It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:48 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Its not the game - its the memories
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:51 am 
Offline
Peasant Status

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 2
I don´t the King´s Quest games are that great looked at objectively.
It´s rather that one played these games as a child which makes them so interesting.
Eg., i played KQ 1 before so i also played the remake and enjoyed it.
KQ 2-not played before- just didn´t interest me - for no intrinsic reason but rather just because i don´t know the game.

There is something to playing a game one knows well , especially if it´s a long time since playing it.

It´s not the graphics&sound, its not eve the game itself , really - its the memories one relieves.

If you´d discover KQ1 today i doubt you would be fond of it.
NOT because of its unsightly appearance but rather because - let´s be honest - it´s pretty dull game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:08 pm 
Offline
Defense Minister Status

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:55 am
Posts: 717
Location: South Australia
I never played the originals before the AGDI remakes, so the remakes were more of a new game for me, but when i played the originals they just didn't seem anywhere near as good as the remakes so i never played them long.

Kings Quest 1 is pretty boring |I  KQ2 is ok  :) KQ3 and up, got my thmbs up all the way :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:19 pm 
Offline
Royal Servant Status
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:01 am
Posts: 138
I used to play these games for about 10-15 minutes on my sister's dad's computer.  I would be intiminated, and felt typing would be annoying to play.

The games I really Enjoyed was KQ5 and 6, those were the games that really defined the series to me.  When I found that they made remakes for 1 & 2 I was skeptical.  I played one, really enjoyed it but it wasn't really that amazing to be honest.  KQ1 just generally doesn't have much to offer.  But two was great, I felt like I was playing a game I had just baught and it made me get interested in the series strongly.  The KQ series is just very charming, witty, smart, fun, and just generally appealing to me, especially the character of King Graham, because he symbolizes the character traits that I would like to instill into my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Its not the game - its the memories
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:38 pm 
Offline
Knight Status
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:36 am
Posts: 168
Location: USA
Chinin wrote:
If you´d discover KQ1 today i doubt you would be fond of it.
NOT because of its unsightly appearance but rather because - let´s be honest - it´s pretty dull game.


I've never played the original, and indeed, I did think the remake was pretty dull. A few interesting puzzles, but mostly it only kept my interest because I knew it was a remake of a "classic" series-starter.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:26 pm 
Offline
Peasant Status

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 2
i quite lost the interest in gaming in gerneral - especially adventures.
when you ask yourself why you play an adventure game there are many answers but it comes down to a few main points.

for an intriquing story? well, even the better adventure stories pale in comparison to an average novel. because of the game-element a short story is dragged out quite much which creates the illusion of an expansive story.

for the game-element? it is really - ultimately- mostly annoyance. if you really think about it: either its obvious what you have to do - then you feel bothered by the tedious stuff you have to do. on the other hand, if you have no idea what to do next and don´t have the time or motivation to search you grab a walkthrough.  so it´s a lose-lose situation - a CATCH 22. admittedly there are rarely puzzles which hit the sweet spot between being too obvious and plain impossible and also being fun. but those are few and far in between if they are there at all.

i´d be interested if there are people who are like me - not seeing much of a point in adventure gaming anymore.
i have to admit that as a kid it was fascinating because one was incapable of comprehending how the game works. i guess people who never bothered about computer technology may have an advantage of being able still enjoy gaming and its fascination.
There are still two sides of the coin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:22 am 
Offline
Knight Status

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 406
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Unfortunately, your side won :p

The reason Adventure games are so loved is because they offer things that aren't found in other games.

For starters, almost every single Adventure game I can think of just doesn't take itself seriously. They are all filled with humour, which keeps them fun. I mean, if you saw a silly clown walking through the halls of Half-life it would seem slightly odd, but in QfG it fits right in. If you had to put a rock in your jockstrap and sling it at an enemy to kill him, it would seem kinda weird. But in Space Quest, it seems like a perfectly logical solution :p

Secondly, the characters are always more memorable in Adventure games. In Doom there aren't really even any characters. In Half-life you have the G-Man, and Barney if you really wanna stretch the term "character". But if you take any adventure game and you can remember all the characters, and probably even give their life histories and a full rundown of their personalities. And more than that, you seem to actually care about them, and wanting to experience more of their lives makes you want to buy the sequels.

Another reason is the fact you actually seem to be doing something to change the world. I don't know about you, but it doesn't matter how many monsters I shoot or armies I destroy, it doesn't seem like I'm actually doing anything unless there is something personal involved. It has to be made an adventure by having quests to complete.

