[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

LOL, now I'm haunting JA+ reading that thread. Same old, same old - statements of personal opinion as damning fact. That said I'd love to hear someone like Trep answer some of the more common "3D can't work in adventures" arguments. Basically most of them boil down to "it hasn't been done/hasn't been done well so therefore it can't be done".

I will if you will. But you're sick and tired of arguing with them. In summation their ultimate adversity is that of nostalgia and emotional clinging. It's quite a valid argument to want FMV, but it's currently impossible to do the way described by Jake above. And they simply will not face up to that.

Now there's someone saying 3D is more expensive than 2D because of licensing costs. They make some great points, but doesn't seem to know that the cost of creating a 2D game, and all the production politics and requirements involved in creating good 2D animation, would probably be astronomical on the level he's talking about. You need producers, dealings with overseas animation teams, equipment for the paint studio, editing... dah dah dah list goes on.

They know that already, but again their nostalgia prevents them from at least cultivating some kind curiosity and openmindedness. I guess it'll have to actually take playing the demo or full game to make them see. And even then they'll always, ALWAYS find something to complain about.

[Jackal]

Okay, let's ease up on the JA commentary, guys. Cross-forum criticism just ain't cool.

About Myst V, I think it's great that Cyan's implementing dual control schemes. That's an idea whose time is long overdue. Of course, after Uru, I'm not exactly holding my breath about the direct contol , but fingers are crossed for lessons learned.

[squarejawhero]

Hopefully Cyan got burnt by trying to innovate something that didn't need it. I've said it time and time again (mszv will probably groan at me for this ) but during beta control issues were the MAIN problem with the game. Either they couldn't or they were far more interested in creating something "new".

That said, it's worth bearing in mind the complexity of the ideas behind Uru. Maybe the control scheme or "feel" (which was the main issue = trucklike handling) was down to some kind of synch problem.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Jake

Also that doesn't account at all for how people get distorted and the perspective of their limbs and face change as you move a camera (or the human eye) closer and farther from them, so if you got close up to these people, perspective would go all wonky.

Having to look at severely distorted computer-generated *3D PUPPETS* in Still Life with hands as big as their head I know just what you mean. Can't think of anything less immersive! Give me real people anytime, and I promise I'll stand still and not try to walk around them while the're talking to me.

[squarejawhero]

Depends on which game you're playing. Not all games are deformed like Still Life's characters, which I get the feeling are that way as a stylistic choice. Vampire: Bloodlines characters and the animation of Esher from the IGN video's are far, far more expressive and interesting than Still Life's, which is less a damning indication of "how bad 3D "puppets" are" and more how misplaced some of the design might be.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Having to look at severely distorted computer-generated *3D PUPPETS* in Still Life with hands as big as their head I know just what you mean. Can't think of anything less immersive! Give me real people anytime, and I promise I'll stand still and not try to walk around them while the're talking to me.

Who would that be? The cop in Prague?
I though the 3D models in Still Life were perfectly fine and expressive...

[Fien]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Depends on which game you're playing. Not all games are deformed like Still Life's characters, which I get the feeling are that way as a stylistic choice.

Stylistic choice? No way, monkeydude, no way! Play the game and see for yourself.

Vampire: Bloodlines characters and the animation of Esher from the IGN video's are far, far more expressive and interesting than Still Life's, which is less a damning indication of "how bad 3D "puppets" are" and more how misplaced some of the design might be.

Are you saying it's a misplaced stylistic choice?

But I guess you missed both my points.

PS: On second thoughts, I may misunderstand what you mean by "stylistic choice".

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Who would that be? The cop in Prague?

More than one puppet. But yes, the cop in Prague comes to mind. So you did notice it too...

I though the 3D models in Still Life were perfectly fine and expressive...

Really? I don't know what I found more UNimmersive: the awkwardly moving, not-at-all-expressive puppets with their wildly waving arms or the sometimes downright awful voiceacting. But Victoria and a couple of other important characters were okay.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Having to look at severely distorted computer-generated *3D PUPPETS* in Still Life with hands as big as their head I know just what you mean. Can't think of anything less immersive! Give me real people anytime, and I promise I'll stand still and not try to walk around them while the're talking to me.

