Why better graphic kills fantasy ...

[MasterMim]

Hey everyone,

 

i am playing computer-, videogames since 17 years now. Further every year I play the old monkey island saga without the M4 because it kills my fantasy like in some parts M3 does also. In my mind I think graphic is not an ultra statement to a adventure-game.

 

And M4 is a adventure-fantasy-killer! As more realistic a characterfaces are drawed as tinier the amount of people gets, who can put themselfes into their positions. Because we all want to play adventures. From an 8year old kid to an 60year old, we have different impressions what the character has to look like. So I suggest it is not necessarry to find a comic-style that everybody likes. Please, just draw it simple. And it will increase fantasy which is important for getting into a game instead of just being a consumer.

 

I like faces made out of very less pixels and their animition like reading a book and see just letters. Getting a deep impact of the storry without this bullzhit 3D. No one needs this in adventure-games. We need more story story story, a lot of humor, atmosphere and tonns of quest! and of course cool melodies and nice dialogues.

 

Best, Chris

[SeaTurtle]

I don't really care what the graphics look like, either. As long as you can make out what everything is supposed to be, then it doesn't matter to me. What matters is the story, the dialogue, the puzzles etc.

 

I really can't see any computer game company going back to pixelated graphics, but 2-D could still work, couldn't it? Like MI3 or the original Broken Sword games.

[tizerist]

I really can't see any computer game company going back to pixelated graphics, but 2-D could still work, couldn't it? Like MI3 or the original Broken Sword games.

2d can very much still work, no doubt about it, although i think EFMI's wooden world looks very sweet as well.

 

as for not wanting speech, and wanting games to have primitive graphics, i just dont understand that.

 

i am in the complete opposite of the original poster. graphics are very important in this genre, because they are what draws us into these fantasy worlds and makes us marvel at what it would be like to live in such a place.

 

i also play CMI and EFMI in sequence and would never touch the first 2 games in the series. i've seen playthroughs on youtube.com and they are quite crude, barely containing any music, no speech, horribly square graphics, small playing window and therefore hardly conjuring up any image of a fantasy setting whatsoever.

 

technology has allowed this series to flourish. lets see sense here shall we.

[SeaTurtle]

...therefore hardly conjuring up any image of a fantasy setting whatsoever.

 

Why do you need to see the setting? You can use your imagination to 'see' what's happening. I was reading the interview with Ron Gilbert at World of Monkey Island, and I think he gets the point across better than I do:

 

I'm so bored with realistic graphics. I can go outside and see realistic graphics. I want something that really excites my imagination.

 

I'm not saying that games should go back to being 'primitive', as you said, I just don't think that super-shiny graphics should be the most important thing in a game.

 

i also play CMI and EFMI in sequence and would never touch the first 2 games in the series.

 

Well, that's your choice, but you're the one missing out.

[Fealiks]

I suppose simple graphics leaves a lot to the animation, but then we are beginning to compromise for that with character creation/customization. I think a major role in the "2D is better" argument is nostalgia.

[Gremlins]

I suppose simple graphics leaves a lot to the animation, but then we are beginning to compromise for that with character creation/customization. I think a major role in the "2D is better" argument is nostalgia.

 

I think people get confused when we start throwing around arguments about whether 3D looks better than 2D. The question should be more about what works best for the genre.

 

3D works great and looks great for first person shooters, and 2D works best for real time strategy (I consider being able to rotate the camera into a more convenient isiometric view just a fancy 2D). I think adventure games work best in 2D, because it allows you to highlight important items as well as make it easier to provide a larger variation of backgrounds (because it is 100 times easier to draw a high quality background than it is to render it).

 

People get caught up with giving games the most technologically advanced graphics reguardless of whether or not it suits the game (and sacraficing story in the process). Games are supposed to be about fun. If better graphics does not make a game more fun, than spend the money on things that do.

 

Lets look at it this way: Monkey island had decent graphics for its time, and we are still talking about it (and playing it) over 15 years later. Gears of war has awesome graphics and everyone loved it, but in 2 years no one will be playing that game again. Do you want to build a timeless game, or a game that will only be popular until the next generation of video cards?