Hero6 Forums

Well what are your opinions about 2d and 3d graphics in terms of adventure games, At the moment Im building a 3d speilburg. I don't expect 3d to ever replace the classic feeling of a 2d adventure game just mearly give the player a chance to view and explore thing from diffrent angles.

I love the point and click inteface and the text parser interface btw. these are both classic and good but these days people, people who play 3d shooters just arn't interested playing old 2d games. After all why pay $$$$ for the latest hardware and not use it.

So what are your opinions?

I always preferred 2d adventures to 3d ones. As you said, 3d can't replace the classic feeling. Then again, I haven't played too many 3d adventure games...Maybe I should play more?

I would like to play a good 3d adventure game, 360 degrees of freedom offers completely new possibilities for adventure games, as long as adventure games stick to their origins, such as a strong plot, solving puzzles and funny death messages.
 

2D can use all the modern hardware, though. 3D can be used to improve antialiasing, make transparent shadows... a whole bunch of things that improve 2D artwork.

2D is a very mature art form and as such it's much more beautiful. But 3D is getting there, and provides a freedom of exploration and physics that is just not possible in 2D.

For now, 2D is still better, particularly a 2D that uses the advantages of a 3D graphics card. But 3D keeps getting prettier and more advanced, so I would definitely look forward to playing a true 3D adventure game once the technology improves to the point of beauty instead of just being a cool yet immature technology.

3D RPGs are getting really pretty now, and Dragon Age looks like it'll be fantastically pretty AND have a toolset that could be adapted for the use of adventure. *drools*

I have nothing against 3D graphics. I just want the graphics to be awe-inspireing and immersive. Unfortunately, many games are much more likely to inspire a grunt, or even an uninstall, rather than awe. One of the only 3D games where I have ever felt dumstruck at the sheer beauty it all was URU. For the most part, 2D adventure games just look better.
BTW, It's a myth that people who play FPS games don't want to play 2d adventures. I play the occasional FPS, and I love adventure games. I realise you probably meant the hardcore FPS gamers, but if they don't want to play adventure games in 2D (or don't have the patience to), they probably aren't going to play 3d adventure games. Frankly, I say screw them.
It boils down to this: will the game be more immersive and look better with 3d graphics? If yes, then great. If no, then what's the point?

That was very well put Brassfire.

Storift sorry I was making a bit of a biased opinion there based on what i've talked about with my friends who all play fps, I to play alot of fps but also alot of adventure and other games.

Yeh most gamers rasied on FPS' find themselves bored silly when put in front of an adventure game--I'm even "evolving" to be that way ;)

I think 3d is better than 2d in a millzillon ways.  With 3d, you can have the wind whistle through the trees and watch the shadows move as the day ages.

A 3d adventure game made by the best tallent in the industry would change ya'lls opinion in a hury.  Comparing such a 3d game to a 2d game would be like comparing Mysery House to KQ6.  (given the right interface)

However, 3d is considerably more difficult than 2d on many levels.  3d art and progamming require an incredible amount of skill.  I have not yet played nor seen a true 3d adventure game that has the level of detail and emersiveness as a 2d one.  In fact, what you usually end up getting is graphics so glaringly computer generated, that it completely destroys the mood needed for a fun adventure game.  As an adventure gamer, I really don't give a flying flip that the camera moves in all types of directions, so I see no advantage for the fan community to use 3d engines as their platform.  

Even outside of the fan communtiy, I am still partial to 2d.  Broken sword did okay as the first true all-3d adventure game.  Hybrid 2d and 3d games (ie. longest journey) did okay too.  But there is little gained from a game-play perspective.  I think the biggest benefit of 3d hybrids is the simple fact that animation becomes tolerable at high resolutions.  This is a benefit to the developers more so than to the gamers.

To those of you who interpret everything I say as fact, I appreciate it ;).  For the rest of you (especially those interested in developing 3d adventure games), I remind you that this is only my opinion.

PS- it is inacurate to credit antialiasing and shadowing to 3d technology.  The only reason 2d games often require a 3d card for those enhancements is because of the fact that 3d cards have special hardware built to handle these things efficiently.   However, 3d cards aren't needed.  PQ4 used antialiasing on its sprites as well as shadowing and it only recommended a 486 with a PCI 2d graphics adapter

Phats, what do you mean by "hybrid 2d/3d adventure games"? Do you mean 2D adventure games that use 3D backgrounds and animations, but displays them just like regular 2D images?

