megacles Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Should the next MI game continue the cartoon trend set in 3 and 4, or go back to the surreal yet realistic graphics of 1 and 2? Personally, I'd love to see the next game have realistic graphics similar to the box art of 1 and 2, and the artwork at the top of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman Toothdecay Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I would prefer a game made with the same style as the first two... which includes NO VOICE ACTING. Some people don't understand the magic of the imagination. Look at Calvin and Hobbes; they were never seen on TV, never given voices, yet they remain some of the most remembered characters in comics. In Monkey Island 1 and 2 we were given beautiful artwork and moving sound/music. We weren't forced to laugh at a bad reference to a previous game, or to have to watch poor cutscenes with low-polygon "3D" models. I would like to see a new adventure game PERIOD. I miss solving puzzles... knocking a washing machine off of a board to raise a ramp in Half-Life 2 is not my idea of a mind stimulating puzzle, but sadly that is the most thinking anybody wants to do anymore while playing a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by Herman Toothdecay Look at Calvin and Hobbes; they were never seen on TV, never given voices, yet they remain some of the most remembered characters in comics. Who? Before anyone starts shouting, yes, that was a joke. and I would also like the next MI in that style, infact, I want everything Herman Toothdecay said, but the main problem is, no game producer in their right mind to say yes to this, or fund this as they know it wouldn't make any money. Pity really, but that's business for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinkie Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I like the voice acting though, it has been fabulous in both of the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman Toothdecay Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 It would sell if it got good reviews; and thankfully, there are still some decent reviewers out there. Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 fanboy reviewers aside, I think the game would be popular and would sell. Obviously not nearly on the scale as some of the new FPS's, but if a truely imaginative, funny, game were released and some people noticed it, it would make a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Herman Toothdecay ...but if a truely imaginative, funny, game were released and some people noticed it, it would make a profit. How can you say that? It takes a lot of time and talented people to draw the stuff, animate it and have really clever puzzles. In the heyday of adventure games it may have been lucrative, but today I doubt it would be popular with the masses. In Germany and some other European countries it may actually sell good, but the overall profit is little likely to be too good. Also, without voice acting the file size may decrease enough to make it an easy download even for dial-up connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman Toothdecay Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 IF... it would be difficult but feasible, I think. Look at MI4 - it made respectable sales and it wasn't even that great a game. What I'm saying is IF an adventure game was really good, it would sell. But it's definitely not easy, like you said. You actually need talent to create a game like that. All you need for most games to sell in the FPS industry is programming skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 They made MI4 3D in order to sell well. It was mostly about marketing, but if it was in 2D, it wouldn't have sold hal as well, people just don't want a game like that. The bottom line is, a gmae that we're thinking about wouldn't make it's money back, let alone a profit, people just don't want to buy these games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 EMI sold okay because the kids new to the series generally liked it and the old fans bought it because it's Monkey Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megacles Posted January 2, 2005 Author Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Herman Toothdecay I would prefer a game made with the same style as the first two... which includes NO VOICE ACTING. I agree with you on the no voice acting. As much as I liked Dom, I always prefered the voice in my heard from the first two games. And I'd love a game in the same style as the first two... realistic graphics. MI went downhill for me when they decided to go cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumm local Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 you cant beat realistic 2d goodness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 As long as the backgrounds are hand painted again, im ok. Realistic was the best, but 3d gave it that tropical feel. ALSO, the realistic gave that cool sense of fear ya got when you went into the cemetery but theres nothing like that in 3/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanSer Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Hold on. Sense of fear? I've played them all many times and CMI is by far the best. Out of all the adventure games that exist it's almost the only one that accomplishes that feel that you are in an animated movie. No voice acting? Pass me what you're smoking. The voice acting in CMI is ****in terrific, and combined with Michael Land's brilliant score it makes for one of the best aural experiences of any game ever. Realistic backgrounds? Since when was monkey island about realism? Since when could those butt ugly 2d backgrounds be considered realistic? CMI is where adventure games should have gone, film-quality animation and voice acting. MI4 killed that, and while still a great adventure game it was not what gaming has spent 20 years trying to be. A truly interactive movie. I could set down my non-geek friends with CMI on autoplay (however that would be done, this is a hypothetical) and apart from them wondering why guybrush knows to take everything he sees they would enjoy it almost as they would enjoy a movie. Making it 3d just made it a 3d adventure game, when CMI had transcended adventure gaming into a cinematic experience. Haggis McMutton as a ****ty low-res pixelly ass with no voice? Or Haggis full blown drawn and acted? I pick the latter, and I understand that you might pick the former but that's just cuz you're stuck in 1992. "Back in my days we didn't have no fancy floating point units. We had to float our own points and we liked it! " Seriously guys. Games have tried to be movies for decades, and CMI is one of the few examples that almost makes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Sounds kind of like you're stuck in 1997. CMI was great, and it (still) looks amazing, but it didn't really "go" anywhere. The game essentially plays the same as Maniac Mansion did ten years earlier, which again is the problem with graphic adventures - there's a lack of innovation within the genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanSer Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 That's why you need a good story. And you have to back that up with good production values. Innovation is hard. In so many game ganres innovation is rare, and often just evolutionary. We haven't had a revolution in gaming since Quake. Innovation also doesn't sell. Look at Nintendo vs. Microsoft for that. Nintendo does nothing but innovate and perfect but Microsoft just crams the same stuff at us (shooter, racer, fighter) but packages it up real pretty. Microsoft nary does a thing innovatively yet they own Nintendo in the marketplace now. (microsoft is the nerd's true enemy, all the xbox was was an invitation to jocks to play videogames. now they buy stupid games and **** up the market and dumb down what we get.) So what I would love to see is CMI in 2d, but high res (megapixel high res; 1000x1000, 2000x2000, etc...) and 32 bit color and hand drawn. Spend alot of time on it and make it into a adventure/rpg in the sense it could be open ended. Have multiple forks a character goes on and have them affect the future plotline. Do it well and the game has massive replayability. Don't tell me the good people at Lucas couldn't throw their weight behind this (I'm talking large-scale animation effort) and make it work. That solves my biggest problems with adventure games which is you're just trying to piece together a predetermined course. Really all it is is puzzling to get to the next cut-scene. It's like a movie and it makes ye work. If dialog really branched, and Guybrush had real tasks and consequences, I think it could do very well. You'd have to think about it like an animator, "We must animate the equivalent of half a season of prime-time quality toons. Come back in x months." Make sure the writer thinks about it like those choose your own story books. "Flip to page 83" Cuz really, in adventure games often the human doesn't affect anything. That's why I love CMI cuz it's so damn entertaining to watch. (And listen to, I have the whole 2 hour score in my playlist for when I'm playing yohoho puzzle pirates. Yar.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyBFeed Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 I know this might be swinging this thread out to 'suggestions' but I was thinking about this subject when I was considering the Mario games. Nintendo have made the Paper Mario game/series (which I am not at all familiar with, but have seen some screenshots) and they have used the technique of cell-shading. What this does is gives the flexibility and 'cleansliness' of 3D vector based graphics but with the smooth classic look of 2D. I'm not implying that a 2D Guybrush should be running around an apprently 3D world, but the style would definatly match up with CMI and give the developers the 'selling angle' (H.T.s point). On the scale of a comlete adventure game, which would take years to animate by hand, cell shading can be quite cost effective too I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman Toothdecay Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 You don't have to animate by hand... I just liked the backgrounds in MI2 (and SMI, though those were drawn in a paint program lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanSer Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Cel shading yes. Good. Doing 2d style games with 3d hardware, double cool. Right now the industry is stuck on 3d, and so many games suffer for it. RTS should be "2d" in the sense that your view is top down, not free moving and no zoom. Like paper mario it's worth exploring, but of course now they use cel shading just for 3d environments, completely missing the point. And you all have this misconception about animation and how much effort it really takes. Turn on your tv and check out how many hours of high quality animation you get, but game developers don't plan like an animation team/studio. Look at CMI, its based in beautiful hand drawn backgrounds. 2d sketches are stacked on top, which zoom and move about. Basically you just animate the characters doing a certain number ov moves and have the computer treat it like a 3d animation. What I'm saying is with a real animation team (And yes I do think Lucas just might be able to afford that ) and some outsourcing to korea, and just treat it like 10 hours of animating. Sure it might take 100 people 6 months to do it but this is an estimate for a fairly ambitious projet, and given the fact that you can reuse the same character walking and just stuff it on top of a map. going 3d would just obfuscate that. Do 3d dongles on the treasure chests and some lighting and other eye candy but leave the style alone. With the advent of 3d hardware we abandoned a perfectly good way of making a video game. I don't think that style and size of game would take very long for Lucasarts at all, thems talented folks. If they would just seek some outside help with animation and stop trying to do it themselves. All you simpsons geeks have seen a million frames drawn in korea, and it's gravy you can't tell the difference. It's doable, it's affordable, it's sellable. JUST GODDAMNIT TREAT THE STORY WITH SOME RESPECT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMan Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Originally posted by Herman Toothdecay I would prefer a game made with the same style as the first two... which includes NO VOICE ACTING. This was one of the few games where the voice acting was brilliant! Why the hell would you want to get rid of it? If you hate it so much, why don't you just go into options and select "Text only" instead of "Voice only"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westside8_20 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 cartoons, and im kinda in middle about voice acting. You wouldnt get anyone to buy it other than MI enthusiasts, so i guarantee you it will have voices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Cheese Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 The appearance of Guybrush in CMI compared with MI1 and 2 is like apples and oranges. They are both really different styles and both look great. What I'd really like (and the way computer graphics are progressing this will soon be possible) is to have photorealistic 3D versoins of the close ups of Guybrush and Elaine from MI1. The game should be 3D and point and click (Just picture the set background of CMI where you walk around, you click on Haggis to start talking to him and the camera moves down to zoom in on Guybrush and him. That's the best I can explain it. Just a bunch of pre-set camera angles for different actions.) And I aggree with KanSer on the voice acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I'd have to say I enjoyed the absurdist way everything in CMI was drawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Cheese Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Yes, so did I. It's my favourite game Everything that could be emphasised was emphasised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.