Adventure Gamers - Forums

The problem I have is not necessarily with the trend itself. It’s that such a large percentage of adventure gamers think that it’s the only way graphics should look, and strongly prefer it to anything that looks modern. It’s a shame that we finally have proven adventure game developers in a position to make 3D adventure games (Double Fine etc.), but they’re sticking with 2D to appease the hardcore fans.

You’re being disingenuous when you suggest that 1990-era 2D was beautiful and early 3D was ugly. At least one of you implied that even modern-era 3D graphics will be ugly in a decade (so basically, 3D will never be good enough for you). If you can find pixellated 2D art beautiful, why can’t you find blocky 3D art beautiful? You can’t just look at a screenshot of 2D vs. early 3D and say “see, the 2D is prettier!” It’s not about how a static screenshot looks, it’s about the immersion and exploration that 3D can provide. I recently played through Spyro the Dragon 2 for PS1, and the graphics are charming in the same way that pixel art is charming.

What happened, unfortunately, is that most of the early 3D games were bad or mediocre. King’s Quest VIII for example. But to say that “3D ruined King’s Quest” just isn’t accurate. I have not yet played KQ8, but I don’t think that game would have been helped much by 2D graphics. They took away the royal family and all characters we were familiar with, and they turned it into an action hybrid (this is not 3D’s fault). You latch on to details like the 3D thing because it’s easy to lay the blame on that.

Gabriel Knight 3 is solid, though it gets a lot of flack now for the mustache puzzle and it’s somehow viewed as having “killed” adventure games. But the 3D was the best part of that game. The exploration was gorgeous and was incredibly immersive. It helped that I had a computer capable of playing the game on its highest graphics settings at the time, but again, that’s nothing to blame on 3D and it’s not a relevant point for 2012 games.

There is nothing else of note after that - GK3 is the apex of 3D adventure games and has been for 13 years. Other games such as Simon 3D and Broken Sword 3 just are not great games, regardless of dimension. Stacking is notable, but none of you bothered to play that because it’s not 2D.

If you can look at the graphics of a game like Heavy Rain and honestly say that 1990 pixel art is preferable as a default for adventure games, you’re out of your mind.

JuntMonkey - 14 August 2012 03:56 PM

Gabriel Knight 3 is solid, though it gets a lot of flack now for the mustache puzzle and it’s somehow viewed as having “killed” adventure games. But the 3D was the best part of that game. The exploration was gorgeous and was incredibly immersive. It helped that I had a computer capable of playing the game on its highest graphics settings at the time, but again, that’s nothing to blame on 3D and it’s not a relevant point for 2012 games.

There is nothing else of note after that - GK3 is the apex of 3D adventure games and has been for 13 years. Other games such as Simon 3D and Broken Sword 3 just are not great games, regardless of dimension. Stacking is notable, but none of you bothered to play that because it’s not 2D.

I like your way of thinking. I grow tired of hearing about the OMM article regarding the mustache puzzle. A bad puzzle, but hardly genre-breaking or game-breaking. GK3 is a fantastic game, and the 3D exploration was very well done. I loved moving the camera around and exploring every nook and cranny of GK3’s environments.

Adventure games were already on the decline commercially since the advent of 3D cards in 1997 or so. Games like Grim Fandango or GK3 didn’t kill adventure games. It’s such an absurd correlation made without any causation whatsover. The logic people use here is no better than me saying, “When I went for a walk today it started raining. That means I caused it to rain!”

The 3D adventures came at a time when people were more interested in non-adventure games that utilized 3D. Adventure developers had no choice but to adapt. Some did very well, others not so much.

@JuntMonkey: I think early 3D can be beautiful, but just like with early, pixelated 2D, when it aims to portray more details then the technology allows, then the game will look just terribly ugly some years down the line. All the limitations it tries to hammer against will become painfully obvious. I think GK3 is really ugly, as is Azrael’s Tear. Rayman 2, on the other hand, or Evil Twin, I think they’re still kind of beautiful, they use the technology well and know how to operate within its limits. It helps that they didn’t try to aim for a realistic style.
Synnergist comes to mind when I think of an ugly 2D game. It just tries to portray too much detail within its low resolution. As a result it looks pretty messy.

