray Matter (most recent game which I have bought) offered a nice story and characters, but unfortunately this time Jane Jensen failed to make game as challenging as GK1 & GK3 (Personally I find GK2 easier than the other two). I still enjoy new games, but I miss difficulty of old classics.

    I believe the games are easier because designers make puzzles more logical and you don't have to use Sierra logic à la use weird doohickey to random thingamabob without any specific reason. And if you forgot to pick up doohickey two hours ago you're dead.

    As am I. But if they screw it up that's the last straw for me.

    Then let's hope that it will be a good game.

  • @MusicallyInspired said: Any adventure game created since 2000 (with the exception of the Myst games) has all been absolute garbage.

    ... ... ...

    Okay, you dodged a bullet there, MI.

  • @thom-22 said: Yes. I see Heavy Rain's sales as a product of growth in the market for casual games, not a resurgence of interest in adventure games. That is absolutely not intended as an insult to Heavy Rain, btw -- you can't argue with success and they've clearly found an exemplary combination of strong story, stellar graphics, and accessible gameplay. (I think TTG's BTTF represents the same phenomenon, except there you have strong story, accessible gameplay, and not-so-stellar graphics, though they're much better than the crap cranked out by casual game publishers.) Nor am I saying that it only appeals to casual players; it clearly draws fans from segments of the adventure gaming community as well as video-gamers in general. But I just don't see how Heavy Rain's success tells us much about the market for adventure games as they're more traditionally defined, or the impact better graphics might have on its size.

    Heavy Rain is both not a casual game and not anything like Telltale's products. I don't understand the comparison there at all. Comparing Heavy Rain to BttF is like saying that a 747 and a paper airplane are the same thing.

  • @Brainiac said: ... ... ...

    Okay, you dodged a bullet there, MI.

    ;)

    @Brainiac said: Heavy Rain is both not a casual game and not anything like Telltale's products. I don't understand the comparison there at all. Comparing Heavy Rain to BttF is like saying that a 747 and a paper airplane are the same thing.

    Wilco is right. Heavy Rain is a full-length AAA game title. It is no casual game! Unless you somehow consider all console games to be "casual?" Which I can't see anything being further from the truth...

  • @wilco64256 said: Heavy Rain is both not a casual game and not anything like Telltale's products. I don't understand the comparison there at all. Comparing Heavy Rain to BttF is like saying that a 747 and a paper airplane are the same thing.

    Call it whatever you'd like. Heavy Rain was not targeted solely at the hardcore of any particular genre. I believe its success was due in part to the changing demographics and demand patterns of the video game market that the industry has been talking about for several years now. (That's how it relates to BTTF; I did not compare the two games in any other way -- and in fact I totally understand the negative reaction to even mentioning the two in the same paragraph :D ) The pertinent point is that I don't believe Heavy Rain's success can be taken as an indicator of a strong relationship between better 3D graphics and sales of traditional adventure games. But time will tell, as I doubt the success of HR has gone unnoticed in the industry.

    At the same time, I would be thrilled if the new KQ game tested JuntMonkey's original hypothesis to which I was responding ("The adventure game market is small because the games are mediocre with bad graphics, not the other way around."). That is, make a kickass KQ-style adventure game with a state-of-the-art graphics engine and see how many players it attracts from beyond the current adventure game market. I could certainly see it attracting enough to offset the loss of that segment of the current market who either dislike 3D or don't have the hardware to run it. But would it attract enough to offset the additional development costs? History suggests the game industry doesn't think so. I'd be interested to find out, though, and wouldn't complain if it turns out JuntMonkey is right.

  • I haven't played Heavy Rain, so I can't comment on that game in particular, but when it comes to casual games... they usually are small, simplistic games... not the impression I've gotten from what I know about Heavy Rain.

    But I suspect what the poster calling Heavy Rain a casual game intended to say might have been that Heavy Rain is an example of a full blown, large retail game only with gameplay inspired by casual games.

    I know I've played a few of those, big games that don't qualify as casual games in the traditional sense as they're just as big as any normal retail game, but where the gameplay itself seems to resemble casual games more than what I'd expect from games generally.

    Again, I have no idea if this applies to Heavy Rain at all, just got the impression that might have been what the poster intended to say.

Add Comment