MI2: SE - Minor Annoyances

[SyntheticGerbil]

I agree with the V.1 Guybrush, but I know a lot of people were not into that because of continuity with the other games and his deadbeat type look.

 

The problem is that they didn't increase the amount of frames when they remade the sprited to HD. So the animation obviously looks a lot more clunky despite having the same number of frames. It's animation 101 for you. The more detailed your character is, the harder it is to animate. That's why they only use one colour per body part on actual cartoons (occasionally 2, if you can afford shading).

 

This is inaccurate. As I stated earlier in the thread, not only did they not increase the amount of frames (not that they needed to be increased in that case, as the original frame count is more than enough) they dropped many frames as well, therefore coming out much choppier. The original morphing animation is smooth, resolution doesn't have a thing to do with it.

 

I don't know why it's animation 101, because even still they have been animating detailed characters all along (even though many drawn over prerendered 3D models), and no where have they been using the one or two color traditional cel shading methods anywhere in the remakes. It's just digital painting. It's much easier than painting a acetate cel, so because of this, in the last decade or so many animation studios can afford to do more complicated or nicer looking animation for about the same cost, just because of the quickness of digital methods. Really the Rapp Scallion animation just required someone spending some extra time to redo all of the frames from the original, I don't see any point in excusing them on this.

 

Also, the reason they can easily add frames for many of the other character animations is because they are rendering from 3D models (and drawing over them), which makes it very easy to create inbetweens. No where were frames added without a 3D model as a basis.

 

For obvious reasons, making a 3D model of Rapp Scallion to morph from ashes would have not worked.

[V. Melkalis]

I agree with the V.1 Guybrush, but I know a lot of people were not into that because of continuity with the other games and his deadbeat type look.

 

Well, all things considered, the MI:SE character looks are fairly different of the MI2:SE looks. So I don't think continuity is all that much important. As for the deadbeat look, I think its quite justifiable. Guybrush's personality has slightly evolved on the second game. He became a lot more arrogant and sleazy, grabbing about his past feats at every chance he gets and hitting on random women (like Kate). Either way, most people dislike MI1:SE's Guybrush, and I've seen some respriting projects around here. I'm not a good 2D artist, but I'm fairly proficient with 3D mesh creation. Perhaps I'll give it a shot as soon as I get my new gfx card.

 

This is inaccurate. Not only did they not increase the amount of frames (not that they needed to be increased in that case, as the original frame count is more than enough) they dropped many frames as well, therefore coming out much choppier. The original morphing animation is smooth, resolution doesn't have a thing to do with it.

 

You sure they dropped frames? I haven't checked the sprite files yet, but if so then, wow. That was a really bad idea.

 

I don't know why it's animation 101, because even still they have been animating detailed characters all along (even though many drawn over prerendered 3D models), and no where have they been using the one or two color traditional cel shading methods anywhere in the remakes. It's just digital painting. It's much easier than painting a acetate cel, so because of this, in the last decade or so many animation studios can afford to do more complicated or nicer looking animation for about the same cost, just because of the quickness of digital methods. Really the Rapp Scallion animation just required someone spending some extra time to redo all of the frames from the original, I don't see any point in excusing them on this.

 

I believe you misunderstood what I meant. When I said, "this is animation 101" I merely wanted to say something like, "these are the basic principles of animation. The more detail, the more frames it requires to look better". And regarding digital animation, don't forget that modern animation is highly based on flash technology. It can produce very fluid results with an impressive amount of detail in a short time, but if you ask me, it doesn't look half as good as classic animation, which is a shame, since it's almost a nearly extinct form of art by now. Most studios simply do it in flash because it's cheaper, and you don't have to send your stuff to korea to get animated in one of those animation sweatshops. Now as for 3D tracing, I believe it's far from being a perfect method. Sometimes traced sprites look like they're made of papier-marche, with a certain uncomfortable stiffness to it. So I still prefer the old methods, although I perfectly understand the processes involved would raise the production methods way higher.

Either way, I'm not excusing them either for the poor work on Rapp Scalion's sequence, exactly like you said, with a bit more of effort, I'm sure they could've done it right.

 

Also, the reason they can easily add frames for many of the other character animations is because they are rendering from 3D models (and drawing over them), which makes it very easy to create inbetweens. No where were frames added without a 3D model as a basis.

 

For obvious reasons, making a 3D model of Rapp Scallion to morph from ashes would have not worked.

