Pre-rendered vs. Real-time 3D environments [Archive]

Hol

01-31-2009, 10:08 AM

Ummm... Those are 2D background images. It's the characters that are 3D.
The background images may have been created with 3D software by the developer, but the gamer's computer displays them as 2D images.

Pre-rendered refers to a still image that has been rendered prior to the game being played, this can be a drawing, a photograph or in this case a 3D render.
When you play a real-time 3D game the environments are being rendered by your computer at roughly 30 frames per second and this gives you the illusion of physically moving through a 3D world. By your arguement even this medium is being displayed on gamers' computers as a 2D image.
I specified that I was looking for opinions on comparing 3D pre-rendered and real-time because I wanted to focus everyone on that aspect rather than 2D drawn backgrounds etc. In this case the term '3D' refers to something that has been modelled in 3-dimensions using programs such as 3ds Max, Maya, ZBrush etc. and then has been rendered out as a background image which is placed into the game. An image taken from a Pixar movie is still refered to as 3D even when it is printed as 2D on a page.
Please note also that I said "In this project I define these as:" this by no means states that these are the strict definitions, I was only trying to help anyone understand the way these terms were being used for this project.

I'm sorry for any confusion I have caused you.

Thanks for the replies so far people! It's really appreciated!

Melanie68

01-31-2009, 02:58 PM

I would check out page two of the "What Are Adventure Games" article.

http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,149/p,2

It has the definitions of 2D, 3D, prerendered, etc. as we define them in this genre.

Hol

03-29-2009, 10:41 AM

I thought it might be nice for people to cast a vote in a poll ^_^ So please take the time to vote, it'll be a great help for me. If you wish to say why, then as always, post a reply! I really love to hear what you think.
Thanks everyone!

mosdl

03-29-2009, 11:05 AM

The main benefit of 2.5D is loading times - fully 3d rendered games usually have slower loading times

colpet

03-29-2009, 01:56 PM

I have no preference, as long is it is mouse controlled. I refuse to use a key board for movement.

kadji-kun

03-29-2009, 06:31 PM

I think such a thread like this is completely biased. Majority of the adventure gamer group don't have high end computers. Even mid-end computer are capable of rendering in realtime backgrounds seen in so many modern pre-rendered adventure games.

Also Real-time games have nothing to do with camera angles or perspective.

Hol

03-30-2009, 08:01 AM

I'm sorry that you think this is so biased, I did not intend it to be. I understand that there are many other factors that affect a player's enjoyment of a game than just whether it is pre-rendered or real-time. However, my research led me to understand that there may be a basic dislike in some adventure gamers of real-time 3d games. I wished to present this thread's topic and poll to try and find out if this is currently true.

The vast majority of games in the current market are real-time and it seems unusual that one genre holds back from going completely into this medium (not that I'm saying it should or shouldn't) and that's what I find so fascinating.

I chose to write this dissertation because of my own love for the genre and though I have certain views as an adventure gamer, I want to see a more complete picture, which requires feedback from you guys. I'm trying not to be biased - but I had to make the question specific due to the limitation and focus of my report. By adding the 'no preference' choice to the poll I give the voters a chance to register that this element of adventure games does not affect them.

Thanks to everyone who has voted so far! :)

Banderwocky

03-30-2009, 08:35 AM

I think whatever gets the job done well is good. I tend to like real-time 3d more in 1st person games. No matter what it is graphics wise should serve the game design well.

Banderwocky

03-30-2009, 08:45 AM

I think such a thread like this is completely biased. Majority of the adventure gamer group don't have high end computers.

I don't know that this is true. My computer will run some more recent mainstream games full blast (though it's already a few months old). Many adventure players play other kinds of games. I bet there is a good deal of us with fast computers. I mostly play adventures, but sometimes play games like The Witcher or Mass Effect.

Lunatik

03-30-2009, 10:41 AM

Without a doubt in my mind, I prefer pre-rendered 2.5D images for adventure games, regardless of the perspective used (first-person in Kheops games for example, and third-person in Syberia and Art of Murder). So 2.5D gets my vote.

Banderwocky
I agree with your statement. My computer is also capable of handling real-time 3D; I recently loved Mirror's Edge for instance. So my preference of 2.5D for adventure games is purely for the sake of basic functionality. I'm used to that technical presentation and believe it works best for the genre.

Hol
Good luck with your analysis! :)

kadji-kun

03-30-2009, 12:13 PM

I don't know that this is true. My computer will run some more recent mainstream games full blast (though it's already a few months old). Many adventure players play other kinds of games. I bet there is a good deal of us with fast computers. I mostly play adventures, but sometimes play games like The Witcher or Mass Effect.

If that was the case then most people will vote for Real-Time 3d....the main issue is that your pointing out RPG's and not adventure games. This leads to my next theorey.

There are no pure real-time 3d adventure games. They either are first person like Sherlock Holmes, or are apart of other genres. There are no point and click games with real-time 3d graphics, and like Still Life 2, developers don't understand how to make an environment look on par with prerendered scenes. This leads to empty/sparse rooms which make most adventure gamers biased towards Real-Time 3d. You may disagree, but it doesn't make it any less factual.

Let me ask this question. Why do you prefer prerendered over real-time?

I promise most people will either answer with "I don't have the computer to run them" or have a purely biased opinion.