Okay, so you're saying as long as they keep making games exactly the way you want them, you'll pretend their hideous, undeniable flaws don't actually exist?

Sorry if I missed your point, I really try not to post here all that often.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Okay, so you're saying as long as they keep making games exactly the way you want them, you'll pretend their hideous, undeniable flaws don't actually exist?

I have the feeling we're talking at cross-purposes, not sure.

Actually, they don't go on making them exactly the way I want them. I would want the last one in the Myst series to be prerendered with real actors, just like Myst IV. People can try to convince me till they are blue in the face, but let's have some truth here: realtime 3D with 3D puppets is simply NOT as beautiful and realistic. (Not yet anyway, who knows what will happen one day.) I find ugly 3D characters unconvincing and distracting. I notice their ugliness and clumsiness while they're talking to me. Other people prefer realtime 3D for its freedom. Fine. I don't. For me being able to walk around someone is not all that immersive, so it's not a "hideous, undeniable flaw" if I'm supposed to stand still when Atrus c.s. are talking to me.

[squarejawhero]

Firstly, thanks for understanding my first point. I believe Still Life had a misdirected art style based on those character models, but I haven't played the entire game so I'm unsure if that's thematic or just a couple of ill-advised one-offs. I've seen the pictures though. But they're not an indicator to what 3D can pull of now in any way, shape or form.

I'm sorry, but Esher alone in just the few sequences is preferable to the "acting" quality of Myst IV. His acting is subtle and well-managed, particularly on the face, although 3D artists should try to get a grip with back-shoulder interface instead of loose-limbing them all the time.

Besides, the compression techniques in IV and those required for FMV (3D rendered background SFX not included naturally) weren't high enough so you often ended up with blotchy FMV over crisp (for the resolution) backdrops. Which is another pitfall in FMV in itself. FMV also limits you by only allowing a set viewpoint. A character often disappears from view in an FMV game so they don't have to hook them up in each screen, even in Myst IV. Any moving around is going to require directed shots out of your hands.

In the E3 Demo you see Esher from some way off before you go to talk to him. In "free roam" mode you can stroll up and see his position from any angle, and it's not taking up any extra space or code to do so. FMV is so limiting, and always will be until we can SCAN humans into a real, usable and texture mapped 3D model and mix the two. Myst V actually takes a step in that direction by matching the performance of the actor to the model. Not something I always enjoy from an artistic level, as someone in animation, but if it works it works.

Just thanks be it's not Tom Hanks doing the acting!

Simply put, I can understand your sentiment, but genuinely for a 3D title an FMV character just won't work.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Actually, they don't go on making them exactly the way I want them. I would want the last one in the Myst series to be prerendered with real actors, just like Myst IV.

Ah, yeah, that's something I didn't consider when I was writing that last post. What I meant was that by this: "Give me real people anytime, and I promise I'll stand still and not try to walk around them while the're talking to me.", were you saying that even in a real-time 3D game (i.e. Myst V or Uru, I guess, since that's pretty much what we're talking about) you'd still prefer FMV characters over 3D ones, even though they're going to be paper-thin and you can't really look at them from more than one angle?* That you'd be fine with that as long as you were getting FMV over 3D characters?

That's what I got from your quote, anyway.

Also, I agree with SJH; considering the acting quality of Myst IV, I don't see how this new arrangement isn't preferable.

* Well that was a massive sentence.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

More than one puppet. But yes, the cop in Prague comes to mind. So you did notice it too...

No, Bastich did. I had no problem with him or any other character.

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Really? I don't know what I found more UNimmersive: the awkwardly moving, not-at-all-expressive puppets with their wildly waving arms or the sometimes downright awful voiceacting. But Victoria and a couple of other important characters were okay.

The voiceacting was fine with me (in french), I really liked Gus and Victoria's 3D models, and the others didn't feel out of place to me.
Seriously, I was sucked into the game from the beginning to the end, apart from the receipe and lockpicking puzzles.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Ninth

The voiceacting was fine with me (in french), I really liked Gus and Victoria's 3D models, and the others didn't feel out of place to me.
Seriously, I was sucked into the game from the beginning to the end, apart from the receipe and lockpicking puzzles.