All the best games ever made are the best because they included adventure elements. Half-life 2 was better than Half-life because they included more adventure elements. It's still an FPS, but it is also an Adventure. You are given quests to do, and you have to find a way to do it. Your gun becomes a means to complete a quest, rather than just a way to clear a path towards escape. The story becomes memorable not because of the FPS elements, but the Adventure elements in which you interact with other characters and the world, and those parts of the game usually don't even require shooting.

The Ultima games bridged the gap between RPG and Adventure games as HL did for FPS and Adventure. It was not a typical RPG about dungeons and dragons and stats. It was about talking to people, completing quests without simply hacking and slashing your way through, and everything else that makes an Adventure game. They even included the humour and easter eggs from other games like Sierra's Adventures always would, though to a lesser extent. And because of that the Ultima games always reigned supreme in the RPG world.

Command and Conquer took Strategy games to a new level. Not because of a unique gameplay, as the C&C style had been done before. Instead it was the story that made it unique. Suddenly an RTS was about real characters and you found yourself playing for the story rather than the game itself. Instead of simply destroying an enemy through strategic warfare you would find yourself sneaking into an enemy base to lay explosives or to rescue prisoners, or intercepting enemy convoys. Gone was the typical strategy game missions, instead they were replaced with story-driven quests.

In conclusion, I say Adventure games aren't dying out. They are evolving. The "Adventure" game is no longer a genre, but has become a part of every genre out there. It doesn't matter if you're walking around on 2D backgrounds pushing rocks or looking under bridges like in King's Quest, or if you're walking first person through a 3D world clicking on things to solve puzzles like in Myst. Both are considered Adventure games. So why is it different if you have to hack your way through some monsters on the way to the next puzzle, or use a gun to solve a problem instead of a jockstrap? Stats and fighting played more of a part in QfG than Ultima, so why is Ultima considered an RPG when QfG is considered half adventure? Why is sneaking around some guards in a Quest game considered Adventure, but in C&C it is considered strategy?

I think the main reason we don't see games presented like the Quest games anymore is that there are better ways now to tell a story. To play a Quest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:42 am 
Offline
Knight Status
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 194
Location: Michigan, USA
Heh. I remember playing KQ3, and later QG2 when it came in the anthology CD.

More than the games themselves, I remember the impact they had on me. After several days of playing Quest for Glory 2, my actions, even out of character began to be pre narrated by my brain. "Stand up", "Get water", and that sort of thing. It wasn't really so bad until my own brain started to answer itself: "Try another way of saying that."

:) Good times.  :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:08 pm 
Offline
Peasant Status

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 6
Thepal wrote:

The Ultima games bridged the gap between RPG and Adventure games as HL did for FPS and Adventure. It was not a typical RPG about dungeons and dragons and stats. It was about talking to people, completing quests without simply hacking and slashing your way through, and everything else that makes an Adventure game. They even included the humour and easter eggs from other games like Sierra's Adventures always would, though to a lesser extent. And because of that the Ultima games always reigned supreme in the RPG world.




Im not so sure about this one.  I always had the feeling that the reason Ultima is so popular is that in every game you are immersed in a world.  Where in most video RPGS you have just enough available to you to fight monsters, here we had a rather complete world with a lot of extra information that was relatively useless to dungeon crawling.  In these games YOU were the avatar and YOU lived in Brittania and YOU could do pretty much whatever you wanted.  You really didnt have to go around completing the story until you were bored.  And since you had a whole world to explore, nothing stopped you from just going around looking for subplots/dungeons/odd jobs to do.  

Adventure games are more like reading a book, and the ultima series never had you go from page1 to page2 (except 9, what a dissapointment).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:06 pm 
Offline
The Master of All Things Musical
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:57 pm
Posts: 4025
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Thepal wrote:
Unfortunately, your side won :p

The reason Adventure games are so loved is because they offer things that aren't found in other games.

For starters, almost every single Adventure game I can think of just doesn't take itself seriously. They are all filled with humour, which keeps them fun. I mean, if you saw a silly clown walking through the halls of Half-life it would seem slightly odd, but in QfG it fits right in. If you had to put a rock in your jockstrap and sling it at an enemy to kill him, it would seem kinda weird. But in Space Quest, it seems like a perfectly logical solution :p

Secondly, the characters are always more memorable in Adventure games. In Doom there aren't really even any characters. In Half-life you have the G-Man, and Barney if you really wanna stretch the term "character". But if you take any adventure game and you can remember all the characters, and probably even give their life histories and a full rundown of their personalities. And more than that, you seem to actually care about them, and wanting to experience more of their lives makes you want to buy the sequels.