Surely I agree that its all about what works best for the devs, but prerendered is in no way better than real-time. Think about it. Real-time will offer more interaction with the player and the environment, compared to 2.5d/2d games.

mszv

03-30-2009, 01:58 PM

Real time 3D - Culpa Innata, Myst V. Still Life 2 (not out yet). Not a lot of adventure games in real time 3D, but I know there are more than that.

I love Real time 3D. I love the freedom, how the world changes around you, no restricted paths.

On real time 3D and adventure games not being real time 3D - a couple of reasons, I think (my opinion)
- budget, though maybe that's changing. My assumption is that non real time 3D games can be made more cheaply. Most adventure games are not high priced - market doesn't seem to support it, it's a niche market.
- adventure games tend to be on the static side - wander around a few areas (restricted paths are OK, limited views aer OK, click on a few things, spend 1/2 hour with a piece of paper working out a puzzle. Nothing has to be moving on the screen when you work out a puzzle with a piece of paper! A screenshot type game with a few things moving around, limited paths for your character - this seems to work for many adventure gamers. Now I'm not saying that adventure games have to be that way - just that a number of them have that approach.
- if you don't play other games, you don't miss what you've never seen.
- resistence on the part of adventure gamers, because they think that all real time 3D games require a hi-end computer.

What do I know - maybe it's fine for the genre.

kadji-kun

03-30-2009, 11:43 PM

Real time 3D - Culpa Innata, Myst V. Still Life 2 (not out yet). Not a lot of adventure games in real time 3D, but I know there are more than that.

The only game there that accomplishes a decent look is Myst V. Culpa Innata looks like it was made in the 90's. Omikron comes to mind.

Not to mention that when someone here's Real Time 3d, the first thing they think is First Person. Why? It can be a point & click too. I can think of awesome a good point & click game in realtime 3d could be. Then again, it depends if you have a decent programmer and an actually good 3d modeler.

Let me be blunt, a lot of pre-rendered games I've been seeing lately have some utterly disgusting visuals. Though you only see this when you analyze it for a living.

This again leads to budget which you have stated. Maybe someday we will get another Fahrenheit. For the PC that is.

Heavy Rain looks good, but bias begins here too. This leads to gamer ignorance thinking that such a beautiful game can only run on the PS3.

It all goes full circle.

QDream

03-31-2009, 05:33 AM

Pre-rendered 2.5D

ILoveYou

03-31-2009, 06:25 AM

Pre-rendered 2.5D
I second that. (BTW I really like your posts)

2.5D is so beautiful, I'll play the game even if the story otherwise is not my cup of tea lol

Schneckchen ^.^

03-31-2009, 08:51 AM

As long as the game is good and interesting, I really don't care how it's presented as long as the gameplay doesn't suffer. I play everything from Monkey Island 1 to the new first person Sherlock Holmes games.

Gabe

03-31-2009, 10:09 AM

Perefer 3rd person follow behind dynamic cam on rt3d environment,
like Alan wake,cant wait:9~But Fahrenheit's multi angle cam my fav.

Banderwocky

03-31-2009, 01:32 PM

If that was the case then most people will vote for Real-Time 3d....the main issue is that your pointing out RPG's and not adventure games. This leads to my next theorey.

Actually, I wasn't saying those are adventure games. I was saying that a lot of people play games of other genres in addition to adventure games. It was in response to saying that most of us probably don't have computers that can run real-time 3d.

Recently I played Sentinel: Descendents in Time which uses an older version of the Lithtech engine. It was beautiful and fully real-time 3d. Totally an adventure game. Just because something doesn't have 3rd person characters doesn't make it a pure adventure game. 1st person games are also pure adventure, in my book.

Honestly, I don't think that people would vote for real-time 3D based on the ability of their computer to run it. It's simply not the most optimal option sometimes. And honestly, it's not always the best looking just because it's the most technically demanding.

ZeframCochrane

03-31-2009, 02:42 PM

I voted for Pre-rendered / 2.5D.

And I'm quite convinced that mine is a purely aestethical reason, rather than technical.
I'm a very atypical adventure gamer, and sometimes I indulge in games such as FPSs, so I need to keep my machinery quite up to date.

When it comes to adventure games, though, I still prefer prerendered backgrounds. For more than one reason:

1) For some reason (which evades me) adventure game developers who wish to create a Real Time 3D game don't put as much effort in graphics as their colleagues who develop FPSs. Sometimes, while playing Unreal Tournament III, I stop dead and start admiring the leaves falling down from a tree. You can imagine the consequences. Sometimes I just wish I could enjoy UT3's stunning graphics without the fear of getting blown to smithereens at every corner. I occasionally start empty maps just to enjoy the view... but it's just boring.
Now, I said that the reason evades me... well it does officially. Unofficially I suspect the it has to do with adventure games not having the same kind of monetary success as FPSs... :frusty:

2) Real Time 3D games are usually controlled with a keyboard. Even when they are 3rd person!! The only exception I can conjure up to mind is GK3, which I loved. Most of the times I play a 3rd person, real time 3D game I end up smashing into walls.