And I liked the recipe and lockpicking puzzle (although in the end I despaired and consulted a WT for the lock). All the other puzzles were variations on familiar and sometimes even worn-out themes.

Gus' voice put me to sleep...

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Ah, yeah, that's something I didn't consider when I was writing that last post. What I meant was that by this: "Give me real people anytime, and I promise I'll stand still and not try to walk around them while the're talking to me.", were you saying that even in a real-time 3D game (i.e. Myst V or Uru, I guess, since that's pretty much what we're talking about) you'd still prefer FMV characters over 3D ones, even though they're going to be paper-thin and you can't really look at them from more than one angle?* That you'd be fine with that as long as you were getting FMV over 3D characters?

Hmmmmm... if you put it like that...yes

I love the old Tex Murphy games, have you played them? Lousy interface, ancient 3D, great in every other way! I remember the cardboard FMV characters, but I always considered them part of the ugly 3D environment. Except in the cut scenes of course. I can't imagine Tex without 3D and without real people. Can't imagine Myst V without lovely eyecandy and real people.

Also, I agree with SJH; considering the acting quality of Myst IV, I don't see how this new arrangement isn't preferable.
[/size]

Ah, but I don't mind bad or over-the-top acting in games! By real actors, I mean. The same does not apply to 3D puppets and 2D characters, handdrawn or computer-generated. I can't stand bad voiceacting. And I don't think the acting was all that bad in Myst IV. Not good either. Atrus is always awful and the absent Catherine used to be terrible too.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Okay, let's ease up on the JA commentary, guys. Cross-forum criticism just ain't cool.

Perhaps not, but it does show a trend among us adventure fans telling of how we work psychologically. Not my intent to pick on any specific community, but this trend does creep into many forums, including this one. All I'm asking is: Why is it so important to fixate on one detail of a game that you think would make it or break it for you, a detail that ultimately is just that, a detail? It's clear that Cyan in this case is wanting to try new things and try doing them well, but I, for one, will not yell at them for it. I want Myst V to be as good as it can be, and won't shun it based on my hangups with a few things about it I choose to have issues with. That's what I meant by always looking for things to complain about.

About Myst V, I think it's great that Cyan's implementing dual control schemes. That's an idea whose time is long overdue. Of course, after Uru, I'm not exactly holding my breath about the direct contol , but fingers are crossed for lessons learned.

My problem has more to do with some adventure fans REFUSING to be at least a little curious as to how Cyan are working things out. For me, the classic WASD interface is waaaay long overdue - what, did Cyan think that all of us who play first person adventure games play ONLY adventure games? No, many of us also play FPSs, strategies, and RPGs, so many of us ARE USED TO various kinds of interfaces, especially ones we can customize ourselves. That's the mistake Cyan made with Uru, they didn't look into the fact that Uru really was, in some ways, just another 3rd person real time 3D game, like Max Payne or Tomb Raider, and that many of us would have been perfectly fine with the typical control scheme used by those games - because it WORKS.

But in the end, I'm happy they're finally accommodating as many different kinds of people as possible. What I'm most concerned with, though, is how well they'll do the mouse-only interface for those of us who prefer it that way. It may just be a design fact that a mouse-only control for a real time 3D adventure was never a good idea in the first place.

[squarejawhero]

I think Cyan took Angel Of Darkness as the key to Uru's control system.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

LOL!!

[Eleri]

As someone who hadn't played anything but text and point n' click, no FPS experience at all, Uru just took some getting used to. Trying to navigate in WoW when my friend dragged me in there afterwards, was massively counter-intuative to me. Uru's mouse controls made much more sense. Click arrow there, avvie goes there. Click right, turn right, click left, turn left. *shrug* Musta been because I didn't have any basis of comparison at the time.

