Another thread ruined by OB1 and ABF! (a.k.a. 2004 Goron Game Awards!)

[Darunia]

...does anyone here even have Tales of Symphonia? 'Cuz I played it all night, and I desperately love it, and long to share my thoughts with someone else...

[OB1]

Eugene Jarvis (also creator of Defender, Robotron, etc.) also did the Cruis'n games. And here's something he has to say on them. As you can see, it's not a "lame excuse"because it's the way it was meant to be!

http://www.wayoftherodent.com/guest...ejinterview.htm

So as I said, disagree with the intent if you wish (and there certainly are flaws there) but don't mistake the series for what it was never intended to be.

Uh, I never doubted that the developers really did say that. It's a lame excuse because they're basically saying "it's not shit if it was designed to be shit!". I hear that awful excuse all of the time. The Cruisin' games are atrocious no matter what set of standards you use to look at them.

You said that complex control schemes are bad (with Pikmin and stuff) and I definitely remember you referencing BG there...

I never onced referenced BG when I talked about convoluted vs. simple-yet-complex controls.

Fire Emblem is part RPG you know...

*GASP!*

and Total War is a completely different kind of game from BG. Fire Emblem is too, but it's closer... close enough maybe that I don't see how you could like one so much and dislike the other so much; FE and BG are, in many respects, similar! Yes, battles take a lot longer to resolve in BG and there is much more depth with each character, but there are lots of similarities.

You don't get what I'm saying (*sigh*... you seriously need to take some English classes). What I meant was that if an RPG fails to interest me in usual RPG regards, then what's left is combat and I can get better combat in other games. In the case of Baldur's Gate none of the individual parts are better than average and the sum of all the parts don't interest me enough.

And as far as KotOR goes, the battles are the same in substance. The difference is style -- in KotOR you need to constantly refill those action queues while in BG you only need to interact when you want to use a spell or special ability (which happens more and more often the more powerful your characters get) or if you want to change targets. But other than that... they are not different to a mentionable degree. And I know you like KotOR.

Yes I like KOTOR. Again you are not listening to me! Do I have to fucking write on a kindergarten level in order for you to understand anything that I ever say?? Let me know if this is simple enough for you!

Baldur's Gate

Story: A very generic D&D story, and it's not told well so who gives a fuck.

Immersion factor: Distant isometric viewpoint, keyword being distant. You don't feel like a part of the world. Plus, I hate the bland D&D designs. The non-direct controls only add to the detachment.

Combat: Not bad, the best part of the games. But I can get better combat in many other places.


KOTOR

Story: Decent. Interesting enough to keep you going, and it's told better than it is in BG.

Immersion factor: Great. Direct controls, over-the-shoulder viewpoint. Makes you feel like you're in the Star Wars universe. Only thing holding it back are unintersting city designs and some camera problems.

Combat: Not as good as BG's, but the first two things more than make up for it.


So there you have it. I've already explained this to you but apparently "ABF" and "understand" are not two words that go together easily.

I don't think you ever really explained what those poor storytelling methods were, though... I remember your opinion on storytelling in the case of Metroid Prime, but BG? I don't remember you saying why it was a poorly told story. It certainly has nothing to do with the reasons you complained about MP, because BG tells its story in a much more conventional way...

You get the entire story through boring dialogue trees from NPCs and reading books and scrolls.

Right... it makes almost no sense for me (especially the controls part), of course, but it's clearly a factor too... though (whether you admit it or not) it IS contradictory with that position and how you clearly like strategy games like Fire Emblem.

Your arrogance is astounding. I'm sorry to shatter your delusions my idiotic friend, but you do not decide if my opinion is contradictory or not, especially when you completely fail to grasp even the most simple concepts of my opinions.

To put it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE (fucking AGAIN), you do not care to be immersed in games whatsoever while I DO. And Fire Emblem has far more engaging and difficult combat than Baldur's Gate, which is why I play it.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Radunia: I've wanted to play that game for a long time now! :( I suppose I could eventually buy it, but I'm so tight on cash at the moment...

[Darunia]

WELL HURRY UP AND SMASH YOUR PIGGY BANK! I wanna talk to someone about it! And UNTIL I CAN, I'M GONNA HOLD MY BREATH! DON'T TRY & STOP ME!!

*Holds breath*

[A Black Falcon]

To put it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE (fucking AGAIN), you do not care to be immersed in games whatsoever while I DO. And Fire Emblem has far more engaging and difficult combat than Baldur's Gate, which is why I play it.

No, not true. You are simply defining 'immersion' in a very different way than I do. I certainly like to get immersed into games... you just define the term in completely different language. I find Baldur's Gate immersive by most ways I can define the term.

Baldur's Gate

Story: A very generic D&D story, and it's not told well so who gives a fuck.

Immersion factor: Distant isometric viewpoint, keyword being distant. You don't feel like a part of the world. Plus, I hate the bland D&D designs. The non-direct controls only add to the detachment.

Combat: Not bad, the best part of the games. But I can get better combat in many other places.

Can you guess that I'm going to strongly disagree? :) First I do not think of it as bland. The artwork is fine. Beautiful in places, merely good in others, but just fine... it depicts the world it is supposed to as well as I could possibly expect it to. If you want a complaint, it'd be that the other four Infinity engine titles didn't change the NPC sprites very much... yes they are all in the same world but the fourth game with very similar townsfolk gets a bit old. :)

Anyway... I like D&D's artwork. Though BG's depiction of it isn't the current one (when they did 3rd Edition they redid a lot of the style and artwork), it looks fine... I don't really understand why you call it so bland. It's better than most fantasy worlds, and the Forgotten Realms have plenty of depth (of backstory and how complex and detailed the world is, the Forgotten Realms are the most well fleshed out and complex D&D setting and it shows. Just look at all those books you can find in these games full of stories that don't directly relate to the game but show events in the Realms' long past!) to say the least!

Anyway, that perspective is worlds better than a 3d game would have looked like back then. I'd take that over Daggerfall or something any day... sure Daggerfall was 1996 and this would look better than that but still. This 2d looks far better than 1998 3d.

How well is the story told? Seems just fine to me... you start out knowing nothing (though there are clues to more of the story which you probably won't notice your first time through the series (and yes, I mean series, not game)) and it is slowly revealed to you as you progress. It is very easy to figure out where you are supposed to be next and as you do the main quest the story gets revealed to you. It's a bit thin in overall plot I guess in the first BG but it's hardly shallow and it's better than a whole lot or RPGs out there... and when you combine it with the huge depth you get from all the sidequests and exploration and how well they flesh out the world, I see no problems worth nothing. Well, except for that BGII has a more focused and much deeper (more to it) story, fixing that one weakness. :)

Oh, and it's not exactly a generic D&D story... I certainly don't know of many other D&D works where the main character is the child of a god! It's not the most innovative story ever, but it is not a pure cliche (lots of plot twists and plenty of depth are to be found, especially in the later games!). It only kind of seems that way before you get into the deeper part of the series. And besides, there is always the aspect of the world and the depth and complexity they have put into background for the setting... NPCs really flesh out the various places you go in great fashion.