3) Real Time 3D adventure games which do not fit in the previous point, are usually first person. I don't enjoy first person adventure games, in general. Whether they are still images, 360° hotspots, or rendered in real time, I end up getting lost. Now, if it's about blasting my way through the Combine everything is fine, but when it's about exploring an area to find objects and clues, I just like it better to have a more objective, external point of view.
I feel that this better emulates the real-life perception of an area. Think of it, when you enter a room, your perception is not confined to the (typically) 90° of a first person game. In fact, it is almost twice as much (albeit with reduced sensitivity at the edges). Trying to squeeze 180° of field of view on a monitor would cause ugly distorsions. Plus, in real life you have sounds coming from the environment to help you create an internal (3rd person) image of the region of space you are in. That's why, if I don't have to shoot at anything, I prefer watching the scene from an external point of view.

Gazzoid

03-31-2009, 04:34 PM

Another one for Pre-rendered/2.5D. If we can't have fantastic 2D graphics then 2.5D is the next best thing.

A lot of the screenshots i've seen for 2.5D games look very stunning and detailed.

Hol

04-03-2009, 07:47 AM

Thanks for all your brilliant comments, I've been finding them very interesting! I thought I'd say what I think about a few of the issues that have come up:

PC Specs

This is one of those cause or effect issues. Are adventure games holding back because their market have low-spec PCs or are adventure gamers not purchasing better hardware because it is not required for the games they want to play? Now, I'm not saying that adventure gamers should be forking out cash for high-spec PCs, but it is evident from the way that other genres are pushing forwards with their graphics and technology, that customers are often willing to buy a better PC to play current game releases (eg. Crysis was being sold in bundles with high-end graphics cards because so many people upgraded their PCs in order to play it).

As gamers should we not be asking developers to create the very best they can? Or should we be complaining when a new game doesn't run on our windows 95 machine? We can't cry out for high quality graphics and then complain when it runs slow, or not at all on our PC.

I agree with Banderwocky, ("I bet there is a good deal of us with fast computers"), unfortunately I don't think the developers realise this - there is this myth that only fps-fans have fast computers. Also, the prices of computers have come down by so much in the last ten years, that most people can afford a reasonable computer if they saved up just as they might for a new console etc. Why do some people think that a computer should last a lifetime but they are willing to buy a new console every few years?

Technical limitations

Kadji-kun stated: "developers don't understand how to make an environment look on par with prerendered scenes."
I disagree with this - scene creation for pre-rendered and real-time are basically the same process (3d modelling with a package such as 3ds max). For pre-rendered scenes, the artist can add as many objects in as much detail as they want into the scene because ultimately all that will be produced is a still image; this will take up just as much processing power as a render of a scene with few items or little detail.

However, with real-time 3D there are many technical limitations on the art production - the engine may only be able to handle a certain amount of polygons on screen at a time resulting on limits of detail or amount of items in a scene. Also, there is often a limit on texture resolution which can also result in poor looking scenes. It is therefore a lot harder for real-time 3D to look 'on par' with pre-rendered because it is comparing something limited with something that is unlimited (except for production costs).

Production costs

Here we need to consider a couple of things: cost of software, cost of employees working on the project and the time they have to be employed for (this list is by no means exclusive, just the key things we'll consider).

Cost of software = 3d package + game engine
Pre-rendered and real-time games need both of these. They could both use the same 3d package but it is the game engine where they will differ in costs. Pre-rendered games will most likely use a geometry/vector based package like the Wintermute engine. They may have this engine made by a programmer in-house or buy a license for a ready made one. Due to adventure games 'niche' market nature, I doubt that this would cost very much (and wintermute can even be used for free!) Real-time 3D games will need to license a engine or make one in-house; both cost a fair amount of money and can come up against a lot of (costly) difficulties.

Cost of employees = amount (of employees) x time (working)
Overall, the more time it takes to produce the game, the more money it'll cost. For pre-rendered games, this time limitation will be the main thing that limits the detail and complexity of the scenes. For real-time 3D games, extra time is needed for getting everything working in engine; collision hulls need to be made etc. but also, more art needs to be produced so that there are no gaps that the player can see (eg. for a room in a pre-rendered game, the camera shows you only a 1/3 to 1/2 of the room; for real-time that entire room must be made to a certain quality. This workload may be increased exponentially for an outdoor scene.)

You can understand from this that producing the graphical quality of a pre-rendered game in real-time 3D would be far too costly for developers - it IS technically possible, using engines such as Unreal3 or CryEngine2 these amazing games could theoretically be produced, but for a niche market such as adventure games it sadly, just is not viable.

@ ZeframCochrane, I agree with all your points - I too find myself often wishing I could just have a moment to explore a world in shooter games rather than fighting for my life. 3rd person is also my prefered point-of-view though I do acknowledge that it sort of defeats the point of real-time 3d :)

Sorry that post was so long! Go reward yourself with a cup of tea :D

kadji-kun

04-03-2009, 12:17 PM

Technical limitations

Kadji-kun stated: "developers don't understand how to make an environment look on par with prerendered scenes."
I disagree with this - scene creation for pre-rendered and real-time are basically the same process (3d modelling with a package such as 3ds max). For pre-rendered scenes, the artist can add as many objects in as much detail as they want into the scene because ultimately all that will be produced is a still image; this will take up just as much processing power as a render of a scene with few items or little detail.