Another reason is the fact you actually seem to be doing something to change the world. I don't know about you, but it doesn't matter how many monsters I shoot or armies I destroy, it doesn't seem like I'm actually doing anything unless there is something personal involved. It has to be made an adventure by having quests to complete.

All the best games ever made are the best because they included adventure elements. Half-life 2 was better than Half-life because they included more adventure elements. It's still an FPS, but it is also an Adventure. You are given quests to do, and you have to find a way to do it. Your gun becomes a means to complete a quest, rather than just a way to clear a path towards escape. The story becomes memorable not because of the FPS elements, but the Adventure elements in which you interact with other characters and the world, and those parts of the game usually don't even require shooting.

The Ultima games bridged the gap between RPG and Adventure games as HL did for FPS and Adventure. It was not a typical RPG about dungeons and dragons and stats. It was about talking to people, completing quests without simply hacking and slashing your way through, and everything else that makes an Adventure game. They even included the humour and easter eggs from other games like Sierra's Adventures always would, though to a lesser extent. And because of that the Ultima games always reigned supreme in the RPG world.

Command and Conquer took Strategy games to a new level. Not because of a unique gameplay, as the C&C style had been done before. Instead it was the story that made it unique. Suddenly an RTS was about real characters and you found yourself playing for the story rather than the game itself. Instead of simply destroying an enemy through strategic warfare you would find yourself sneaking into an enemy base to lay explosives or to rescue prisoners, or intercepting enemy convoys. Gone was the typical strategy game missions, instead they were replaced with story-driven quests.

In conclusion, I say Adventure games aren't dying out. They are evolving. The "Adventure" game is no longer a genre, but has become a part of every genre out there. It doesn't matter if you're walking around on 2D backgrounds pushing rocks or looking under bridges like in King's Quest, or if you're walking first person through a 3D world clicking on things to solve puzzles like in Myst. Both are considered Adventure games. So why is it different if you have to hack your way through some monsters on the way to the next puzzle, or use a gun to solve a problem instead of a jockstrap? Stats and fighting played more of a part in QfG than Ultima, so why is Ultima considered an RPG when QfG is considered half adventure? Why is sneaking around some guards in a Quest game considered Adventure, but in C&C it is considered strategy?

I think the main reason we don't see games presented like the Quest games anymore is that there are better ways now to tell a story. To play a Quest.


*Applause* Couldn't have said it better myself. Exactly my thoughts. Although I don't really think the way adventures are done now (by merging them with other genres and becoming an add-on instead of it's own genre) is better than what they used to do.

_________________
01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101100 01101001 01100101 00101110


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:09 am 
Offline
Royal Vizier Status

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:08 pm
Posts: 1614
I agree, Half Life 2 is really an adventure, whoever says its a spawn of doom, feel free to shoot yourself now. Half life 1 was a little bit more of a shoot em up but still had a few puzzles. Half Life 2 just has everything you want, SMART enemies not mindless demons like in doom. (okay so the are one or two slow aliens in the game, but they are kinda cool  :p )
The Adventure Genre will return with huge force once people start getting sick over the next unreal 2005 and then 2006! People will eventually get sick of shoot em ups even if they SEEM popular now. Look at broken sword 3 & Dreamfall for example, both have been praised by the public and will live up to their expectations.

Viva la adventurealution!

(did that just make sense?)


[EDIT] Added a few things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:46 am 
Offline
Knight Status

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 3:08 pm
Posts: 436
Reptile wrote:
Viva la adventurealution!

(did that just make sense?)


No, not really... :lol...but that's ok  :D .  Perhaps you meant Adventurevolution  ;) ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:08 am 
Offline
Royal Servant Status
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:01 am
Posts: 138
I really hope adventure games come back, it's truly a lost art.  I mean how can you not like: KQ series, Monkey Island Series, Full throttle, Day of the Tentacle, and a lot more.  Unfortunetly, gamers of today wan't high end graphics and really don't care what the game is about.  Look at Doom3, the graphics are high end, but the characters are hideous.  If you really take all that way, all you're doing is walking with a gun shooting at ugly targets.  Ya great fun =/  Like Thepal said, adventure games are great because it allows you to make a difference in the world the game makers created for you.  Adventure games gives the gamer a real PURPOSE.  A feature that most games lack unfortunetly.  There needs to be less pointless killing in games, and more reason to the killing instead.  Instead of killing because: "HES THERE AND HES UGLY" kill because the characters at hand are important in the story in some way.  Take the Baldur's gate series for example, it has a lot of killing but it has a purpose.  Things seem to just make sense in the game, and you can also have a choice not to kill as well.


