2D or 3D in AGs

[Franklinstein]

Recently, I showed my friend my YouTube account channel. When he saw that there were videos stacked with these 2D adventure games, he said "omg, those are rubbish games - 2D!" with "graphics are worse than runescape!" He's always been the ignorant one, but today really shows it.

Why is it that people just take one look at an adventure game and decide that it's bad right away cause it has 2D graphics? I'd much rather set my xbox 360 controller down and play a game that requires wits and logic, not stupid frag 'em ups!

For all those who want to see my channel, it's stuffed with cool adventure games:

http://youtube.com/user/princeofeve1

[JKR]

You forgot to put a title to your thread. :P

Anyway, I agree. Too many people judge a game on a few screen shots or the style, without knowing if the game will be fun at all. Last gen there was a Gamecube game called Chibi Robo. It looked like crap, but it was one of the most fun experiences I've had in a while. Same for Katamari Damacy on the PS2.

I guess that's just a bias some people have. If it isn't shiny and 3D, they don't want it. What's really sad is it's THEM who are really missing out.

[LuigiHann]

The bias against 2D games has nothing to do with genre. It's mostly about age and experience, I suppose. If you were brought up playing 2D games, you'll like them, and if you were brought up on 3D games, you'll probably have trouble seeing the appeal of 2D.
I know some of the old Sam & Max fans wish that the new Telltale episodes were 2-D. That's the same closed-mindedness, but with the opposite bias. ;)

[Melanie68]

I changed the thread title so the thread could be found at a future date if someone wanted to look for it.

[cwapitm]

Your friend doesn't know what he's missing. Most of my favorite games are 2D. Horray for 2D graphics!:)

[tsa]

To each his/her own of course, but one of the games I enjoyed most in recent years is Pleurghburg: Dark Ages (http://www.justadventure.com/reviews/PleurghburgDarkAges/Pleurghburg.shtm). Hurray for horrible graphics!

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Pleurghburg, That game was amazing...

I don't actually care either way. You see, as long as a game has its own proper style that relates to the content, it's good. I mean, if Day of the Tentacle was rendered in 3D, it wouldn't look so much like a saturday-morning cartoon, which was one of the big good things about it.

Now, the issue with those new Sam and Max games is very similar, but they managed to avoid problems by making everything in very obvious and easy-to-tell colors, like a cartoon. Yet it also got you more into it, as opposed to feeling like you're just controlling it.

Whatever works really.

[JKR]

The bias against 2D games has nothing to do with genre. It's mostly about age and experience, I suppose. If you were brought up playing 2D games, you'll like them, and if you were brought up on 3D games, you'll probably have trouble seeing the appeal of 2D.
I know some of the old Sam & Max fans wish that the new Telltale episodes were 2-D. That's the same closed-mindedness, but with the opposite bias. ;)

I'd disagree a little. I would rather then new Sam and Max games be 2D, but that's far from "That looks like garbage cause it's in 3D and I won't play it". I'm not going to badmouth Sam and Max for it, but I WOULD rather it was 2D like the old days. Not because I'm biased against 3D, but I simply like the look of them in 2D.

[Catbert]

I would like to see more 3d adventures with a first person perspective, but where you can actually control the character's every step by yourself and not with an arrow pointing to the left or to the right. Think Deus Ex. Loved that game :(

[LuigiHann]

I'd disagree a little. I would rather then new Sam and Max games be 2D, but that's far from "That looks like garbage cause it's in 3D and I won't play it".

Yeah, but there are people who genuinely expressed opinions like the one in your exaggerated quote, especially when the first trailer appeared. I'm talking more about them than about you ;)

[a|A]

Your friend falls into the same category of people who think that Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are rubbish games because the graphics are horrible ( by todays standards ). They need to realise that the games are revolutionary in design, they basically *invented* console gaming, and the gameplay mechanics are some of the best in the FPS console industry. It's the same with adventure games, it's now how the game looks but how it plays and controls. It's frustrating however that so many people rate a game simply on how it looks, and not how it performs.

[nrvllrgrs]

I think the question of 2D or 3D in adventure games is an absurd question. On a whole, neither is better or worse. When developing a game, the questions I would hope developers ask themselves is "which works best for this specific game and story?"

In Sam and Max: Hit the Road and Season 1, regardless of the graphically dimension of the game, the experience of the game was still entirely 2D.

[mart]

I can't understand a person can seriously assert that adventure games with 3D "look" better than 2D games. Even compared with older examples as mentioned (Discworld, Sam and Max). But certainly not with more recent 2D games with pre-rendered graphics. I thoroughly enjoyed for instance a recent "3D game" (rendered in 3D) like Culpa Innata, or 3D games like the last Broken Sword games and Sherlock Holmes games, but as far as the artwork is concerned they can't compete with games with pre-rendered graphics such as Still Life, Tunguska, or Undercover: Operation Wintersun. I recently replayed Black Mirror and every scene was a treat. When one is able to compare sometimes the concept art of 3D adventure games with the final result, one can only feel very sorry for the artists.

[Endow]

Why is it that people just take one look at an adventure game and decide that it's bad right away cause it has 2D graphics? I'd much rather set my xbox 360 controller down and play a game that requires wits and logic, not stupid frag 'em ups!

Why do you take one look at Xbox 360 games and decide they are "frag 'em ups" and stupid?Maybe you are doing the exact same thing your friend did. You are dismissing an entire group of games on a whim.Not to mention there are other non-"frag em ups" that aren't adventure games either.


As for your actual preference, twitch gameplay isn't necessarily worse than puzzle gameplay.I'm a fan of both and it depends on my mood. Both can be great and for me the best games use both.