[mszv]

On the Uru controls, my personal theory is that Cyan didn't want to scare off people who didn't play other kinds of games so they implemented the controls with the arrows. I can't remember - couldn't you remap them to the more normal WASD setup? Then there was that panning, all of a sudden the camera moves around to give you a different view. I rather liked it because you got pretty screenshots, but it played havoc with your controls. Personally, I think the arrows were the least of the control problems, since there were so many - control problems that is, in Uru. But, I digress.

I have a theory that some adventure gamers aren't "in the game", all that much. To be fair, the traditional adventure game format encouraged that. Remember that it was important, in the early days, to give you the impression that you were actually doing something in the game when you really weren't, given the machines that were running those old games. They had to make the little bit you actually got to do in a game seem like more. So, you move around a bit (as much as it's possible to move around in point and click), stop, get out your pad and paper and make a map. Keep the game up, maybe, but get out of the game, virtually, and think a bit. Get back into the game, click around some more, and maybe draw a diagram or draw another picture, not in the game of course - outside the game, on a pad of paper next to your keyboard. If you want to take a screenshot, then you have to get out of the game for that. Even if you are using a tool such as hypersnap you have to get out of the game (at least tab out) to look at your pretty and informative screenshot. Then - keep the game open but don't do anything, as you are mapping out some "obscure", by my interpretation, logic puzzle. OK, you've figured something out, really get back into the game, click on something, solve something, and you get movement, action, "aliveness", in terms of a non resource intensive cutscene (even older, slower machines play movies pretty good). If you want to see more movement and action, and "aliveness", go back and replay the cut scene.

Since you are spending a heck of a lot of time not doing anything in the game, you may be looking at the scenery a lot, in terms of static screenshots. So, it's important for the scenery to look good. I think 3D looks great, but it looks extra great when you are moving around - that's where it shines. Another way to put this - 3D looks extra great when you vary what you do. If you do the same five clicks to get down the same path in Channelwood, and your view (same distance, same angle, same everything) never changes, and you like that, then you don't need 3D. In 3D, everything you look at gets larger and smaller, and you can approach something from any angle. If there's people, you can walk around them, maybe even (depending on how the game is done), interact with them. There might be weather, other nifty things in the game, including water. Things may be moving around. You can go fast or slow, depending on the game, you can get an actual impression of moving in the space. It's swell, but it's only swell if you spend enough time in the game moving around and seeing how swell it is, and it's really swell if this sort of thing is important to you.

My point - if all the playing of an adventure game happens when you aren't in it, you don't have to care about things like movement, interactivity, stuff happening and moving in the game. In fact it's easier if there aren't a lot of things moving around. If relatively little moves, and there isn't much to interact with, it's a lot easier to figure out that the lever that gives you a bit of animation must have something to do with solving a puzzle. If there are only 10 things you can examine in detail, then it's easy to figure out that they all have to go into your inventory, and you have to do something with it.

I think the same thing applies to "people" that are animations, instead of live actors. I think you can identify with any character, but, obviously, the longer you are actually "in the game", playing it, the easier it is to suspend disbelief. It also depends on how much you want to interact with the "character". The original Myst was great at making me feal like Atrus was talking to me, but yikes, that was years ago. My standards are a bit different now. If I'm in the game and I meet a "person", I'd like them to interact with me as the player, if that's possible - if I move around, have their eyes follow me, maybe have them turn to me, that sort of thing. I figure that with this new AI coming along, that sort of thing can only get better.

Getting back to Myst V. If you want Myst V to be in the tradition of oldtime Myst, then it's 2D and videos of actual people. It's sort of a cross between a movie and a game. You don't move when the characters are in your space. It's a combination of static screenshots, and a tiny little bit of animation, which sticks out because there is so darn little of it. Now I love Myst with a deep undying passion, but I just can't do that anymore in a new game. I want more stuff in the game to make the world seem alive, including how the game interacts with me. I also want to walk where I want to walk, and see what I want to see. Let me navigate the space.

All that "in the game", "not in the game" thing - that's a part of the whole adventure game genre. It drives me crazy, actually. I like it that the games proceed at a slow pace (I like that quite a lot, actually), but it drives me absolutely batty that, so much of the time you play an adventure game, you aren't really "in the game". I don't have an answer for that.