[Hol]

Hi everyone!

I am a final year student currently writing a research dissertation about adventure games. The title is:

Comparative analysis of pre-rendered and real-time 3D environments in adventure games.

In this project I define these as:
Pre-rendered games (often called 2.5D) are games with 3D background images like in Grim Fandango, Syberia, The Longest Journey etc.
Real-time 3D games are when the player can freely move the camera around (Gabriel Knight 3) or the camera follows the player through the environment (Broken Sword 3 & 4) or the camera moves first-person like any action game ever.

I wondered if you guys would mind giving me your views and opinions on the debate! I would love to know:


Which do you prefer to play and why: pre-rendered or real-time 3D adventure games?


Thanks everyone!

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Hol

Which do you prefer to play and why: pre-rendered or real-time 3D adventure games?

If the real-time 3D is handled in 3rd person point of view, with a free-roaming camera, like Gabriel Knight 3, I prefer this asset. Otherwise, I prefer 2.5D pre-rendered.

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by Hol

In this project I define these as:
Pre-rendered games (often called 2.5D) are games with 3D background images like in Grim Fandango, Syberia, The Longest Journey etc.

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.

[Shany]

For 3rd person games I prefer 2.5D games. They are usually nicer to look at and easier to navigate.

For 1st person games I like the FPS sort of camera (either that or 360 scrolling).

[Romer]

First person games...ugh. 3D heroes rule. Is there a better environment than URU?

That said, the story and atmosphere are what move me, in any dimension. If the art, story, voices, gameplay, and plot combine, I am there.

Casual games take the pressure off those expectations and just provide some puzzlicious fun, eh?

[Hol]

Originally Posted by crabapple

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]

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]

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]

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

[colpet]

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

[kadji-kun]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kadji-kun

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Banderwocky

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mszv

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]

Pre-rendered 2.5D

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by QDream

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