I mean adventure games that mix 2d and 3d elements.  for example QG5, Grim Fandango, Longest Journey, etc  (in most cases it means that the backgrounds are all pre-rendered 2d images, but the sprites are realtime 3d objects)

Using full 3d backgrounds and sprites, but displaying them as if it were 2d would kinda undervalue the greatness of 3d... unless of course you took advantage of certain things (like shadowing & dynamic light sources, full screen animation, zoom in/out, panning, 3d-scrolling, etc)

Actually I thought pre-rendered 2D backgrounds were really high detail 3D backgrounds(not handdrawn or made from scratch in a 2D art program) displayed as 2D backgrounds.

All these 2d-3d terms everywhere are confusing me :)

The game creation process for these hybrid 3d adventure games such as longest journey or QFG5 is basically the same as it has always been.  You start off with artists skilled in 3d art applications such as 3d studio max or maya and they compose a scene.  The scene is rendered and post-processed in an art program such as photoshop to give them that extra flair.  

Because the sprites will be imported as 3d objects, the background artists don't have to worry about camera angles or shadows.  They simply design their background scene as they see fit.

Once the scene has been rendered and touched up in a 2d art program, it is imported into the game as a background bitmap.

Then hidden light sources are added to the scene.   Transparent layers are overlayed on top of the background to capture shadows cast by the sprites, and clipping boundries are made on the background to give the illusion that you are walking behind obstacles in the scene.

So basically the 3d process is the same as the pure-2d method, except in pure 2d, background artists are limited to one camera angle and should not paint/render scenes with noticable shadows.  And then of course ALL sprites are cel-based and dont cast shadows.

So again, as a gamer you're really not gaining anything from 3d hybrid adventure games because what it bascially determines is the art medium (no hand painted stuff) for which the game is made in.  But it does allow for some shortcuts for game developers.  In particular QG5.  In QG5, they basically just took the out-of-the-box animation templates which come with 3d studio and imported it into their engine.   This completely afforded sierra the luxury of not hiring expensive animators (3d or otherwise).

Well I'm rambling now because I don't want to go to bed

But I gotta say one last thing:  pure 3d-adventures are another topic.  They are completey different beasts for developers.  If you haven't played these already, I'd recommend these:

Knights of the old republic-  I'm not a starwars fan or anything, but this game was just cool.  Great graphics for 3d-only.  Great story.  Great gameplay.  Just great.

Gabriel Knight 4- horrific 3d graphics, but surprisingly, the story was so awesome that it didn't matter (except for the ending which was dumb).  I stayed up many late nights on this one

Fable- I got bored of this one quick, but mostly because it is a console game, and consoles are boooring.   But when I first played it, it was the coolest game on the planet.

World of warcraft- I know, you can't consider MMORPGs Adventure games, but this one does have quests, and so it sorta feels like one.  Just download the beta coming up in a week and see for yourself.

Broken Sword 4- I don't highly recommend this one only because I hated the action-puzzles they threw in (moving blocks around to make walkable passages for example sucked).  But it showed that 3d is a worthy platform for adventures so long as the developers dont try to throw in puzzles specifically to brag about it.

I'd venture to say that all other pure 3d aventures are crap.  Feel free to correct me :).  I'd also say that 3d adventures usually fall on their sword or smoke the competition.  Its a big risk.
 

Thanks for the tech info Phattie. :)

I now get what you mean by hybrid 2D/3D adventures. 2D bitmap backgrounds, 3D animated characters.

The problem with true 3D adventures is that to look extremely high quality and run properly, a powerful system would probably be needed. In theory, those same awesome 3D backgrounds can be used as 2D bitmaps without needing a super powerful system. Of course there won't be any rotation or zooming and maybe no special lighting effects.

Of course I don't want to come across like I'm obsessed with visuals, but variety is always nice. So there is nothing wrong with amazing 3D graphics sometimes instead of handpainted stuff.

I enjoy both 2D and 3D graphics in the appropriate atmosphere. The available technology is often inadaquete to reproduce the mood that can be created fairly easily in 2D graphics. For example, what the Cole's were able to accomplish in QG4 with the mood has not been replicated in a 3D game until Doom 3.

Another important consideration is the resolution and quality of the graphics. The Quest for Glory series, excluding QfG5, has, at best, VGA graphics at 256 colors, as apposed to the SVGA (800x600) to UXGA (1600x1200) Resolutions with 32-bit color. Although the graphics are significantly more pixelated in the older games, they become more memorable because the player must use their imagination, which causes a more lasting impression of the game. How many of you remember the beautiful "Heart of the World" in the jungles outside of Tarna, but I'm sure if you would go back an play the game again, you'd be quite disappointed with exactly how poor the image is.