ADVENTUREREVOLUTION


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:58 am 
Offline
Knight Status

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 406
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
I don't think Baldur's Gate is a very good example. Yes, they slipped a story in there, but it is no more of a story than Doom. You go through a level, hacking your way through baddies, and at the end you talk to a person and they tell you some more of the story. That's typical RPG, not Adventure. You need to interact with the world more than just "Kill everything you see" and "Use everything you see" like in Baldur's Gate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:20 am 
Offline
Saurus Salesman
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 3:18 pm
Posts: 3880
Location: South Africa (Bloemfontein)
Thepal wrote:
I don't think Baldur's Gate is a very good example. Yes, they slipped a story in there, but it is no more of a story than Doom.


Ok... I don't think you meant that. In Doom there's no point whatsoever. Yeah... true. Doom's a nice game to play. I usually play it when I'm in the mood for the computer, but too tired... you simply shut your brain off and go.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:35 am 
Offline
Knight Status

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 406
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Yeah, I did mean it :p I see no difference between having a character tell you more of the story after a level and having a screen of writing come up after a level telling you more of the story


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:00 am 
Offline
Saurus Salesman
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 3:18 pm
Posts: 3880
Location: South Africa (Bloemfontein)
Yeah... but was it a story worth telling?  :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:25 pm 
Offline
Royal Servant Status
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:01 am
Posts: 138
You can't compare the story from doom *laugh* and the story from the Baldur gate games.  Plus isn't getting a little more of the story basically the same in adventure games?  You click around hoping an item works and wait for an animation.  Then you sit there listening/reading a bit more of the story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:34 am 
Offline
Knight Status

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 406
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Adventure games are a little more involved than "walk through level. kill baddies. pull levers. smash barrels. finish level".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:42 am 
Offline
Peasant Status

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:34 am
Posts: 40
Location: Calif, USA
I think the age at which we played the games has  alot to do with the nostalgia.  The same thing alpplies to a lot of things we did as kids, I think very highly of old cartoons like He-Man, She-ra and Darkwing Duck and tend to be critical of the cartoons the young whipper snappers watch today.  To be perfectly honest I think that if I tried to watch the old He-Man cartoon for the first time now I owuldn't be into it.

I like the depth of character adventure games afford.  One of the great paradoxes of most role playing games is taht while you are in control of many aspects of character creation the game can do very little in the way of peronality of the character or give them a story etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:01 am 
Offline
Royal Servant Status
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:01 am
Posts: 138
Adventure games are full of depth in both character design, and story.

I love this series, and I only watched others play it for like a total of 5 hours when I was younger.  Yet I still love the games, its about 10% nostalgia for me.  Plus with cartoons, I just hate the remakes of the older ones, they are kinda dorky compaired to the orginal.  This age has pretty good games, and cartoons.  Check out Sponge bob, it's the TNMNT of this age.  Plus if you think BG is only about killing then you probably didn't really play it, or took the story seriously *the story is A+*.


Btw with the new turtles cartoon, it would of been good without all the seriousness involved.  Shredder is as serious as hell, and I think it ruined the orginal shredder which was evil, but silly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: the reason adventure games are 'dying'?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:19 am 
Offline
Royal Servant Status
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:18 am
Posts: 92
Location: San Francisco, CA
To be honest, I think this is one of the huge reasons adventure games are not being revived [easily]:
3d cards are one of the centerpeices of any 'gaming' rig, and rightly so -- practically every new release screams for a powerful card.
Enter the adventure game...that has no need [and thus gets applause from me] to push gigabyes upon gigabytes of polygons onto your screen.
I think the majority of people, especially hard core gamers that buy the 'best' stuff, won't even give adventure games a chance because by doing so they would not be able to justify having spent such hideous amounts of money on a 3d card.
Personally, I've been going back and buying older games that I never 'got to' when I was younger, and seriously they make a stronger artistic impression on me than the 'newest' technological releases. That's not to say that some 3d games aren't very enjoyable. I'm playing through Sands of Time and having a great time...but seriously, 3d games just don't age well.
Look at King's Quest 5 -- looks as beautiful even when compared to the newest releases...because it's ART...art that if I had on a good sized canvas I'd hang on my wall. That's what I loved about the old monkey island, sierra 'quests', etc...they had vivid and powerful artistry to them.
And while 3d has opened many doors, it has sealed off one of our favorites.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:28 pm 
Offline
Royal Servant Status
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:01 am
Posts: 138
You make a lot of good points JohnB.  3D cards is a must nowadays, you can't play newer games now without them.  Not that I hate 3d games, it's just that some games doesn't need to be in 3d.  The diminesion of the game can either break or make it.  Plus you're right, 3d games do not age well.  If you played a ps1 game now you would probably think it looks gross, and wonder why you ever liked it.  The wow factor for 3d games is what sells most games.  It's eye candy, and eventually that fades as soon as they find out that the gameplay factor is garbage.  There are good 3d games, and there are bad 3d games.  It is my opinion that most people like most games because society tells them it's great.  A magazine or a friend says that it is a great game, that the graphics are just amazing.  They come home play the game and really don't like it but play it anyway because they'll feel out of place if they didn't.  Gaming is a fashion trend, there are games that are in fashion then it goes out of fashion.  As soon as it does you think people will buy that game?  All that it had for the gamer was that it was the in game of the times, not because it was good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:35 am 
Offline
Knight Status