Anyways, concerning 2d/3d even though I'm perfectly ok with 2d games I do think 3d can be better not because of graphical beauty (comparisons are futile - it's subjective) but because it opens up a lot of gameplay possibilities. Stuff you simply can't do in 2d games.

[MoonBird]

Recently, I showed my friend my YouTube account channel. When he saw that there were videos stacked with these 2D adventure games, he said "omg, those are rubbish games - 2D!"

This is so sad. I've noticed that too and so many of my friends have fallen in the same way. Graphics, graphics, graphics and 3D, 3D, 3D, nothing else matters anymore. It makes me sometimes angry to say the least.

2D graphics require much less from computer, and you can play them with not-so-up-to-date machine too. Also, I think that 2D is more beautiful, because it doesn't include any blockness. No graphics calculation points to make a circle angular. Altough I have to say, that 3D models rendered in 2D grapgics are intelligent today.

Why is it that people just take one look at an adventure game and decide that it's bad right away cause it has 2D graphics? I'd much rather set my xbox 360 controller down and play a game that requires wits and logic, not stupid frag 'em ups!

A very, very good question! I, myself have turned the whole thing upside-down. I mean, if I see 3D graphics in games, I don't propably even bother playing with them (there are bunch of exceptions, of course) And that's just because the reason you mentioned.

Now I do not want to generalize, but the truth just is that many 3D games are dull and sensless shooting around and they don't have anything that requires thinking. I have come to conclusion, that today's people do not have the patience and nerves for logic puzzles and it seems to me, that they can't appreciate the story in games.

I have noticed, that most of the adventure Players are conciderating, thinking, and calm people. And many of those playing shoot'em ups and wargames seem to be aggressive, cold and hasty. These are my notifications, and not the absolute truth, because it cannot be generalized.

[tsa]

This is so sad. I've noticed that too and so many of my friends have fallen in the same way. Graphics, graphics, graphics and 3D, 3D, 3D, nothing else matters anymore. It makes me sometimes angry to say the least.

8<

If I see 3D graphics in games, I don't propably even bother playing with them (there are bunch of exceptions, of course) And that's just because the reason you mentioned.

Now I do not want to generalize...

First you complain about your friends only wanting 3D, then you tell us that you dismiss 3D games most of the time, and then you say you don't want to generalize? Come on, you're just like your friends!

This thread shows that there are different people in the world. I find it a bit strange that some of you are so upset that there are people who look for other qualities in a game than puzzles and a story. When I tell random people that I like to play adventure games I see blank-looking faces nearly all the time. Almost all people are convinced that computer games are all about fast, and reflexes, and noise, and when you tell them there is a whole different type of games out there that they have never seen they have a hard time understanding or even believing that. We adventure gamers are an elitist bunch, and we'll just have to deal with that.

[MdaG]

I used to dislike 3D adventures, but today I really think it would be superior to the 2D approach as it opens up a whole dimension to tell a story and put puzzles in. Also the 3D games of today can look at least as good as the 2D games of yesterday.

[Terramax]

The problem I have with a lot of 3D adventures is they all look so spacious and sparse of detail. When you're indoors in locations with cramped corridors and offices with heaps of paper and other items all over the place it looks good.

But when it's in outdoor locations like Canterbury in BS3, it's just looks almost amateur.

[Endow]

Now I do not want to generalize, but the truth just is that many 3D games are dull and sensless shooting around and they don't have anything that requires thinking. I have come to conclusion, that today's people do not have the patience and nerves for logic puzzles and it seems to me, that they can't appreciate the story in games.



Maybe you just haven't played enough games. The ARE 3d Adventure games you know?Good ones at that. Myst V, Indigo Prophecy, Shadow of the Colossus, Legacy of Kain etc etc....

And please don't treat good story as a propriety exclusive to adventure games.

I mean dismissing 3d games because they are 3d is in itself a sin. I mean if you defend 2d games alone you also have LOADS of violent games on your end. All current genres were born in the 2d era never forget.

3d is simply the logical evolution for all genres. Is realMyst any less "smart" because it's 3d and not 2d like the original?

[ShadeJackrabbit]

You do make a good point. There are tons of really violent games of the 2D variety. And besides, I haven't ever heard a really compelling reason for one side being better than the other. In the olden-days, 3D adventure games may have been worse cause they didn't look as good, but nowadays I think most people are stuck in either that mindset, or the mindset that the old tech should just die. Either way, it's not good.

How about we decided to drop this argument, and instead of dividing games based on 2D-3D, we divide them on things like story vs. no-story. I mean, was The Dig less superior cause it didn't render on the fly? No. Was Myst V a horrible game because of rendering on the fly? No. The reason they're good or bad is based on things like the story.

Besides, who are we? The "next-gen-console" fanboys who will talk trash about anything which doesn't involve the latest and greatest 3D rendering tech, or an elite group of gamers willing to look at this as another form of art?

I'd say we're the latter.

[Merricat]

Each approach has its purpose and its fans. Apples and oranges, in my opinion, and entirely dependent on taste. :)

[Erwin_Br]

Both have their pros and cons. A few years ago I would've said I preferred 2D, but that was because they were very sparse. If not completely unavailable. Today we have a nice mix, fortunately!

--Erwin

[LuigiHann]

Pssh, 2D games were never violent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilzeg_-UoOY). :P

Honestly, there's no sense at all trying to make generalizations of "2D games" and "3D games," considering that games of all genres and styles exist within each format. The thing that separates 2D adventure games from 3D shooter games is the genre, and there are plenty of 3D adventures and 2D shooters to back that up.

My point is that dismissing games based on that sort of criteria will only cause you to miss out on games you might enjoy.