Anyway, the deep history and backstory (most of which is optional reading and doesn't impact the game or your understanding of the plot but increases your knowledge about the world of the Realms and, IMO anyway, is quite interesting... not to mention all the NPCs in towns and everything they have to say! And that stuff actually DOES impact understanding of the game events and areas you're in.), great graphics (from the great character art to the perfect depictions of most of the classic D&D monsters to the beautiful scenery, there is nothing bad here to report), and great soundtrack make the game very involving and, yes, immersive. The BG games can do to me like few others can on the subject of losing yourself... there aren't many other games where I can find myself playing a game for six or eight hours straight without noticing much time has passed, but BG can and does do that. That's immersion. KotOR is good too but doesn't quite compare. BG I, and even more so with BG II / ToB, are some of the best and most immersive games I've ever played.

As for the combat you know my opinion.

KOTOR

Story: Decent. Interesting enough to keep you going, and it's told better than it is in BG.

Immersion factor: Great. Direct controls, over-the-shoulder viewpoint. Makes you feel like you're in the Star Wars universe. Only thing holding it back are unintersting city designs and some camera problems.

Combat: Not as good as BG's, but the first two things more than make up for it.

Story... there is a lot to it and it is interesting. One of the best aspects of the game. Having two completely different paths is also great. It also is a great depiction of the Star Wars universe. Bad points? The character stories seem to move so fast -- if you talk with people each time you can your major party members will have their personal stories done with a lot of game left. Yes, those deep personal backstories are great and one of the strengths of the game, but they could have been spaced out better. It should be more like the main story in BG or BGII -- spaced out across the game, or the portion of the game that that character is in. As it is you get a constant stream from that character for half the game and then it ends. That is not good pacing. Oh, and how about not letting you get stories from the people who aren't in your party? Okay, it might seem irritating. But honestly... why not? I'd improve replayability and make your party member choice (who is with you in missions) matter a lot more... I think that that would have been a great change. Make people actually choose between characters! KotOR doesn't force that issue much, and it's for its detriment. And how about more character-focused sidequests? That is, sidequests where one of yoru party members is the focus of what is happening in the story. Most characters in BGII have one. A few do in KotOR (like the Wookie character on Kashyyyk). It'd be nice to see more of those. And how about more inter-party interaction (that is between your party members and not just you and them)? I know with 3 person parties this is necessarially limited, but BGII has thisto great effect and I wish this game had more of it. Still, the story aspect of this game is quite good.

Comparing it to BG... comparing it to BGI is hard. BGI has virtually no character development... only your character has anything happen. No one else speaks to you or each other. This really is a flaw and it's something BGII fixed in a big way, with character sidequests and party interaction (though not party interaction you can start yourself). However, BG probably has better in-world story -- that is, the backstory you get from each town or area and the people in it. KotOR has this too and it's good, but it's just not as well done as the BG games, and there is less depth in each location. As I've said before, probably the price of trying to do too many too different areas.

Immersion... the graphics are nice. Limiting without up/down look controls, and not with the best art design ever (lots of similar looking areas, a pretty similar look to the graphical design of the whole game... the areas look decent, but they don't look great.), though. The artwork in BGI/II is definitely better from an artistic perspective as well as from a game design perspective (sure, BG has lots of tree-filled zones. But the major areas are quite unique. And BGII has every zone being unique. In contrast KotOR has lots of very similar areas that look like they were just copied and shifted around from other areas... originality, folks! Use some!).

Camera? The camera's okay. Though being able to move it around would be a badly needed improvement (both for up/down and in/out).

And as for combat, I'd agree that it's good but not as good as BG. Less repetition (as in having to re-tell people to continue to doing the action they are already doing) and more control over CPU control (as in being able to disable party AI completely -- only do actions I tell you and nothing more in combat!) would be welcome changes, if paired together (ie having a disable party AI button with this constant-refill scheme would never work). But overall it's pretty good. Less complex than BG combat, and with less special abilities and choices to make, but still deep enough to be pretty fun. BG wins for being more complex and strategic, overall, however.

You get the entire story through boring dialogue trees from NPCs and reading books and scrolls.

Most of the stuff on books and scrolls, as I said, is Realms backstory with no connection to the story of BG itsself... a few books and scrolls are actually about the game story, but only a few. Most of that comes from conversations and the chapter intros. Now I really like that they have so much added world depth with the books, but even I will admit that I don't read them all... there are so many in some areas of the game that it gets tedious and they are just there for interest, not for any effect on your understanding of the games.

As for conversations, of course! Conversations are the lifeblood of non-combat portions of RPGs and adventure games, after all, so I'd be pretty concerned if there weren't plenty of conversations and a reasonable amount of depth to them... RPGs with less conversations often end up as pure dungeon hacks, and while that is fun for a while it is ultimately boring.

[Sacred Jellybean]

*casually watches as Darunia turns blue and passes out*

ABF & OB1: STFU! You're off-topic! Nobody fucking cares about your bickering! For Christ's sake, settle this in PMs!

[Great Rumbler]

I've decided that the best game of 2004 is Katamari Damacy. Thus it is so. *end of discussion*

[Dark Jaguar]

*rolls over award show*

[OB1]

No, not true. You are simply defining 'immersion' in a very different way than I do. I certainly like to get immersed into games... you just define the term in completely different language. I find Baldur's Gate immersive by most ways I can define the term.

Yes, the language I use is called RIGHT, while the language you use is called STUPID.

:poop:

Can you guess that I'm going to strongly disagree? First I do not think of it as bland. The artwork is fine. Beautiful in places, merely good in others, but just fine... it depicts the world it is supposed to as well as I could possibly expect it to. If you want a complaint, it'd be that the other four Infinity engine titles didn't change the NPC sprites very much... yes they are all in the same world but the fourth game with very similar townsfolk gets a bit old.

Anyway... I like D&D's artwork. Though BG's depiction of it isn't the current one (when they did 3rd Edition they redid a lot of the style and artwork), it looks fine... I don't really understand why you call it so bland. It's better than most fantasy worlds, and the Forgotten Realms have plenty of depth (of backstory and how complex and detailed the world is, the Forgotten Realms are the most well fleshed out and complex D&D setting and it shows. Just look at all those books you can find in these games full of stories that don't directly relate to the game but show events in the Realms' long past!) to say the least!

Anyway, that perspective is worlds better than a 3d game would have looked like back then. I'd take that over Daggerfall or something any day... sure Daggerfall was 1996 and this would look better than that but still. This 2d looks far better than 1998 3d.

