Gobliiins 4

All the inane chatter goes in here. If you're curious about whether we will support a game, post HERE not in General Discussion :)

Moderator: ScummVM Team

Koyder
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:22 pm

Post by Koyder » Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:41 am

Why, why 3D?

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:04 pm

Koyder wrote:Why, why 3D?
i don't know if you've been keeping up on nu-age computer games, but that's basically a standard now adays.

User avatar
eriktorbjorn
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 3316
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:39 am

Post by eriktorbjorn » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:53 pm

PsYcO wrote:
Koyder wrote:Why, why 3D?
i don't know if you've been keeping up on nu-age computer games, but that's basically a standard now adays.
Ironically, when I look at screenshots of Gabriel Knight 3 and Simon the Sorcerer 3D, I find them significantly uglier than Gabriel Knight 1 and Simon the Sorcerer 1. But I guess 3D graphics have had the time to catch up by now...

User avatar
exofreeze
Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:06 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by exofreeze » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:15 pm

I completely agree. late generation 2D graphics are still great to me. Really new stuff like Bioshock is the first 3D material to really rival the detail levels of older 2D games.

The Goblins games in particular had really colorful outlandish backgrounds which I'm not sure would be easily duplicable using 3D (or at least the quality of 3D hinted at by the websites screenshots).

Simon the Sorcerer 3D was not recieved very well, MI4 was not recieved well, and the list goes on. Frankly, Grim Fandango was one of the first (and only) 3D adventure games to capture me, although I think that had more to do with the unique art direction then it did with the actual 3d graphics.

clem
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:14 am

Post by clem » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:23 pm

also interesting which 2D games still get sold - Lucasarts games, Diablo II - but do you see any 3D games for sale which are older than ~3 years? 2D is somewhat timeless - a pity that it's apparently more work (and thus more expensive) to do it right in 2D :/

spacetroll
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:15 pm

Post by spacetroll » Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:45 am

Next-gen 3D stuff coming out now is pretty amazing. You have to consider how long 2D practices were being perfected since graphical gaming came into existence -- 3D is "newer" and is finally catching up, technology-wise and in terms of the quality expected from the art team and programmers.

A game like GK3 suffered from being overly ambitious in design and not having the time, money or resources to see it through in execution (although it's still a great game, but comes off graphically and control-wise as very clunky compared to GK1). Also, PC games in the past decades have been notorious for compatibility issues, graphic/sound card problems, etc. Even in this past generation of consoles (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube) there have been some excellent 3D adventure games that are both easy to play and beautiful to look at, like Shadow of Destiny, Ico, Indigo Prophecy (Farenheit), and the Silent Hill series (more action/adventure, but fantastic nonetheless).

To sum up this unsolicited rant, my basic message is "give 3D a chance." We're entering a really exciting phase of next-gen gaming, in terms of design, interactivity, graphics, sound, the whole gamut. I LOVE the old point-and-clicks like children, but if you don't give the flashy, new stuff a chance, you'll miss out on some truly awesome stuff.

OK, I'm done. :D

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO » Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:07 am

i didn't say 'its the only way to go, down with 2D!"

i meant that for any real game to enter the market with a fare chance of making money needs to be highly rendered, cause to be fare us point and click adventure whores don't give much for graphics, since new content is very hard to find, we would take crap on a plate if it was handed to us, at least in my opinion.

spacetroll
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:15 pm

Post by spacetroll » Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:29 am

PsYcO wrote:i didn't say 'its the only way to go, down with 2D!"
I don't exactly know you came to think that my post was directed specifically at you. I was presenting my opinion on the matter being discussed, hoping maybe to spur some further discussion, not trigger your defense mechanism. You're not the only person on this forum. Sheesh.

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO » Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:36 am

spacetroll wrote:
PsYcO wrote:i didn't say 'its the only way to go, down with 2D!"
I don't exactly know you came to think that my post was directed specifically at you. I was presenting my opinion on the matter being discussed, hoping maybe to spur some further discussion, not trigger your defense mechanism. You're not the only person on this forum. Sheesh.
it came across that i wasn't understood properly, i thought it would be better to clear it up... sorry...

User avatar
exofreeze
Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:06 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by exofreeze » Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:15 pm

spacetroll wrote: A game like GK3 suffered from being overly ambitious in design and not having the time, money or resources to see it through in execution (although it's still a great game, but comes off graphically and control-wise as very clunky compared to GK1). Also, PC games in the past decades have been notorious for compatibility issues, graphic/sound card problems, etc. Even in this past generation of consoles (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube) there have been some excellent 3D adventure games that are both easy to play and beautiful to look at, like Shadow of Destiny, Ico, Indigo Prophecy (Farenheit), and the Silent Hill series (more action/adventure, but fantastic nonetheless).

To sum up this unsolicited rant, my basic message is "give 3D a chance." We're entering a really exciting phase of next-gen gaming, in terms of design, interactivity, graphics, sound, the whole gamut. I LOVE the old point-and-clicks like children, but if you don't give the flashy, new stuff a chance, you'll miss out on some truly awesome stuff.