However, with real-time 3D there are many technical limitations on the art production - the engine may only be able to handle a certain amount of polygons on screen at a time resulting on limits of detail or amount of items in a scene. Also, there is often a limit on texture resolution which can also result in poor looking scenes. It is therefore a lot harder for real-time 3D to look 'on par' with pre-rendered because it is comparing something limited with something that is unlimited (except for production costs).

I know technical limitations, and its no excuse in for modern development....unless your using an outdated game engine which seems to be the reality of adventure games.

I've been modeling for games for some time, and I know exactly what is capable. I know EXACTLY what the adventure game developers are doing wrong. They think real-time 3d is wondrous, but like your previous post, they still want it to be able to run on older machines. Honestly, does most of these so called "Real-time 3d" adventure games look any different than GK3 or Omikron? Not really. You still get blurry textures, lack of visual storytelling, and the Empty Room Syndrome (Which is common place for amatuer 3d modelers).

Hol

04-03-2009, 02:52 PM

Yes indeed. Unfortunately old game engines = cheap.

:frusty:

Lucifiel

04-03-2009, 03:10 PM

I can't vote for either 'cos I've no preference for it, only that if you're going to use either real-time or pre-rendered, the camera angles and other technical elements ought to actually take into account the puzzles/gameplay and not obscure them.

That said, even pre-rendered stuff can look ugly if the textures and colours are lacking. Same for real-time too.

kadji-kun

04-03-2009, 03:10 PM

Yes indeed. Unfortunately old game engines = cheap.

:frusty:

Actually I know that too well myself. Though, even that isn't an excuse. I've seen some absolutely amazing stuff made with 10-15 year old tech.

A company needs a really good Technical and Art Director to make something amazing. Sadly, don't kill me for saying this but, Still Life 2 fails at utilizing the tech to its full potential. Some environments in the game look absolutely amazing, while others look tacky.

Lucifiel

04-03-2009, 03:37 PM

Oh to add on to my previous post, I've seen the Witcher before. It wasn't always that pretty but it was quite cool, for a game that ran on the Aurora engine(NWN1). That was a brilliant usage of real-time 3d.

Now, Ceville would've been even more gorgeous if anti-aliasing actually worked. A pity about the budget and engine constraints, really.

kadji-kun

04-04-2009, 11:54 AM

FYI, I voted for No Preference myself. Agreed that both have its own high's, but I'm a logic man, I look ahead instead of look back.

Nautilus

04-05-2009, 12:57 PM

Both styles are great. What matters is if it helps the story to be told.

noknowncure

04-06-2009, 08:12 AM

Full 3D has the potential to be the perfect format for Adventure Games, but time, money and - if I'm allowed to be cynical - creative constraints mean that it's rarely implemented well.

2.5 is currently the most attractive of the two, although developers still manage to produce ugly games in 2.5.

3D is a way to move the genre forward. It opens up all sorts of gameplay opportunities, but simply isn't explored enough.

There are beautiful, compelling worlds created for every other game genre and, as if to add insult to injury, many include puzzles that wouldn't feel out of place in an Adventure Game, demonstrating the unlocked potential.

Vahkris

04-06-2009, 10:06 AM

I'm voting no preference.

I love both, first and third person. I wish more developers could manage to really work out how to do a good real-time 3D engine/gameplay well (like many high-end FPS games have done).

I'm not asking for Unreal Tournament 3 level of graphics (although despite not liking the game, it has pretty awesome graphics), but 3D can provide so many freedoms and benefits even if the level of detail is lower.

/nitpick on

And please learn how to build anti-aliasing in these games!!!

/nitpick off

Honestly, I think design-wise many developers are having the same problem Nintendo had prior to Super Mario 64...figuring out how to transfer their platform gameplay into a free-roaming 3D environment without sacrificing fun or killing their game with non-genre additions (yes, I'm looking at you Dreamfall...).

kadji-kun

04-06-2009, 11:32 AM

I'm not asking for Unreal Tournament 3 level of graphics (although despite not liking the game, it has pretty awesome graphics), but 3D can provide so many freedoms and benefits even if the level of detail is lower.

/nitpick on

And please learn how to build anti-aliasing in these games!!!

/nitpick off

Actually you should be asking for UT3 graphics. Have you seen some of the work done on some of these mods for Crysis? Its absolutely amazing! All by a group of people doing just for fun.

Though I have to say I hate UE3 engine with a passion. All the crap that has came out using the engine. All with its desaturated game library.

Oh and AA! They have to include AA. Its not hard to do. It comes with the Direct X SDK. Not to mention, we need WIDESCREEN support! I'm sick of playing games in 4:3 ratio. Its old and annoying. I want my simulated Peripheral Vision!

Vahkris

04-07-2009, 07:43 AM

Actually you should be asking for UT3 graphics. Have you seen some of the work done on some of these mods for Crysis? Its absolutely amazing! All by a group of people doing just for fun.

Though I have to say I hate UE3 engine with a passion. All the crap that has came out using the engine. All with its desaturated game library.

Oh and AA! They have to include AA. Its not hard to do. It comes with the Direct X SDK. Not to mention, we need WIDESCREEN support! I'm sick of playing games in 4:3 ratio. Its old and annoying. I want my simulated Peripheral Vision!