I do, however, believe that with a proper rendering engine, Hero 6 could actually use higher resolutions and a better color depth PROPERLY.  A Hybred 2D/3D engine could be used with prerendered backgrounds. I am not, however, aware of an Open Source game engine capable of such graphics, so one would need to be created first. Also, the game would have significantly higher requirements than what MAD and AGS demand.

The engine would need to use OpenGL and probably GLUT to ensure cross-platform compatability. It would also be able to take advantage of the Ogg-Vorbis (Spelt wrong, I think) audio format to provide narration, sound effects, and music at higher quality with smaller storage demands. Lastly, it could make a much-needed upgrade to the QG interface: it could use the scroll wheel on the mouse to change between the various interface icons.

The other benifit of creating such an engine would be that other projects, similar to QG2VGA, would appear to recreate the existing Quest for Glory games for a modern platform. Glitches due to the abundance of processing power in the games would be fixed (such as ME's Room in QG1, the tribal admissions test in QG3, and the Tomb in the swamp in QG4).  Lastly, maybe someone would even re-create QG5 so it is no longer as terrible as it is in its current incarnation.

The obvious downside is that it would require many times the man power to create, much more tallented artists, and the use of 3D Studio Max. The game would also loose the feel it currently enjoys.

 

Actually, there is already some fixes for Sierra games on modern processors. Check out CPU fixes (http://www.hero6.com/visitors/forums/index.php?showtopic=42)



Well I must admit, the 3D engine in games like HL2 is very amazing(well at least the pics are, haven't played it yet :)).


I think part of what contributes to the memorable graphics was our lack of experience with computer gaming at the time. The appeal of interactive entertainment was so great, that graphics seemed more amazing than they really were. In addition, graphics that aren't a perfect match of reality are alot more interesting than a perfect match of reality(even when such graphics try to be realistic).

Also, VGA is(sometimes)detailed enough to allow a large degree of artistic expression.  This helps makes the graphics seem more amazing and inspiring than a collection of obscenly large pixels should be. :)


I've revisted the past many times. I agree the VGA sierra screens aren't nearly as impressive as they used to be, but they don't seem poor to me.

The discussion of 2D vs. 3D is like discussing what's better, SNES or XBOX. One is old, one is the new thing. The SNES had some of the best RPGs ever, for examples, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 3, and a few others. The XBOX has some of the best action games ever, Like Halo and Fable. (I don't call Fable an RPG because it sucked.)

Likewise, 2D had some of the best games ever, QFG 1-4, (Particularly four. ) KQ1-6 or seven, I forget if Seven was 3D or 2D. Space Quest series...the list goes on, mostly Sierra Quests.

Now 3D is the big thing. It's got the FPS, the RPGs (Except for Baldur's Gate and a few others, those are pretty meh, usually.)

The answer depends on your tastes. Personally, I don't care if it's 2D or 3D. It's the plotline, gameplay, and neat little "Stuff", like Half-Life 2's physics puzzles.

To me, 2d and 3d are often both attempts at realism. The old masters often used oils, techniques, etc., in order to induce realism into their paintings. To all naysayers, remember this: art is always about re-defining standards, improving your abilities and challenging the conventions. That is what creativity is about, isn't it?

Many of the old masters were often criticised and attacked for attempting to imitate realism(which was considered untraditional), just like many artists these days are accused of being untraditional for embracing 3d.

If 3d does look inferior, it is because this genre is quite new as opposed to 2d, which has been in existence since pre-historic times(during the caveman days).

Also, quite a few movies use matte painting(a technique that uses both 2d and 3d to create realistic imagery) combined with live action, to provide footage. So, if you don't like 3d, you're better off not watching movies 'cos matte painting is widely used these days. :P Oh and who can forget commercials? :P

An example of a master artist(yes, he deserves the title) who has an amazing ability for 2d, 3d, and matte painting is Craig Mullins. http://www.goodbrush.com (http://www.goodbrush.com)

References from http://www.cgchannel.com/news/viewfeature.jsp?newsid=3975 (http://www.cgchannel.com/news/viewfeature.jsp?newsid=3975)

You're a real linking machine, Yuriboy...Girl...it.

Pardon? What do you mean by that? I only pasted 2 links there. Is there something you see that I don't?  :unsure:  

I think that he's referring to the fact that your posts have an actual point and topic. they've been short around here for a couple of months.

Anyway, going slightly off-text, I don't see anything too wrong with action games. Sure, some of them might be kind of violent but some adventure games are just as violent too(as if slashing someone/something with a sword does not hurt... duh!) no matter how much the game talks about honour and peace and such.

