Sam and Max in 3D
Does anyone know if it's cheaper/easier/faster to make games in 3-D?
If it is, then I guess I'll just swallow the grumpy pill. If it's not, then why are adventure games now made in 3D?
I really despise this development in adventure games and would absolutely love for the cartoony/hand-drawn quality to be brought back (*drool* at every Monkey Island except the last one, and Day of the Tentacle). It makes the games seem bulky, and the characters and background are not as creative as they can be given that each object has to be 3-D rendered. I really hope that manufacturers don't think that this is what the gamers want (or is it???!)
As much as I've embraced the idea that I can probably never play another console game because being able to explore the world from all sides is overwhelming, frightening (being attacked from behind is f'ing scary), and just frustrating (hate falling off the edges), I realize that gamers have completely embraced the 3D rendered worlds. I just hope that manufacturers realize that people don't buy side-scrollers or "hand-drawn" (i.e. not 3-D) games anymore not because we hate them, but because they are generally NOT AVAILABLE.
I know this is a forum about Sam and Max, but I must digress for argument's sake. I recently bought myself a Nintendo DS to counteract the effects of growing old in an office environment, and the first game I bought was the New Super Mario. The reason I bought the DS was because of this game. Because it's a linear, side-scroller in the traditional sense. After I bought it, I remember reading an article saying that its incredible success (it spent a LOT of time as number 1 on gamer's charts since it's release) stumped the manufacturers. They had no idea that a side-scroller, non-3D (the little characters were 3D rendered, but it was kind of hard to tell) game could do so well. They thought the market for those died a long time ago. So I'm wondering if my favorite non-3D games have disapered because it's easier to make games in 3-D or because the manufacturers think that's what we want (which is ridiculous and we should voice our opinions otherwise).
So the bottom line/question is, why did Sam and Max chose to jump into the 3-D world and abandon the cartoony quality of Hit the Road? Who's happy/unhappy with that decision and why?
If it is, then I guess I'll just swallow the grumpy pill. If it's not, then why are adventure games now made in 3D?
I really despise this development in adventure games and would absolutely love for the cartoony/hand-drawn quality to be brought back (*drool* at every Monkey Island except the last one, and Day of the Tentacle). It makes the games seem bulky, and the characters and background are not as creative as they can be given that each object has to be 3-D rendered. I really hope that manufacturers don't think that this is what the gamers want (or is it???!)
As much as I've embraced the idea that I can probably never play another console game because being able to explore the world from all sides is overwhelming, frightening (being attacked from behind is f'ing scary), and just frustrating (hate falling off the edges), I realize that gamers have completely embraced the 3D rendered worlds. I just hope that manufacturers realize that people don't buy side-scrollers or "hand-drawn" (i.e. not 3-D) games anymore not because we hate them, but because they are generally NOT AVAILABLE.
I know this is a forum about Sam and Max, but I must digress for argument's sake. I recently bought myself a Nintendo DS to counteract the effects of growing old in an office environment, and the first game I bought was the New Super Mario. The reason I bought the DS was because of this game. Because it's a linear, side-scroller in the traditional sense. After I bought it, I remember reading an article saying that its incredible success (it spent a LOT of time as number 1 on gamer's charts since it's release) stumped the manufacturers. They had no idea that a side-scroller, non-3D (the little characters were 3D rendered, but it was kind of hard to tell) game could do so well. They thought the market for those died a long time ago. So I'm wondering if my favorite non-3D games have disapered because it's easier to make games in 3-D or because the manufacturers think that's what we want (which is ridiculous and we should voice our opinions otherwise).
So the bottom line/question is, why did Sam and Max chose to jump into the 3-D world and abandon the cartoony quality of Hit the Road? Who's happy/unhappy with that decision and why?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
BUT then you have to see how's the game... Sam & Max may be made in 3d, i think it have a really 2d feel, and the gameplay works, and there's a lot of good graphic ideas, so i think it"s okay. Monkey 4, on the other didn't work for me, and i was really disapointed.
I could argue a little more, but i'm tired and i can't find my words in english, so let's finish that post here.
(blog / interview with Dave Grossmann.
Some people claim adventures should have 2D graphics. What's your opinion on this? Do you think that by stating this, these people deny the adventure genre to evolve? The same could have been said of real-time strategy games.
I think it's kind of silly to say that adventures should have any particular type of graphics. It's like saying all paintings should be done in a Renaissance style. I love 2D graphics, but right now I'm working at a 3D studio and there are certain things I really like about it. For one thing it makes it outrageously easy to set up effective camera angles for cinematic presentation. On the other hand, it sometimes gets in the way of what I'd like to do for animation. There are various trade-offs, but I've never seen anything that would convince me to limit myself to any specific number of dimensions.
While games like Quake look very dated by todays standards, games like Day of the Tentacle or Grim Fandango still look modern thanks to their stylised graphics. As the cost of producing state-of-the-art graphics engines increase, don't you think the industry will have to come back from hyperrealism and return to a more stylised approach?
