2d Adventure Games - Still relevant?
Sorry if there are any threads like this. I know that this is a controversial topic for fans of this genre, but as a person who likes both types of adventure game who is genuinely curious of people's opinions on this matter I think I can "host" (if you like) this debate in an unbiased fashion.
There are those people who are annoyed by 3D adventure games. This is especially the case with revivals of old Adventures (Sam & Max, Monkey Island, Broken Sword, etc), but some will claim that 3D in new adventures are unnecessary, too. Many 'indie' Adventure game titles are done in 3D, although it can be argued that this has just as much to do with budget concerns as anything else.
Some people have asked why they bother with 3D; 'surely hand drawn graphics are cheaper, quicker and easier?' But, surprisingly, some designers (and fans) of 3D interfaces have made the claim that this is not the case; that 2D animation is not quicker or easier.
The debate, like so many others, springs from 'Nostalgic Longing for the Past' verses 'Desire for change and "progression"' (I emphasise the word 'progression' because I've heard it used so many times to describe things that, ultimately, improved nothing or even made things worse).
I, for one, can't comment on the efficiency of 2D over 3D from a technical point of view; I just don't understand that much about CGI or game design. I can make guesses, though; 2D representations would still have to be coloured by computer, the characters would either have to scanned from a drawing and then animated (and I don't know if this would be difficult or not) or made as 2D CGI. But I don't see why this is more difficult or less preferable than 3DCG; most games companies already hire 'concept artists' so it's not like the don't have access anybody with right skill set or would have to take on extra staff to accommodate this.
As I said; I enjoy both forms of game and I'm not going to 'attack' anybody who makes arguments either way, I do hope that others will try not to do so, either.
There are those people who are annoyed by 3D adventure games. This is especially the case with revivals of old Adventures (Sam & Max, Monkey Island, Broken Sword, etc), but some will claim that 3D in new adventures are unnecessary, too. Many 'indie' Adventure game titles are done in 3D, although it can be argued that this has just as much to do with budget concerns as anything else.
Some people have asked why they bother with 3D; 'surely hand drawn graphics are cheaper, quicker and easier?' But, surprisingly, some designers (and fans) of 3D interfaces have made the claim that this is not the case; that 2D animation is not quicker or easier.
The debate, like so many others, springs from 'Nostalgic Longing for the Past' verses 'Desire for change and "progression"' (I emphasise the word 'progression' because I've heard it used so many times to describe things that, ultimately, improved nothing or even made things worse).
I, for one, can't comment on the efficiency of 2D over 3D from a technical point of view; I just don't understand that much about CGI or game design. I can make guesses, though; 2D representations would still have to be coloured by computer, the characters would either have to scanned from a drawing and then animated (and I don't know if this would be difficult or not) or made as 2D CGI. But I don't see why this is more difficult or less preferable than 3DCG; most games companies already hire 'concept artists' so it's not like the don't have access anybody with right skill set or would have to take on extra staff to accommodate this.
As I said; I enjoy both forms of game and I'm not going to 'attack' anybody who makes arguments either way, I do hope that others will try not to do so, either.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Have you heard of Ben There, Done That? And its sequel, Time Gentlemen, Please?
These are two 2D games that were released recently, and although they are...uhmm...adult-oriented I enjoy playing them.
Sorry 3D fans, but I think I like 2D games better. I think the characters are easier to navigate and I've just had them for a while. I'm more used to them. I still like 3D...just...I think sometimes it's kinda confusing.
Things become however really expensive if you go the route of the last Sierra adventures or the last 2d Lucasarts adventure games. What has to be done is, to hand draw every animation there is, and this is as expensive as making a 2d animation feature film. Too much for a genre where selling 100.000 copies of a game is considered a success!
The reason why 3d is cheaper comes with the toolset, it simply is once you have done the heavy lifting of having a 3d model you can make screens from every camera angle, can use motion tracking for the animations etc...
So you do the work once like drawing one frame and everything else comes for "free"!
The funny thing is that you even then can make 3d look like 2d via cell shading like many games have done in the past (the best example probably is the latest prince of persia)
But in the end it is probably the toolchain of the individual developer which decides which style is used. 2d Backgrounds with 3d characters nowadays is the most used one, 3d only is also used but requires a more sophisticated toolchain, but allows more freedom in camera angles and movement (more film like sequences)
Pure 2d is used nowadays mostly only with limited animations like in Monkey Island SE, to reduce costs (there are some exceptions however)
I think that bad reputation of 3D in adventure games is mostly because last adventures of the Golden Era were made in 3D and it didn't always work well. Simon 3D and King's Quest: Mask of Eternity are famous examples where designers felt that because of 3D there must be action à la Tomb Raider, which was something true adventure gamers mostly hated. Controls are other annoying thing, while Grim Fandango and EfMI didn't have action sequences, controls in the 3D enviroment were something which players hated. Keyboard controls made me run against every wall and object.
But 3D isn't necessarily all that bad, IMO in ToMI there's nice looking 3D graphics and controls seem to work fine. Sierra's last adventure game Gabriel Knight 3 is also an example how 3D adventures should have been made. It gave you free camera movement (with mouse or keyboard) and you moved character around with mouse like in traditional point and click. So it's all about how 3D is done, not that it's bad per se.
