the updated pic has
more colors,
shadowing,
texturing where needed
320x200 resolution
comparing to AGI one
Remember to see the remade pic in fullscreen in order to have a good opinion.
KQ3 updated graphics poll
Moderators: adeyke, VampD3, eriqchang, Angelus3K
KQ3 updated graphics poll
the updated pic has
more colors,
shadowing,
texturing where needed
320x200 resolution
comparing to AGI one
Remember to see the remade pic in fullscreen in order to have a good opinion.
Last edited by Zeus on Sun Aug 01, 2004 7:51 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
dreammaster
- Royal Servant Status
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 11:18 am
the updated graphics are in 320x200.......
the updated pic has
more colors,
shadowing,
texturing where needed
320x200 resolution
comparing to AGI one
the second screen is the updated one of course Jafar
the updated pic has
more colors,
shadowing,
texturing where needed
320x200 resolution
comparing to AGI one
the second screen is the updated one of course Jafar
Last edited by Zeus on Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I must say that I like the original graphics more. Those graphics really aren't bad, considering the AGI half-width EGA restrictions. There's only so much you can do with 160x200 and 16 colours. KQ3 has good graphics for that.
With the new graphics, you drop that restriction. The new graphics are 320x200, with 16 bit colour. Considering the possibilities with that resolution, those graphics are really quite bad. The original KQ3 graphics should only be compared to those of other AGI games. The new graphics can be compared with those of sierra VGA games and AGDI's remakes. They fall woefully short.
The original graphics also leave something to the imagination. We know, for example, that the stairs aren't really yellow. It's just the closest EGA approximation for lighter-coloured wood. We know that the sky isn't really such a deep blue. That's just the lightest blue they had to work with. We can overlook the simplicity of the colours because there are only those 16 EGA colours possible. If you do have 16 bit colour for a 320x200 screen, you can really use any colour you want. There isn't any restriction at all. So if the colours are still off, it's much more noticeable.
So given those two choices, I'd pick the original EGA.
With the new graphics, you drop that restriction. The new graphics are 320x200, with 16 bit colour. Considering the possibilities with that resolution, those graphics are really quite bad. The original KQ3 graphics should only be compared to those of other AGI games. The new graphics can be compared with those of sierra VGA games and AGDI's remakes. They fall woefully short.
The original graphics also leave something to the imagination. We know, for example, that the stairs aren't really yellow. It's just the closest EGA approximation for lighter-coloured wood. We know that the sky isn't really such a deep blue. That's just the lightest blue they had to work with. We can overlook the simplicity of the colours because there are only those 16 EGA colours possible. If you do have 16 bit colour for a 320x200 screen, you can really use any colour you want. There isn't any restriction at all. So if the colours are still off, it's much more noticeable.
So given those two choices, I'd pick the original EGA.
adeyke wrote:I must say that I like the original graphics more. Those graphics really aren't bad, considering the AGI half-width EGA restrictions. There's only so much you can do with 160x200 and 16 colours. KQ3 has good graphics for that.
With the new graphics, you drop that restriction. The new graphics are 320x200, with 16 bit colour. Considering the possibilities with that resolution, those graphics are really quite bad. The original KQ3 graphics should only be compared to those of other AGI games. The new graphics can be compared with those of sierra VGA games and AGDI's remakes. They fall woefully short.
The original graphics also leave something to the imagination. We know, for example, that the stairs aren't really yellow. It's just the closest EGA approximation for lighter-coloured wood. We know that the sky isn't really such a deep blue. That's just the lightest blue they had to work with. We can overlook the simplicity of the colours because there are only those 16 EGA colours possible. If you do have 16 bit colour for a 320x200 screen, you can really use any colour you want. There isn't any restriction at all. So if the colours are still off, it's much more noticeable.
So given those two choices, I'd pick the original EGA.
i agree with the color of stairs. But alas i have not said that i put ALL my effort on these pictures. I wanted to do it as fast as i could. And the last pic took me less than half an hour. BUT :
1) I do not try to antagonise AGDI, Lucasfan or anyone else. (I would put all my effort at least if i wanted to!)
