View Single Post
Old 12-01-2009, 09:21 AM   #3
UPtimist
Life and times of...
 
UPtimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
Default

Well, perhaps they felt that a game in the usual 2.5D would not be commercially interesting enough, and that with the modern technology a game in full 3D could be done without compromising the artistic qualities. It's not like full 3D means bad visuals.

GK3 was full 3D in 1999, and although it sure wasn't visually stunning, in my opinion it has graphics that still are very pleasing to the eye and has an interface that in my opinion is still unmatched today (and much of the problems are simply due to a rushed schedule). That was 10 years ago, things could be done in quite wonderful ways nowadays and it can look just as beautiful as the original Syberias (which I finally have the privilege to play as of yesterday), even better with the development since then.

I personally think that 3D still has much to offer to AGs, and GK3 should've been (and was - in a way) a pioneer in the way AGs could evolve, even though the interface had its problems, it (in my opinion) allowed a much more versatile and immersifying experience than the usual 2.5D.

And althogh that has nothing to do with graphics and such - that area is simply a matter of tech advancement (which nowadays is far enough to assertain the level in 3D where it was with the previous Syberias in 2.5D) and art direction, not decisions in how a game is built (I'm sure someone could say it better). Of course, I'm not saying it means things will be better, but as long as there's effort put into it (and as I said, good art direction), there's no reason in my opinion why 3D should be visually any less stunning than 2.5D (of course, I understand that you didn't say that 3D is necessarily bad, but I'm sure that if the change had to be made, it had to be made (the first paragraph is the main point here )).
UPtimist is offline