Jump to content

Home

Recommended Posts

My only complaint would be that they've still used the pixelized text on the wanted poster, instead of using hi-res text.

 

I wonder why they did that? Like the unreadable text on the signs is still unreadable. This also happened with the parrot chow on the boat where you can read the word "Chow" in the original Peter Chan drawing, but in the SE they kept it unreadable like the original game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I feel like I'm the only one who's really pleased with the MI2SE backgrounds so far. All of the outdoor ones are way more atmospheric, I think. For example, the interior of Dread's ship at sea has a cool misty bloom effect that makes it feel just like morning at sea, and in the stitched-together shot above (thanks, Laserschwert :p), it looks way sunnier and warmer, which is how I think it was supposed to look in the original (but couldn't thanks to graphical limitations).

 

I love every single piece that they've released so far. I even love Guybrush. I just want to say that you're not alone in liking it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notice Guybrush's reflection in the polished floor... Photoshop or SE feature?

 

Hmm... I wonder if it will follow him. The strange thing is that they would add that but not add shadows to all of the other characters walking around when in some shots it would sure help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm... I wonder if it will follow him. The strange thing is that they would add that but not add shadows to all of the other characters walking around when in some shots it would sure help.

 

I don't think that's strange at all. To create shadows of characters properly, they'd need to model each room out in 3D (unless they were willing to manually draw every possibility of shadowness)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aah! I like it I really do... but this one shows what I was going on about earlier. Look at the doorframe. It's those angles I don't like. They're everywhere but this shows it clearly. The original doorframe is pixellated but that arch is smooth and the sides are straight lines. The new one has all these funny angles. There's a bit of DOTT-style architecture creeping in here... warped perspective and all. The original art was a lot more "real". That wood is supposed to be a lot darker on the bed, and since when was the end of the bed made out of "planks" like they now show? The original looks like one of those expensive dark wood antique beds my grandma used to have. The new one looks completely different and cheap. And the fireplace looks like it's fallen over... why is it faded out so much at the edge?

 

I'd prefer if the bedposts were parallel and the door frame was straight with a smooth arch etc... that is how they are in the original after all. It's never felt like Monkey Island to me since the first two, because of this kind of cartooniness. Now they're dragging the original down the same road? Why?

 

It's very pretty but again it's just not Monkey Island 2. Too many changes, and it all looks so washed out? Even the colour of the wall goes all faded towards the left, I don't understand why. That wall is vivid pink/purple in the original. The bell box is red, now it's... I dunno if that's even a colour. And the bell itself? What happened there?

 

Like with the first SE I'm afraid I'm still pulling my hair out here at what might have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The new one looks completely different

 

I'd prefer if the bedposts were parallel and the door frame was straight with a smooth arch etc... that is how they are in the original after all. It's never felt like Monkey Island to me since the first two, because of this kind of cartooniness.

 

I don't mind giving them a bit of room to breathe. They need to put their stamp on things, and if they prefer curved edges then that's fine. The original, again, is just a click away.

 

And I'm surprised you think that:

 

1. SMI and MI2 aren't cartoony, because they are;

2. That TMI didn't bring back the "straight", contrasted style of SMI and MI2.

 

Obviously, the curly clouds and generally more liberal wash-out worked for CMI, and work a little less for the SEs, but let's see them in action before we judge. It'd be a mistake to try and make the games 'realistic', because they are not. I don't have to remind you that Guybrush flies out of a cannon - twice - in the original alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that's strange at all. To create shadows of characters properly, they'd need to model each room out in 3D (unless they were willing to manually draw every possibility of shadowness)

 

You do know shadows have existed in games and animation before realtime 3D? It's not like the reflection required any kind of 3D modeling.

 

Shadows are not hard to do, animators in games and elsewhere still do them all the time. I'm not even just talking about circular cheap shadows. You can simply fudge it by creating a vector object with feathered edges and low opacity that changes shape at the same frame rate as the animation. That is a very simple way to get around completely redrawing a shadow for each frame. It's a lot easier to do these sorts of things with the digital programs available now than 15-20 years ago.

 

Maybe that's not up to the standards some hold for shadows with realtime daylight and etc., but it would do for this game, and besides shadows are usually there so you don't focus on the fact all of the characters have no shadows, not to focus on how well the shadows were done.

 

1. SMI and MI2 aren't cartoony, because they are;

 

First, that depends on your definition of what constitutes a cartoon. Second, they've definitely added more general wonkiness when redoing the backgrounds. While this exaggeration does exist in the original games, especially 2, it's more of a comic book style of half realism half exaggeration. You could reference the Sam and Max comics Purcell did in the 80s to understand. New York is not drawn with bouncy buildings in those.