I have heard that in some modern adventure games there's either 3D graphics which are made too look like 2D or it's combination of 2D and 3D. But I haven't played those.
But for that matter,
Would freddi fish work in 3D? Big NO!
So I don't think that one is better than the other, because it all depends on how the game was intended. For example, popcap games still uses 2D.
So it all depends on which game you are playing.
Personally, I think that 3D allows for a more cinematic experience. In Sam and Max by Telltale, camera angles are a huge part of the experience and comedy. You just can't do that in 2D.
Would TMI still work in 2D? Yes, I think it might. Seriously, why wouldn't it?
Examples of cell shading
Not cell shading
With cell shading you can see a clear tone shading format yet in the screen shots for PoP and Borderlands you can see full shading, albeit with a higher contrast rate in PoP. People often confuse black (or other coloured borders) as cell shading, which it is not. Cell shading only refers to the shading, hence the name.
With 2D, you have to draw everything by hand. There is no way for a computer to understand how to draw character animation without a 3D model.
This is why it is much more time consuming and hence more expensive to make a good looking game in 2D compared to 3D. It's not really that surprising, neither is it hard to understand, at least to me.
All forms of art are just as relevant as anything else. Some like the aesthetics of 2D better than 3D. Some like abstract art better than conventional art. It's all a matter of taste and opinion, and the only sensible answer to the question of this thread is 'yes'.
The time when 3D had merit by being more advanced than 2D is long gone. Now the question between the two formats is an artistic one (not taking into account how much work either is).
Looks cel-shaded to me, it just looks subtle compared to most cel-shaded games and it's only one part of their art style.
I'm a 2D frame-by-frame animator myself and I do find it very enjoyable, if time-consuming, and I think it'd be great to see this technique used more often in gaming these days. But I enjoy and appreciate 3D animation too.
I don't enjoy 3D platform games anywhere near as much as I love the classic 2D ones. I think it has something to do with perspectives (e.g. I like seeing the characters from their side rather than their back, for some reason). But in adventure gaming I like both 2D and 3D. What matters to me much more in adventure gaming are things like the story, character design and puzzles.
For me, the best thing about 3D adventure gaming is the range of perspectives and camera angles that really make you feel like you're part of the environment. The worst part is that these lovely camera angles can unfortunately make the game very difficult to control.
But like I said, I enjoy both. I would love to see more 2D animation in media today, hence why I just spent the last 3 years of my life studying it at university, but that's not to say that 3D isn't also good. Any style of animation can be amazing when done properly, and the fact that animation always takes a long time to do just has to be taken into account when designing a game.
Like I said, I think it'd be great to see more 2D adventure games these days, and I'm not talking about 3D animation with outlines and cel shading to make it look like 2D animation, nor do I mean tweening. I mean the real deal, frame-by-frame 2D animation made out of millions of individual drawings. The main thing you'd need to know is that the more detailed you want the graphics, the longer 2D animation will take.
Somebody else pointed out that you can have hand drawn back grounds with CGI 2D animations. I see nothing wrong with this, and wouldn't expect anybody to go through the process of hand animation when it's expensive, slow and unnecessary (unless it was a 'labour of love' thing).
I know I mentioned hand drawn 2D games a lot in my original post I had meant to question the relevance of CG 2D games as part of the same thing.
(Again, I'd like to point out I'm a fan of both 2D and 3D).
Can a hand-drawn (through graphic tablet or whatever) image be computer animated?
Maybe you don't like 3D because you haven't played any 3D games outside of telltale.
This is what I HOPE for, definitely. However, as the technology for handhelds increases, we might see less of even those 2D games merely because they CAN do them.
Though, to date, I am genuinely curious to hear if any (once flourishing) game genres have ACTUALLY become extinct? Even MUDs are still around, if you look hard enough, though they might not be "new." I think nostalgia alone keeps a lot of genres alive, but that also gives a lot of indie game companies a greater possibility to thrive. Big companies may not touch certain games/genres/play styles, so that means there is a waiting fanbase out there directly for YOU and your indie game... if, you find a way to tap into them.
With games like Braid, Plants Vs Zombies and Castle Crashers getting so much acclaim, I think that a game doesn't have to have a stunning 3D environment like Halo or Fallout 3 to garner attention. That's where innovation comes in. Fun is fun, across the board. Technology is only half of what makes a game good.
.../soapbox.
Sorry, but "realistic" is in. Video game companies are going down the same line Hollywood and record labels have gone... Can't say that for telltale though - Going 2D wouldn't be impossible, but rather hard. They're working their butts off already!
Artistic freedom - out, what's pop - in.
For gamers, what moves them are the gameplay ultimately and not the graphics, for even the most gorgeous graphic gets old after long playtime. For instance, I don't think Halo3 players stick to the game long after they completed the game because of "great graphics". They will probably forgot about it quickly, if not for the options to play with other players to enhance the gaming experience. Similarly, most of the paid MMORPG have to keep on adding in content (often with the same graphical infrastructure already in place) in hope of making the game more enjoyable. It doesn't matter if the new boss is probably just a repeated model of an older boss with perhaps some cosmetic changes, it's the idea that there is something new, more things to explore, that makes people get stuck to it.
Graphics is important. But ultimately game experience and gameplay is much more important to gamers.
Now, bring back 8bit music!