And who can forget books, many of which promote violence and racism and other nefarious thoughts(hint: Mein Kampf, anti-Semitism propaganda, etc.)? If ,say, you handed a book about war/murder/genoicide to anyone who has a wild imagination and ability to "translate" textual into visual, I can assure you that the results would not be very appealing. In fact, who can forget our good ol' nursery rhymes, eh? Many of them talked about death, the plague, and other unsavoury matters.

And, going back onto 3d and 2d, I'd say that I enjoy both. Both of them have their own styles and ways of speaking to the viewers. After all, one should be open-minded.

To those who dislike digitalised images, I'd like to emphasize that animation IS computer-generated. Quite a few 2d images are also touched up in Photoshop/other image softwares due to factors like degradation of colours when scanning, anatomy needs to be fixed, etc. In fact, the first original QFG1 game was drawn using computers, no?

Let's face it. How many really fun games have you played that there wasn't violence or at least a potential for violence? All the "Quest" games had it. Almost all RPGS, Action Games, Strategy Games, Adventure Games, Shooters..about the only games I can think of off the top of my head that are purely non-violence are Educational games. Though, then again, in some cases, Shooters are educational. They teach us what happens when you shoot something.

Puzzle games.... :whatever:  

Puzzle games? you try doing a rubiks cube and tell me that doesn't involve violence.

No kidding.

Besides, that depends on what kind of "Puzzle Games" You're referring to. A lot of Adventure Games could be considered puzzle games.

Well, I was thinking Tetris style games.

Tetris came in at the dawn of time. It is no longer a game, it is simply an overdone series. They need a new idea.

Huh I've got it they need bombs to clear sections of bricks, oh wait that would be violent never mind.

don't they have one of those as well?

I think so.

This may have been mentioned before, but one of the chief advantages to producing more games in 3D graphics is that you can have alternate costumes and the like for your characters, because all you have to make is the model and you can use the same animation between the different models. Whereas in the 2D games your guys are making at the moment If a character gets a new outfit the animator has to reanimate every step all over again.

Yeah, there are defnite technical advantages to 3d over 2d, and 3d is beginning to mature as an art form now. Just look at The Elder Scrolls 3: Oblivion... *drool*

That's the Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. There's Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, and upcoming is Oblivion.

Sorry for my late reply, I just joined. I disagree, developers now-a-days just dont know how to give that classic feel with 3D worlds. Its all down to profit, and killing makes profit. Compare Half Life 2 & Broken Sword, they are both in different leagues so you cant compare them, Broken Sword might sell well as an adventure game but no where near Halo, Half Life, Jedi Knight... etc.

I would go for 3D characters and Pre-rendered enviroments...

WHoever played The Longest Journey knows what I'm talking about  ;)  

3D is great, but 2D adds so much more mystery to adventure games.  Small quirk, yes, but I love that feeling of not being able to look behind the corner, or pan the camera just right to see what's in that back room.

I said it elsewhere.  Making a good 3D adventure game is easy, so long as you give it thought.  Prerendered scenes are ugly and technically limited, requiring guesstimate clipping (collision modelling) that often looks even more fake than the prerendered scenes already do.  Case and point: every single game that uses prerendered scenes, regardless of the genre.

The big thing about making a good 3D adventure game is to not stick to every single preconcieved notion of what an adventure game has to be.  That's why Quest for Glory is such a great series -- it didn't!

Oh, let's face it. One could consider KQ8--I mean MOE to be an adventure game. You solved puzzles...extremely easy and un-confusing puzzles, but puzzles. I can't think of a single good 3D Adventure Game. Unless you consider games like Morrowind to be Adventure.

One could consider Grim Fandango to be 3d in a sense... and it was quite good.

Don't forget The Longest Journey.

Though all that was 3D in Grim Fandango and TLJ were the characters. The graphics were pre-rendered.

Yeah, just like QFG5.

Ok, let's get one thing straight: The Longest Journey was one of the BEST adventure games I ever played in spite of its OMG 3D ness.

Say it once, you said it once. Say it twice, it's a coincidence, say it three times, it's a running gag.

Well I do like the classic feeling of 2d. It just feels more like Quest for Glory when it is 2d I think. 4 out of 5 are 2d after all. Plus, the demo was in 2d and it was pretty good (for a demo that is).

I admit it. I signed a contract with Ragnar Tornquist!  ^_^

Well, he stereotypes 3D adventure games. He's a 3Dsist!