2)the space quest picture has all my effort and experience (the level of last year, it was drawn last year) but even this has no antagonising role. Let's cool.
Obvious thoughts should not be stated :adeyke wrote: The new graphics can be compared with those of sierra VGA games and AGDI's remakes. They fall woefully short.
It would be ridiculous if one believed my 30 minute picture was better than pictures from AGDIs who are semi-professionals, and are devoting almost all their time during the last years
I was expecting a more polite and mature tone in your sentence:
(They fall woefully short ?!)
Then we the same logic, my graphics leave something to the imaginationadeyke wrote: The original graphics also leave something to the imagination.We know, for example, that the stairs aren't really yellow
If you do have 16 bit colour for a 320x200 screen, you can really use any colour you want. There isn't any restriction at all. So if the colours are still off, it's much more noticeable.
3)Consider what you have on your hands now AGI vs these graphics i propose.There is nothing else to choose (unfortunately) There it is the comparison. There it is the poll.
The poll asks if you want the AGI grahics to be REPLACED with much nicer graphics i show.
I do not ask if my graphics are better than AGDIs or Lucafan. This is not my intention, and i do not care. I have stated that i am not an artist.
I am a PhD candidate in the department of electrical engineering & computer science. Software and hardware is my bread
Not art!someone voted against because of the interface which was not the poll question, other because it is not as good as an agdi. Please read more carefully the poll question.
Finally i wish i had the time to devote 3-4 hours at each kq3 remade picture. But i have the feeling that even the 30 minute-pictures are more pleasing to the eye than the AGI. The poll is made to have a second opinion. If i decide that i have enough free time, i will do it whatever the poll shows.
=================================================
an update
An analogy:
There are black and white films and there are colour films. Black and white films do have a certain charm of their own, but modern audiences prefer colour films.
Suppose you're given the task of remaking an old black and white film in colour. You have two options:
One option is to produce a new movie from scratch, taking advantage of all modern film-making technology and the best actors you can get. It would take a lot of time and money, but the movie would be on the cutting edge, with the same quality as new releases.
The other options is to simply colour over the original. You'd just pick colours you think would look nice and paint it until there aren't any black and white parts left. Arguably, this would be an improvement over the original. After all, it's colourful, while the original wasn't. However, there's simply no comparison between this and new releases. It's still woefully outdated. In addition, by colouring it, you've destroyed what made the black and white style special.
Now, if you don't have a lot of time and money to spend on the project, you wouldn't have the first option available. However, is the second option really a good choice? You'd run the risk of disappointing both parts of the potential audience. And, while you aren't spending nearly as much as you would for the first option, you are still spending a lot. You wouldn't be trying to make it the best it can possibly be; no matter how well you do it, it still won't be as good as the first option could be.
Perhaps just leaving it black and white would be better.
(I'm not sure how valid the situation in the analogy really is. I don't know how big the budget for a modern movie and for a recolouring would be. And I don't know how many people prefer black and white vs. recoloured vs. remade. So just take it as an analogy).
There are black and white films and there are colour films. Black and white films do have a certain charm of their own, but modern audiences prefer colour films.
Suppose you're given the task of remaking an old black and white film in colour. You have two options:
One option is to produce a new movie from scratch, taking advantage of all modern film-making technology and the best actors you can get. It would take a lot of time and money, but the movie would be on the cutting edge, with the same quality as new releases.
The other options is to simply colour over the original. You'd just pick colours you think would look nice and paint it until there aren't any black and white parts left. Arguably, this would be an improvement over the original. After all, it's colourful, while the original wasn't. However, there's simply no comparison between this and new releases. It's still woefully outdated. In addition, by colouring it, you've destroyed what made the black and white style special.
Now, if you don't have a lot of time and money to spend on the project, you wouldn't have the first option available. However, is the second option really a good choice? You'd run the risk of disappointing both parts of the potential audience. And, while you aren't spending nearly as much as you would for the first option, you are still spending a lot. You wouldn't be trying to make it the best it can possibly be; no matter how well you do it, it still won't be as good as the first option could be.