I'm not sure the industry will get over its fascination with realism until it achieves perfection, which is to say, not for a long time. But I wish it would. I've never thought much of realism in games, mainly because it seems like a wasted opportunity. You can make the game look any amazing way you can imagine, so why emulate the same old reality you see every morning over sausage and eggs? There must be a lot of bored art directors out there.
Hmmm... I think we're closer to photorealism than most people realize. Look at upcoming titles like Crysis and Heavy Rain. They both have triggered the Uncanny Valley effect (Instinctual revulsion and fear at seeing a non-human entity masquerading as human) in certain people, which requires incredible realism to achieve.
(In-game model from Heavy Rain)
"I love 2D graphics, but right now I'm working at a 3D studio and there are certain things I really like about it. For one thing it makes it outrageously easy to set up effective camera angles for cinematic presentation. On the other hand, it sometimes gets in the way of what I'd like to do for animation."
When looking at the intro of Hit the Road, or really any cutscenes from oldschool Lucasarts games - Fate of Atlantis, Monkey Islands etc. - there are all sorts of wacky animations that are hilarious to see. For instance the battle for the phone at the start of Hit the Road is probably impossible to make with the Telltale Engine, which is very unfortunate. There's just basic animations like moving objects, facial expressions and walking animations; nothing really wacky, to give that magic feeling.
I also mentioned scale above. Let's face it - the six episodes that will be released will feature nowhere near as many locations and explorable areas as Hit the Road did. Even withing a certain location - Snuckey's or the Fair for example - had several different areas to walk in with all sorts of different stuff to mess around with. I guess this is partly because creating whole locations with a 3D engine is a bit more work than making a 2D area. However, I believe this might improve if the profile of these games rises and Telltale manages to bump up the budget a bit. At least I hope so.
One more thing, kind of off topic though, is that the areas in these first two episodes haven't been as lively as I'd hoped. Would be nice for there to be some shady fellows hanging at the street, maybe some contestants for the quiz show doing nothing but waiting to get on.
I guess I should just be happy that these games are made b/c costs of 3D rendering reduce production costs. But I'm still hoping for another monkey island in the old style graphics. Or perhaps Day of the Tentacle II???? *le sigh*
It may be just what you're looking for (even if the character models are 3D based).
http://www.amegames.com
On the other hand a well made cartoon-style game would surely hit the spot. It´s been a while.
Autumn Moon now have a publisher and funding, and I believe the game is loosely scheduled for an end of 2007 release.
That looks INCREDIBLE. Can't wait. That is the kind of 3D I don't mind (which was actually used in the New Super Mario). A cartoony feel with 3D edges. Sam and Max is a little too early-2000's 3D quality for me.
That's what I thought at first, but the tech demo that came from was all rendered in real-time.
I found that Heavy Rain E3 video really, really creepy. And judging by the reactions of the people standing around me while I watched it, I don't think I'm the only one.
I have to agree with Dave on this one. A game is never going to look "real enough". I'd rather the resources were spent on making the art style work well (rather than making it as real as possible) and on making the art and the story work well together. Too often, it seems, all the money is spent on art and the story suffers. I'd much rather a good story with stick figures.
Something I really do like, though, are FMV games. It's too bad they become dated so easily, because when it comes to realism, I've always preferred FMV to 3D attempts at realism. A live actor on film isn't creepy the way an almost-human 3D model can be.
Somehow I never liked the way of using real actors. You know, that somehow makes me to feel that it's not a game anymore, but something else. Like a multimedia movie or something like that.
The nostalgic I am, I'm still a fan of drawn graphics. VGA or SVGA, doesn't matter. I still find games like S&M: Hit the Road and MM: Day of the Tentacle, and not to forget Curse of the Monkey Island as beautiful as they can be.
Ah, I love the FMV games, Phantasmagoria and 11th Hour hold special places in my heart.
I agree fully about story being MUCH more important than graphics, I miss the meticulously detailed 2D artwork of the early 90's more than anything in this world. But I'm also obsessed with the idea of complete immersion for the future of games, especially now that we've invented ways to soon integrate smell, touch, and, most recently, taste, into programs.
As for the Heavy Rain tech demo, don't feel bad, the first time I saw that screenshot, I felt a jolt of fear run down my spine too :P
For me it was the eyes, both the slight disproportion and the unavoidable "dead" look.
I'll believe it when I see the actual game.
Even if it is pre-rendered, there's always Crysis, the graphical juggernaut coming later this year.
It's not Sony. The company behind Heavy Rain is Quantic Dream, witch you may recall as the makers of Fahrenheit (aka Indigo Prophecy) and the older Nomad Soul.
I'm not a big believer in the Uncanny Valley myself (which I don't think is an actual proven effect, just an idea). I don't think there's this sudden "dip" in realism just before full realism is achieved. If there were less detail it would just be more jarring, not less. If that Heavy Rain scene was done in Fahrenheit detail it'd have less impact, if it was done with circa 2000 3D technology it would look poor, if it were done with circa 1995 3D technology it would be laughable. It might be difficult to make the scene look good with current tech, but that's just because there's more work involved in creating it.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Apparently some people here thought the trailer looked creepy so maybe it's just me...