 

Just look at the step ladder area next to governer Phatt. While the original is obviously not an architect's drawing, it doesn't come off anywhere near as playful.

 

I actually don't care about any of this and it still doesn't bother me anywhere as much as just ugly characters or all of the simple amateur mistakes in the first SE, but you are trying to fit the first two Monkey Islands in the same set-up as The Adventure of Willy Beamish or something, which they clearly aren't. There is still a great deal of realism, grit, contrast, darkness, straight lines, and solid construction in the first two games, even though you think you are spilling definites. No matter what you say, there's still a lot preventing Monkey Island 1 and 2 from being full on CMI, and it's not the resolution or technological limitations. I'm more surprised you're acting like Snugglecakes is blind, when everything he described is right there in the pictures as proof.

 

Anyways, I'm disappointed with this new background. It's way too silly and the ceiling is too low and everything at the top of the image looks unfinished. I think whoever did this one is probably not the same artist as some of the others we have seen so far. Therefore, I don't think there's much argument that they are putting their original stamp on it because it doesn't really even fit in with what we've been looking at previously, which has been more faithful. It definitely looks like it's straight out of a Day of the Tentacle remake than Monkey Island.

 

However, Phatt and the food tubes look great.

Edited by SyntheticGerbil
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know shadows have existed in games and animation before realtime 3D? It's not like the reflection required any kind of 3D modeling.

 

That's because reflections are much simpler than shadows. Because of the wide range of environmental lighting in MI2SE, adding shadows to each character would require a lot of work. You have to take into account the fact that floors aren't the only thing that shadows can be cast on. Walls and objects need to be accounted for too.

 

If shadows are only cast on to the floor and not surrounding objects then it would look weird. The shadow would throw off the sense of atmosphere if it stops existing once it hits a baseboard.

 

Furthermore, shadows have already been painted into these backgrounds, so new shadows would overlap old ones making them darker in certain areas (which would look wrong).

 

So even if they could somehow get character shadows to cast onto objects/walls as well as just the floor, they wouldn't work properly because of the shadows that have already been painted in. Take the Governor Phatt shot, for example. On the left is how it would look, on the right is how it should look (I've only shown how it would look on the governor's bed, nowhere else, because I can't be bothered to do it properly):

 

guybrushshadow.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you do know shadows have existed in games and animation before realtime 3D, right?

 

That's because reflections are much simpler than shadows. Because of the wide range of environmental lighting in MI2SE, adding shadows to each character would require a lot of work. You have to take into account the fact that floors aren't the only thing that shadows can be cast on. Walls and objects need to be accounted for too.

 

It wouldn't require "a lot of" work, it would just require work. Apparently you are not familiar with the easy method I detailed above or have ever done this yourself on a game because you are over complicating things.

 

No one makes a bunch of cast shadows onto 3D objects in 2D drawn games like this EVER. You're ridiculous for suggesting that. What 2D game does this consistently for all characters? I'm just talking about adding a shadow under people's feet. It doesn't have to be mathematically perfect according to all light sources in the room. How is having a simple shadow worse than having no shadow or at all? You have some insane kind of all or nothing thinking here if you have to have all of your shadows so elaborate and lifelike or no shadows at all.

 

If shadows are only cast on to the floor and not surrounding objects then it would look weird. The shadow would throw off the sense of atmosphere if it stops existing once it hits a baseboard.

 

machinarium_02.jpg

 

Maybe you should go tell the guys at Amanita they made their game wrong since their characters aren't casting full shadows among walls and objects in the game. ****ing ridiculous.

 

Furthermore, shadows have already been painted into these backgrounds, so new shadows would overlap old ones making them darker in certain areas (which would look wrong).

 

And what 2D game DOESN'T DO THIS?

 

89526_large.jpeg

vampyrestory2.jpg

 

****, shadows overlapping pre-drawn shadows! Guess you better let the Curse team and Bill Tiller know they did it wrong because they didn't have the shadows on their hand drawn backgrounds on some separate alpha layer that would not clash with the shadow the character was projecting.

