The Lost Vikings

[MrHoatzin]

...greatest platformer evre!

[Jayel]

It's my favourite puzzle/platformer ever!

The sequel was cool too.

I always thought that it'd make an interesting multiplayer game.

[MrHoatzin]

The sequel, having not been made by the Blizzard people (as far as I remember) was lacklustre. The graphics were 3d pre-rendered, but the resolution was downright deplorable, I thought, for the year it came out in... It was ultimately too fuzzy and had less detail than its predecessor... and whereas I remember all the Lost Vikings levels more or less sortof in order, I hardly remember anything from Norse by Norse-West... well, there was a dragon of some sort and a warewolf that joined the band of three from time to time... and uh... there was an ice level... in the StarWars universe...

[toblix]

Isn't it about time someone made a really crap real-time 3d sequel to this?

[ragnar]

Nope, the best platformer ever is Monty on the run.

[MrHoatzin]

Isn't it about time someone made a really crap real-time 3d sequel to this?

Pretty much, only without the 'really crap' part. If Prince of Persia rocked as it does in 3d so should perhaps The Lost Vikings.

[Alex]

If Prince of Persia rocked as it does in 3d so should perhaps The Lost Vikings.

Take a look at Prince of Persia 3D and you'll find out soon enough that another dimension does not a great game make.

[MrHoatzin]

Aw, fuck you Alex! Why did you have to remind me of that game?! Years of therapy ruined!

[toblix]

Okay, so it could possibly work in 3D, but why risk it? When I make a list, off the top of my head, of which game series benefited from a 3D makeover, and which series were screwed long and far up into the ass by it, it looks something like this:

Winned:

- Prince of Persia (eventually)

Reamed:

- Lemmings

- Simon the Sorcerer

- Broken Sword

- Worms

And that's just off the top of my head!. Clearly 3D sucks.

[MrHoatzin]

I haven't played the new Worms, so I cannot say if it rocked or flopped, but... er... I sortof liked Lemmings 3D. It was godawful navigating the place, but otherwise I felt it was a good game, if a little hard... As far as Harry Potter Simon the Sorcererrerer goes, the game was totally rushed and destroyed, and how much 3d is to blame for the perceived badness of Broken Sword is questionable... Gabriel Knight Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned was a good adventure in 3d. It was ugly, but the 3d in no way hindered the gameplay, it helped it in its own silly way.

So it is really up to the good will and dedication of the Blizzards.

[AFGNCAAP]

Hi, I just got to chime in (and register, for that matter), when I saw this topic! Lost Vikings are truly the most charming puzzle/platformer mix I know. My only complaint is that I never did finish one particularly nasty level. It comes two or three levels before the end and at one point you have to use trampolines to jump over three (?) consecutive series of spikes. The bloody spikes are also on the ceiling, so the slightest mistake kills you... er... kills me. It's frustrating.

OK, so it's not nasty. I suck. But the game is still brilliant

[Alex]

Reamed:

- Simon the Sorcerer

Oh for fuck's sake, POP3D may have been the root of steve's personal problems, but you have just brought home to me some of the darkest hours of my life!

I remember...I can see the colours...so...so bright...burning my eyes...how...how so ugly...

that was bad, so very very bad.

But on another point, i don't think broken sword was absolutely reamed. it wasn't as enjoyable as the first two (leave out the fucking box puzzles you mongs) but i wouldn't say it was an unbearable horror. It should have been darker.

[toblix]

Well, I had to polarize it somewhat to make a point, so I'll try rephrasing. Oh, and for the record, I loved Broken Sword 3, but it still validates my point, which is:

In almost all cases where a game series has gone from 2D from 3D, there either hasn't been anything gained at all, or there is gained so little it probably wasn't worth it. Take Simon the Sorceror, for example (sorry Screwie). The story could probably (I didn't even finish it, so I might be wrong here) be told using a standard point-and-click 2D interface.

Instead of this:

We could have this:

In high-res

Instead of this:

We could have this:

Instead of this:

We could have this:

Instead of this:

We could have this:

For the record, I think all the "We could have this:" pictures look a ton better. If you don't, I suspect you have no genitalia.

[Kolzig]

You should try NOT to use Mobygames images.

[Alex]

I suspect that moby games are on to you. run now for your life or, alternatively, host those pictures somewhere else.

[toblix]

What, don't tell me my web cache has fooled me! Do the images appear all sucky? Here, let me reload.

[toblix]

Aw, crap. That's the last time I attempt to link to images from Mobygames.