 

Indeed. One can notice they used a 3d mesh for Guybrush and LeChuck quite easily. As a matter of fact, they did something that I loathe and that quite honestly I don't understand. They splitted the animation detail unequally on the 3D rendered chars. For instance, the walking cycles look as smooth as a baby's bottom, but for example, when LeChuck is nodding is head wile speaking you can clearly notice they cut some inbetweens from the original 3D animation. Why did they do this?

[SyntheticGerbil]

You sure they dropped frames? I haven't checked the sprite files yet, but if so then, wow. That was a really bad idea.

 

I'm sure they dropped frames just by comparing a Youtube of the original game and looking at the remake a few times, but I don't have the actual numbers or rips anything to prove it. I apologize if that seems disingenuine of me, I'm just going by my own experience in animation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIRT9xw4nuw

 

I've never seen a sprite rip of the original Rapp Scallion, and I don't have access to the new sprites. If anyone wants to get both these and compare, I'm almost completely sure it would show less frames were made for the new edition. It was a pretty complicated animation in the first place, so while it's cool they tried, I wish they would have pulled it off in full.

 

It can produce very fluid results with an impressive amount of detail in a short time, but if you ask me, it doesn't look half as good as classic animation, which is a shame, since it's almost a nearly extinct form of art by now. Most studios simply do it in flash because it's cheaper, and you don't have to send your stuff to korea to get animated in one of those animation sweatshops. Now as for 3D tracing, I believe it's far from being a perfect method. Sometimes traced sprites look like they're made of papier-marche, with a certain uncomfortable stiffness to it. So I still prefer the old methods, although I perfectly understand the processes involved would raise the production methods way higher.

 

Wow, I agree incredibly sincerely and fullheartedly with everything you are saying here. I do like the things Flash (and other digital animation programs) can do with tweens that someone would have to spend hours on before, but I think they are best regulated to where you don't notice tweens are being used or made as a sort of hybrid to enhance the traditional frame by frame animation. It sucks that we have all the tools and programs to do frame by frame stuff much quicker than two decades ago, but instead all studios would rather just cheap out even more than they were previously with the same tools.

 

I'm definitely not encouraging their method of tracing over prerendered 3D sprites by any means, I just noticed it was something they did to finish their animation faster in the remakes when people were ripping sprites the first time around. It was much more noticeable in the first Special Edition though, so I think this time around they didn't do it for everyone or at least cleaned up the hard edges of the 3D models enough so that it was apparent in many cases.

 

Indeed. One can notice they used a 3d mesh for Guybrush and LeChuck quite easily. As a matter of fact, they did something that I loathe and that quite honestly I don't understand. They splitted the animation detail unequally on the 3D rendered chars. For instance, the walking cycles look as smooth as a baby's bottom, but for example, when LeChuck is nodding is head wile speaking you can clearly notice they cut some inbetweens from the original 3D animation. Why did they do this?

 

Yeah this was bothersome to me as well. While personally, I would be just happy if they stuck to the original frame rates of the old games and just had someone really experienced in traditional animation and character design redo the frames well, I don't mind the idea of added frames at all. It is very odd they were inconsistant about the added frames and which characters were based on 3D models. It sticks out most when Guybrush is talking to Bart and Fink when he looks like he's almost from a completely different game than his counterparts the way his head bobs in 3D space while the other two guys just have their mouths open and close. I still find it strange that Rum Rogers was given a ton of added frames stemming from a 3D model, while other minor characters were left alone.

[V. Melkalis]

It sticks out most when Guybrush is talking to Bart and Fink when he looks like he's almost from a completely different game than his counterparts the way his head bobs in 3D space while the other two guys just have their mouths open and close. I still find it strange that Rum Rogers was given a ton of added frames stemming from a 3D model, while other minor characters were left alone.

 

I found that exception on Rum Rogers to be quite bizarre aswell. I smell production rushing due to milestones and/or increased costs. God damn it, Lucasarts, why must you always screw us up somehow? Either way, I hope to see some intense character modding in the future to solve these flaws, since frankly, I don't believe Lucasarts will ever add more graphical content, even if we beg them for DLC.

 

At least the backgrounds are gorgeous. But I suppose we should mainly thank Steve Purcell for his quality work 16 years ago. The new backgrounds were pratically traced from the old art with little changes and improvements.

 

 

*EDIT*

 

Also I managed to find a .gif version of the original Rapp Scallion animation on a fansite. Here it is.

 

[The Tingler]

Also your suggestion of Rockstar Leeds is unapplicable. The income disparity between a UK and US company is way less prominent than one between a US and an Asian country. The cultural and language barriers are less so. Besides, Rockstar US doesn't have to pay anyone's healthcare in the UK. If it weren't for the healthcare system, no one would ever outsource anything to the UK from the US because it wouldn't make economical sense.