How well is the story told? Seems just fine to me... you start out knowing nothing (though there are clues to more of the story which you probably won't notice your first time through the series (and yes, I mean series, not game)) and it is slowly revealed to you as you progress. It is very easy to figure out where you are supposed to be next and as you do the main quest the story gets revealed to you. It's a bit thin in overall plot I guess in the first BG but it's hardly shallow and it's better than a whole lot or RPGs out there... and when you combine it with the huge depth you get from all the sidequests and exploration and how well they flesh out the world, I see no problems worth nothing. Well, except for that BGII has a more focused and much deeper (more to it) story, fixing that one weakness.

Oh, and it's not exactly a generic D&D story... I certainly don't know of many other D&D works where the main character is the child of a god! It's not the most innovative story ever, but it is not a pure cliche (lots of plot twists and plenty of depth are to be found, especially in the later games!). It only kind of seems that way before you get into the deeper part of the series. And besides, there is always the aspect of the world and the depth and complexity they have put into background for the setting... NPCs really flesh out the various places you go in great fashion.

Anyway, the deep history and backstory (most of which is optional reading and doesn't impact the game or your understanding of the plot but increases your knowledge about the world of the Realms and, IMO anyway, is quite interesting... not to mention all the NPCs in towns and everything they have to say! And that stuff actually DOES impact understanding of the game events and areas you're in.), great graphics (from the great character art to the perfect depictions of most of the classic D&D monsters to the beautiful scenery, there is nothing bad here to report), and great soundtrack make the game very involving and, yes, immersive. The BG games can do to me like few others can on the subject of losing yourself... there aren't many other games where I can find myself playing a game for six or eight hours straight without noticing much time has passed, but BG can and does do that. That's immersion. KotOR is good too but doesn't quite compare. BG I, and even more so with BG II / ToB, are some of the best and most immersive games I've ever played.

As for the combat you know my opinion.

That's great, you like the crappy stuff it does while I do not. I think you're on to something here, genius.

Story... there is a lot to it and it is interesting. One of the best aspects of the game. Having two completely different paths is also great. It also is a great depiction of the Star Wars universe. Bad points? The character stories seem to move so fast -- if you talk with people each time you can your major party members will have their personal stories done with a lot of game left. Yes, those deep personal backstories are great and one of the strengths of the game, but they could have been spaced out better. It should be more like the main story in BG or BGII -- spaced out across the game, or the portion of the game that that character is in. As it is you get a constant stream from that character for half the game and then it ends. That is not good pacing. Oh, and how about not letting you get stories from the people who aren't in your party? Okay, it might seem irritating. But honestly... why not? I'd improve replayability and make your party member choice (who is with you in missions) matter a lot more... I think that that would have been a great change. Make people actually choose between characters! KotOR doesn't force that issue much, and it's for its detriment. And how about more character-focused sidequests? That is, sidequests where one of yoru party members is the focus of what is happening in the story. Most characters in BGII have one. A few do in KotOR (like the Wookie character on Kashyyyk). It'd be nice to see more of those. And how about more inter-party interaction (that is between your party members and not just you and them)? I know with 3 person parties this is necessarially limited, but BGII has thisto great effect and I wish this game had more of it. Still, the story aspect of this game is quite good.

Comparing it to BG... comparing it to BGI is hard. BGI has virtually no character development... only your character has anything happen. No one else speaks to you or each other. This really is a flaw and it's something BGII fixed in a big way, with character sidequests and party interaction (though not party interaction you can start yourself). However, BG probably has better in-world story -- that is, the backstory you get from each town or area and the people in it. KotOR has this too and it's good, but it's just not as well done as the BG games, and there is less depth in each location. As I've said before, probably the price of trying to do too many too different areas.

Immersion... the graphics are nice. Limiting without up/down look controls, and not with the best art design ever (lots of similar looking areas, a pretty similar look to the graphical design of the whole game... the areas look decent, but they don't look great.), though. The artwork in BGI/II is definitely better from an artistic perspective as well as from a game design perspective (sure, BG has lots of tree-filled zones. But the major areas are quite unique. And BGII has every zone being unique. In contrast KotOR has lots of very similar areas that look like they were just copied and shifted around from other areas... originality, folks! Use some!).

Camera? The camera's okay. Though being able to move it around would be a badly needed improvement (both for up/down and in/out).

And as for combat, I'd agree that it's good but not as good as BG. Less repetition (as in having to re-tell people to continue to doing the action they are already doing) and more control over CPU control (as in being able to disable party AI completely -- only do actions I tell you and nothing more in combat!) would be welcome changes, if paired together (ie having a disable party AI button with this constant-refill scheme would never work). But overall it's pretty good. Less complex than BG combat, and with less special abilities and choices to make, but still deep enough to be pretty fun. BG wins for being more complex and strategic, overall, however.

BG's art is crap. I don't care how you put it, but it's in the same category as the immature goth-kid style that id uses for all of their games. Your tastes need to grow up.

Most of the stuff on books and scrolls, as I said, is Realms backstory with no connection to the story of BG itsself... a few books and scrolls are actually about the game story, but only a few. Most of that comes from conversations and the chapter intros. Now I really like that they have so much added world depth with the books, but even I will admit that I don't read them all... there are so many in some areas of the game that it gets tedious and they are just there for interest, not for any effect on your understanding of the games.

As for conversations, of course! Conversations are the lifeblood of non-combat portions of RPGs and adventure games, after all, so I'd be pretty concerned if there weren't plenty of conversations and a reasonable amount of depth to them... RPGs with less conversations often end up as pure dungeon hacks, and while that is fun for a while it is ultimately boring.

Like I said before, you don't know what good storytelling is.

[A Black Falcon]

I don't know why I bother when I know you will come back with idiotic "responses" like that one... sure my post was a bit confusing (that always happens when you go back and add in paragraphs without rewriting the whole thing), but still... I really hate it when I spend a long time to make a post like that one and you clearly ignore it and don't pay any attention to what I have to say. I mean, to all that all you can say is "you are wrong and stupid and my opinions are right and your are dumb"? Do you HONESTLY expect me to take your opinions seriously when you so clearly do not act like a person who should be listened to? I guess I just expect too much when I hope you will act intelligently...

I spent something like 45 plus minuites on that post. It looks like it took you five mintuites to throw out that reply. Sure you don't need to be as detailed as I was but you could at least TRY to actually make it a debate... or discussion, or whatever... it only becomes an arguement because you want it to with how you act, I think.

[A Black Falcon]

BG's art is crap. I don't care how you put it, but it's in the same category as the immature goth-kid style that id uses for all of their games. Your tastes need to grow up.

You make no sense. This and Doom? Huh? Their art styles have nothing in common! It's about trying to be high fantasy as western high fantasy has always been drawn. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a great art style.

Also, you need to grow up and realize, like many adults do, that their view of the world is not absolute... people who don't realize that don't act as grown up. The way you constantly insist that your way is the only way that could ever be right is not acting like an adult. This discussion is a case in point.

