PDA

View Full Version : Myst V Classic graphics vs 3D



LobsterGumbo
07-15-2005, 09:13 PM

dawnadunn
07-15-2005, 09:37 PM
Lobster...

I think you need to put in another option:

either/or

If a game has great puzzles...and...great visuals I'll adjust to whatever format is being used. I try not to get too wrapped up in the technology and just ENJOY the game..!

neo...1
07-15-2005, 10:29 PM
Maybe a " no preference" or "doesn;t matter" choice would be good Lobster. If it it isn't too much trouble. I have already voted!
Thanks for setting it up! Very cool! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ivanxuereb
07-16-2005, 12:15 AM
The story and gameplay have to be immersive. If a game keeps crashing wheter if it's 3d or rendered it's not immersive. Simple as that.

Alahmnat
07-16-2005, 02:05 AM
I'm not 100% certain a poll can be edited to include additional options after it has been created on these forums... if not, feel free to start a new one if you feel a third option is needed, and I'll lock this one so we don't have two running simultaneously.

And just to chime in on the subject, I don't personally think it matters either way how the game is presented. If the game has a high quality of workmanship, then I appreciate and enjoy it regardless of the format. There's some truly abysmal pre-rendered games out there, just as there are some truly abysmal realtime games out there.

Coronagold
07-16-2005, 03:28 AM
I like the prerendered versions more because of the detail. I'm not so concerned about moving about everywhere. They aren't FPS games, where movement really counts.

On the other hand, I really love fly modes that you can only get with fully 3D rendered games. Taking pics in fly mode is infinitely fun.

LobsterGumbo
07-16-2005, 08:48 AM
Okay third option is in, Neo I think dawnadunn's either/or option covers "no preference" or "Dosen't matter" but get back to me if you want them added in.

Regards

neo...1
07-16-2005, 06:25 PM
Hey Lobster well done...just spent some considerable time responding in the 3D characters forum! You just HAD to show me that forum didn't you huh!?
Love what you've done here...and think you're right, either or should take care of it...unless you start noticing a different need.
Just another suggestion if even possible....maybe re-phrase the question a bit. Put in the words or numbers 2-D in addition to listing MYST RIVEN EXILE REVELATION or 3D URU realMYST & MYST V coming soon. Possibly add the word rendering...it kind of takes graphics up a notch but not necessarily. I don't know...I still know exactly what you mean so...just throwing an idea out there for you if you had any other concerns!
Take care! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hey Alhamnat...I just want to say...I respect you very much for your knowledge & insight...just actually came from your "lengthy" response in the 3D Character forum. I do truly respect the quality & workmanship involved in any game really...but as you know....my hang-up has always been with the MYST series. I respect the work involved in URU & the upcoming MYST V ...no doubt. But it's just that experience I've grown to love that the other two games don't provide. So I agree with everything you say....even not caring about the difference of "format" but certainly with MYST as the exception and/or a Myst-Like game! Said another way...there are probably games better suited for 2-D then they are for 3-D and obviously I think all the MYST games are better suited this way....

mr._hacker_dude
07-26-2005, 06:14 PM
I think graphics do matter to a certain point. I want Myst to be believable and immersive. For me that won't happen if everything looks cartoonish and the people aren't real. That's not to say that it will totally ruin the game, but you can be sure this one will not be one of my favorites.

frenyo
07-30-2005, 04:32 PM
I'd vote 3D, although IMHO classic could be equally immersive. 3D is growing better and better in quality as technical side grows stronger. 3D landscapes are already near photorealistic (in an interview Rand told that Myst V would be better compared to Uru) - but the price of that we can go everywhere is that textures become blurred when they are under our very nose.

LordAkira110
10-13-2005, 11:41 AM
Just trying to keep this up top. If you havent voted please do.
In a game that you want to be immersed in, graphics do matter. You either feel more immersed in one format or another. Sure some games graphics are moot. I still play all the old Final Fantasys. BUt myst is the type of game that you get immersed in. and graphics are part of that.

notMark1
10-13-2005, 12:15 PM
I prefer 3D graphics to prerendered because 3D has greater detail. Yes, you read that right. I can get up close to objects and those little things that are just not resolvable from the angle that the prerenderers chose to render from. I can look at them from all angles, which is far more detail than can ever be put into a prerendered scene. It is far more real to me.