I think there’s still a lot of life in 2D left. The only reason big budget games abandoned it is because of technological changes. Why should we let the newest technology determine which kind of games should be produced? I’m glad Double Fine does a 2D adventure game now, and from the prototypes we’ve seen they definitely don’t plan to do a nostalgic throwback. Instead they try to push the envelope regarding what can be done with 2D.

JuntMonkey - 14 August 2012 03:56 PM

You’re being disingenuous when you suggest that 1990-era 2D was beautiful and early 3D was ugly. At least one of you implied that even modern-era 3D graphics will be ugly in a decade (so basically, 3D will never be good enough for you). If you can find pixellated 2D art beautiful, why can’t you find blocky 3D art beautiful? You can’t just look at a screenshot of 2D vs. early 3D and say “see, the 2D is prettier!” It’s not about how a static screenshot looks, it’s about the immersion and exploration that 3D can provide. I recently played through Spyro the Dragon 2 for PS1, and the graphics are charming in the same way that pixel art is charming.

I don’t understand when you say I’m being disingenuous. I never meant that 3d art can’t be beautiful and I’m very sure I said somewhere that cartoon style 3d graphics tend to hold up a lot better than games that for the time were hailed as the greatest graphics around such Metal Gear Solid. Ofcourse it is good enough for, I simply meant that because 3d graphics are still improving year by year and are still very limited due to technological restraints. Such as polygon count and field of vision, shadows etc. That games that we see as absolutely beautiful today in a 3d aspect will in 10 years most likely look very dated because 3d graphics are still evolving and improving in quality and the amount it can show. Where as 2d really has hit its peak meaning that all the tools are there for people to make a games as beautiful as they want.

By this I mean take Metal Gear solid and loom, when the first came out they were seen as top of the top among graphics then several years down the line we get Shadow of the Colossus and Monkey Island 2 which were both hailed as very beautiful games, take it yet a step further we have metal gear solid 3 and curse of monkey Island. As the technology is still evolving the newer products being made for more powerful hardware make the previous games hailed as fantastic looking look dated because the restraints of the hardware have been progressively getting looser.

Now take 3 2d games from the past 6 years, Braid, Super Meat Boy and Rayman Origins. Now take away the subjective opinion on the style of art. And simply look at the quality that is dependent on the technology, ie the crispness of the 2d sprites and background. All 3 are virtually of the same quality and these games spanned over 5/6 years.

Now look at the 3d graphics from 5/6 years ago and look at the superiority and detail of 3d graphics made over the past year when compared. This is because as I said 3d graphics are still restrained by technology and will be for the foreseeable future where as 2d games are not. As the technology improves the quality of the 3d graphics shall improve which will make previous graphics look inferior.

Now I never once said that 3D graphics will look ugly in the future, I said that todays 3d will look inferior which it will, that is very different than ugly and your assertion that this is what implied is purely fiction. I said that in 10 years when they look back they will judge the 3d as inferior because 3d quality will have evolved significantly further where as 2d quality will not have. So the 2d wont be seen as inferior but 3d will, this is very different to saying that it will look ugly.

Now as I did state that cartoon simplistic graphics and textures such as spyro, crash, mario, viewtiful joe and windwaker sustain the test of time because they are simplistic by nature and don’t have much detail, therefore have don’t many graphics qualities the could degrade through time. Games that are held as very detailed and fantastic to look at(these tend to be graphics that make things look like real life)  at the time tend not to be able to withstand the test of time because they do try to include many different elements of graphics such as more detailed textures and therefore have many elements that will be compared and improved on in the future.

By no means does this mean that previous games look ugly, I personally believe beyond good and evil is one of the most beautiful games around. And I still absolutely adore the graphics in the first 3 Crash bandicoots. Also something I believe you seem to forget is that 3d is still relatively expensive to make when compared to 2d, thats why games made by pendulo studios and games such as the book of unwritten tales tend to be very short when compared to 2d adventure games out on the market. And you have to remember heavy rain was an experimental game built specifically to show off the ps3’s graphics when it came out and yes it sold well but really it isn’t considered an adventure game in the style of older adventure games.