I don't understand why you hate D&D artwork so much... so it is influenced greatly by past fantasy. So? All fantasy is! It's not the most unique graphical style ever but very few games are truly unique... but what I really don't get is what you want from the graphics. I'd say that making them very well done fantasy artwork should be the goal and they succeed at that. And it's not like D&D has nothing unique... lots of the monsters are unique to D&D! Sure stuff like Orcs, Trolls, and Goblins are all over but D&D (and, to be specific, the Forgotten Realms) have all kinds of unique monsters... Illithids, Beholders, Gelatious Cubes, etc, etc... and anyway I think that basing your artwork on high fantasy as we know it is the right choice. D&D IS high fantasy, so any other choice would be kind of silly I think...

It also depends on what you mean by 'art'. Do you mean character art or backgrounds? I think the monsters are fine and the backgrounds are fantastic for the most part, but I'd admit that the character (and NPC) art could be better in the BG engine... in that respect KotOR probably wins. But once I look beyond the characters and look at the world as a whole I cannot give it the victory. BG's backgrounds are just so much better looking than the mostly mediocre 3d environments in KotOR... as well as larger (or larger seeming at least) and more varied.

But as I said in the previous post the biggest problem here isn't that, it's how you ignore everything I say. I talked about so many issues and you pull out this one that has been beaten to death before... why? Don't want to bother to actually 'think' about what I was saying? And it doesn't really work in other ways too... after all, that segement was primarially about KotOR, not BG (yes I was comparing the two, but it was as much about KotOR as BG...), which you would have known had you actually read it.

Like I said before, you don't know what good storytelling is.

I'd love to hear why you think you are oh so much more knowledgable than everyone else about this... but I understand storytelling just fine. And BG has a decently done story... but as I said, it has problems with slow pacing (that is, how the story is quite drawn out and you get it little bits at a time interspaced with lots of gameplay). I don't mind that much because there are all kinds of people to talk to and new places to go, but when I compare it to BGII I understand what Bioware meant when they said that BGI's story was a problem (and the result of a freshman effort)... BGII's is much deeper and more complex and keeps moving at a much better pace.

As for the optional reading books, I guess you are comparing that to Metroid Prime and your opinions on story there, but it doesn't work, I think. Prime's optional reading directly explained the game's backstory. The vast majority of the BG optional reading (books and scrolls) does not do that. They tell self-contained tales that have no bearing on the game and are just there to read for fun if you wish. That isn't bad storytelling because it doesn't really have an effect on the overall game's story!

[OB1]

I don't know why I bother when I know you will come back with idiotic "responses" like that one... sure my post was a bit confusing (that always happens when you go back and add in paragraphs without rewriting the whole thing), but still... I really hate it when I spend a long time to make a post like that one and you clearly ignore it and don't pay any attention to what I have to say. I mean, to all that all you can say is "you are wrong and stupid and my opinions are right and your are dumb"? Do you HONESTLY expect me to take your opinions seriously when you so clearly do not act like a person who should be listened to? I guess I just expect too much when I hope you will act intelligently...

I spent something like 45 plus minuites on that post. It looks like it took you five mintuites to throw out that reply. Sure you don't need to be as detailed as I was but you could at least TRY to actually make it a debate... or discussion, or whatever... it only becomes an arguement because you want it to with how you act, I think.

I've probably spent a total of ten years repeating myself over and over to you (amazing considering that TC has only existed since 1999), so excuse me if I don't feel like wasting any more of my time on your inane retorts.

You make no sense. This and Doom? Huh? Their art styles have nothing in common! It's about trying to be high fantasy as western high fantasy has always been drawn. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a great art style.

Yes, what I meant was that the styles are exactly the same. Well done, Brian. Well done.

They both share immature dark art styles commonly seen drawn by that one brooding kid from 8th grade english class.

Also, you need to grow up and realize, like many adults do, that their view of the world is not absolute... people who don't realize that don't act as grown up. The way you constantly insist that your way is the only way that could ever be right is not acting like an adult. This discussion is a case in point.

I love it how you criticize me for acting like my opinion is fact when the post in question was a response to a comment you made about BG's art being objectively better than KOTOR's! If only this hypocrisy were something new from you I could get a kick out of it.

I don't understand why you hate D&D artwork so much... so it is influenced greatly by past fantasy. So? All fantasy is! It's not the most unique graphical style ever but very few games are truly unique... but what I really don't get is what you want from the graphics. I'd say that making them very well done fantasy artwork should be the goal and they succeed at that. And it's not like D&D has nothing unique... lots of the monsters are unique to D&D! Sure stuff like Orcs, Trolls, and Goblins are all over but D&D (and, to be specific, the Forgotten Realms) have all kinds of unique monsters... Illithids, Beholders, Gelatious Cubes, etc, etc... and anyway I think that basing your artwork on high fantasy as we know it is the right choice. D&D IS high fantasy, so any other choice would be kind of silly I think...

It also depends on what you mean by 'art'. Do you mean character art or backgrounds? I think the monsters are fine and the backgrounds are fantastic for the most part, but I'd admit that the character (and NPC) art could be better in the BG engine... in that respect KotOR probably wins. But once I look beyond the characters and look at the world as a whole I cannot give it the victory. BG's backgrounds are just so much better looking than the mostly mediocre 3d environments in KotOR... as well as larger (or larger seeming at least) and more varied.

But as I said in the previous post the biggest problem here isn't that, it's how you ignore everything I say. I talked about so many issues and you pull out this one that has been beaten to death before... why? Don't want to bother to actually 'think' about what I was saying? And it doesn't really work in other ways too... after all, that segement was primarially about KotOR, not BG (yes I was comparing the two, but it was as much about KotOR as BG...), which you would have known had you actually read it.

If I ignore anything it's because either a) I don't think it needs to be responded to or b) it's something I've responded to far too many times already and I refuse to repeat myself.

BG's art is very unappealing to me, it's the type of art I kind of liked a bit when I was younger and in my dark art phase, and since then I've discovered that there are more colors than just grey and black and that even then this sort of stuff wasn't doing it well. There's no soul in that art, it's as bland and generic as can be.

I'd love to hear why you think you are oh so much more knowledgable than everyone else about this... but I understand storytelling just fine. And BG has a decently done story... but as I said, it has problems with slow pacing (that is, how the story is quite drawn out and you get it little bits at a time interspaced with lots of gameplay). I don't mind that much because there are all kinds of people to talk to and new places to go, but when I compare it to BGII I understand what Bioware meant when they said that BGI's story was a problem (and the result of a freshman effort)... BGII's is much deeper and more complex and keeps moving at a much better pace.

As for the optional reading books, I guess you are comparing that to Metroid Prime and your opinions on story there, but it doesn't work, I think. Prime's optional reading directly explained the game's backstory. The vast majority of the BG optional reading (books and scrolls) does not do that. They tell self-contained tales that have no bearing on the game and are just there to read for fun if you wish. That isn't bad storytelling because it doesn't really have an effect on the overall game's story!