However, I must say that I really liked the option in Myst V to quickly switch back and forth between free movement to node-based to help with alignment. Alignment is very tricky without having an avatar.

I also believe that the 3D images in the current game are better than the original Myst image quality. In time, real-time 3D will pass Riven, then Exile, then Revelation. Technology advances. Some day real-time 3D will be indistinguishable from looking at a real scene in real life, and, when that happens, prerendered won't be any better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mr_Picklesworth
10-13-2005, 12:42 PM
The prerendered games appear to have more in the way of desks that are completely covered in little objects to play around with, but I'm sure that Myst 5 could have has this in 3d. (However, either that sort of stuff didn't fit with the game or they decided to make it easier by not doing so... I think it's a mixture of both).

Anyways, I like the 3d in Myst 5. It doesn't look quite as wonderful, but it's much easier to figure out what the heck is going on. I remember playing Myst 4, in Tomahna, at hte start of the game, I would click and find myself miles away from where I previously was. With Myst 5's control scheme, I can follow the movements so it doesn't get confusing when a stopping spot is miles away from my previous position or when it's a crowded and busy area. Adds to the immersiveness when you're not wondering about things that you wouldn't be wondering about in real life.

Besides, the real-time renderer in Myst 5 works great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also allows for nicer water effects, better placed and potentially randomly placed animals, (Myst 4's animals were done beautifully, but they were placed beforehand).

Also, had Myst 5 had more of that backstory detail, it would have been nicer to observe those little things from multiple angles.


So... the graphics in Myst 4 are fantastic, making it, in theory, a much more immersive game. However, the feel of Myst 5 as a result of the way that the graphics are drawn is much nicer, which adds to immersiveness in a different way.

Myst 5's 3d viewing is better detail than both Myst 1 AND Riven. "What???" I hear you exclaim. Well, try running Riven on a mid-range computer. See the tiny image? Now try making it fit onto your 1280x1024, or even 1024x768 desktop. Painful, isn't it? So, Riven may look nicer, but that only counts if you can actually see it without losing your eyes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

neo...1
10-13-2005, 01:49 PM
To Mark:

As much as I may have read your comment "right":

"I prefer 3D graphics to prerendered because 3D has greater detail."

It doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely "right"...right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Each person -as has been discussed at length in the "Anyone else bumbed out..." thread... seems to have their own take on what you describe. Feel free to come on over & add to it! Basically...some people agree with you, some do not & some don't care either way.

As you said.. "in time" 3D will pass the games you mention... I believe you are "right" in saying this...and this isssue of technological advancement has also been discussed in the other thread so I won't delve into it again here. The point is though...that we may be close but we're just not there yet. For me when it comes to RIGHT NOW & with the MYST series in particular... 2-D pre-rendered is what it should have stayed with all along.

Also... have you noticed an improvement to pre-rendered since the first MYST? You should have...which also illustrates the fact that 2-D has also made advancements. Play RIVEN then REVELATION and it should be pretty obvious to you. As far as detail goes... well...because the 2-D games in MYST have WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY more detail in my opinion...I'm not going to even go there. Just because you can get up close to objects doesn't necessarily mean they have more detail. If you think they do... I'll just say to me that they still look like 3-D or fake. While the 2-D renderings come across as extremely realistic or "photo realistic." Come over to the other thread if you get some time as I don't want to go on & on about this again here...

To Mr. Picklesworth:

Sorry for the brief response but I'll just say that I think the water in REVELATION was FAR superior to the water anywhere encountered thus far in MYST V for me. Both in Tomanah & in Serenia. The water was JUST LIKE real water. I can remember in Serenia being able to get close to the water flowing & being utterly amazed at how realistic it was when it flowed. I wanted to scoop up a cup as it made me thirsty!

Time to go finish MYST V!

ZeusmeisterX007
10-13-2005, 08:36 PM
The water on Haven and Tohmahna was the best. Serenia's was lacking any flotsam and bits in it. It looked too plasticky.