I don't ask for UT3 level of graphics because of the sheer amount of effort and cost required for it would eclipse the budgets I'd assume are allocated for adventure games. I've been informed by a college professor once (he would do lectures using video game engines) that even licensing the Unreal 3 engine for educational purposes is about $1 million (note: may not be accurate, was way back in 2006)...if true, imagine what a commercial application license would cost.

That's not even counting the amount of highly skilled graphics artists, designers, and programmers needed to massage what you get into something workable.

You don't have to be at Unreal 3 engine level to have good graphics. Art style, AA, and good textures can make up for a lot.

Banderwocky

04-07-2009, 01:01 PM

kadji-kun

04-07-2009, 04:07 PM

SO, I just finished Dead Reefs. It was real-time 3d using the Virtools engine. It didn't gain anything by being in 3d. See, in other kinds of games it's exciting to walk around a 3D world because things are spawning and trying to kill you. Or even in some other adventure-games (like GK3) there are npc events happening and it makes freedom to explore exciting.

In this game it looked nice, but pretty graphics only go so far when you end up walking around a lot. There has to be something happening, real-time 3d just for the sake of it ends up being a lot of wasted time trying to get to relevant parts of the game.

Really? Why do people think that a game has to be third person or first person? It can be a static camera game. (Now someone would say "if its static, why would you need it to be real-time 3d". I'd answer with something like "Read my posts and you'll see real-time 3d visuals isn't just graphics")

Not to mention, you chose a horrible game for your argument. The games visuals, gameplay, and overall tone was so limited and underwhelming. I stopped playing it for the fact that it was clunky and rushed.

Real-Time 3d doesn't just bring new visuals to the realm, but also new gameplay choices. The fact that its real-time allows you to create more interaction. Where-as majority of the pre-rendered games are quite static. (Though I have to say that Nikopol did a great job at make a great looking game quite interactive.)

Again, I see your statement as quite ignorant. And no, that doesn't make me see you as a lesser person.

Here are some games that broke the interaction barrier in pre-rendered/2d adventure games:
Gabriel Knight 1 & 3
Zork
Nikopol
Quest for Glory 4
to name a few.

With that said, the only way to push forward in the genre is to push toward real-time rendering. You can't have physical elements without a game being real-time. Honestly, I would love to tackle this discussion with a product after our current project is complete and shipped...to prove a point that is.

Sorry, if say Ignorant a lot. Ignorance is the very reason why people fight. The very reason why people think adventure gaming is dead.

Banderwocky

04-07-2009, 08:47 PM

Let me address your reply in segments Kadji-kun

Really? Why do people think that a game has to be third person or first person? It can be a static camera game. (Now someone would say "if its static, why would you need it to be real-time 3d". I'd answer with something like "Read my posts and you'll see real-time 3d visuals isn't just graphics")

Never said that it can't be a static camera game.

Not to mention, you chose a horrible game for your argument. The games visuals, gameplay, and overall tone was so limited and underwhelming. I stopped playing it for the fact that it was clunky and rushed.

Ok, well first off. This game doesn't sum up my whole argument. Which was that the perspective should serve the design well no matter what it is. So I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I was just relaying a personal experience I had playing a game recently. It's not like my entire views on the subject are summed up in this one game and my opinion of its graphics.

Real-Time 3d doesn't just bring new visuals to the realm, but also new gameplay choices. The fact that its real-time allows you to create more interaction. Where-as majority of the pre-rendered games are quite static. (Though I have to say that Nikopol did a great job at make a great looking game quite interactive.)

Perhaps you are correct, I am not arguing against the use of real-time 3D with a fixed camera perspective. Here, I feel like you are misreading my post and making a quick assumption and becoming defensive about what I am saying, when I'm saying something quite casually.

Again, I see your statement as quite ignorant. And no, that doesn't make me see you as a lesser person.

You know, if you could respond without sounding so condescending, it would be more productive. I don't really understand where this is coming from, and I seriously couldn't care less what you think about me as a person. I don't see what this has to do with my experience playing a crappy game and reporting how the graphics did nothing for the experience.

I think I was pretty clear earlier in the thread when I said that the graphics should serve the design, and I think the attack on my last casual reply seems rather ignorant. Obviously I think all games are different and I'm not generalizing based on one bad game. That said, I can comment on the graphics in a crappy game and be talking separately from the gameplay.

If a developer is going to have real-time 3D in an adventure game, then there better be something interesting about it...which was what I was saying when I said there needs to be something happening.

Here are some games that broke the interaction barrier in pre-rendered/2d adventure games:
Gabriel Knight 1 & 3
Zork
Nikopol
Quest for Glory 4
to name a few.

GK3 is real-time 3D, that's why I used it as an example of what I like in a real-time 3D adventure game.

Sorry, if say Ignorant a lot. Ignorance is the very reason why people fight. The very reason why people think adventure gaming is dead.

The tone conveyed in your reply seems kind of hostile and attacking, if you feel the need to apologize, perhaps you already know this.

I really don't understand where all the conflict is coming from. I'm not here to fight, and I'm really not as ignorant as you obviously perceive me to be. I have a lot of experience playing different kinds of games, and have past experience working in the game industry. I first replied to this poll to say that I do not have a preference on perspective, and that I just think it should serve whatever design it is a part of. And I definitely do not think adventure games dead or even dying.

kadji-kun

04-07-2009, 10:38 PM

You know, if you could respond without sounding so condescending, it would be more productive. I don't really understand where this is coming from, and I seriously couldn't care less what you think about me as a person. I don't see what this has to do with my experience playing a crappy game and reporting how the graphics did nothing for the experience.