[Sar]

Pssh, 2D games were never violent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilzeg_-UoOY). :P

Honestly, there's no sense at all trying to make generalizations of "2D games" and "3D games," considering that games of all genres and styles exist within each format. The thing that separates 2D adventure games from 3D shooter games is the genre, and there are plenty of 3D adventures and 2D shooters to back that up.

My point is that dismissing games based on that sort of criteria will only cause you to miss out on games you might enjoy.

It seems to me what matters is how does the game look and how easy is it to play. By easy to play I mean does the interface hinder your ability to navigate or does it botch things up. The one gripe I've had with some 3D adventure games is when they turn your character around when changing screens. It is not fun when you are trying to run to the darn elevator, the screen changes turns you around and you run right at the bad guy you were fleeing. You know what I mean BS3! That is something that need not happen. Other than the confusion caused in that manner I have no issues about 3D or 2D. Just don't keep changing direction on me when I change screens.

[CoyoteAG]

I don't care if it's 2D or 3D as long as it has a good story and some clever puzzles.

[Lucien21]

Still Life is back. Yaaaahhh that's great news.

No cookies though and a decent ending would be nice.

[Squinky]

Why stop at 3D? I'd like to see more games with tesseracts in them.

[Merricat]

Because the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Why is it that people just take one look at an adventure game and decide that it's bad right away cause it has 2D graphics?

:) Because today's world by and large demands new ways of experiencing games that's different from 20 years ago. At least that's what it seems like. This is the reality of the situation. 3D is far, far more mass marketable and commercially viable than 2D (with the exception of such things as the retro-sexy sidescrollers like Alien Hominid, online flash based games, and family friendly games for consoles like Scene It?). Arguably, you can do things in 3D that were never possible when almost all games were only in flat 2D.

2D adventure games - let's call a spade a spade - are largely reputed to be the 'dinosaurs' of 21st century gaming. They were made during a time when 3D graphics cards were being developed and game designers were not skilled or talented to handle real time 3D worlds, so they focused their art and craft on creating many of the beautiful flat 2D games that have since become icons of their time.

http://www.dpwr.net/illustrated/mystnotin/1997-08.jpg
The first Myst game was originally conceived to be real time 3D.

The creators of Myst, Rand and Robyn Miller, even put forth that realMyst was the actual game they wanted to create. The problem was that the technology for making a jawdropping game in real time 3D did not exist yet on a commercial level. Thus the Miller brothers ended up having to work with the most cutting edge tech available at the time (the Apple computer) and that was that. Years later, naturally, when it was finally possible, they were finally able to create the Myst game the way they had always envisioned it - in real time 3D.

The thing is, though, that since then adventure games largely stuck to staying 2D, even after the commercial graphics card offered new and exciting possibilities to go beyond flat surfaces and simply moving the mouse over those surfaces looking for hotspots. It's partly because of this that we've since seen some of the most beautiful 2D adventure games possible.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/images/Portal_Screen06.jpg

Today, however, flat 2D graphics is, sadly, almost all but eclipsed by incredible advances in real time 3D. If you want adventure gaming at its most cutting edge and conceptually breathtaking in 3D, play Portal (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/26196.html) (gameplay video).

Now, this is NOT to say that there is no room or appreciation for 2D games anymore. The very fact that this community has many members and this site has many hits, and companies like Telltale and TAC are doing well enough, proves that there is a good, solid viable market for 2D games.

But you have to admit it, 2D games are generally not considered sexy anymore, at least not to people like your friends, developers like Bioware and 2K Boston, and many gamers who game on the PC or consoles. 2D adventure games are strictly a niche market today.

I'd much rather set my xbox 360 controller down and play a game that requires wits and logic, not stupid frag 'em ups!

That was a dumb thing for you to say. It means you're not any better than those friends of yours. You dismissed 3D games just as easily as they dismissed 2D graphics.

Just because a game is 3D does not mean it's automatically stupid and you are not required to play intelligently. Many games are very intellectually demanding in terms of stats management, micromanagement of teams and resources, awareness of environment and A.I., and other gameplay elements. I challenge you to play a few rounds of Team Fortress 2 and see how long you last without thinking and playing intelligently before your teammates kick your butt out of the map.

Many adventure gamers are not different from FPS enthusiasts in their snobbery if you look closer. We are, after all, human, and we're always prone to lapses into snobbery and arrogance and ignorant assumptions, just as we can also be prone to being very open and receptive and allowing ourselves to discover new and incredible possibilities if only we can get the hell over ourselves, our fears, and our irrationalities.

I can say the same thing about some 2D adventure games, that the developers got lazy and copied puzzles from many other previous adventure games, that the devs suck at coming up with truly wicked and clever new puzzles, that the character design is stupid and uncreative, that the writing is some of the worst I've ever seen.

In the end our psychology as gamers are no different from each other. You're gonna have snobs in the adventure game camp, snobs in the FPS/RPG/action camp. You're gonna have people who love playing adventure games for reasons similar to their love of playing a good RPG, you're gonna have people who play adventure games for one reason and then turn around and play Mario or Bioshock for a different reason.

[samIamsad]

This is so sad. I've noticed that too and so many of my friends have fallen in the same way. Graphics, graphics, graphics and 3D, 3D, 3D, nothing else matters anymore. It makes me sometimes angry to say the least.


How come this game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F8pbo75SvQ) can outpace Halo3, the Orange Box and FIFA08 all alike? (http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-76678.aspx) :D Truth is, it's just not as simple as that. No generalizing of games (and gamers) is ever going to change that.