Perhaps just leaving it black and white would be better.
(I'm not sure how valid the situation in the analogy really is. I don't know how big the budget for a modern movie and for a recolouring would be. And I don't know how many people prefer black and white vs. recoloured vs. remade. So just take it as an analogy).
Taking this analogy, and adjusting it to the world of old school adventures, the black and white is the AGI.
The colored black and white is the Sierra and AGDI remakes.
The new film from scratch would be the 3d environment that Syberia, Morrowind provides us.
According to your saying you would prefer a new movie, more particularly a 3d version of kq3. Because you said that you prefer to use the whole current technology.
I respect your opinion. But i can see no relevance here!
=========================================
A new film is not always better than the original
I prefer to see COLORED film of Stanley and Hardy than to see a new
film with other modern actors in their place. . Because cinema presents you with a complete personality/talent/charisma of a person.
And we cannot have an improved version of charlie chaplin's acting with the use of technology.
Chaplin was unique. Stanley, hardy chaplin cannot be replaced. They are not outdated : particularly Today noone can reach their charisma and intelligence!
Films have a different epicentre comparing with games.
Game graphics always can be improved.
There is no personality in blocking graphics, except for nostalgic reasons.
The more the details/colors etc the more pleaseant to the eye.
WHO WANTS TO PLAY mystery house today ? But if it had nice vga
graphics....the situation would be different
Finally it would be a project for my free time. I would not bother if they liked it or not. I would do it because i like drawing pictures. Only if i had to sell the game, i would care for the customer's opinion.
Which means that if i wanted it to sell (and had good plot/puzzles) would do it like Syberia
You say you prefer black and white. So i suppose you do not like remakes ?
The colored black and white is the Sierra and AGDI remakes.
The new film from scratch would be the 3d environment that Syberia, Morrowind provides us.
According to your saying you would prefer a new movie, more particularly a 3d version of kq3. Because you said that you prefer to use the whole current technology.
I respect your opinion. But i can see no relevance here!
=========================================
A new film is not always better than the original
I prefer to see COLORED film of Stanley and Hardy than to see a new
film with other modern actors in their place. . Because cinema presents you with a complete personality/talent/charisma of a person.
And we cannot have an improved version of charlie chaplin's acting with the use of technology.
Chaplin was unique. Stanley, hardy chaplin cannot be replaced. They are not outdated : particularly Today noone can reach their charisma and intelligence!
Films have a different epicentre comparing with games.
Game graphics always can be improved.
There is no personality in blocking graphics, except for nostalgic reasons.
The more the details/colors etc the more pleaseant to the eye.
WHO WANTS TO PLAY mystery house today ? But if it had nice vga
graphics....the situation would be different
Finally it would be a project for my free time. I would not bother if they liked it or not. I would do it because i like drawing pictures. Only if i had to sell the game, i would care for the customer's opinion.
Which means that if i wanted it to sell (and had good plot/puzzles) would do it like Syberia
You say you prefer black and white. So i suppose you do not like remakes ?
The recoloured is your version. The new film would be something like sierra and AGDI did for their remakes.Taking this analogy, and adjusting it to the world of old school adventures, the black and white is the AGI.
The colored black and white is the Sierra and AGDI remakes.
The new film from scratch would be the 3d environment that Syberia, Morrowind provides us.
According to your saying you would prefer a new movie, more particularly a 3d version of kq3. Because you said that you prefer to use the whole current technology.
I respect your opinion. But i can see no relevance here!
We are still talking about 2D adventures. A 3D adventure would be like if you remade it with some sort of 3D virtual reality system. It'd be a whole different genre. However, the new film and the recoloured film can be compared. They're both coloured traditional movies. It's just that the quality of the colour and the way they got it is so different.
If you had convert the screen to 3D, with the same kind of quality, then I would be drawing comparisons to other 3D games. Youd didn't, though.
I can't draw a comparison between your graphics and an SVGA high-budget 3D game. You're not in that genre. You are however, in the genre of 2D VGA games.
