User Avatar Image

Why I enjoy the 3d in Monkey island 4 and think its a great thing that this will be

posted by doodo! on - last edited - Viewed by 240 users

Visually the 3d in Monkey island 4 is dated, and low poly , but I love the feeling of dimension and enclosure that 3d environments create.

Visually speaking its nothing too great, but the feeling of the 3D and being able to follow shadows to every corner and to be able to follow the light bending around corners and seeing light on the polies in front of you as they move , makes the graphics in MI 4 rather enjoyable for me, even though dated.

Now the 3d technology is even greater. Imagine the lighting , and sense of atmosphere they can now create. The movement in 4 was hated, but how often is it considered that the movement was more of a player advantage and interactivity bit than the previous game due to 3d environments ? There were more "established " "rendered" plains to walk onto, and more interactivity, game play . I feel that the key control helped making navigating these 3d environments more of a whole experience. Sure it was different, and not the same and frustrating at first but over all I liked the feeling of the graphics in MI-4 even though dated.

I feel that 3d graphics if at all presentable create an entirely different and evolved sense of dimension , and life like game play.

21 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @doodo! said: Visually the 3d in Monkey island 4 is dated, and low poly , but I love the feeling of dimension and enclosure that 3d environments create. Visually speaking its nothing too great, but the feeling of 3D and being able to follow shadows to every corner and to be able to follow the light bending around corners and light the polies in front of you as they move , makes the graphics in MI 4 rather enjoyable for me, even though dated. Now the 3d techonology is even greater. Imagine the lighting , and sense of atmospshere they can now create. The movement in 4 was hated, but how often is it considered that the movement was more than the previous game due to 3d environments ? There were more "established " "rendered" plains to walk onto, and more interactivity, game play . I feel that the key control helped making navigating these 3d environments more of a whole experience. Sure it was different, and not the say and frustrating at first but over all I liked the feeling of the graphics in MI-4 even though dated.



    Well, this is the best post you've written so far.

    3D can be good for the reasons you listed, but EMI used it horribly. Hopefully TMI will be more as you have just described.

  • @Secret Fawful said: Well, this is the best post you've written so far.

    3D can be good for the reasons you listed, but EMI used it horribly. Hopefully TMI will be more as you have just described.



    It looked for shit, but I did like being able to walk around corners , in between things ,and have a sense of depth, the character seemed more balanced and organic than in the past games , because there was more depth perception and virtual surroundings you could reach out to.

    The stress and focus on the character and his movements became more life like and balanced because of the depth around and being able to reach certain points , and alter your dimensions, perception it was not flat and the character was round and did not look like it was held up by 2d art glue ...even though it was like 4 shapes the body it seemed to be more skeletal , structural simply. you can simply tell when something is painted versus sculptured ...most the time.

    I feel that TMI will surprise the nay sayers and offer a whole new sense of realism to the franchise . :) Not that painted backgrounds, and beautiful 2d art wasn't ever good, but its noticeably a cartoon and to me it doesn't feel like an alternative world that you are surrounded by , the platform simply is more linear than a 3d one in my opinion.

  • I also liked the graphics in Monkey 4, but I would have prefered point and click. I wish they had made that an option at least.

  • @kblood said: I also liked the graphics in Monkey 4, but I would have prefered point and click. I wish they had made that an option at least.



    I never knew what to make of it, but I definitely hated it at first. Now it's just like...yeah...that's Mi-4 .

    I think because it was 3-D environments they felt that they had to make it like other 3d games and allow a more cubical perimeter player movement rather than a 2-D staged, point and click to move linearly, flat square, type of deal ...and the keys forward , right, down, and left lend their selves to that nicely.

  • I think for the most part making adventure games 3D started too early in the progression of the technology. I felt that the 3D technology available in the later 90's was good enough to create a good game world but was poor when it came to characters. Now for the generic FPS games of the time it was fine but the characters are one of the most important factors in an adventure game and that is what I feel they got wrong with EMI. I liked the 3D world in which it was set but the way the characters were modelled & animated ruined it a bit for me. If they made it now then I feel it would look and feel great.

    There is one early 3D adventure game in which I feel they got the characters correct and which interesting used an earlier version of the engine used in EMI - Grim Fandango of course. Though it was probably helped by the fact that the main characters are skeletons or are just not human and that it had one of the best (if not the best) stories in an adventure game.

    Another major factor in 3D adventures is control. This hasn't been perfected yet but I do feel it's getting close. The most important aspect of control for me is that it should be character relative, not camera relative. When you press forward, the character should move forward in the direction he/she is facing, not just simply away from (or towards) the camera.

