User Avatar Image

Adventure Games: 3D vs. 2D

posted by Anonymous on - last edited - Viewed by 1.8K users

I'm not sure if it's kosher to make my first post here a new topic, but this thread idea pertains well to an adventure gaming board.

As an adventure-gamer, do you prefer sprite-based games (Day of the Tentacle, Kings Quest, etc.) or 3D-modeled games (Grim Fandango, Monkey Island 4)?

I personally prefer the scheme of a good old 2D adventure game, because 3D adventure games seem harder to control, especially since they don't use the mouse. I guess I wouldn't complain if I could use the mouse when I control my characters' movements, though.

63 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    [quote][quote]ps: beware of that vampira after you :D[/quote]

    Vampira?
    Where?
    Next to the three-headed monkey?
    :D[/quote]

    A vampire!

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    Eeeek!

    I hope you're not implying I'm some kinda gothic-dude, or something... :D But vampira from the 50ies sure looked hot!

    EDIT: Oooh, you're talking about what's cooking at Bad Brains...

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    A tough question. Both types have their positive moments and their flaws. In our days 3D adventures are becoming more user firendly (no more Grim Fandango'ish control mechanisms). A great example is Wanted: A Wild Western Adventure, which had one of the best 3D point'n'click gameplay.
    2D games, on the other hand, have more beutifull backgrounds and usually are better done on the gameplay point of view. 3D's sometimes forget about the gameplay, when giving the gamer a powerfull engine. As I said - a tough question. I prefer both.

  • I think both types can be successful or suck depending on how they're executed. If people want the adventure genre to survive (and it must evolve to do so), then they can't simply dismiss 3D or any modern technical advancement because it doesn't resemble the classics.

    3D can be done right. I personally didn't mind the engine used in Grim or EMI (though those damned elevators were a nuisance), but I think some people are under the mistaken impression that 3D automatically means pre-rendered backgrounds and "drive the character" controls. That simply isn't true. A game can successfully adapt to the times and simultaneously remain true to the "basics" of the old adventure games (not that I'm thinking of any title in particular which featured a point 'n click, realtime 3d engine).

    But it's time for us to accept that companies are simply not going to produce 2d, point 'n click games anymore, and our insistence for them will not help the future of the genre. How many companies like Autumn Moon do you think are out there, who are willing to make old-style games at the expense of any reasonable income? Don't get me wrong; I love what they're doing, but treats like A Vampyre Story can't be expected to come along very often. Instead, we should be looking to companies like Double Fine and Telltale, who are exploring new ways to evolve story-driven games and hope that they become successful so that other companies may follow the example.

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    Hai!
    As i mentioned before:
    This dicussion 3d vs. 2d "style" is useless. There is no 3d AND no 2d style.
    A good game allways depend on good artistic performance and good programing. Now a days a game will use 3d technics, even, if it looks like 2d.
    What makes "3d" so emotionless, is, that the most artists are not able to handle the stuff. Technic of progrming may have developed so far, but does artistic technic has been developed the same way? I do not think so. Most artists should remember the "good old times", because they should remember the values, emotions. Real 3d will take a longer time till it is able to carry all that thoughts that where carry by pixeled 2d images.
    Now a days most "3d-artist" try to be realistic. I do not think that this is an art-style. This shows, that they, the 3d artist, have no style at all, except Leonardo ...

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    Hang on, a good artist can do many styles, what if they where told to go for a realistic style. That's not their fault is it, just earning a pay check. And what if there working with a team of artists all designing 3-D enviroments for the same game. It takes talent to be able to work the same style as somebody else.

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    Like copy-cat murders?

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    More like a two or more murderers that have the same style and split the load. Like in the original scream, ever seen that movie? I'd watched Scary Movie before that and I was convinced that the murderer was the cop with the mustache.

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    I murdered the mailman once and left him on my friend's front porch lol! that was funny! he was like, "what the hell!?"
    Not the mailman, my friend. The mailman didnt say anything. he didnt have a chance to...

    oh yea, therapys workin' out

  • User Avatar Image
    Anonymous

    Personally, I really hate questions like this only because too many people seem to put a very ridiculous stress on presentation as though that's all that matters. Presentation is only a part of an overall production. In fact, many like myself would argue that the story is usually the most engrossing part of any game.

    Take Doom III . I've seen the graphics. They're phenomenal. But what story is there? Oh, you walk around blowing up demons. The word "repetitious" doesn't begin to describe that.

    Similarly, take "Sam and Max", which is one of the funniest games ever made. Great story, fantastic humor, great voice acting, visual jokes all over the place. The people who focus so much on presentation might as well say, "Well, it would be a lot better if it was 3D." No, it wouldn't. The "South Park" game sucked royal chunks of ass. It converted 2D to 3D, but there was no story, no plot, and no fun. Converting 2D characters to 3D means nothing to the success of any kind of game.

    (Of course, the fact is that "3D" as it's currently accepted is NOT 3D since it's viewed on a 2D screen. True 3D requires red/blue or some other stereoscopic format. But, that's another topic all together...)

    My two cents. It is your responsibility to convert that into your country's monetary denomination.

Add Comment