Tohmahna's had one small mistake though. The wake left in the water by the 3-stop elevator isn't done properly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

neo...1
10-13-2005, 09:39 PM
hmmmmm.... I think Serenia's water was the purest. I didn't find it "plasticky" at all. That's why I wanted to drink it...because it didn't have "little bits" of anything including plastic in it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif While I'm at it... what's the comparison to? WIthin the MYST series... I have to say REVELATION'S water is superior to MYST V - URU or any of the other games...so I give it "kudos" as I'm hearing this term being used a bit more lately...

oopzie
10-14-2005, 09:06 AM
I think we're still just at the very beginning of real 3d's potential.. give it 5 years and maybe you wont be able to tell the diffrence from realtime 3d and prerendered 3d anymore.. its just starting to get there and the freedom and feeling you get by being in 3D space, more than makes up for the "unreal" look of characters... besides, its not as if you couldnt recognize Atrus and Yeesha.. is it (I wonder how many realized that the faces of the models were animated/filmed and wrapped around the 3d models head? .. just look at the .BIK files found in the Myst V dir..)

so for the time being.. either/or really.. prerendered still has an edge visually but its dissapearing fast. .realtime 3d gives a lot of things that for me, more than makes up for the slight lack in photorealism..

neo...1
10-14-2005, 01:44 PM
Yeah it certainly does need some time & it is pretty exciting to think ahead what things will be like down the road! As I stated about a hundred times before (not here obviously)...I look forward to the day that 3-D will offer the possibility of REAL PEOPLE/LIVE ACTION integrated into photo-realistic pre-rendered quality worlds (not just some ingenious helmet or technology that measures facial expressions and/or body movement). Unfortunately until then...the freedom you mention & feeling of being in 3-D space...doesn't make up for ANYTHING but rather... further takes away from the experience when it comes to a MYST game for me knowing that the possibility to be better visually & realistically is actually there. But to each their own! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Alahmnat
10-14-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by neo...1:
As I stated about a hundred times before (not here obviously)...I look forward to the day that 3-D will offer the possibility of REAL PEOPLE/LIVE ACTION integrated into photo-realistic pre-rendered quality worlds (not just some ingenious helmet or technology that measures facial expressions and/or body movement).
And as I've mentioned before, this will never be possible because of the differences in the formats. Live-action people cannot be composited into a realtime scene because they would be imported into the scene as a 2-dimensional plane with a video image projected onto it, not 3-dimensional geometry. The only reason live-action works in pre-rendered games, TV shows, and movies is because actors are composited into final scenes which have been rendered out and are now 2D images of a 3D space. You can layer multiple 2D images on top of one another without end and as long as the camera movement and lighting match, the scene will still look correct, and the people will appear to exist within a CG scene. It's a trick of the eye, and one which only holds up under certain circumstances. Brains are weird like that.

Realtime is simply impossible to pull this off with because you're no longer interacting with a 2D image, you're basically exploring the game's geometry files fully lit, textured, and animated. Granted, the output still appears to be 2D because it's being projected onto a computer screen, but the actual dimensionality of the image is completely different. Compositing live-action into a realtime scene would be identical to trying to drop the video plate of a character into a game's scene file before rendering the final image. The result in both instances is, at best, a close approximation of an actual character, provided they never move around and the camera is locked in place (this is why live-action Atrus still sort of worked in realMYST... he was stuck behind the desk and you couldn't move while he was talking. Any other time in the room, though, he was a low-poly CG avatar with Rand's face mapped onto his head). However, more often than not, what you end up with is a very flat-looking character who seems to float through the scene because their movements are being approximated by an animator dragging the video plate through the scene as best they can to mimic the actor's steps.

The only way to have dynamic, "animated" (by which I mean "walking and talking") characters in a realtime game is to use actual geometry and map textures of the actor and their clothes onto them. Anything else simply fails to work in a realtime scene in any practical application of the technology.

neo...1
10-14-2005, 03:48 PM
Hey Alahmnat!

Thanks for the continued insight! Well...all that to say...thinking ahead now... beyond the basis of today's technology...I still like to think or hope that one day in the future...the possibilty will be discovered... somehow...someway. I'm not sure I could say never as certain as you are stating it with all the remarkable advancements in technology. On today's technological basis sure...I understand completely what you are saying and always have.