 

So even if they could somehow get character shadows to cast onto objects/walls as well as just the floor, they wouldn't work properly because of the shadows that have already been painted in. Take the Governor Phatt shot, for example. On the left is how it would look, on the right is how it should look (I've only shown how it would look on the governor's bed, nowhere else, because I can't be bothered to do it properly

 

Just make Guybrush's shadow separate then and have it disappear when he enters that room, no need to project on top of objects around the room. I just solved your problem. They are already doing this kind of programming anyways because obviously he doesn't walk around the entire game with a reflection AND I'd bet that reflection doesn't appear when you walk over the rug. I didn't say he needed a shadow and reflection at the same time in that scene. I was talking about the other scenes where it looks weird without shadows (such as the guard questioning Guybrush at the Phatt Island harbor and that it would certainly eliminate the effect of the carpenter floating) and how strange it is for the game to have a reflection but no shadows. Usually a shadow is the first thing on the special effect hierarchy if things like that must be done.

 

I'd love to see the examples of all these wondrous games you seem to know of or have worked on with this kind of advanced 3D lighting give to hand drawn characters and backgrounds. Now you're just getting weird trying to make some elaborate apology for the lack of something as simple as a shadow.

Edited by SyntheticGerbil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Better than admitting how wrong and inexperienced you are, eh?

 

You're argument is just as weird and convoluted as the German guy who made the Crysis MI2 saying that they probably couldn't afford to do good QA on the mistakes the art team made on the first special edition because they needed to pay for the office building rent and the water cooler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is still a great deal of realism, grit, contrast, darkness, straight lines, and solid construction in the first two games, even though you think you are spilling definites. No matter what you say, there's still a lot preventing Monkey Island 1 and 2 from being full on CMI, and it's not the resolution or technological limitations. I'm more surprised you're acting like Snugglecakes is blind, when everything he described is right there in the pictures as proof.

 

CMI and TMI both have as much 'realism' and 'grit' as SMI/MI2, which quite frankly isn't much. Let's make sure we have that clear: Monkey Island is a drama-adventure-by-comedy, not a Kieslowski movie.

 

I don't care about the backgrounds at this point. People just seem to have this notion that the first two games were integrated into reality when clearly that's not the intention. SMI has as much silliness and jumping around as TMI, maybe even more so. Same with MI2.

 

So I'm not sure what you mean by "full on CMI". If it's art, then yeah, they're taking cues from CMI: there's been some less contrast, for example, and a bit more curviness. But it's not a full blow out either.

 

If you find the backgrounds unappealing, just switch to classic version. I'm not patronizing your opinion: I'm just bothered by the idea that the first games were somehow gritty and realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I'm not sure what you mean by "full on CMI". If it's art, then yeah, they're taking cues from CMI: there's been some less contrast, for example, and a bit more curviness. But it's not a full blow out either.

 

I'm talking about art alone here. You are trying to blur the differences between the games. Again, MI1 and 2's looks are not equal to Willy Beamish, subject matter withstanding.

 

If you find the backgrounds unappealing, just switch to classic version. I'm not patronizing your opinion: I'm just bothered by the idea that the first games were somehow gritty and realistic.

 

Yeah you are patronizing it, because that's an easier way of saying, "for those of you who don't like it, shut up!" Do you seriously just want to have a forum where only everyone says, "Wow this is great!" in every thread? You seem to think anyone with a critical opinion is just doing it for fun, like we just cling to 16 color versions of every adventure LucasArts adventure and hate anything new just for the sake of it. I'm sure everyone who's critical feels somewhat like me on this matter, whether we are going to play the remakes or not: We just want the new team to do the games justice and not to try to make them their own. It's confusing when in some scenes they are trying to emulate the original games and in others they go wild and start doing what they feel like. What's frustrating is bad craftsmanship, which the originals did not have. Note, I'm not seeing much of anything in the way of bad craftsmanship this time around though.

 

The first two games were not Noir-type grit, but there were textured and had lots of contrasting blacks and highlights. Like I told you at Idlethumbs, this probably comes a lot from just a comic book background and that Purcell lived around Mike Mignola for a significant portion of his life. They shared tips and tricks and were very close and talked a lot about doing art according to the interviews I've read from both of them.

 

There's a difference between Day of the Tentacle's backgrounds and Monkey Island 2. The latter is much more realistic in art style but it's not a realistic game of course.

Edited by SyntheticGerbil
Link to post
Share on other sites
Better than admitting how wrong and inexperienced you are, eh?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that having sand in your vagina is better than conceding? Because I disagree with that.

 

If, however, you're saying that me insulting you was better (as in easier) than admitting I'm wrong, then I feel obliged to tell you that I genuinely didn't read any of your post. I read, like, 3 sentences and then I realised I was in for a vagina sandstorm and put my face in a band-saw instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...