OK, I'm done. :D
I think it's ironic that 3D got popular as a gimmick, then stayed around due to it's cheap production values. But then due to competition, the cost of development for textures, modeling, etc become so high that new companies could not jump in easily anymore. Then the marketing types started throwing buzzwords around like '3DFX' and 'Monster VooDoo' like it was an automatic salespitch.

I think it's ironic that the "death of the adventure genre" (or at least its gigantic slaughter) took place when all these games tried to jump to low res 3D, GK3 being a perfect example.

Now, as far as giving 3D a chance, I definitely agree with you. For me in particular though, I am a huge gamer - console and pc. So I slugged through generations of consoles pumping out crap 3D games interspersed with the occasional good one. It's easy to say that 2D designers had all this time to hone their skills, but I don't believe it's actually true. As of 1990 CGA and EGA graphics were still the most predominant. It was between 1991 and 1996 that graphics evolved to the amazing detail levels we are speaking of - and thats only 5 years. 3D games on the other hand have been actively thrown at us since 1998, although development was actually strong as of 1996/7. It's taken 10 years for the graphics to get comparable, but with it comes the cost of a very high end system to run it (I'm talking $300 video cards or 500-600 dollar consoles here).

One of the most ironic things to me is the idea of "cell shaded graphics". Here you have 3D graphics emulating 2D graphics... While it was a fun gimmick the first few times, it would be must easier to just go with 2D graphics with smooth animation instead of all this motion capture super movie budget crap that ends up costing me $60 a game.

back on topic - I went back to the goblinoids site and watched the gameplay videos again. While the game definitely doesn't look bad, it just doesn't strike me as detailed and interactive as the previous titles.... but I'm still a sucker for Goblins games and I'm sure I'll buy it.

User avatar
eriktorbjorn
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 3316
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:39 am

Post by eriktorbjorn » Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:46 pm

exofreeze wrote:It's taken 10 years for the graphics to get comparable, but with it comes the cost of a very high end system to run it (I'm talking $300 video cards or 500-600 dollar consoles here).
History keeps repeating itself, though. The first graphical adventure looked pretty awful, too, and it took a while for them to catch up. In 1985, Infocom released perhaps one of their most ambitious attempts at a serious science fiction (that screenshot is not the original interpreter), while Sierra-on-Line were still cheerfully mixing Count Dracula and Little Red Riding Hood.

By the late eighties, the market for text adventures was drying up, and Infocom went out of business.

User avatar
Noelemahc
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:24 pm

Post by Noelemahc » Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:29 pm

eriktorbjorn wrote:<...>
Ironically, when I look at screenshots of Gabriel Knight 3 and Simon the Sorcerer 3D, I find them significantly uglier than Gabriel Knight 1 and Simon the Sorcerer 1. But I guess 3D graphics have had the time to catch up by now...
Yes, but have you seen the screenshots to Simon the Sorcerer 4? Now that one wants to pretend it's a CGI movie from start to finish.

And don't forget that 3d adventures have been around for decades - even before the fabled Alone in the Dark that kick-started the genre into popularity and "me-too" cloning (which ultimately, in a strange twist of fate, spawned first Resident Evil and from thereon Silent Hill, which I enjoy far more than AitD's own sequels).

The interactive fiction front also had some interim titles, ones that toyed with combining graphics and text, these date back to -- what, early 1980s? As far back as there were graphics in games, there were attempts to create illustrated IFs. Actually, there were a LOT of them, although most people nowadays remember only the Legend titles, and even then only a few.

User avatar
eriktorbjorn
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 3316
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:39 am

Post by eriktorbjorn » Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:55 pm

Noelemahc wrote: The interactive fiction front also had some interim titles, ones that toyed with combining graphics and text, these date back to -- what, early 1980s? As far back as there were graphics in games, there were attempts to create illustrated IFs. Actually, there were a LOT of them, although most people nowadays remember only the Legend titles, and even then only a few.
Oh, yes. The ones that spring to my mind are the ones from Magnetic Scrolls, Level 9 and ICOM Simulations. And The Hobbit, I guess, but as you say, there were lots of them. Even Infocom released a few.

I think the first illustrated text adventure was Mystery House, which was first released in 1980. I don't know which was the first completely mouse-operated adventure game. Deja Vu may have been one of the first, though it did require some typing. (You had to tell the cab driver where to go.)

There were also - and I think this was a lot rarer - non-illustrated text adventures with digitized sound effects. Infocom released two; I can't think of any others at the moment.

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO » Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:44 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eduD4XZ5xq4 -trailer

is there any release date yet? i cant read french:(

oduverne
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:43 pm

Post by oduverne » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:56 am

PsYcO wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eduD4XZ5xq4 -trailer

is there any release date yet? i cant read french:(
It says that it will be in 2007

Post Reply