Your version is like the recolouring. You aren't doing it from scratch. You're just taking the existing graphics and trying to add depth to it by changing the shading.
The sierra remakes are like the new film. If you compare an original and a remake shot, you'll see that they redid everything. They didn't just "recolour" the existing ones. The AGDI remake of KQ1 is different, since that was based on an SCI0 game. However, the AGDI remake of KQ2 also doesn't just "recolour" the original graphics. They use the original as the inspiration, but they're redesigned and redrawn (the collaging effect doesn't change this).
I don't think the analogy is that far off.
Speaking only of games (not movies), I would really prefer a good remake (i.e. the first option in my analogy). You didn't give that as choice, though. I'd still prefer the good EGA graphics of the original over the mediocre VGA graphics of your version.You say you prefer black and white. So i suppose you do not like remakes ?
It's simple, really:
I like good EGA graphics.
I like good VGA graphics.
I like good SVGA graphics.
I don't like bad EGA graphics.
I don't like bad VGA graphics.
I don't like bad SVGA graphics.
nice try but i don't buy it, and i will tell you why:
you said in a previous post that :
"One option is to produce a new movie from scratch, taking advantage of all modern film-making technology and the best actors you can get. It would take a lot of time and money, but the movie would be on the cutting edge, with the same quality as new releases."
you define with this paragraph the term NEW FILM. Allow me then to explain that a game with these characteristics is a 3D adventure.
We are talking about the adventures in the whole, and we do not restrict to genres. They are not genres. If you think further it is technology.
3D is the latest techonology that is offered in games. In ancient computer times 2D was the king. So a new adventure of high technology os nowadays (2004) is the Syberia style with all this 3d technology.
AGDI provide a polished game with the standards of the past (2D game
low resolution). You cannot call this with the term HIGH TECH.
I understand that they redesign the rooms and have almost nothing to do with AGI scene architecture. But the TECHNOLOGY is the one that was used in 1991. It is the past.
My picture was a retouched AGI and did not ask for the crown of the king of remakers. In the ags forums however they told me that it was an acceptable result comparing to the boring AGI. Personally both radiant and i liked that it kept the nostalgic old feeling by having the architecture of the AGI, but enhanced.
Examine it more. There is not only shading. If you have sharp eye, you will understand that i used texturing,perspective function of photoshop and new objects colored with new colors from scratch in the LAST version. Only the painting and the books are kept, and were slightly altered. Anything else was made from scratch covering the original art.
For the last part, what i have to say ? If you hate so much the picture
just keep your passion muzzled and just vote negative (which i bet that you have already done) . Avoid being impolite and start talking about ''mediocre'' graphics, ''woefully fall short'' and etc.
There is no need. On the other hand if you can draw better, post your own pictures to show us the definition of good graphics.
Constructive criticism on the technical aspect of pictures is always accepted. Especially from people who KNOW a lot about art, such as
LF, AGDI and others who know how to draw as well.
it is simple :
I like well-intentioned EGA graphics criticism.
I like well-intentioned VGA graphics criticism.
I like well-intentioned SVGA graphics criticism.
I don't like badly-intentioned EGA graphics criticism.
I don't like badly-intentioned VGA graphics criticism.
I don't like badly-intentioned SVGA graphics criticism.
you said in a previous post that :
"One option is to produce a new movie from scratch, taking advantage of all modern film-making technology and the best actors you can get. It would take a lot of time and money, but the movie would be on the cutting edge, with the same quality as new releases."
you define with this paragraph the term NEW FILM. Allow me then to explain that a game with these characteristics is a 3D adventure.
We are talking about the adventures in the whole, and we do not restrict to genres. They are not genres. If you think further it is technology.
3D is the latest techonology that is offered in games. In ancient computer times 2D was the king. So a new adventure of high technology os nowadays (2004) is the Syberia style with all this 3d technology.
AGDI provide a polished game with the standards of the past (2D game
low resolution). You cannot call this with the term HIGH TECH.