 

Slightly off-topic but I have to correct your misapprehension here - the Grand Theft Auto series has always been made in the UK, even before Rockstar became Rockstar. It's an entirely British-made franchise. It's not outsourced, it's just made here.

[Monkey Mania]

[V. Melkalis]

 

Good sir, simply for that post of yours, you made me a happy man for a brief period of time.

[SyntheticGerbil]

Wow, I think without the black outlines, that Guybrush might fit right in.

 

Slightly off-topic but I have to correct your misapprehension here - the Grand Theft Auto series has always been made in the UK, even before Rockstar became Rockstar. It's an entirely British-made franchise. It's not outsourced, it's just made here.

 

Well it's still not entirely correct. Thrik was talking about Rockstar Leeds, which used to be Mobius games, which did not create the original Grand Theft Auto series. I don't know much about DMA games, so I guess that was my fault for assuming they were based in the US, but now I'm confused as towhy Thrik was using them as example of good outsourcing in the first place? Unless whatever happened with Take Two means that Rockstar is based in New York now even though DMA in the UK used to be the center of it's existence?

 

I don't know it didn't really seem to have much to do with Lucasfilm Singapore in the first place, but even either is the the case (form NYC to the UK or UK to UK), it still really doesn't give light to outsourcing to countries with lower income disparity either way.

[Thrik]

Oh, I was just using it as an example of outsourcing done primarily due to them being the best studio for the job rather than for financial/whatever reasons. I wasn't really thinking too hard about the specific set-up of the operation, though I was aware GTA has always primarily come from the Scots.

[V. Melkalis]

Wow, I think without the black outlines, that Guybrush might fit right in.

 

My thoughts exactly. The style is a lot more coherent both with the original sprites and the backgrounds. It would simply need the propper paintjob (and obviously the rest of the frames) to fit in with the rest of the characters.

 

Well, a man can dream.

[SyntheticGerbil]

Yeah, I like how that Guybrush fits hits smug personality in the second game. In the first game, he was much more of a fancy pants type, I guess LucasArts didn't want to stray too far into maybe what most people imagined Guybrush from MI2 to look like as it might be weird to go from that to CMI?

 

I'm still kind of weirded out by how Guybrush looks in CMI but oh well.

[V. Melkalis]

Well, I guess the end of MI2 was just so weird they decided to reset most things while keeping some basic continuity. Guybrush's personality is a lot more bland on CMI. His naiveté is lost and so is his acquired arrogance. This is one of the reasons why I mostly disliked CMI and the following titles. I just can't laugh at Guybrush anymore.

[Monkey Mania]

Wow, I think without the black outlines, that Guybrush might fit right in.

 

 

Remember, LucasArts would have made a 3d model of it.

[V. Melkalis]

Remember, LucasArts would have made a 3d model of it.

 

Well it could've been done without 3D, like the rest of the characters. Not all sprites were traced from 3D like the current version of Guybrush. One would simply have to cut some inbetweens, which frankly, would've actually looked better when other (non-traced) characters are on screen. The bridge between levels of detail in the character animation is pretty noteworthy most of the times.

[SyntheticGerbil]

Yep, Melkalis is right, they didn't use a 3D Guybrush for a lot of the animations. Even still, it doesn't look like they animated his face much, so they could have just drawn it on later.

 

They still had to draw out all the cartoony or weird frames (Guybrush flipping his wig, eyes bugging out, mouth dropping, etc.) this time around that their 3D models would have been too much work to make do in comparison to just drawing it.

[V. Melkalis]

Yep, Melkalis is right, they didn't use a 3D Guybrush for a lot of the animations. Even still, it doesn't look like they animated his face much, so they could have just drawn it on later.

 

They still had to draw out all the cartoony or weird frames (Guybrush flipping his wig, eyes bugging out, mouth dropping, etc.) this time around that their 3D models would have been too much work to make do in comparison to just drawing it.

 

Pretty much this. Here are some of the two ugliest traced sprites I found. From a falling animation.

 

 

Like gerbil said, they didn't even bother to animate his face while on the ground. He's just staring blankly at the void. Like if his face wasn't expressionless enough, they didn't bother to change it a bit for a couple of sprites. Talk about a rushed job.

[Kroms]

His naiveté is lost and so is his acquired arrogance. This is one of the reasons why I mostly disliked CMI and the following titles. I just can't laugh at Guybrush anymore.