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 406
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
I have to disagree with you, JohnB. Your post seems to infer that Adventure games shouldn't have state-of-the-art graphics. This is what my post was about. The reason we don't see games like the older Quests is that those engines are outdated. The same happened with King's Quest 5. The older style was outdated so Adventure games needed to move on to something new. So instead of the old 16 colour games they moved on to 256 and more colours. Instead of text they moved on to speech. Instead of typing they moved on to a mouse-driven interface. That is the main reason Adventure games used to be the most popular genre. Sierra was always leading the entire computer game industry. The King's Quest games were almost always the first games to introduce new features.

When King's Quest 7 and the other Sierra games of that time came out, suddenly Sierra just wasn't pushing the envelope. Instead of switching to 3D and moving with the new technology they regressed. When they finally made the switch with KQ8, they messed it up. What we got was a game that was 3D, but with graphics far worse than other games coming out at the same time. I played it as soon as it came out and I was thinking "This looks horrible". Gabriel Knight 3 was the last Adventure game to be made by them, and with it they actually got things right. Although not really making leaps and bounds like the older games, Gabriel Knight 3 used 3D to make a beautiful world. They used the newer technology and they created something good from it.

But at the same time as Sierra was beginning to fall behind with their adventure games, what happened? Broderbund and Cyan did what Sierra should have done. They created Myst. Another company did what Sierra had always done and took new technology (and even created some new stuff, as Sierra always had) and used it to it's full extent. They created a 3D world that was better visually than any other game out there, and it became the most popular game of all time. And it was an Adventure game. Sure, Sierra was there too with Shivers, Rama, etc, but they made the mistake of leaving their well known series' behind.

Of course, Sierra obviously wasn't completely out of it. With Half-life they did move into new territory like they always had. As mentioned before they combined the FPS genre with the Adventure genre. And they used all the newest technology to do it. And what did they create? Another game that has held the title "best game of all time" by many. We say they abandoned the Adventure genre, but maybe they were smart enough to change with the times.

Say what you will about Adventure games dying out, but tell me when any Adventure game that was done right, and moved with the new technology, didn't sell better than everything else out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:24 am 
Offline
Royal Servant Status
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:01 am
Posts: 138
Unfortunetly people are idiots and they buy things that look sparkling and cool.  3D, and adventure games rarely mix.  3D can be very annoying, and can look very ugly.  Just because it's the cutting edge in technology doesn't mean it's better.  Every adventure game series that wen't 3D died, it killed it.  Not because it wasn't advanced enough, even if it looked beautiful it would still not feel like the orginal games.


If they make BG3 in full 3D, it might kill the series.  Even if its as good of graphics as DOOM3, it'll kill it.  Or at the very least won't be as good, but I'm expecting the worst.  Sure make the game better looking, but better looking doesn't mean changing it to 3d.  You can still have cutting edge in technology and it being in 2d.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:55 am 
Offline
Knight Status

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 406
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
3D and Adventure games do mix. 3D mixes with everything. It can be just like 2D, just 3D :p Saying 3D can look ugly is something that hasn't been true in games for years. These days 3D games look better than any of the 2D games of old. As for every adventure series dying from turning 3D... umm.... what ones?

Gabriel Knight 3 was a great game. King's Quest died with KQ7 imo, not 8. And it wasn't 3D that killed 8, it was badly done 3D. QfG5 was 3Dish, and it was also a great game. And it didn't kill the series either. Monkey Island 4 was also good. Grim Fandango is good.

None of the series' ended with a bad 3D game (except perhaps KQ). They've just ended because the companies (stupidly) decided to move on.

As for BG3, that is an RPG. And RPGs like that are meant to be in that 3rd person view from above. They can still be 100% 3D, and they generally are now. They take advantage of all the new special features like advanced lighting and stuff. 3D does not mean 1st person. You wouldn't bother buying a game with graphics from 1995 now. I mean, if the company has been that slack with the graphics, then who knows how bad the rest of it would be.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group