I understand that they redesign the rooms and have almost nothing to do with AGI scene architecture. But the TECHNOLOGY is the one that was used in 1991. It is the past.
My picture was a retouched AGI and did not ask for the crown of the king of remakers. In the ags forums however they told me that it was an acceptable result comparing to the boring AGI. Personally both radiant and i liked that it kept the nostalgic old feeling by having the architecture of the AGI, but enhanced.
Examine it more. There is not only shading. If you have sharp eye, you will understand that i used texturing,perspective function of photoshop and new objects colored with new colors from scratch in the LAST version. Only the painting and the books are kept, and were slightly altered. Anything else was made from scratch covering the original art.
For the last part, what i have to say ? If you hate so much the picture
just keep your passion muzzled and just vote negative (which i bet that you have already done) . Avoid being impolite and start talking about ''mediocre'' graphics, ''woefully fall short'' and etc.
There is no need. On the other hand if you can draw better, post your own pictures to show us the definition of good graphics.
Constructive criticism on the technical aspect of pictures is always accepted. Especially from people who KNOW a lot about art, such as
LF, AGDI and others who know how to draw as well.
it is simple :
I like well-intentioned EGA graphics criticism.
I like well-intentioned VGA graphics criticism.
I like well-intentioned SVGA graphics criticism.
I don't like badly-intentioned EGA graphics criticism.
I don't like badly-intentioned VGA graphics criticism.
I don't like badly-intentioned SVGA graphics criticism.
-
1eyedParrot
- Knight Status
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:44 pm
- Contact:
-
Blackthorne519
- Royal Vizier Status
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:37 am
- Location: Central New York
- Contact:
Yes, I agree with Adeyke 100% here. Even if your edit is a 30 minute job, take the little extra time and make a VGA remake, totally.
Those pictures just like, well, like a half-assed job, and I personally would rather play the regular AGI graphics.
You're just wrong about this Zeus. Not to criticize your art-skills, as we've seen your SQ3 SVGA screen, and it's very nice! I just don't think "improving" AGI graphics is really worth it. It just looks "half-done", sloppy and rushed.
Bt
Those pictures just like, well, like a half-assed job, and I personally would rather play the regular AGI graphics.
You're just wrong about this Zeus. Not to criticize your art-skills, as we've seen your SQ3 SVGA screen, and it's very nice! I just don't think "improving" AGI graphics is really worth it. It just looks "half-done", sloppy and rushed.
Bt
He did not convince me why he prefered AGI. I thought that his reasoning was not rock solid. He said that AGI was better because he left his imagination free to imagine the real colors.
But then again my initial colors which were not correct as well,
for some strange reason did not leave imagination free to do the same thing!
A more logical reasoning would just say that both AGI and my picture suck from matter of color choice...so simple...
And the fact that they both suck, does not mean that we should prefer the AGI one.
I used points in my post.Pricks are the people who just get into the thread to support one side WITHOUT reasoning my parrot friend.
Blackthorne i have to agree with you. Drawing a vga picture from scratch has the best result. But i am afraid i do not have the time to do this. We are talking about 80-90 pictures!
What would you change in the original AGI architecture of the scene Blackthorne? I have some ideas but i would like to listen to other ideas as well. The best would be if someone provided an example to see...
But then again my initial colors which were not correct as well,
for some strange reason did not leave imagination free to do the same thing!
A more logical reasoning would just say that both AGI and my picture suck from matter of color choice...so simple...
And the fact that they both suck, does not mean that we should prefer the AGI one.
I used points in my post.Pricks are the people who just get into the thread to support one side WITHOUT reasoning
my parrot friend.Blackthorne i have to agree with you. Drawing a vga picture from scratch has the best result. But i am afraid i do not have the time to do this. We are talking about 80-90 pictures!
What would you change in the original AGI architecture of the scene Blackthorne? I have some ideas but i would like to listen to other ideas as well. The best would be if someone provided an example to see...