Speaking about visual aesthetics: I'd absolutely LOVE to point to a contemporary 2D video game to argue and join the fight about how much of a merit it still has (and why shouldn't it?) but where have all the beautiful 2d games gone? Sure, something like Runaway2 looks pretty pretty, though personally I think the character design is a bit meh. But for each Runaway there appears to be a thousand excercises in 3D Studio Max rendered cardbord cutout pixel perfection. In the meantime, this might do (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/25199.html), a decidedly brainy 3d game (oxymoron alert!!1 :D) that seems to marry the best of all worlds: real-time rendering, real-time physics, real-time puzzling and jaw-droppingly gorgeous, decidedly hand-crafted and detailed artworks. :9~

[mszv]

I'd have to really, really, really like an adventure game that was 2D for me to buy it nowadays. As I said in the Still Life sequel thread, if it's an adventure game on the Nintendo DS, I'll make an exception. Yes, no one is happier than me that the Still Life sequel is, thankfully, 3D.

I just like being in the game space, and that's what 3D is great for. I've love my old 2D games (Myst, Still Life, Post Mortem, Syberia, there are more), but here's how I look at it. For me (some exceptions for 1st person games) 2D is like reading an interactive novel. Oh, it's pretty and interesting and all, and sometimes there is interesting gameplay, but I don't feel like I'm actually in the space. With 3D, I'm in the game space, the world. 2D is great for pretty screenshots, but 3D gives me a better world sim experience, more like well, being in 3D.

[Harald B]

Now, this is NOT to say that there is no room or appreciation for 2D games anymore. The very fact that this community has many members and this site has many hits, and companies like Telltale and TAC are doing well enough, proves that there is a good, solid viable market for 2D games.Eh, what?:crazy: Telltale has never made a 2D game, and I can't come up with a single pure 2D game TAC has published.:pan:
I agree with most of the rest you said, though. I consider 3D to be the most recent step in the evolution of adventure games in the same way point-and-click interfaces and graphic adventures were. It's unavoidable, and hiccups notwithstanding it will work out for the better.

[Gorecki]

What I like about 3D are the opportunities for creating a living, breathing world, and this is definately its main advantage over 2D.

Two games I've played recently: Still Life and Beyond Good & Evil. Both are, in my opinion, beautiful games. Still Life has the gritty, detailed environments, the wonderful Ackerman paintings and so on, but apart from the fall of snow, the drifting of fog, and the occassional shadow of a figure at the window, the environments feel static and strangely empty.

Compare this to Beyond Good & Evil; assuming for a moment that this counts as an adventure game (I think it is!), the difference is amazing. Wandering out of the lighthouse, you can look up into the sky and see airships flying past, the glittering of star constellations, the wheeling of sea birds. Gradually the sun will set and you can stand under the trees looking out over the water to where the lights of the city start to light up the horizon. It's fantastically beautiful, it feels like you are part of a living world, and the immersion is so much greater as a result.

Having said that I honestly don't worry about such things, and I pity people who do. Story is of paramount importance to me, and things like the presentation are normally only a secondary concern.

[Crapstorm]

2D went away not because it's unattractive. It went away because 3D is so much cheaper to produce.

[Terramax]

http://www.dpwr.net/illustrated/mystnotin/1997-08.jpg

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/images/Portal_Screen06.jpg

Today, however, flat 2D graphics is, sadly, almost all but eclipsed by incredible advances in real time 3D. If you want adventure gaming at its most cutting edge and conceptually breathtaking in 3D, play Portal.

Honestly, the Myst screen looks better than Portal.

I've played most of the latest, top 3D games and they're all the same visual style. Characters look like they're made out of clay. The walls give this strange, shiny reflection effect like they're made out of plastic. And after all these years I still get trees and grass that looks like cutout paper.

3D is dominant because the industry forces it down our throats.

So many people buy FPS, RTS and Need for Speed games rather than adventures (and other genres) because these are the only games that are on the shelves giving most consumers the impression these are the only games available.

It's like the film industry. There's an amazing amount of variety. Yet most think if the latest Tom Cruise action flick and Julia Roberts romantic comedy are the only films playing at the local Odean, those are the only films out.

[samIamsad]

they're all the same visual style.

I really don't want to spoil the parade, but would you kindly excuse (http://www.gameplay.md/wp-content/gallery/pcgamer2008adventure/matahari1.jpg) me (http://www.gameplay.md/wp-content/gallery/pcgamer2008adventure/greym1.jpg) for (http://ftp.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=903) doing (http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/989/25670yv0.jpg) so (http://www.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=758) anyway (http://ftp.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=998)? :)

[LuigiHann]

Honestly, the Myst screen looks better than Portal.


That Myst shot isn't actually from the game. It was a promotional render of sorts. Myst is a pretty absurd game to be talking about in a "2D vs 3D" debate, anyway, considering that it doesn't exactly fall on either side of the line...

And I don't think Portal was mentioned because of its graphical quality, but because it's gameplay and puzzles are intrinsically 3D in nature, and are able to be extremely clever because of it.

[Terramax]

I really don't want to spoil the parade, but would you kindly excuse (http://www.gameplay.md/wp-content/gallery/pcgamer2008adventure/matahari1.jpg) me (http://www.gameplay.md/wp-content/gallery/pcgamer2008adventure/greym1.jpg) for (http://ftp.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=903) doing (http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/989/25670yv0.jpg) so (http://www.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=758) anyway (http://ftp.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=998)? :)

Looks like the same graphics engine as Quake 3 years ago. The same shiny look, ground that looks like rubber or plastic, etc. No style at all.

And I don't think Portal was mentioned because of its graphical quality, but because it's gameplay and puzzles are intrinsically 3D in nature, and are able to be extremely clever because of it.

Yeah, you've got a point there. BTW, was that Portal vid a tech demo for something?

[samIamsad]

Looks like the same graphics engine as Quake 3 years ago. The same shiny look, ground that looks like rubber or plastic, etc. No style at all.