I think I was pretty clear earlier in the thread when I said that the graphics should serve the design, and I think the attack on my last casual reply seems rather ignorant. Obviously...

Yeah, I guess I was sounding a little condescending in my last post. That I apologize. I also assumed too much about what your talking about. I misread it thinking that it was the only game you played that was a real-time 3d adventure game.

Maybe I should of been a politician and jump the gun at every possible moment. Or maybe not. Yeah, thats my flaw with the online world.

Jorz

04-08-2009, 04:01 AM

Say I'm a developer making an adventure game, and I can choose whether I want it 3D or 2.5D.

If I make it 3D, I can move the camera around, maybe change the angle when characters are talking, etc. But I'd have to reduce the complexity of the scenes.

More importantly, I'd be siginificantly restricting my potential market.

It's true that most people have 3D-capable computers nowadays, but how many have things like shader model 4? Maybe I should make a shader model 3 game (that requires lower-end PC's) and increase the size of my market, even if that means reducing the quality of the graphics? Or should I play it safer and go with shader model 2, even simpler graphics but larger audience? When do I stop?

I could even make a 3D game that looks great on high-end PC's, and looks worse on less powerful ones. But that takes an incredible amount of resources, it's a bit like making a game for multiple platforms.

So, unless a dynamic camera is really essential for my game, or my graphics are extremely simple anyway, I'd much rather make a 2.5D game, that looks as cool as I want and runs on pretty much every PC. The only restriction being that the camera is static.

Banderwocky

04-08-2009, 08:18 AM

Yeah, I guess I was sounding a little condescending in my last post. That I apologize. I also assumed too much about what your talking about. I misread it thinking that it was the only game you played that was a real-time 3d adventure game.

It's all good. Thanks.

aries323

04-08-2009, 11:25 AM

I definetely prefer pre-rendered backgrounds with the characters being 3D. Mainly because that I think the game's visuals and graphics look better pre-rendered, at least in an adventure game. If you need to have full 3D, you need to do it properly; this means using a lot of money to do it correctly.

And the game needs to point and click - at least in an adventure game.

For FPS games or RPGs, I have no problems with full 3D as these games seem to get enough funding to get 3D done properly.

Terramax

04-09-2009, 06:38 AM

OK, we've done this poll so many times... but I can't get enough of the topic anyway.

If there's ever a 3D adventure game with the graphics of Far Cry 2 and the imagination and style of Myst IV: Revelation, I'd prefer 3D.

But until adventure game companies can afford to make their games look that good (not including Heavy Rain as David Cage has the imagination of Uwe Boll with concussion) I'll carry on voting pre-rendered 2D.

@Jorz

I agree with your comments. Further more, most 3D games tend not to take advantage of the potential having a free-moving camera has. Compare the dynamic cut-scenes on games like Silent Hill 3 to games like Broken Sword 3 and you get a very good picture with what I mean.

Sometimes it's not just the graphics that let 3D games down, but the lack of effort by programmers to make camera angles and editing meaningful and to heighten the experience. Or too lazy to animate characters to give them life and belief.

kadji-kun

04-09-2009, 01:05 PM

@terramax: Exactly what I'm saying, except I'm supportive of innovation.

Just getting by with simple graphics is the main reason why Adventure gaming is being left behind and company's go under.

This one guy at GDC said "Its good to have innovation, but its best that we use one at a time."

When an adventure company tries to innovate, they try it too much and it fails. the Experiment is a great example of this.

Now if the developers took there head out of there asses and got a book on 3d Modeling. Good 3d modeling isn't about making the most beautiful thing. Its about doing just that, but at the lowest poly count.

I honestly don't have much respect for 3d Modelers who work on most of these Adventure games. I see problems left and right.

Until the companies get there act together, adventure games will go no where.

Oh and ROFl at your David Cage comment. Very true.

Hol

04-13-2009, 07:01 AM

Thanks for all your votes and comments everyone! It's greatly appreciated! My project is now starting to draw to a close but feel free to carry on voting and placing your thoughts here, I will keep the project updated to the last minute I can. ^_^

shezcrafti

04-13-2009, 12:55 PM

I chose "no preference" because I've played great games of both types! For me, it's the whole package that counts--the story, the atmosphere (or "look & feel" if you will), the controls, the sound--all of it--that makes (or breaks) the game. I don't know if my answer necessarily helps you, but it's the truth! If a game is good, the mechanics don't necessarily matter.

orient

04-14-2009, 12:36 AM

Looking at it from my perspective - the perspective of a core gamer with an up-to-date PC - obviously I want the best graphics and the most engaging experience; that means full 3D. In a perfect world, where 3D adventure games look as good as Resident Evil 5 and everyone has a good PC, static backgrounds would be rendered obsolete, providing absolutely no benefit over 3D. But it's not a perfect world - adventure games don't get the budget to create compelling 3D worlds and a lot of people still have out-dated hardware.