The thing is that in EGA, you only have 16 colours to choose from. So when you look at an EGA screen, it can still be aesthetically pleasing, but you always know that it's not supposed to literally match what it's representing.He did not convince me why he prefered AGI. I thought that his reasoning was not rock solid. He said that AGI was better because he left his imagination free to imagine the real colors.
But then again my initial colors which were not correct as well,
for some strange reason did not leave imagination free to do the same thing!
When we look at the stairs in that EGA screen, we don't think it's odd that they're bright yellow, since that's the closest you can get in EGA. When we look at the EGA Gwydion, we don't think it's odd that he's bright red. He has a normal skin colour, but there's nothing close to that in EGA. Because it's EGA, we can look past this and just see a normal skin colour even though it's bright red.
Your version has 16 bit colour. On a 320x200, that means every single pixel can be a different colour. So you could pick from all the 16 million colours, without restriction. If you still make the stairs bright yellow, it's an active decision. You could have made it more realistic, but you actively chose not to.
Continuing the anology:
In a black and white film, there are obviously no colours. Everything looks grey. However, when you see a character in a black and white film, you don't find it odd that he has grey skin, since that's a restriction of the medium.
However, if you have a film that's mostly in colour, but the skin colour is still grey, then you wonder if he's a vampire or something. Because there's the possibility of realistic colour, the absence of this realism becomes very noticeable. If something is still just grey, it was due to an active decision.
If a shirt is grey in a black and white film, it could be blue, or green, or red, or purple, or just grey. If a shirt is grey in a colour film, it really is just grey.
-
rugged
- Defense Minister Status
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 10:55 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
opinion
I am willing to play a game that has the old KQ3 graphics as the graphics remind of days gone by playing KQ3, I like them because they remind of my old Atari ST !!
Slightly updated graphics have no arrhhh remember that, they are just bad graphics.
You do however have a ton of artistic ability and if you and Radient think the graphics are an improvement then run with them.
Slightly updated graphics have no arrhhh remember that, they are just bad graphics.
You do however have a ton of artistic ability and if you and Radient think the graphics are an improvement then run with them.
i would not say that the yellow is the closest color that EGA can provide. Take for example Hero's Quest I and have a look at the healer's house. Take a look at the roof and you can see that EGA using clever (for the era) technique of multiplexing , can produce more accurate gradients.Looking the technique of QFGEGA one can say that '''EGA could do it better in AGI games''. So one could think that EGA coloring is indeed ODD.The thing is that in EGA, you only have 16 colours to choose from. So when you look at an EGA screen, it can still be aesthetically pleasing, but you always know that it's not supposed to literally match what it's representing.
When we look at the stairs in that EGA screen, we don't think it's odd that they're bright yellow, since that's the closest you can get in EGA.
For the film analogy you say, i notice that you tend to pick 'extreme' examples to justify your point. Sure comparing grey with pale pink color regarding the face, makes a huge difference. But it could be the wall of a factory which just has a different tone of grey. In that case there is no difference. The last example is the same with my picture. It has a less pale tone of yellow instead of pale yellow. It is not so critical as in the case of pale pink with grey!!!
Finally i find quite weird to decide that a remake should not be done because the stairs of a particular picture have a wrong tone of color. I find it harsh and extreme criticism. One should judge spherically the whole concept.
For example the guys at AGS forums -who are experts - not only advised me what to change in order to have a better result, but they encouraged me to continue. Oh and they were very polite too.
That's great, but people obviously have different opinions on this. We could try to argue the point until we're blue in the face, but we could also leave well enough alone. After all, you asked for opinions and received them. Harsh opinions perhaps, but not to the point of bashing, as far as I can see. So perhaps an agreement to a disagreement can be forged here?
I thought the "polite" line was unnecessary, btw. It's unlikely that further arguing the issue will change people's opinions.
(p.s: Parrot, that last oneliner just had too little actual content/contributional value and too much abusive language for my taste)
I thought the "polite" line was unnecessary, btw. It's unlikely that further arguing the issue will change people's opinions.
(p.s: Parrot, that last oneliner just had too little actual content/contributional value and too much abusive language for my taste)