That's a little harsh, but thanks for illustrating my point anyways. Safe for the character models these are as far away from real-time rendering (ie Broken Sword 3, "the latest top 3d games") as it gets. It's also the most popular format used in advendure gaming by about two billion miles. Those shots were all from different games, btw, just in case you couldn't tell.
:D

[Terramax]

Those shots were all from different games, btw, just in case you couldn't tell.
:D

I only clicked on the one (Momento Mori).

I guess games can only look as imaginative as they're written(?)

Many are set in the 'real world' or with 'real physics' etc. Computergames give such a great chance for imagination and yet so many throw that all away.

But City of Metrognome looks good. By God it does :7

[MikaelS]

I'm fine with both as long as 3D is done well. I know there are some people who disliked the camera in Gabriel Knight 3 for instance, but I loved it.

What I DONT like in adventure games is 1st person 3d generally. :( Take Scratches and Barrow Hill for instance ( good game otherwise, I'm not bashing them) when you change whole view on one click and it can get confusing and can be annoying to navigate, sometimes losing sense of direction too easily without camera movement at all. On these games I would much prefer "free camera" ( sorry English is not my first language, I'm sure there's proper term for this) where camera and angle moves by your movement instead of whole screen changing on clicks.

I would like see less of this and more of 3rd person ( or is it 2nd person?) 3d like in GK3, which really brought the environment alive and brought the whole new dimension of exploring for me. I don't think I know anymore what is 2nd person...

[JKR]

I'm fine with both as long as 3D is done well. I know there are some people who disliked the camera in Gabriel Knight 3 for instance, but I loved it.

What I DONT like in adventure games is 1st person 3d generally. :( Take Scratches and Barrow Hill for instance ( good game otherwise, I'm not bashing them) when you change whole view on one click and it can get confusing and can be annoying to navigate, sometimes losing sense of direction too easily without camera movement at all. On these games I would much prefer "free camera" ( sorry English is not my first language, I'm sure there's proper term for this) where camera and angle moves by your movement instead of whole screen changing on clicks.

I would like see less of this and more of 3rd person ( or is it 2nd person?) 3d like in GK3, which really brought the environment alive and brought the whole new dimension of exploring for me. I don't think I know anymore what is 2nd person...

3rd person is when you see the character. 2nd person only works in Text adventure games (where it says "You walk through the door"). I always get confused with 2nd person as well.

And I agree, I'd like to see more 3rd person adventure games. There seem to be a ton more 1st person now.

[Melanie68]

And I agree, I'd like to see more 3rd person adventure games. There seem to be a ton more 1st person now.

There are a ton of 3rd person games. Go look at the upcoming release dates page, look at game info pages for each and you'll probably see more 3d person games. We had a thread a few months ago where someone said the exact same thing (not that many 3rd person games) and that assertion was quickly disproven.

[JKR]

There are a ton of 3rd person games. Go look at the upcoming release dates page, look at game info pages for each and you'll probably see more 3d person games. We had a thread a few months ago where someone said the exact same thing (not that many 3rd person games) and that assertion was quickly disproven.

Really? Huh, I guess I just don't hear about them or something. Color me surprised.

I just see left and right 1st person adventures all over the place. My mistake, I guess!

EDIT: Well I went into the Reviews section and checked in on the last 10-15 2007 games, and 80% of them are First Person. I guess games coming later (and a few DS titles) are 3rd person, but right now the newest games are much more 1st person than 3rd.

[misslilo]

There are a ton of 3rd person games.

Yes, but - if you have already played most of them, then it seems like there is none around - available to play right here, right now! :D

I'm fine with both as long as 3D is done well. I know there are some people who disliked the camera in Gabriel Knight 3 for instance, but I loved it.

Same for me. I didn't think GK3 was too difficult to handle, but I have tried others, that I had to stop playing, cuz the camera movement made me dizzy.
And for games that has a few timed puzzles involving moving around, then it's nearly impossible for me to do them, because the perspective turns the world upside down with the camera moving.

[Melanie68]

EDIT: Well I went into the Reviews section and checked in on the last 10-15 2007 games, and 80% of them are First Person. I guess games coming later (and a few DS titles) are 3rd person, but right now the newest games are much more 1st person than 3rd.

I went and looked through each letter and looked at 2007 and got 9 third-person games and 12 first-person (I counted Sam&Max Season 1 as one game and the first ep of season two as one game and did not put in Phoenix Wright or Hotel Dusk as they are both first and third person). Maybe not a ton but there isn't this huge lack of third person games either.

Going through the games coming up in late 2007 and early 2008, plenty of those are third person too.

Third person games coming:

Mata Hari
So Blonde
Secret Files 2
Overclocked
Jack Keane
The Lost Crown
Mozart
Art of Murder (English release date unknown)
Sam & Max: Season two - the remaining 4 episodes
Belief and Betrayal
Gray Matter
Sherlock Holmes vs. Arsene Lupin
Simon the Sorceror 4
A New Beginnning
The Abbey
A Vampyre Story
Sinking Island

First Person games coming:

AGON: Lost Sword of Toledo
Penumbra: Black Plague
Rhem 3: The Secret Library
Dracula 3
Nostradamus

Maybe there was a swing over a bit to first-person for a bit but the pendulum is definitely swinging back over to third in late 2007/2008. Some of those games have been released in France or Germany already but they haven't made it to North America.

[Kurufinwe]

Sherlock Holmes vs. Arsene Lupin

That's first-person, actually. ;)

[Merricat]

Is it actually first person? It's described on this site as third person. I do hope it's third person, as I cannot play first person games without feeling ill.