 

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who complain about CMI onwards, because of the possibility of them feeling the need to be loyal to old school adventure games-style or Ron Gilbert. With that in mind: I think, if anything, Guybrush became a bit more naive in CMI. In MI1 and 2 he felt like an avatar, at times, or maybe was a bit more deceptive, in that he would either completely flatter or insult Elaine to get what he wanted, for example; whereas in CMI up to Chapter 4 of TMI he had a one-road way of doing things.

 

When working on TMI, Dave Grossman went up to the writers mid-season and basically asked them to make Guybrush a bit more like he was in MI; for them to, in other words, "write more like Tim Schafer". That's why he was a bit more sarcastic and edgy, especially in Chapter 5 on the ship. Either way, I still like CMI the most in the series, but it's closely followed by large swathes of TMI and MI2.

 

If a MI6 is made, it'll probably be very close to MI2 in tone, actually. I hope so. I want Jake Rodkin and Sean Vanaman to also work on it...We'll see.

[DAISHI]

 

See. I think this version looks awful.

[V. Melkalis]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who complain about CMI onwards, because of the possibility of them feeling the need to be loyal to old school adventure games-style or Ron Gilbert. With that in mind: I think, if anything, Guybrush became a bit more naive in CMI. In MI1 and 2 he felt like an avatar, at times, or maybe was a bit more deceptive, in that he would either completely flatter or insult Elaine to get what he wanted, for example; whereas in CMI up to Chapter 4 of TMI he had a one-road way of doing things.

 

Point is there's not a clear character development bridge from MI2 to CMI. The evolution from MI to MI2 sounded very, very natural despite radical. Naive insecure person gets a huge egoboost after randomly performing a heroic feat. He thinks he's at the top of the world, yet it's true wimpish and somewhat cowardly nature still remains inside. Despite being more arrogant on MI2, Guybrush's actions also seem a lot more insecure. Now at the beginning of CMI Guybrush expresses his disappointment regarding Big Whoop. Alright so there's some regret, that clears away the arrogance in a somewhat sloppy, yet acceptable way. But be it for (and please don't discredit me for what I am about to say) Dominic Armato's emotionless voice acting or by the overly-relaxed looks of the character's animations, the coward and naive nature seems to be gone and replaced with what I think it is random sillyness. I feel it's not just the writing. It's the altogether ensemble of the elements that compose the character in CMI. It's just not as appealing as the one in the 1st two original games and hardly feels connected to them. And it's not just the nostalgia talking. I played CMI with the same excitement of the originals and found it to be a lot less engaging despite being larger and having some good puzzles. I do however take it as a nice try, taken that it was created by completely different team, so I gotta cut 'em some slack and give 'em some credit.

 

When working on TMI, Dave Grossman went up to the writers mid-season and basically asked them to make Guybrush a bit more like he was in MI; for them to, in other words, "write more like Tim Schafer". That's why he was a bit more sarcastic and edgy, especially in Chapter 5 on the ship. Either way, I still like CMI the most in the series, but it's closely followed by large swathes of TMI and MI2.

 

If a MI6 is made, it'll probably be very close to MI2 in tone, actually. I hope so. I want Jake Rodkin and Sean Vanaman to also work on it...We'll see.

 

I can't argue on this point for I haven't got the chance to play TMI yet.

 

See. I think this version looks awful.

 

You're not seeing beyond the outlines. Imagine it rendered the same way the other characters are, with slightly more angular lines and less plain colours. You'll see it blends a lot better with the background than the current version. From a cartoon analysis standpoint, and not just aesthetic tastes, this version would be ideal if properly rendered.

[ThunderPeel2001]

No, he looks like a homeless person. Sure, his face is a million times more expressive, but there has to be some compromise so that he doesn't look like he sleeps on the street.

[MusicallyInspired]

 

That looks terrible. Nothing like Guybrush. I always hated that design and I'm glad they scrapped it.

[Thrik]

Yeah I agree. Really don't like that rendition, and I'm fairly sure it's not because I can't see past the outlines.

[Gabez]

I quite like the clothes, but the expression reminds me of something... http://i.ehow.co.uk/images/a02/6g/3q/treat-babies-constipation-200X200.jpg

 

Just goes to show you can't please everyone with whatever version you use, I suppose.

[Rosefull]

 

Just goes to show you can't please everyone with whatever version you use, I suppose.

This exactly.

 

Some people love the early version of Guybrush, and some people hate it (personally, I don't like it either). There's no way to please everyone, so they just went with what they liked best, I guess. I have no issues with the Guybrush they went with in MI2:SE. It wasn't perfect or anything, but it fit his basic profile and looked pretty much fine.

[V. Melkalis]

Aight, whaddya folks say about this another early version then?