If I were a developer, I'd choose pre-rendered backgrounds. If I were me (which I am :P), I'd choose 3D.

ozzie

04-14-2009, 02:17 AM

But until adventure game companies can afford to make their games look that good (not including Heavy Rain as David Cage has the imagination of Uwe Boll with concussion)

That made me laugh, even if I didn't know what concussion means! :-D
Though I don't agree with it. The Nomad Soul had a wonderful story in parts (only played the demo of Fahrenheit and read much about it), though I guess he always runs out of ideas towards the end. Omikron got also pretty uninspired towards the finish line. The last district was terrible. At least the finale was okay...

Sentry

08-16-2009, 01:08 PM

real time 3D for me. and by this I mean pure 3D without the slightest bit of 2D, or 2.5D or whatever (with the exception distant backgrounds of course)

I don't mind "static" adventure games (such as Ceville or Jack Keane) as long as the environments are fully 3D

I'm wary about so-called "3D" games with only a 360° view (ie. where you still have to point & click to move to the next node, but can look around in each node) simply because it is impossible to verify if the ingame graphics are really 3D or if the developers cheated

so my favourites by far are the "shooter" style adventures which allow free-roaming, be it either in 3rd person (Uru - ages beyond Myst) or 1st person (Sentinel - descendants in time, Myst V - end of ages, Schizm II - chameleon, Sherlock Holmes - Awakened)

btw if anyone knows of any more such "FPS" adventure games plz let me know :) these tend to be the rarest

Roper Klacks

08-16-2009, 05:26 PM

btw if anyone knows of any more such "FPS" adventure games plz let me know :) these tend to be the rarest
Try the Penumbra series.

RockNFknRoll

08-16-2009, 06:50 PM

2D and 2.5D has a higher success rate for me, but when done right, 3D can (or could) really take games to new levels. It's just rare that it's done right. GK3 is incredible. I really like the 1st person Sherlock Holmes games, etc. Though they need to bridge the gap in terms of lush eye candy, 3D graphics, espeically in adventures seem to be dull and plain and blocky. They don't compare to artistically hand drawn or pre-rendered scenes.

Sentry

08-16-2009, 07:05 PM

Try the Penumbra series.played both (but they count more as action)
Overture was excellent, Black plague ok (somewhat disappointing)

and yeah I'd forgotten about Sherlock Holmes' awakened, played that too :) the graphics were somewhat outdated for its time (compared to Myst V or Sentinel for instance) but it was a decent title overall

any other "Myst V clones" ?

Legend

08-16-2009, 08:42 PM

what would resident evil 4 count as?

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/779/779374/resident-evil-4-20070410102009660_640w.jpg

Sentry

08-16-2009, 08:48 PM

2nd person shooter ? :crazy:

orient

08-16-2009, 09:06 PM

RE4's a third-person shooter. It's the only shooter - first or third - that I've really enjoyed, because I like the control set-up (especially on Wii). All-out 3D action games have never been my thing, but RE4 had the horror, the upgrade systems and the stop-and-shoot gameplay that made it feel more considered than just blowing stuff up. I still much prefer 2D action games, though like Gunstar Heroes!

Roper Klacks

08-17-2009, 02:59 AM

RE4 is a pure 3rd person shooter. Basically the only thing we do is shooting things.

Legend

08-17-2009, 09:32 PM

kadji-kun

08-18-2009, 12:23 AM

If and only if we could have a game with RE4 character design and mobility, environment and fmv sequences incorporated in an adventure game, I'd buy the title even if it was for $60.00

Provided, I'd get tonnes of options, inventories, multiple endings and lots of kick-ass dialogues and an intriguing story line.

The funny thing is that RE4 isn't that complex of an engine. Generic AI, Triggered Events, Inventory System, Upgrade System, NPC's, and Rendering Engine.

I wouldn't say it would be hard for an independent developer to compose such a thing under the Adventure genre. The only thing that makes it AAA outside of money is quality dialog, story, voice acting, optimization, and CG materials. Judging by some of today's amazing Adventure games, the CG part shouldn't really be that hard. Its the optimization that people don't understand.

VoodooFX

08-18-2009, 12:38 AM

I have no preference. I really liked the 3D engine from what I saw of Memento Mori.

Bad camera-work asside, I loved BS3 and Dreamfall quite dearly.

BS4 on the other hand is a fine example of what limited resources can do to an otherwise solid game.

millenium

08-18-2009, 05:49 AM

Resources permitting, full blown real-time 3D in all its glory. Just look at the Assassin's Creed or Heavy Rain.

Nautilus

08-18-2009, 06:00 AM

Recent 3D adventure games are too dependent on hardware specs and tech mumbojumbo.
2.5D adventure games are more focused on the story and gameplay.

mgeorge

08-18-2009, 07:44 AM

3D all the way, if it's done right.

Problem is most haven't. 2 good examples of this are Dreamfall and Indigo Prophecy. Dreamfall looked nice, but the stealth and combat in the game were horrendous. As far as I'm concerned, the game itself probably would have been better had it been done in 2.5.

I loved Indigo, however, the stealth in that was almost as bad as Dreamfalls. (if that's possible). And the fighting sequences were almost as bad. At least on the PC. Despite that, I still loved the game because it was different from anything I'd played before.

I'm not sure how many here have played Call of Cthulhu DCOTE, because it's so combat orientated, however this would be a very good example of how an AG could be done right. The game did contain quite a bit of combat and timed sequences, however it also had some very good puzzles. Take away the combat and timed stuff and you've got an excellent AG. This was Lovecraft done right IMO. And though the game didn't contain cutting edge graphics, it showed that art direction, music and story doesn't need a big budget to create a foreboding eerie atmosphere.