I agree, Mel--lots of third person goodness headed our way. Huzzah--

[Kurufinwe]

Is it actually first person? It's described on this site as third person. I do hope it's third person, as I cannot play first person games without feeling ill.
I played part of the demo, and it's exactly the same system as in The Awakened. So first-person (except for the cutscenes / conversations, where you get to see Holmes).

(and don't believe everything the AGs database says; it also lists Daughter of Serpents and The Scroll as being the same game :shifty:)

[JKR]

Well that's good to hear, because I like 3rd person games. :)

[Melanie68]

(and don't believe everything the AGs database says; it also lists Daughter of Serpents and The Scroll as being the same game :shifty:)

Well, instead of getting all :shifty:, you could let someone know so it can be changed. Jack has pretty much been updating all of that himself (some of us have been putting things in here and there) and no one is perfect. ;)

Edit: The skinny from Jack is that he agrees with Kurufinwe and it is first-person with third person cutscenes. I'll change it on the data base. :)

[Jackal]

(and don't believe everything the AGs database says; it also lists Daughter of Serpents and The Scroll as being the same game :shifty:)

Actually, instead of getting all :shifty: , you could make some effort to explain why this isn't true.

[Terramax]

I just see left and right 1st person adventures all over the place. My mistake, I guess!

EDIT: Well I went into the Reviews section and checked in on the last 10-15 2007 games, and 80% of them are First Person. I guess games coming later (and a few DS titles) are 3rd person, but right now the newest games are much more 1st person than 3rd.

I'd like to see more bright 1st person games. I love 3rd because generally there's more interaction with characters, but most of the dialog, characters and plots in 3rd are just atrocious in most of the recent examples.

And honestly, I'm fed up of combined item puzzles.

Come to think of it, when you characterise adventures with 1st or 3rd person, it's not just the camera or graphic style that's representitive.

1st generally lack that much of a plot, little character interaction, detailed locations and, until recently, didn't consist of items.

3rd are the binary opposite. Bland locations (in the 3D ones), character interaction, deeper plots (generally too deep and far too long winded for their own good in fact), and God damned combine puzzles.

Ever since completing Myst III: Exile 6 months back I've been itching for another 1st person to catch my attention. But they're all horror adventures. Here's hoping 'Heaven' will be something special.

It would be great to see the characteristics of 1st and 3rd's lines blur somewhat. I guess ICO could be more of a 3rd person acting like a 1st (and what a great game that was the first time round).

[Kurufinwe]

Actually, instead of getting all :shifty: , you could make some effort to explain why this isn't true.
Jack, I've already explained that to you in great detail some time ago. But forgive me for getting all :shifty: over your premature senility anyway. :P

And since I wouldn't want to make you plod through your email archive, and since I guess I like the sound of my own voice, I'll C&P what I had written then:

Daughter of Serpents is NOT the same game as The Scroll. As explained at hplovecraft.com: "Like Daughter of Serpents, [The Scroll] is also set in Alexandria and uses many of the same graphics, and thus appears at first to be the same game. However, it is a separate game that merely uses the same setting." The problem is that someone posted (in 2001!) over at Mobygames, saying that they were the same game, just with voices and a couple of other new things, and since then the whole Internet (including, but not limited to, Underdogs, JA and Quandary) has been repeating that, without checking their facts. I haven't actually played The Scroll, but I know it does not feature the character creation system (though it has two different playable characters), and, from the walkthrough at JA, I could see it has a different story (though using the same locations and, probably, characters). Actually, this would make a fine study of how misinformation spreads over the Internet. ;)

[Jackal]

Jack, I've already explained that to you in great detail some time ago. But forgive me for getting all :shifty: over your premature senility anyway. :P

And since I wouldn't want to make you plod through your email archive, and since I guess I like the sound of my own voice, I'll C&P what I had written then:

Nah, that's just me tuning you out since we don't both like the sound of your voice nearly the same amount. :devil:

I knew there were differences, but I think the jury's still out on how significant they are. I'll look into it. (At some point.)

[Terramax]

Calm down you two :D

[Jackal]

I think the bi-weekly 2D vs. 3D debate can survive a couple of off-topic site business posts. ;)

That said, it's done. Carry on. Let me know when you announce a winner. :D

[Jatsie]

The only 3D game I've ever liked with a passion is Grim Fandango. I have nothing against 3D in essence, it just has to be done well. So far, in my experience 2D adventures just reign supreme, and they (probably through sheer majority) are the ones I have had most fun with.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

The only 3D game I've ever liked with a passion is Grim Fandango.

I can see why. :)

I have nothing against 3D in essence, it just has to be done well.

Exactly. To date, nearly all adventure game developers have little to no experience with 3D, I believe. Therefore it's understandable that, typically, when a real-time 100% 3D adventure game is released there are usually some major problems with it, either technically or conceptually. Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon, in my opinion, suffered largely from the "hey-let's-make-a-real-time-3D-adventure-game-just-because-we-can-get-bragging-rights" symptom. As it turned out Charles Cecil and his team ended up showing us that they were basically n00bs when it came to conceiving an entire gameworld and gameplay in three dimensions. The problem was that they imposed a 2D mindset onto a 3D playing field - they more or less failed with the transition. And although, arguably, Cyanworlds did it a bit more successfully with realMyst and Uru: Ages of Myst, nothing in either of these games showed us intellectual challenges, narrative exposition, and gameplay that could never be possible in flat 2D.

Once you move from 2D to 3D, your concepts and mindset must ALSO move into three dimensions, into thinking in terms of depth and space and time (how long it may take you to travel from here to there in space).

If you ask me, the ONLY way for adventure game designers to get better at 3D is to keep creating real-time 3D adventure games, keep doing it over and over, discover its potentials and exploit them. Then we may finally experience adventures in bold new ways.