One big example of an older style adventure game which was backed by a big name, had a big budget and flopped. Gray Matter by Jane Jenson now besides Tim Schaffer, Jane Jenson is debatably the biggest name in adventure gaming and her game directly associated with her made in the typical adventure styli flopped. This basically confirmed for publishers and developers that adventure games could not compete with the big boys anymore and therefore just laugh when people speak about them. Thats why even with this resurgence we aren’t seeing any adventure titles with budgets the size of most mainstream titles.

Anyway sorry about the thesis haha but hopefully people understand my point clearer now. Ultimately I feel this conversation is pointless because it’s all down to subjective view points, some people believe 3d is more immersive others don’t, it’s all down to personal taste and let’s face it the designers are going to use whichever version they think will suit best 2d or 3d. I don’t think we should get stuck down in the graphics argument because we’ll end up in the same place as many mainstream gamers ie: Herp a derp the looks bad because it’s graphics arent 3d/2d and dont look as good as “insert.”

Thank you for backing my point to an extent but I have a question do you believe that pixelated games or games in vector that simulate the style of old pixelated games such as Super Meat Boy etc are detrimental to the progress of 2d games or do you believe there is room for both. I wouldn’t really say that pixel art/graphics are the past, it is just an older form of creating 2d computer art. We are treating pixel art and vector art as if they are the same thing and thatw one automatically evolves into the other.

Which I would disagree with I would see them both as 2 different forms of computerized painting. I have seen very beautiful pixel art along with very beautiful vector art and I believe each as their place.

I would also disagree with constantly looking to the future because it can be very detrimental to a games production if you are constantly looking towards the future, instead of looking to the past, learning from past, looking at the here and now to see exactly where you are. Hence Duke Nukem forever (I know extreme example).

If we take another form of art say the portrait; we originally chiseled portraits out of stone then as art and technology progressed born were the oil painting portraits. But chiseled portraits are still practiced to this day in lesser number obviously but they haven’t been forgotten. And I would use this to claim that if some companies prefer to use pixelated images let them, I would see them as the equivalent as those few stone masons still practising this art form not for glorification or to attack what art has evolved into but simply to pay homage to and produce something new for the fans that appreciate that specific type of artwork.

A lot of gamers in particular seem to be obsessed with the future, with what will be the next big thing, the next new form of technology etc. Some of which we are skeptical about and some which we are enthusiastic about but we always seem to have our heads in the clouds and as a great jedi once said “This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away… to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing.”

I don’t know, I struggle (obviously) with 2D vs. 3D. Clearly my preference is for 3D, even if it’s not great 3D. For the record I don’t consider Telltale’s games “true” 3D even though they are, because the camera angles are very limited. I want to be able to fully look around and explore the world, even if the world is small.

I tend to think that 2D is holding the genre back, but is it really? Maybe the reason the genre is mostly stale goes deeper than just 2D - it’s that many of us seem to think that The Secret of Monkey Island is as good as it gets, and slapping a new story and graphics onto the same engine with the same exact gameplay and type of puzzles is a-okay for the next 50 years.

2D sidescrollers made a comeback recently, but the thing is, most of them bring something new to the table. Braid is a puzzle game, Limbo does atmosphere, Trine has multi-player, LittleBigPlanet has a bunch of stuff, and there are numerous Flash games with quirky spins on the genre. There is the occasional Mega Man 9 which perfectly imitates an NES game, and that’s fine too every once in a while.

Adventure games very rarely do anything differently. I guess if every new 2D adventure game had a story, atmosphere, puzzles and voice acting (if applicable) as good as Gabriel Knight 1, or at least in the ballpark, I would be cool with it. But they don’t. I reject the idea that story and writing can carry an adventure game alone with no other innovation, because most of the time those things are simply not very good.