ABF, I'm sorry but you haven't the slightest clueas to what good storytelling is. I don't fault you for that, but continuing to think that you are knowledgeable about this when in reality you're completely clueless of the facts only make you look stupid. You think that as long as the ingredients are in there somewhere, it doesn't matter how it all comes together. Bad storytelling and good storytelling is like making a pie. Even if all of the same individual ingredients are there, it all comes down to the construction of the pie and how it is presented. You can't just mix all of the ingredients in one giant bowl and stick it in the oven. That's now how it works. There's a certain order of things, you have to layer everything carefully, know what to mix together and when to add it in.

[A Black Falcon]

They both share immature dark art styles commonly seen drawn by that one brooding kid from 8th grade english class.

BG's art is very unappealing to me, it's the type of art I kind of liked a bit when I was younger and in my dark art phase, and since then I've discovered that there are more colors than just grey and black and that even then this sort of stuff wasn't doing it well. There's no soul in that art, it's as bland and generic as can be.

Strange depiction, because I would not say that the BG art style is particularly dark... well Sarevok is, but he's the bad guy so he's supposed to be that way. :) But I guess I don't really know what you mean... I haven't taken a class in art in ... what is it, nine years now?... Lack of color? Huh? Seems perfectly colorful to me in the places where there should be color... the main problem is that the game is fantasy-medieval and the medieval world just wasn't that colorful. It does what it can with stuff like letting you choose your clothing colors, but there's only so much they can do if they want to have a remotely accurate fantasy-medieval world... The forests are all brown, green, and grey, but that's how it should be. Similarly towns are medieval town colors. Water is blue. BG only really has two environments (town and forest) but both are decently done. Not super colorful but they shouldn't be... medieval homes were not purple. :) And there are some colorful parts... see temples! The temples, especially the ones in BGII with giant statues, are often truly beautiful... Anyway, I just do not know what you mean by that. The only theme I can think of for BG, and all D&D art, is to be similar overall to the themes that fantasy art (such as book covers) has established over the decades. And it is.

I've probably spent a total of ten years repeating myself over and over to you (amazing considering that TC has only existed since 1999), so excuse me if I don't feel like wasting any more of my time on your inane retorts.

I'm sure the amount of time I have spent repeating myself to you has been longer...

I love it how you criticize me for acting like my opinion is fact when the post in question was a response to a comment you made about BG's art being objectively better than KOTOR's! If only this hypocrisy were something new from you I could get a kick out of it.

I've said a million times that it's supposed to be implied (and maybe even stated -- I know I've said before that it's my opinion that overall BG beats KotOR artistically...) that it's my opinion... and as for that, it's not just quality that affects it. Technical issues matter a lot, as I think I made clear... the hardest part is that it's just really tough to compare the art in a 2d game and a 3d game. They are so different that a direct comparison is hard. It's also hard to seperate from the gameplay, for me... when I think of the KotOR art (for cities particularly) I can't help but factor in how the cities are so limited into that, for instance. And KotOR is a pretty good looking game. What is there to complain about? As I've said, similarity and the graphics engine, mostly, as well as their design choices for zone quantity (and to a lesser degree size -- though with this design style I wouldn't really want them bigger).

As for BG, because of how much I love those games I probably have a tendency to ignore similar issues in those games -- how some areas aren't as good looking as they could be (like Baator... I imagined more of the place...), how bars are all so similar looking, homes based on a few maps that are just varied by who is in them and where you can find items, etc... I'll admit that. But KotOR uses repetitive map styles not just for the insides of buildings but for the outside areas as well, while the closest you can get to that in BG (and only in BGI, not II) is how so many zones were full of trees. Which was certainly repetition but it was something Bioware fixed in their next game... strange they reneged when they went to NWN. 3D doesn't have to be that way.

[OB1]

Strange depiction, because I would not say that the BG art style is particularly dark... well Sarevok is, but he's the bad guy so he's supposed to be that way. But I guess I don't really know what you mean... I haven't taken a class in art in ... what is it, nine years now?... Lack of color? Huh? Seems perfectly colorful to me in the places where there should be color... the main problem is that the game is fantasy-medieval and the medieval world just wasn't that colorful. It does what it can with stuff like letting you choose your clothing colors, but there's only so much they can do if they want to have a remotely accurate fantasy-medieval world... The forests are all brown, green, and grey, but that's how it should be. Similarly towns are medieval town colors. Water is blue. BG only really has two environments (town and forest) but both are decently done. Not super colorful but they shouldn't be... medieval homes were not purple. And there are some colorful parts... see temples! The temples, especially the ones in BGII with giant statues, are often truly beautiful... Anyway, I just do not know what you mean by that. The only theme I can think of for BG, and all D&D art, is to be similar overall to the themes that fantasy art (such as book covers) has established over the decades. And it is.

No, you are very much wrong about that. Wanna see good, non-generic fantasy art? Look no further than Frank Frazetta. Dark, medieval, but not bland or generic:








Now I don't expect BG to look a tenth as good as Frazetta work, but it's still bland and uninteresting.

I'm sure the amount of time I have spent repeating myself to you has been longer...

Only in your delusional mind, my very young apprentice.

I've said a million times that it's supposed to be implied (and maybe even stated -- I know I've said before that it's my opinion that overall BG beats KotOR artistically...) that it's my opinion... and as for that, it's not just quality that affects it. Technical issues matter a lot, as I think I made clear... the hardest part is that it's just really tough to compare the art in a 2d game and a 3d game. They are so different that a direct comparison is hard. It's also hard to seperate from the gameplay, for me... when I think of the KotOR art (for cities particularly) I can't help but factor in how the cities are so limited into that, for instance. And KotOR is a pretty good looking game. What is there to complain about? As I've said, similarity and the graphics engine, mostly, as well as their design choices for zone quantity (and to a lesser degree size -- though with this design style I wouldn't really want them bigger).

As for BG, because of how much I love those games I probably have a tendency to ignore similar issues in those games -- how some areas aren't as good looking as they could be (like Baator... I imagined more of the place...), how bars are all so similar looking, homes based on a few maps that are just varied by who is in them and where you can find items, etc... I'll admit that. But KotOR uses repetitive map styles not just for the insides of buildings but for the outside areas as well, while the closest you can get to that in BG (and only in BGI, not II) is how so many zones were full of trees. Which was certainly repetition but it was something Bioware fixed in their next game... strange they reneged when they went to NWN. 3D doesn't have to be that way.

I don't think KOTOR looks great or has great art, but it does look better than BG. IMO.

[Darunia]

I'm glad someone retitled this thread---because it breaks my mighty Goron heary to see my lovely thread about Tales of Symphonia being warped and mutated by these two--HOOLIGANS into a debate! Can't you two learn to love one another? Peace, harmony and understanding---those are the Goron ways!

[OB1]

Well... he started it...

[Great Rumbler]

Whatever. *goes off to play Tales of Symphonia*

[OB1]

Pfft.

[Darunia]

GR, You have Tales of Symphonia... :shiggy2: ?

[alien space marine]

We will have to see how KOTOR II the sith lords does to improve the game.