If you want a taste of this, play some Portal (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/26196.html).

So far, in my experience 2D adventures just reign supreme, and they (probably through sheer majority) are the ones I have had most fun with.

They reign supreme ONLY BECAUSE THAT'S ALL ADVENTURE GAME DEVELOPERS KNOW. It's all they've had to work with, so OF COURSE they'll keep doing it beautifully and skillfully. You really have nothing to compare it to because there's nothing (short of a handful of 3D games) out there different, so if you think about it 2D adventure games have an unfair advantage if you're going to compare.

These very talented and skilled developers could do 2D in their sleep or while sitting on the toilet, LOL! And honestly, I think that's rather sad. I would love to give them the opportunity to explore puzzle design, narrative, characterization, and exploration in a real time 3D format and see what kinds of incredible ideas they can discover for us.

[Terramax]

They reign supreme ONLY BECAUSE THAT'S ALL ADVENTURE GAME DEVELOPERS KNOW. It's all they've had to work with, so OF COURSE they'll keep doing it beautifully and skillfully. You really have nothing to compare it to because there's nothing (short of a handful of 3D games) out there different, so if you think about it 2D adventure games have an unfair advantage if you're going to compare.

These very talented and skilled developers could do 2D in their sleep or while sitting on the toilet, LOL! And honestly, I think that's rather sad. I would love to give them the opportunity to explore puzzle design, narrative, characterization, and exploration in a real time 3D format and see what kinds of incredible ideas they can discover for us.

So you're saying 3D adventures are terrible because the game designers have little knowledge/ experience with 3D and/ or no talent?

The game industry is a cut-throat industry like all other mediums. You won't get too far in the gaming industry without skill and talent, 3D or otherwise.

It's nothing to do with lack of talent, just lack of wanting to make something out of the ordinary. Pure laziness. It's about putting the effort in (though I'm aware time and money is a factor, as always) before getting something out.

Most 3D game characters and locations in adventures just look plain dull.

It's got nothing to do with the software and probably nothing to do with the amount of skill the developers have. I think it's simply that no-one in the development house says "you know what guys, we've been doing the same bland character models for the past 5 games now, how's about we invest a little time and money in making something with a lil' more style and decidedly more unique?"

I've just looked at the main character for Culpa Innata. Sure, she looks 'realistic' as people say, but her expressions on the stills make her look like her face were just a couple of photos cut and pasted from a magazine South Park style and slapped on a 3D model.

All the locations look big and epic, but empty and lifeless. Nothing looks organic. It looks like Nomad Soul for the Dreamcast, accept this is made about 7 years later and has a sharper resolution.

2D animation can look just as dull and talentless as 3D. But 2D developers know what really matters, not making something that looks as 'real' or 'epic' as possible, but something that's unique and stands out.

2D is a LOT more competitive. Not just in games, but for animation as a whole. I've spoken to numerous animators trying to get into the industry and they've shown me what extreme talent they're up against. They know the only way they can get through is to make something that's unique and charming. They've shown me animations that have won awards even though the effort of the visuals as a whole is terrible, yet have beaten all these crisp, detailed, beautiful 3D animations because they seem to breath more life.

I think the same goes for games. Uncharted and Crysis look amazing visually, but at the same time, the characters and story just seem like the same old hoo-har, so I've invested in Silent Hill Origins and Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness instead. The later looks almost like a PSX game, but it's got some of the best dialog in any game period (if you're a fan of Monkey Island, Discworld and other cartoon animations games-- worth checking out).

[AdrianWerner]

I like variety to be honest. 2D or 3D (both real-time and pre-rendered)... I like them all. I enjoyed Runaway2, Broken Sword4, Penumbra and Art of Murder this year. And I liked how they were diffrent from eachother.

[MdaG]

The problem I have with a lot of 3D adventures is they all look so spacious and sparse of detail. When you're indoors in locations with cramped corridors and offices with heaps of paper and other items all over the place it looks good.

But when it's in outdoor locations like Canterbury in BS3, it's just looks almost amateur.

BS3 was a milestone in 3D adventures in my opinion as it was the first 3D game I played that didn't suck. However it had some way to go before becoming the 3D adventure I want. Just think of an adventure game using the Half-life 2 - episode 2 engine, or Halo 3 engine or even Oblivion engine? Each have shown that they can create beautiful 3D environment with objects following the/some laws of physics. I like the idea of an adventure game using such an engine.

[Terramax]

Yep, but they don't. And I question whether they really need to. GTA III still looks pretty in depth, as do many PSX games like the Tomb Raiders, Vagrant Story and Metal Gear Solid.

Metal Gear Solid for the PSX is breathtaking to look at. The amount of effort that went into making locations look old, grimy and cold is immense.

I understand adventures have smaller teams with less time and money. But I'm sure if they insisted they could create smaller locations with greater detail, which would work better to their advantage.

[MdaG]

Yep, but they don't. And I question whether they really need to. GTA III still looks pretty in depth, as do many PSX games like the Tomb Raiders, Vagrant Story and Metal Gear Solid.

Metal Gear Solid for the PSX is breathtaking to look at. The amount of effort that went into making locations look old, grimy and cold is immense.

I understand adventures have smaller teams with less time and money. But I'm sure if they insisted they could create smaller locations with greater detail, which would work better to their advantage.

A remake of Revelation or Riven using the same engine as Oblivion or Halo 3 would be nice. Make it so!

[ZeframCochrane]

What I like in an AG is your usual 2D pre-rendered background with 3D/2D characters.
Now, I'm not completely closed to 3D ambients though. I liked Broked Sword 3 (actually, I liked it a lot), but I felt it suffered from a very common problem: camera angles.

