Traditional animation vs. 3D animation...

[Olaus Petrus]

Originally Posted by icedan

Being popular doesn't make it right. I've dealt with both 3D and 2D engines for different genres, in the beginning I was fighting for 3D because back in the 90's it seemed like the next thing. But I have come to the strong conclusion that in some cases, 2D is just better. 3D is good if you want to move around the world quickly. It's not good if you are going from one scene to another that contains many puzzles using many objects lying around.


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.

Modern 3D looks fine to me and IMO works well in the adventure games. I think that if you're trying to create illusion of three dimensional space (which most adventures try to do, no matter if those games are 2D or 3D games) you might as well use real 3D environment. Only problems which come to my mind are that sometimes when game uses 3D characters and 2D backgrounds those characters don't quite fit, but luckily there are plenty of games which have solved that problem. And sometimes games with full 3D graphics are rather heavy and need lot of resources.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by icedan

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?

[Radogol]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

I can't think of any games that have done this yet--are there any?

Simon 3 fits the bill, I suppose?

[GuybrushWilco]

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.

[Olaus Petrus]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

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.

Originally Posted by Radogol

Simon 3 fits the bill, I suppose?

Hah. Simon 3D is one of the ugliest games I have ever seen, which is pity because the puzzles and story are decent.

[joek86]

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.

2D world


3D world


2D world


3D world


2D world


3D world


Do you need more examples?

[doggans]

Originally Posted by icedan

Kings Quest is not meant to be in 3D

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.

Originally Posted by Lambonius

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.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by doggans

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.)

[Anakin Skywalker]

2D all the way:

[Radogol]

Originally Posted by doggans

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

Originally Posted by Olaus Petrus

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.

Originally Posted by Olaus Petrus

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

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Radogol

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.

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by joek86

Do you need more examples?

no. You clearly proofed that 2D is better.

[doggans]

Originally Posted by Radogol

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.

[icedan]

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.

[Majus]

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.

[MusicallyInspired]

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.

Originally Posted by Majus

3D is not supposed to be as detailed as a handdrawn background of course, it serves other purposes.

Wow. I don't agree with that at all.

Originally Posted by Lambonius

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.

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.

Originally Posted by doggans

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.

[Radogol]

Dead Cyborg is an interesting example of a fully 3D adventure game.

[Lambonius]

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??!

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

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.

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.

[Irishmile]

I like both.... There are some real advantages from either...

also this thread is really suffering from the "My opinion is fact" epidemic...