http://www.lucasarts.com/products/freelancepolice/

Well, one of my favorite adventure games looks as if it's going to get a sequel. Sadly, they seem to have choosen 3D as the medium to display it in. Since Sam and Max is a comic, you'd think they stick to some really nice 2d art. The screenshots look depressingly lifeless.

I kind of think they should've gone with cel-shading, but everybody here probably hates that.

Cel-shading? That's like the new Zelda game, right? That would indeed provide some sort of 'comic' feel, but you'd probably need a super computer to get it to look as sharp as good "2D" graphics. I'll admit it can look really good for a certain style of games... I just don't know if Sam & Max really 'need' that kind of graphics.

That's exactly the point: Why does everything these days have to be in 3D? Sam & Max is a comic, so why not just make it looks like one? This 'concept art' shown on the site looks really good. What prevents them to make make the game look like that? Instead, they have these really cold and lifeless rendered screenshots. Bah

I've never totally adjusted to 3D. It's also a shame I can't play the DOTT/Sam N Max CD unless I use my ugly computer with the sound blaster pro card, or whatever the problem is.

Have you heard of ScummVM?

I think I looked into that once, but doesn't work for the CD version as I recall.

EDIT: actually, I looked and it says, "Both disk and cd versions are supported by this target." Hm, guess I'll have to try it out then.

Edited by A E I at 00:32 on June, 11th 2003

Sam N Max appears to run fine. I tried the Loom CD too, but it crashes when you try to play the the egg draft in the beginning, then the console reports an out of memory error.

EDIT: But I tried running ScummVM in Win98/Me compatibility mode and it appears the problem went away.

Edited by A E I at 05:29 on June, 11th 2003

I thought Cel-Shading would be a compromise. It let's the authors have the freedom of a 3D environment, while letting the Same & Max fans have the atmosphere and "feeling" of a comic.

AEI: Good to hear

Goat: I have no idea what 'cel-shading' is. Could you show me a screenshot using it?

Here's a short article and some screenshots, they're not huge but you'll get the idea.

Looking at those screenshots, I don't see why you'd need to have 3D rendered models in the first place for those effects.

The cel shading does look like it would be more fitting for San N Max.

BTW, ScummVM is a smooth emulator really. You can pause and speed up the game, use a large or small window, etc.

Actually, ScummVM isn't an emulator, but an interpreter

So if I understand this correctly, we've come to a point where instead of using 2D-animations (which are easier I suppose seeing as game older then x years uses them), we're using 3D-models with special techniques to make em look like 2D? What's the bloody point in that? Why not use 2D-animations then? Seems somewhat more logical...

I think the huge advantage of having a 3D-modelled location in a game is that you could have the player freely look at it from where he/she wants without having to draw all those frames by hand. Of course, like I said before, I think a lot of games don't need that freedom.

As for 'looking like 2D': everything on my screen looks pretty much 2D... so unless you have a holographic projector or something that remark makes no sense.

Edited by The Mole at 17:43 on June, 11th 2003

I'll bet that everything on your screen looks 2D seeing as at the time of typing you were looking at the post-form of this page But if you were playing eg. SoF2 everything on your screen would be 2D but look 3D... Else you would only be able to walk left and right and jump and duck. A holographicly projected image however doesn't just look 3D but is 3D (just non-solid)... So as a conclusion my remark makes perfect sense

Edited by Pada1 at 17:55 on June, 11th 2003

So, the battle of wits has begun...
In your dreams...
I don't get it; what does the moving around have to do with "looking 3D" as you call it? You could always make a game with the same possibilities by just drawing every frame by hand, pixel by pixel - and this for all different available resolutions of course - without ever modelling anything in 3D, and you would say it "looks 3D" because it attempts to create an illusion of depth.

What I'm trying to say is different working methods have different advantages, but in the end they can produce the exact same result because everyone is limited to a screen that paints a certain amount of pixels in two dimensions only - which I think you agree with because you said it would be 2D.

Hence I think if you say Soldier Of Fortune II "looks 3D", you have to admit that a screenshot from that game, or a photo of your backyard, "looks 3D" too, regardless of whether you can walk around in it or not - I mean, I really can't accept that as an argument. In the new Zelda game, for example, you could do all the same things you can do in Soldier Of Fortune II... So you'd have to admit that "looks 3D" too (or - according to you - else you would only be able to walk left and right and jump and duck). So then you would be contradicting yourself:
Wow, I'm tired.

I want to see that photo of Pada's backyard.

Basically, cel-shading has 2D moving objects placed over a 3D background. You guys haven't played Jet Grind Radio or Jet Set Radio Future?