  • honestly I think MI4 looked great. and at the time it was real great using the keyboard. I think it worked out really well, because it made the game feel fresh. it did something brave and new.

    in retrospect I do prefer the first two games both in terms of graphics and controls, but then again - I don't know if I would think much more of the fourth if it had 2d graphics and point'n'click controls.

    anyway I think the graphics on EfMI are fine.

  • @corruptbiggins said: I think for the most part making adventure games 3D started too early in the progression of the technology. I felt that the 3D technology available in the later 90's was good enough to create a good game world but was poor when it came to characters. Now for the generic FPS games of the time it was fine but the characters are one of the most important factors in an adventure game and that is what I feel they got wrong with EMI. I liked the 3D world in which it was set but the way the characters were modelled & animated ruined it a bit for me. If they made it now then I feel it would look and feel great.

    There is one early 3D adventure game in which I feel they got the characters correct and which interesting used an earlier version of the engine used in EMI - Grim Fandango of course. Though it was probably helped by the fact that the main characters are skeletons or are just not human and that it had one of the best (if not the best) stories in an adventure game.

    Another major factor in 3D adventures is control. This hasn't been perfected yet but I do feel it's getting close. The most important aspect of control for me is that it should be character relative, not camera relative. When you press forward, the character should move forward in the direction he/she is facing, not just simply away from (or towards) the camera.



    Character relative sounds clever it helps keeping with perceiving the atmosphere as you move throughout it, without loosing any of the imagination involved envisioning yourself as the character in that setting. SoI agree with that. The graphics in Mi-1 and 2 were constant , and fluid ,and creating their own style but I felt that even the camera relative aspects of the game added to the game, even though they could have been better or something else , such as character relative . Most monkey island screens were from the side, not really inward , the thing about 3d graphics is that they always go inward, or outward towards you, away from you. Being suggested is one thing, but being generated and rendered is another thing , and an entirely different atmosphere .

    I definitely agree with you that character relative movements would be AWESOME. Even though the camera relative angles opened up certain visual aspects they also limited the full window of dimensions by never showing you every side of the "generated room" , scene that you were in.

    It was a restriction, and yes sometimes it was so horrid not being able to see the full visual setting.

    There is no doubt that if you were free to face any direction and that if the camera was character relative and accommodated your virtual binocular of surroundings as you choose to perceive them by looking to the right, left, back, or on ward that it would be more realistic. That would be like piecing together the atmosphere, reality of the scenery .

    :)

    @corruptbiggins said: honestly I think MI4 looked great. and at the time it was real great using the keyboard. I think it worked out really well, because it made the game feel fresh. it did something brave and new.

    in retrospect I do prefer the first two games both in terms of graphics and controls, but then again - I don't know if I would think much more of the fourth if it had 2d graphics and point'n'click controls.

    anyway I think the graphics on EfMI are fine.


    I consider that an intellectual gift of yours honestly, to accept things as they truly are rather than how others suggest they are . You accept it as it is , and see it based on its own content, strengths, intellectual properties rather than something separate and discontinued . This shows focus on your half. Your frame of reference is direct, to the point rather than diluted and pre-evolved you can see things as they truly are , and not simply as they once were.

  • I actually didn't mind 4 either... its my least favorite but it had plenty of fun stuff in it.

  • @Irishmile said: I actually didn't mind 4 either... its my least favorite but it had plenty of fun stuff in it.



    This the attitude I should inspire to have every day . Pleasurable open mind-ed-nessity ! Like I said I enjoy the game, but some times I am not as open minded. I liked T-3...and Indiana Jones 4 etc etc

  • Ten years have passed since Half Life and Thief and whatelse, and people are still feeling the need to convince that 3D has its strenghts too! :D


    In retrospect some of the 2d background art in Escape wasn't *that* great, however, there's one scene I vividly remember adoring for what must have been an eternity. It's this one: http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/4776/89033_full.jpg

    I think it's shortly before Guybrush and his new crew set sails. It's just before the adventure is about to really begin. It's that night before. It's calm. The waves are gently moving...

    Oh: plus, I also liked MI4. Just like you. The controls get a lot more beaten than they deserve too. It's like as if the game was played by people who think of fetish p0rn whenever they hear someone say "Alone In The Dark" or something. :D I can relate to this though - after all, adventure gamers are a bunch that go Lollapalooza all over if any game dares to stray off the perceivd norm. Am I making generalizations? You bet! ;)

Add Comment