[A Black Falcon]

Now I don't expect BG to look a tenth as good as Frazetta work, but it's still bland and uninteresting.

That artwork reminds me of lots of fantasy artwork... 'generic' in many senses of the word. But the first thing I thought of when I saw it was Warhammer. Seems like it looks a bit like Warhammer art styles... more that than D&D for sure. Anyway, whatever. If you say so. I don't see it or agree.

Or Hero Quest? :)

Only in your delusional mind, my very young apprentice.

My thinking is that because my posts are usually longer I spend more time writing them...

I don't think KOTOR looks great or has great art, but it does look better than BG. IMO.

Characters I can see, but the environments and backgrounds? While BG certainly has plenty of stuff that is merely decent some is also quite beautiful... KotOR looks pretty good at times too, sure, but never quite as good I think.

(wish I could just post the images, MobyGames has some great ones! Much better than IGN or Gamespot's. So click.)
http://www.mobygames.com/game/shots/p,3/gameId,2465/






Compare those to the graphics in BGI and you'll see how much it improved in game two. ( II above link and images, I below)

http://www.mobygames.com/game/shots/p,3/gameId,712/

[OB1]

That artwork reminds me of lots of fantasy artwork... 'generic' in many senses of the word. But the first thing I thought of when I saw it was Warhammer. Seems like it looks a bit like Warhammer art styles... anyway,whatever. If you say so. I don't see it or agree.

Hahaha, I can't believe you just called Frank Frazetta art "generic". My God. All of your favorite video game art copies heavily from Frazetta but can neither come close to matching his incredible talent nor begin to imagine something new and original like Frazetta did. That right there shows your complete and utter ignorance and ineptitude towards all art.

Man...

*shakes head in disgust*

My thinking is that because my posts are usually longer I spend more time writing them...

You go off on tangents all of the time. I'm the one who has to constantly repeat myself.

Characters I can see, but the environments and backgrounds?

Great screenshot.

[A Black Falcon]

Great screenshot.

I thought that would happen.. fixed it. Though for the better shots you'll have to click the link.

You go off on tangents all of the time. I'm the one who has to constantly repeat myself.

This has something to do with time? From my perspective it's frequently either similarly lengthed short(er) posts or long ones from me and shorter ones from you...

Hahaha, I can't believe you just called Frank Frazetta art "generic". My God. All of your favorite video game art copies heavily from Frazetta but can neither come close to matching his incredible talent nor begin to imagine something new and original like Frazetta did. That right there shows your complete and utter ignorance and ineptitude towards all art.

Man...

*shakes head in disgust*

The first shot looks like a pretty normal piece of fantasy art, though as I said not in D&D's style. The second is different but in the same line. The third doesn't really look like fantasy, more like history.

And as for D&D, there is one thing you might be missing. When they moved to third edition they changed the art style of D&D quite a bit and standardized a lot of it... that's why Icewind Dale II in some ways looks quite different from BGII. One thing they did in 3.0 is changed the non-human races to make them look less human... and different from other fantasy-world races. For instance Elves are actually shorter than humans, not taller...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ag

Here's the Forgotten Realms campaign guide, specifically.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20010614b

[OB1]

This has something to do with time? From my perspective it's frequently either similarly lengthed short(er) posts or long ones from me and shorter ones from you...

Tangents = longer posts. Longer posts = more time.

The first shot looks like a pretty normal piece of fantasy art, though as I said not in D&D's style. The second is different but in the same line. The third doesn't really look like fantasy, more like history.

And as for D&D, there is one thing you might be missing. When they moved to third edition they changed the art style of D&D quite a bit and standardized a lot of it... that's why Icewind Dale II in some ways looks quite different from BGII. One thing they did in 3.0 is changed the non-human races to make them look less human... and different from other fantasy-world races. For instance Elves are actually shorter than humans, not taller...

Look. Brian. I'm just going to stop you right here before you embarrass yourself any further. Frank Frazetta is the Van Gough of fantasy art, so to give it nothing but the highest praise only shows your ignorance of this subject. It's okay that you can't tell a masterpiece from a piece of crap, but it's not okay that you're denying this. Please, for your sake, just stop where you are.

That art you posted is not bad, it's obviously comic book-inspired (probably done by comic artists), but it's like comparing Spider-Man 2 to Citizen Kane. Spider-Man 2 is a good movie in its own right, but it's nowhere near the same league as Kane is.

[A Black Falcon]

How about the BGII screenshots? Or even better the Mobygames page... the Harper Hold (which I tried to post) is IMO one of the most beautiful places in the series. That and places like the Temple of Lathander...


Hmm... actually, thinking about it more those shots you posted really make me think of Conan covers... even more so than the Hero Quest box (HQ is by the people who made Warhammer if you didn't know).


So if BG has such awful art what games have good art (considering the limitations of resolution, etc)? Compared to most games out there BG's artwork is great!

[OB1]

How about the BGII screenshots? Or even better the Mobygames page...
the Harper Hold (which I tried to post) is IMO one of the most beautiful
places in the series. That and places like the Temple of
Lathander...

I've already played the game, so you don't need to post screens. The
backgrounds are all well-rendered and I admire the artists' hard work,
but they are still very aesthetically bland to me.

Hmm... actually, thinking about it more those shots you posted
really make me think of Conan covers... even more so than the Hero Quest
box (HQ is by the people who made Warhammer if you didn't know).

That's because everyone copied him.

So if BG has such awful art what games have good art? Compared
to most games out there BG's artwork is great!

I never said the art was awful, just bland and uninspired. Wanna
know which games I think have terrific art? Here's a few...


Metroid Prime/Echoes:

The concept art is more impressive than the in-game art, but it's
definitely the finest-looking first-person game on an aesthetic level.









Okami:

From the makers of Viewtiful Joe comes this gorgeous platformer-type game that looks like a painting.












ICO:

The most beautiful game ever made, by far. It raised the bar so high for art in games that no one but the same developer has been able to match it. Screens don't do the game justice, but I'll post some anyway.
























And then of course there's Wanda and the Collosus, which looks like it might even topple ICO in terms of artistic direction:

[Dark Jaguar]

Wanna know what kind of art I like?

Too bad!

Actually I've been kinda obsessed with Syberia lately, a game with an amazing art style. It uses all these subdued colors everywhere that makes it look just great and fits the whole style of it. Plus, there are super high tech retro automatons (amazingly natural movement, but gear powered, noodle THAT one for a while) and mammoths everywhere!

[OB1]

Syberia has pretty nice art, even if it is all FMV...

And you already told me that you can't tell the difference between bad art and good art. :)

[Dark Jaguar]

And oh yes, if anyone gets Syberia, you need to get Syberia 2 as well. Like Shenmu and Xenosaga, the story is being told in chapters. So you'll get to the end only to feel like it's about halfway to the end.

[A Black Falcon]

I've already played the game, so you don't need to post screens. The
backgrounds are all well-rendered and I admire the artists' hard work,
but they are still very aesthetically bland to me.