To be honest, i didn’t know there were still games with “retro” graphics. I’m not a hardcore AG, you see. However, I found out when I was searching for a new sci-fi/space AG. That’s how I found out about Reasonance and Gemini Rue.
To put it simply, I was very happy to find one more good game to play, but I thought it was a pitty that it didn’t come with “normal” graphics for our times. I don’t judge the creator of the game, as I have no idea of how difficult it’s for one person, or a small team to program a game (let alone drawing the graphics).
That’s in the case of not having a chance to make modern graphics. If it’s done in purpose (pixel graphics I mean) I don’t see the reason for it. You can’t revive the old times by immitating the old graphics (better try the old gameplay for that purpose). If I’d like to revive the old times, I’d simply play one of the classics I love (Loom, Indy, Universe, The Dig…).
However, this doesn’t mean, pixel graphics can’t be great too (see Universe or The Dig)

- Universe

- The Dig

Just that if they’re done properly in a more modern way (not like in the Monkey Island case), they’d be even better. Maybe not even 3D. Same old style but with higher resolution would be still better than pixel gfx.
Anyway, I’m glad I found some more good games, even with pixel gfx (but of high quality at least). But if I’d have to choose between two more-or-less good games, I’d go for the up-to-date gfx. Wouldn’t anyone?
So after all, I don’t think we have to be afraid of a “pixel future” in the AG genre.

I can understand your point of view but there is a difference between adventure games and platformers as well nearly every other genre. Platformers (along with other genres) have very little limitations when it comes to gameplay, as long as there is platforming you can basically do what ever you want with the rest of the gameplay. Same with pretty much every other genre except adventure.

The reason for this is the fact adventure games have always been restricting by nature because the core of the gameplay is nearly always puzzle solving and narrative. No matter what type of adventure game the core mechanics can always be reduced to, navigation, puzzle solving, narrative and interaction with objects. Through out the entirety of adventure gaming history close to 0 games have ever actually altered this formula successfully.

The only thing that has ever truly changed among adventure games (no matter how vastly different they seem) has been the aesthetics and how you navigate. From the point and click scumm style navigation to the fmv/myst style automatic navigation to the tex murphy fps style navigation.

Where as with platformers you can change so much to make them their own genre even though they are all still platformers. You have the typical side-scroller in the style of mario, the fast paced onslaught of ninja gaiden, the incredibly stylish and flowing strider and the slow puzzle based gameplay of Limbo/Dizzy. The fundamental formulas for these games are vastly different but they all are considered platformers. Now take a selection of adventure games (no matter how different) the formulas are always nearly identical.

So I really don’t understand how you feel it could evolve because they have tried, adventure games have tried first person and although it worked quite successfully (depending on the game) it ultimately died out because since a adventure games are narrative based it’s better to be able to view the main character from a 3rd person perspective. Other forms of 3d such as grim fandango and gray matter have been done with relative success.

The thing I think you are forgetting is the adventure games are story and puzzle driven, that is how the entire genre is defined: puzzles and narrative. And it is this fact which is why Adventure games died when technology became more powerful, why? because every other genre incorporated these elements into their gameplay. Nearly every game now has narrative throughout the gameplay and some sort of puzzle based element to it.

Adventure games died because they were born as the other side of the gaming coin during the 80s/90s all story less gameplay where most genres were all gameplay less story. If adventure games evolved in the way you say, they wouldn’t be adventure games anymore they would be other genre games with adventure elements. In the same way Silent hill/Resident evil aren’t seen as Adventure games (even though they have a lot in common; intense narrative, puzzle solving, object interaction) they are seen as horror games with adventure elements.

Adventure games did evolve, they just evolved into every other genre of game we have today. And the reason why a lot of the pure adventure games today seem very archaic in style is because they are. It’s like reading a book instead of watching a movie.

Also your point about how monkey Island being seen as the greatest is a moot point specifically because nearly everything in the world that is top of it’s genre is old. Deus ex is seen as the best rpg game, it’s 10 years old. Mario 64 is still seen as the best 3d platformer and super mario brothers 3 is still seen by many as the best 2d platformer. Hell even in movies; Godfather, Casablanca, the good the bad and the ugly, hell even the dark knight will soon be relatively old. Does age disqualify them from being seen as the best in their respective fields?