Legend

08-18-2009, 08:29 AM

The funny thing is that RE4 isn't that complex of an engine. Generic AI, Triggered Events, Inventory System, Upgrade System, NPC's, and Rendering Engine.

I wouldn't say it would be hard for an independent developer to compose such a thing under the Adventure genre. The only thing that makes it AAA outside of money is quality dialog, story, voice acting, optimization, and CG materials. Judging by some of today's amazing Adventure games, the CG part shouldn't really be that hard. Its the optimization that people don't understand.

i like what you wrote, made sense. I still feel that by pouring more money into the budget, the developer will eventually be rewarded when the game comes out fine.

IMO, developers should stop making games with the idea of investing little in resources and in turn churning out another mediocre game. Make a good title, and release it. They'll def. have a fan following.

kadji-kun

08-18-2009, 01:23 PM

i like what you wrote, made sense. I still feel that by pouring more money into the budget, the developer will eventually be rewarded when the game comes out fine.

IMO, developers should stop making games with the idea of investing little in resources and in turn churning out another mediocre game. Make a good title, and release it. They'll def. have a fan following.

By removing the Publisher factor, the developers have a lot more free will in there work. The con of this, developers don't follow deadlines.

booB

08-18-2009, 07:16 PM

Dreamfall looked nice, but the stealth and combat in the game were horrendous. As far as I'm concerned, the game itself probably would have been better had it been done in 2.5.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with the graphics or perspective of the game; it's 100% a gameplay issue. There was nothing wrong with the stealth in Dreamfall; it was dumbed-down, just like it is in EVERY game that's not exclusively a "stealth game" (ie, Beyond Good & Evil). The combat was kind of crappy, but again it was purposely dumbed-down, because it was intended to be an interactive "cut-scene", of sorts. For example: (Dreamfall mini-spoiler)

Instead of showing a cut-scene where Kian kills a couple of resistance members, the game enters an interactive combat scene, where YOU, as Kian, kill the resistance members.

It's simply meant as a method to keep things interactive -- and in a game which had very little interactivity whatsoever, these fight scenes were indeed necessary. Taken in this context, they are not a problem. However, the problem with the combat is twofold: 1) "Core" gamers who are used to action and fighting found the combat lacking in challenge, and, therefore, unnecessary; 2) Many adventure gamers simply do not play any other kinds of games; these people -- difficult as it is to believe -- found the combat (and the stealth) to be too hard for them, and it subtracted from their enjoyment of the game. (This reaction, unfortunately, will happen anytime there is any sort of "action" in an adventure game.)

If the game had been made in 2.5D, with similar gameplay, how would the game be any better? Personally, I find Dreamfall to be FAR, FAR, FAR more immersive than TLJ, and it's specifically due to the realtime 3D graphics. You really get the sense that you're IN this alternate world, rather than watching from a fixed camera angle as in TLJ.

mgeorge

08-18-2009, 07:58 PM

If the game had been made in 2.5D, with similar gameplay, how would the game be any better? Personally, I find Dreamfall to be FAR, FAR, FAR more immersive than TLJ, and it's specifically due to the realtime 3D graphics. You really get the sense that you're IN this alternate world, rather than watching from a fixed camera angle as in TLJ.

Actually I concede to this. Your absolutely right. What I was trying to say was that I think the story could have been told just as well utilizing 2.5 and think some of the AG community may have enjoyed it more using that format.

Personally I found the combat and stealth difficult, but only because they were so poorly implemented. And unfortunately, if my memory serves me right, there was quite a bit of both in the game.

But yes the game was more immersive because of the graphics, and that was one the reasons I stuck it out to the end to be honest. Probably because I never finished TLJ, (I found the puzzles to obtuse), I had a hard time caring about the characters, and it wasn't until about 3/4 of the way through the game that the story grabbed me.

I applaud Tornquist for taking a chance and trying something unique in the genre, however this is one game, (and I don't say this often haha), that I found veering from the traditional a poor choice other than the use of 3D.

In fairness though I am replaying it now, and enjoying it more than I did my first time through.

kadji-kun

08-19-2009, 12:39 AM

Actually I concede to this. Your absolutely right. What I was trying to say was that I think the story could have been told just as well utilizing 2.5 and think some of the AG community may have enjoyed it more using that format.

Personally I found the combat and stealth difficult, but only because they were so poorly implemented. And unfortunately, if my memory serves me right, there was quite a bit of both in the game.

But yes the game was more immersive because of the graphics, and that was one the reasons I stuck it out to the end to be honest. Probably because I never finished TLJ, (I found the puzzles to obtuse), I had a hard time caring about the characters, and it wasn't until about 3/4 of the way through the game that the story grabbed me.

I applaud Tornquist for taking a chance and trying something unique in the genre, however this is one game, (and I don't say this often haha), that I found veering from the traditional a poor choice other than the use of 3D.

In fairness though I am replaying it now, and enjoying it more than I did my first time through.

Funny. This game and Womens Murder Club gotten so many complaints about the mini-games/action sequences. I found these sequences to be extremely simple and easy. Never bothered me the least.