I don't think you have ever said that you have played Baldur's Gate II, so no, to the best of my knowledge you have not played the game. And as I said BGII is clearly better looking than BGI so you cannot just say that they are the same. They are not, in graphics, gameplay, story, etc. Similar yes. The same? Not at all.



As for those screenshots, way to answer my question and post shots of RPGs... Ico is great looking but it isn't an RPG. That Okami game... stylized, but I wouldn't say it's THAT great... it looks fine, sure. But among a 'most beautiful games ever' list? And as for Metroid, those shots don't exactly show off the title's style... still, it is a very good looking game for sure. Not in those pictures so much, but it is. Defininitely far better looking than KotOR... though it's in a different genre and everything. And that really is important... comparing things to similar products. Within the RPG genre BG looks quite good. Of course others look nice too... but I'd definitely say BG looks good. And I happen to think its art style is just fine. I will say that I don't understand this "dark" thing you are talking about though...

Syberia has pretty nice art, even if it is all FMV...

FMV? No, it's not FMV, it's rendered... there is a difference there...

[OB1]

I don't think you have ever said that you have played Baldur's Gate II, so no, to the best of my knowledge you have not played the game. And as I said BGII is clearly better looking than BGI so you cannot just say that they are the same. They are not, in graphics, gameplay, story, etc. Similar yes. The same? Not at all.

I've played both.

As for those screenshots, way to answer my question and post shots of RPGs... Ico is great looking but it isn't an RPG.

Wait, so if they're not RPGs you can't compare? What great logic.

That Okami game... stylized, but I wouldn't say it's THAT great... it looks fine, sure. But among a 'most beautiful games ever' list?

Yes you see, I know what good art looks like while you think Baldur's Gate has great art. You think Frank Frazetta is generic. You do not know what good art is.

And as for Metroid, those shots don't exactly show off the title's style... still, it is a very good looking game for sure. Not in those pictures so much, but it is.

That doesn't make an ounce of sense. They don't "show off the title's style"? I didn't post many shots, but they perfectly capture the style of the Prime series.

Defininitely far better looking than KotOR...

And a hundred times better than any Baldur's Gate game.

though it's in a different genre and everything. And that really is important... comparing things to similar products. Within the RPG genre BG looks quite good. Of course others look nice too... but I'd definitely say BG looks good. And I happen to think its art style is just fine. I will say that I don't understand this "dark" thing you are talking about though...

But of course you don't. And that's because you are precisely that type of goth-kid audience that those PC developers cater to.

FMV? No, it's not FMV, it's rendered... there is a difference there...

Well I wasn't sure if it was taken from FMV or not. And you mean pre-rendered, not just plain rendered. But pre-rendered backgrounds are the same concept as FMV, as in that they are not real-time 3D.

[A Black Falcon]

Well I wasn't sure if it was taken from FMV or not. And you mean pre-rendered, not just plain rendered. But pre-rendered backgrounds are the same concept as FMV, as in that they are not real-time 3D.

Those are ingame shots (or mostly are, at least). I do think that it's probably pre-rendered, though.

Yes you see, I know what good art looks like while you think Baldur's Gate has great art. You think Frank Frazetta is generic. You do not know what good art is.

Looking at game and book fantasy art today, yes, that is definitely a very common style... so what's wrong with saying so? How would I know when it's made?

I've played both.

And you still say such things about Baldur's Gate. Utterly bizarre. Just utterly bizarre.

Wait, so if they're not RPGs you can't compare? What great logic.

Because traditionally adventure games have often been graphical showcases, while RPGs have most definitely not been. And much more of the game of an adventure is about looking at the world and interacting with it while much more of the game of a RPG is about the complex game system and combat... so no, a direct comparison really doesn't work that well.

That doesn't make an ounce of sense. They don't "show off the title's style"? I didn't post many shots, but they perfectly capture the style of the Prime series.

They are decent I guess... but Prime looks best not in a single shot but when you look around a room...

The one problem with its engine is that everything is so angular. But it seems to be a concious stylistic choice.

And a hundred times better than any Baldur's Gate game.

You know I'll disagree here. :) Sure Prime has better art direction than BG, but given how dramatically different the games are it's tough to compare... BG is about top-down static drawings of areas, while Prime is about a crafted world all around you. Very different goals and implementations... KotOR is partway between and doesn't match up to either end.

But of course you don't. And that's because you are precisely that type of goth-kid audience that those PC developers cater to.

I don't know what you mean by that but it sure sounds like an insult... to me and to BG. I mean 'goth'? What in the world? You make no sense! How does that have anything at all to do with BG?

[OB1]

Those are ingame shots (or mostly are, at least). I do think that it's probably pre-rendered, though.

Yes, I just explained what pre-rendered means. Thanks for listening.

Of course it's pre-rendered.

Looking at game and book fantasy art today, yes, that is definitely a very common style... so what's wrong with saying so? How would I know when it's made?

The only thing common is that most fantasy artists today try to rip off Frazetta's style. But it's still very easy to tell apart a real Frazetta from an imitator. This just shows that you cannot tell the difference between good art and generic art.

And you still say such things about Baldur's Gate. Utterly bizarre. Just utterly bizarre.

What things? That the art is bland?

Because traditionally adventure games have often been graphical showcases, while RPGs have most definitely not been. And much more of the game of an adventure is about looking at the world and interacting with it while much more of the game of a RPG is about the complex game system and combat... so no, a direct comparison really doesn't work that well.

Oh so what you're not admitting is that BG is in fact bland-looking, but that compared to other PC RPGs it looks great. Fine, I will agree with that.

They are decent I guess... but Prime looks best not in a single shot but when you look around a room...

The one problem with its engine is that everything is so angular. But it seems to be a concious stylistic choice.

*sigh* Brian, look, just give up. You can't appreciate good art. Live with it.

You know I'll disagree here. Sure Prime has better art direction than BG, but given how dramatically different the games are it's tough to compare... BG is about top-down static drawings of areas, while Prime is about a crafted world all around you. Very different goals and implementations... KotOR is partway between and doesn't match up to either end.

Wait, you make excuses for BG by saying that it's impossible to compare the two because Prime is 3D and everything, yet you still side with BG? How sad. Baldur's Gate is a prime example of the general uninspired artwork in most PC games. PC gamers like it for some reason, maybe because they only care for technical prowess and don't care for artistic merit. That's fine, but you're still fighting it for some idiotic reason.

I don't know what you mean by that but it sure sounds like an insult... to me and to BG. I mean 'goth'? What in the world? You make no sense! How does that have anything at all to do with BG?

I couldn't think of a better term for it. It's all of the "dark, evil, demons and warlords" type of stuff that you guys eat up. Id's games are the best examples of that, and you guys actually think it looks good! Baldur's Gate is the same, as is Fallout. I don't know what it is, but I think it ties into the whole "sunlight = evil" thing you got going for ya. Light = bad, dark = good.

