![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_gneechLast night I finished replaying Curse of Monkey Island (which is the last of the 2D MI games) and fired up Escape From Monkey Island (which is 3D rendered) to replay, and I found myself thinking, "Geeze, this looks like crap."
Now this is an odd thing, isn't it? Escape came out something like three years after Curse, has much heftier hardware requirements, and should theoretically be the more visually appealing game ... but it isn't. The traditional-animation style of Curse at 800x600 (I think) was far more appealing than Escape at 1024x768.
That led me to think about the fact that the upcoming Sam and Max and Full Throttle sequels are also going to be 3D rendered and to wonder, today, just why everything is 3D now. I can understand it for first-person shooters and the like ... it gives you more freedom of movement within the game, allows you to play with camera angles and so forth. But for LucasArts-style adventure games particularly, I see no advantage -- and in the case of Escape From Monkey Island, the 3D actually hurts the game rather than enhancing it. I'd much rather have all that video processing power playing high-res traditional animations that actually looked good.
So if anybody out there reading this is familiar with the computer gaming industry, can you tell me what the deal is? My current theory is that, among other things, it means you don't have to pack a CD-ROM with a ton of pre-rendered animations at a handful of different resolutions, but that by itself hardly seems to justify it. Either that, or maybe everybody does it because, well, "everybody does it."
-The Gneech
Now this is an odd thing, isn't it? Escape came out something like three years after Curse, has much heftier hardware requirements, and should theoretically be the more visually appealing game ... but it isn't. The traditional-animation style of Curse at 800x600 (I think) was far more appealing than Escape at 1024x768.
That led me to think about the fact that the upcoming Sam and Max and Full Throttle sequels are also going to be 3D rendered and to wonder, today, just why everything is 3D now. I can understand it for first-person shooters and the like ... it gives you more freedom of movement within the game, allows you to play with camera angles and so forth. But for LucasArts-style adventure games particularly, I see no advantage -- and in the case of Escape From Monkey Island, the 3D actually hurts the game rather than enhancing it. I'd much rather have all that video processing power playing high-res traditional animations that actually looked good.
So if anybody out there reading this is familiar with the computer gaming industry, can you tell me what the deal is? My current theory is that, among other things, it means you don't have to pack a CD-ROM with a ton of pre-rendered animations at a handful of different resolutions, but that by itself hardly seems to justify it. Either that, or maybe everybody does it because, well, "everybody does it."
-The Gneech
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 10:56 am (UTC)Exactly my thought when I started up the game first!
I really enjoyed the Monkey Island series and didn't really saw the need in makeing it 3D rendered - and the final product showed to me, that it could have done well without too.
And...I guess it's 3D because that sounds .
*shrug*
But I won't get around to buy myself the new part of Sam&Max, I enjoyed the first one too much to do otherwise. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 11:49 am (UTC)The final nail in 2D's coffin came when DirectX 9, computer game's current programming de facto, was released without an updated 2D component. It's nothing but 3D. Subsequent releases of DirectX won't feature a 2D component either.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 11:53 am (UTC)1) You are correct - you can put in a LOT more art in a MUCH smaller space.
2) Easier to make a 3D game, believe it or not, because there is less wasted effort. Designer A tells artist B that a character needs to do X animations. If they change a light bit of the original art, ALL of it needs redone, and reverified. If they just change a skin, it just needs reverified. Or add a SECOND skin and you have a completely new character.
3) Adds "depth". Sorting multiple objects (like, say, trees in a forest becomes MUCH cleaner.
4) 3D allows you to add "held" objects, at will (if you've done the engine that way.)
5) New camera angles became possible. Even desireable.
If I remember Money Island correctly, the last 2D was a LOT of hand animations. As in TONS. Switching to 3D meant they could more for less.
So, yea, it may not have had the same look, and may not have been as nicely tweaked. But it added things and possibilities to the game.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 05:17 pm (UTC)Reason being that MI3 was practically a piece of art in itself really. I don't think I know a single fan that prefers the 3d look to the highres 2d one. As far as "why 3d" goes, I'm usually the supporter of 2d, unless
a) the 3d is part of the gameplay [like Gabriel Knight 3] or
b) the whole thing is 3d, thus making the game look better when better hardware comes out and you can turn on FSAA and all the other candy.
There are a few games that defy this and still look good though, Grim Fandango being the top one. The game rocked in absolutely every aspect, especially visually. If Sam'n'Max 2 looked that good, I'd be thrilled...
...as long as they brought back the old cursor&click system. I DO NOT LIKE PLAYING ADVENTURE GAMES WITH MY KEYBOARD! In fact, I loathe it! It makes the gameplay slow, it causes no ends of problems when walking around edges of the screen and getting pushed off by something invisible and worse of all, it takes forever to manage your, sometime huge, inventory. In Grim, I must have spent half my time just flicking between objects. Annoying doesn't begin to describe it.
Still, we'll see. SNM2 looks great, but Full Throttle 2 does not... They said they toned down the adventure part and buffed up the action part, not to even mention Roy Conrad is dead. Which makes me very very worried indeed. :/
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 05:52 pm (UTC)It comes mostly from the fact that "3D" had been the holy grail of computer gaming ever since the early days (just look at the marketing text on the boxes for your old games from the 1980s, if you saved them). Now that it can really be done, the game companies have an attitude similar to "Now that I'm grown up and can do whatever I want, I'm going to eat chocolate sundaes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day!"
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 07:02 pm (UTC)It should be used where appropriate to the game's aesthetic and not where it isn't; that much is obvious to any competent designer. But unfortunately the majority of the games biz is run not by creatives but by marketing people; and since 3D displays are those that have been most recently benefitted by advances in technology, therefore they are the Great New Thing, and all games must incorporate them or risk not keeping up with any of the other clueless fuckwits who think that playing tech oneupmanship equates to making good games.
Stupid.
\
(:-) - Yak
/