At the very least... I know Yeesha's REAL face & acting surprisingly found its way into MYST V as was briefly shown on a couple "display monitors" (which frankly was a tease to me & also puzzled me as to why she would record herself saying those things...but I'll just chalk that up as "she's a little nutso"). Anyhow... I know this is a frozen, direct & limited display of her so it was more feasible to do...but I'm thinking creatively towards the future...as to more evolved possibilities. Maybe even if the scene is frozen...if the adaptation of the real person could be integrated smoothly & realistically... it can & will get better in time. I have to say that this is possible. I think the graphic quality of 3-D (as many have mentioned before) will certainly improve & hopefully match photo-realistic quality. I could certainly stand some scenes being frozen with live-actors in a photo-realistic 3-D world that I could then explore after the sequence ended...that's perfectly similar to what 2-D offers today with its "frozen" scenes. You might be able to look away or around but not move when someone is delivering their lines.

In any case... I know now is not the time... but I still remain hopeful in the future of technology... regardless of today's practical applications & limitations.

Bottom line of all this discussion for me though... is based on here & now... that 2-D is definitely the way to go for photo-realism & live action obviously!

larsschermer
10-14-2005, 05:33 PM
And as I've mentioned before, this will never be possible because of the differences in the formats. Live-action people cannot be composited into a realtime scene because they would be imported into the scene as a 2-dimensional plane with a video image projected onto it, not 3-dimensional geometry. The only reason live-action works in pre-rendered games, TV shows, and movies is because actors are composited into final scenes which have been rendered out and are now 2D images of a 3D space. You can layer multiple 2D images on top of one another without end and as long as the camera movement and lighting match, the scene will still look correct, and the people will appear to exist within a CG scene. It's a trick of the eye, and one which only holds up under certain circumstances. Brains are weird like that.
actually as soon as the data leaves the graphics card its not longer geometry but a set of instructions for the monitor, and well€¦effectively a 2D image. One could imagine the possibility of compositing live action characters into the 3D geometry, sometime in the future. But it would require some heavy processing and a lot of memmory also it would require introduction of the 2D character video at an awkward time in the graphics pipeline. You would effectively have to account for the 2D video 30 time pr. Second and also introduce different angles of the video on the fly, to account for your own avatars movement. More likely I think we€ll just see more and more improvement in 3D engines, like in Dex€s diner in starwars where Obiwan Kenobi is 3D generated.

Alahmnat
10-14-2005, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by larsschermer:
One could imagine the possibility of compositing live action characters into the 3D geometry, sometime in the future. But it would require some heavy processing and a lot of memmory also it would require introduction of the 2D character video at an awkward time in the graphics pipeline. You would effectively have to account for the 2D video 30 time pr. Second and also introduce different angles of the video on the fly, to account for your own avatars movement.
Not to mention having to somehow dynamically adjust the layering output of the character so that they can walk behind and in front of other CG objects in the scene, to say nothing of trying to cast shadows on objects when you start taking dynamic lighting into account... if the character is being filmed from a fixed location it's *slightly* less insane because you can green-screen the foreground objects, then strip the green in realtime, I suppose, but if you grant the player the ability to wander in the scene, you can throw green-screen manipulation right out the window.

neo...1
10-14-2005, 08:41 PM
As a bit of a side note...as larsschermer mentioned the scene in Star Wars Episode II...the last I heard/saw...Lucas poured (and may very well continue to pour) a good deal of money into the Presidio in California. I actually just took a visit out there. I was hoping for a tour...but maybe next time. I don't know much but I do know there is some serious brainstorming going on with that man & the people wealthy enough to rent the space. One of the many buildings (like in the image below) right now is dedicated solely to gaming:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/05/12/mn_presidio_164_db.jpg

I'm not sure how much Lucas is willing to invest in other games beyond Lucas Arts... however if I may speculate...as he has made leaps & bounds setting standards in technology from the start of Star Wars...I'd like to think he will continue to do so with the billions of dollars he has...maybe this also means gaming? I know it is an avenue he's really interested in...& God knows he is capable. This would mean also not having to write cheesy screenplays either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The poor guy tried so hard! I did love Episode III though!