Well, instead of the first MobyGames image, imagine a screenshot from the terrible Simon the Sorcerer 3D. It depicts a wizard consisting of five polygons standing in a vast landscape consisting of seven polygons.

The second image is a beautiful wooden scene from Simon the Sorcerer 1. It has beauty and charm, but is a bit low-res, hence the "in high-res" comment.

The third image would be a screenshot from Broken Sword 2, hand drawn and detailed and wonderful.

The third image would be an image from Worms 2 or something, with nice, cartoony graphics and fun for all the children.

Now, with these comments in mind, read the post again.

[Alex]

That's deep.

(Fruitcake)

[toblix]

Yeah, if I didn't know any better, I'd say it's deeper than a Magic Eye picture, the ending of The Sixth Sense and a Lynch movie of your choice, combined.

But I'm not the only one here on this retro gaming forum who prefers most good low-res 2d graphics over today's usual crapaloni 3D, am I? And I'm not talking about the Unreal 3 engine or CryTek or whatever. I'm talking about the developer houses like Revolution and Adventuresoft, who can't make or afford to buy proper 3d engines. I'm sure Blizzard could've cooked up some neat-o stuff with their wads of money. It's sad that those who're not able to make decent 3d are forced to anyway by the evil market.

[Alex]

Shit 3D is possibly one of the worst afflictions ever borne by humankind. For games like adventures where you actually have to spend time looking at the game in order to proceed, they should never have considered using a sub-par engine.

[Kolzig]

Yeah, if I didn't know any better, I'd say it's deeper than a Magic Eye picture, the ending of The Sixth Sense and a Lynch movie of your choice, combined.

But I'm not the only one here on this retro gaming forum who prefers most good low-res 2d graphics over today's usual crapaloni 3D, am I? And I'm not talking about the Unreal 3 engine or CryTek or whatever. I'm talking about the developer houses like Revolution and Adventuresoft, who can't make or afford to buy proper 3d engines. I'm sure Blizzard could've cooked up some neat-o stuff with their wads of money. It's sad that those who're not able to make decent 3d are forced to anyway by the evil market.

No, you're not alone.

[ragnar]

But why either 2D or 3D, why not both? And what do you think Team 17 should have done with worms anyway? They have done literally everything to the game in 2D, so the natural step is to explore 3D. And for Broken Sword, I won't agree that the second game looks better, just a little bit different, but not better. And for Simon, all games should be put in the garbage bin.

[toblix]

But why either 2D or 3D, why not both? And what do you think Team 17 should have done with worms anyway? They have done literally everything to the game in 2D, so the natural step is to explore 3D. And for Broken Sword, I won't agree that the second game looks better, just a little bit different, but not better. And for Simon, all games should be put in the garbage bin.

Well, I guess it's hard to combine 2d and 3d. I mean of course the whole system of interaction, not just the graphics technique. In a 3D game there's a set of rules defined by three-dimensional space and in a 2d game there's one defined by the plane. If someone uses 3d graphics in a 2d game, by all means, go right ahead. What exactly do you mean by using both 2d and 3d?

Of course, you have a point about Worms. They had used up the game system, but is 3d then the natural next step, or could they've done something different in the two dimensions they began with? Did they have to make a new Worms game?

I agree that Broken Sword 3 doesn't look bad (I regret using it in my other post up there). In fact, I was surprised in a good way when I played it. I still feel it would've been better in 2d, though, because in games like these visuals matter so much, and with today's standard of 3d graphics there just isn't enough detail to fill the extra space 3d opens up. I'd much prefer a couple of detailed drawings or paintings of a flat, where the level of detail is up to the artist (and the resolution), over a room where, even though I can turn around to look everywhere, there isn't any reason to because it doesn't look good enough.

And finally, you didn't like Simon the Sorcerer 1 & 2? I loved them. Why didn't you enjoy them?

[Alex]

And finally, you didn't like Simon the Sorcerer 1 & 2? I loved them. Why didn't you enjoy them?

I loved them but when the talkie version of SS1 came out i nearly died. Even headed by the fabulous chris barrie it was abysmal. Dear god.

[Huz]

I loved them but when the talkie version of SS1 came out i nearly died. Even headed by the fabulous chris barrie it was abysmal. Dear god.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it was always a talkie game with a floppy version for cheapskates, the same as other adventure games of the era. Er, wasn't it?

I loved the talkie version of SS1 - one of those games where the lines being spoken actually improved them - but SS2?! Who was that they had replacing Chris Barrie?! Ugh.

I thought I'd spare myself Simon 3D, so I couldn't possibly comment.