I really wonder why no one ever repeated what was done for Gabriel Knight 3: to uncouple the camera and the main character. And, to retain realism, make it so that if you have the character you're controlling in your field of vision, and you click somewhere for him to go, you have to watch him walk to that place, but if you don't have him in your field of vision, he'll simply pop out as if he had followed you around all the time.

I really don't undrstand why it was never done again. I really liked it.

[Lee in Limbo]

I really don't want to spoil the parade, but would you kindly excuse (http://www.gameplay.md/wp-content/gallery/pcgamer2008adventure/matahari1.jpg) me (http://www.gameplay.md/wp-content/gallery/pcgamer2008adventure/greym1.jpg) for (http://ftp.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=903) doing (http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/989/25670yv0.jpg) so (http://www.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=758) anyway (http://ftp.adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=998)? :)Nice response. :)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

That Myst shot isn't actually from the game. It was a promotional render of sorts. Myst is a pretty absurd game to be talking about in a "2D vs 3D" debate, anyway, considering that it doesn't exactly fall on either side of the line...

What about Myst vs. realMyst? And that render, I believe is from realMyst. In the original Myst you clicked your way around flat screens. In realMyst you can literally climb up those stairs that spiral round the trees, so your experience of the game world is different compared to a 2D one. However, the puzzles are the same old stuff.

And I don't think Portal was mentioned because of its graphical quality, but because it's gameplay and puzzles are intrinsically 3D in nature, and are able to be extremely clever because of it.

Yeah, you've got a point there. BTW, was that Portal vid a tech demo for something?

No, that is the finished game, what you get out of the box. The art direction is that way because the game and story take place in huge laboratory in an industrial complex. There is actually a version of the game that includes in-game commentary (i.e. documentary) on how the game was designed, level by level.

[LuigiHann]

What about Myst vs. realMyst?

What about it? :P The original has its charm, but in my opinion, realMyst looks and plays a lot better (That shot, I reiterate, is a promotional render, from neither Myst nor realMyst). There was a lengthy discussion about which is better here (http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20956&highlight=realmyst).

I guess in the context of this conversation, even the original Myst would fall into the category of "3D," just because the argument seems to be about graphical styles rather than the... implementation.

I can see how, within the adventure genre (and also within the FPS genre) there's a lot of staleness and monotony of style in 3D games, but I'd say making broad generalizations about all 3D games as a whole is about as productive as making generalizations about paintings. FPS games all seem to strive for photorealism, and some get closer than others, but since the real world looks a certain way, they do tend to look similar to one another, especially when they have similar settings. Looking beyond that genre, though, there's a ton of potential variety. Nowadays it seems action/adventure games are the most willing to experiment with quirkier styles. See Okami or Psychonauts, for a couple random examples off the top of my head.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/80/Rime_Age.jpg/200px-Rime_Age.jpg

Exploring Rime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFTzuOzy7ig) (part 1) | video

:) Rime was the bonus Age that came with realMyst and is not available in the 2D version of the game. You were given the chance to unlock Rime after playing the entirety of realMyst.

[buddi]

I think that 3d is associated with action and shooting games because that's where the market and the money is at, so naturally they are a little ahead of the curve on making the most of the latest technological innovations. Playing games like Penumbra Black Plague and Half Life 2, where you can pick up objects and manipulate them as if in real space, offer a completely different kind of gaming experience (I said different, not better.) I really enjoy the 3d aspect of these games. I'm not much into shooting things, but I wasted tons of time in Penumbra just stacking things on top of eachother and jumping on them to see what would happen, or throwing glass bottles against walls or dropping them on pillows... it's a far cry from the endless crate puzzles of BS3. I salivate to think of the inevitable adventure games that will couple these possibilities eith strong narrative and puzzle solving and do away with the fear of agressive mutants or storm troopers.

[Beacon]

I think that 3d is associated with action and shooting games because that's where the market and the money is at, so naturally they are a little ahead of the curve on making the most of the latest technological innovations. Playing games like Penumbra Black Plague and Half Life 2, where you can pick up objects and manipulate them as if in real space, offer a completely different kind of gaming experience (I said different, not better.) I really enjoy the 3d aspect of these games. I'm not much into shooting things, but I wasted tons of time in Penumbra just stacking things on top of eachother and jumping on them to see what would happen, or throwing glass bottles against walls or dropping them on pillows... it's a far cry from the endless crate puzzles of BS3. I salivate to think of the inevitable adventure games that will couple these possibilities eith strong narrative and puzzle solving and do away with the fear of agressive mutants or storm troopers.

Read the thread on Hard Rain, looks like it might just do these things you ask for.

[mgeorge]

As someone fairly new to the AG genre, I for one hope to see more 3D adventure games. I personally have gotten bored with standard shooters with non exsistant stories, but have been somewhat dissapointed with the current crop of AG's that I have played.

I really enjoyed Culpa Innata, however it wasn't the graphics or immersive gameplay that got me hooked. It was mostly the story. Same with Tunguska (which I just finished) and Nibiru, which I'm almost done with. Don't get me wrong, all of them had some enjoyable puzzles and some decent gameplay, but overall they seemed pretty bland and contained some totally obtuse puzzles that seemed to have nothing to do with the actual story.

I'm playing SH The Awakened right now as well, and while not perfect, the 3D envirourment does immerse you in the game more so than a 2D game with with the standard point and click interface.

So yes, more 3D games.

[buddi]

I never finsihed the Awakened, I just couldn't get into it, but I did play Sherlock Holmes Vs Arsene Lupin and I think it was a very good showcase for what you can do with 3d adventures. The Tower of London location in particular was very detailed with lots to explore and interact with, there was certainly nothing sparse about it.