[Dark Jaguar]

I do believe gothic is a word that described the style of old world cathedrals with gargoyles camped on them.

I snapped a bunch of screen shots here and there. A lot of those ARE from FMVs actually. Some are from locations. It really isn't conveyed as a static image though. The motion draws you in. It's the sort of thing REbirth did, use FMVs as backgrounds. That's likely the best way to do things when the camera is static.

Actually, Syberia, while having more interaction than the demo, does have less interaction than in, say, Monkey Island 3 (which also uses "pre-rendered" (if you count hand drawings as rendering :D) backgrounds). It would be nice to be able to examine stuff. Rather they focused on interacting with stuff. Still, it's a full world that really feels fleshed out. I'll take some pics with the character in them. The characters fit into the scenes pretty well considering. I will say the least artistically inspired character is the MAIN one... She's the only one from America though, so I suspect, given the game's story, that her whole look was actually intended to be in stark contrast and look more like an American game character. The second game has a LOT more animation in the backgrounds than the first, which is great.

[A Black Falcon]

I do believe gothic is a word that described the style of old world cathedrals with gargoyles camped on them.

Yes, and that is what the term should be used for... Medieval cathedral architecture. That is, big and ornate...

Actually, Syberia, while having more interaction than the demo, does have less interaction than in, say, Monkey Island 3 (which also uses "pre-rendered" (if you count hand drawings as rendering ) backgrounds). It would be nice to be able to examine stuff. Rather they focused on interacting with stuff. Still, it's a full world that really feels fleshed out. I'll take some pics with the character in them. The characters fit into the scenes pretty well considering. I will say the least artistically inspired character is the MAIN one... She's the only one from America though, so I suspect, given the game's story, that her whole look was actually intended to be in stark contrast and look more like an American game character. The second game has a LOT more animation in the backgrounds than the first, which is great.

Interaction = good. It makes games better. Interaction and looking at things for definitions. I know it sure made, for instance, Eternal Darkness a whole lot better... Myst dropped that from the genre. Syberia's demo had almost none. Hence my comment that Syberia felt a lot like Myst, between the not-really-seeming-like-they-were-really-there people and the non-interactive nature of the environment...

I'll certainly admit that the graphics are beautiful though.

That last one made me think a little of Grim Fandango... now Lucasarts adventure games, those often had great artwork. And Grim was possibly the best of the lot. ... okay, the 3d wasn't that great, but still.. the backgrounds! The artwork! And with such style... if I didn't have to go now I'd go find some screenshots to post. :D

[Dark Jaguar]

The style was nice, a mixture of Mexican art and a sense of those old detective movies (think what Cowboy Bebop is obviously based off of). Not only is that what they were going for, they actually succeeded in it :D.

I agree, interaction is always good. More always is better, even in the sense of adding lots of false leads in puzzle adventure games :D. Syberia is still very fun though. Just NEVER cave and check an FAQ for the answer though. That defeats the whole point :D.

[OB1]

Yes, and that is what the term should be used for... Medieval cathedral architecture. That is, big and ornate...

What are you guys old women or something? Ever heard of slang before?

[Great Rumbler]

You know what games has just about the best art style ever? Monkey Island 3. The art in the game was just beautiful to look, but then I'm kind of a sucker for water-color style graphics in a game. But it wasn't just that, it was the way that it was drawn. I can't believed they changed it for MI4, even though it had a similar style for the backgrounds it just didn't seem as good prerendered.

[OB1]

Yeah, the MI games are gorgeous. Well, not the first one. :)

[Great Rumbler]

The first and the fourth were the low points graphically for the series. It seems weird that the fourth would be there, but the 3D models weren't that great and the backgrounds just couldn't compete with MI3. I love MI3, it's one of the few games that I can play over and over without getting tired and still be amazed at how good the game looks.

[OB1]

Yeah, 2 and especially 3 look great.

[Great Rumbler]

I hope the make MI5 with the same graphics style as MI3.

[OB1]

And M:I.

[Great Rumbler]

Yeah, that would be cool too...

[OB1]

...

[A Black Falcon]

Monkey Island... the fourth one is the worst overall and graphically. The third is the best. Then the first... the second I haven't played. I think the first one looks great for its time. When you consider the limitations I think it looks really nice... not as good as MI3, but still, Secret is a game which is great for its graphics as well as its fantastic gameplay. What do you mean it doesn't look that good? Especially if you like the work in game two, the shots I've seen say that the style is pretty similar... but the first game definitely looks good. Though it's the script that is by far the game's biggest highlight...

What are you guys old women or something? Ever heard of slang before?

Oh I've heard it, but I think the term would be best used for what it was meant for for centuries...

The style was nice, a mixture of Mexican art and a sense of those old detective movies (think what Cowboy Bebop is obviously based off of). Not only is that what they were going for, they actually succeeded in it .

I agree, interaction is always good. More always is better, even in the sense of adding lots of false leads in puzzle adventure games . Syberia is still very fun though. Just NEVER cave and check an FAQ for the answer though. That defeats the whole point

I always cave and use FAQs in adventure games. Every time. Ah well, they are still fun... though I think that that's a big part of why I beat Secret of Monkey Island in about three days. :D


Here's another one I've always liked a lot. Rayman 2. Not the best quality screenshots certainly, but better than nothing...





Here we go, Grim. Such great backgrounds! Perfect execution of a cross of a detective style and Mexican artwork and design...

[Dark Jaguar]

I loved that look for the world of the living :D. I know, it's teen angsty and stupid and all, but every now and then it's fun to just sorta hate on all humanity :D.

If my mother and I ever start one of these sorts of games at the same time, she always gets ahead of me by the end... She's frickin' GOOD at these sorts of games. She also totally hates to get hints of ANY kind. She is the reason I have this "gamer's code" engraved on my soul.

[A Black Falcon]

If my mother and I ever start one of these sorts of games at the same time, she always gets ahead of me by the end... She's frickin' GOOD at these sorts of games. She also totally hates to get hints of ANY kind. She is the reason I have this "gamer's code" engraved on my soul.

I've found that it's fun to work together in adventure games... as long as I get the controls. :D

[OB1]

Oh I've heard it, but I think the term would be best used for what it was meant for for centuries...

Many words have modern slang second meanings. Live with it.

Rayman 2 had great art, along with all of Michel Ancel's games. And Grim Fandango, of course.

[A Black Falcon]

Many words have modern slang second meanings. Live with it.

Doesn't stop me from thinking it's kind of dumb. :)

Rayman 2 had great art, along with all of Michel Ancel's games. And Grim Fandango, of course.

I'd say Rayman 3 wasn't quite as good because it just copied Rayman 2 (and not quite as successfully), while Rayman 2 was new and different... but Ancel wasn't behind Rayman 3 so that isn't too surprising. They just copied past success in gameplay as well. Anyway, French games have a reputation for good graphics, often weird stuff, and also often poor gameplay... at least they used to... don't know how true the gameplay part is, but the art one often is true.