Thyroid Posted February 27, 2009 I came across this game today. It's hard to believe it was made in 1991: although little interactivity is involved, it's well ahead of its time technologically. (Also it's a bit of a weird trip.) Actually, I'd say this is probably the most interesting game I've ever seen. It looks like a movie, and has a certain interactivity to it - but not a full one. How would you improve on a game like this? This is more of a cutscene than a game - interesting. How would you make it fully interactive? Right now the only thing I can think of is making it button-press interactive, like a Choose Your Own Adventure - turn left instead of right, etc. What do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted February 27, 2009 I think this is one BIG HUGE PHAT quick time event which is to say basically, one, as previously mentioned BIG HUGE PHAT pain in the lower parts of my back. Who would you improve it ? Let's see, you'd have to give some freedom in the choice of path to the player, and maybe lower the annoying beeps. And maybe give it better graphics... Like 3D graphics. Now that's the good recipe to make a Dragon's Lair 3, and it would pretty surely make a shitty game from my point of view. So you'd start again, and make the player wander around in a huge castle filled with monsters pursued by a fat hag and run in every possible direction, hopping that he (the player) will be smart enough to discover every trap you prepared for him, try his chance everywhere and really freely, not on rails. That'd be kind of a closed open world, would make a great game I think Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted February 27, 2009 It'd be better if you didn't have that annoying flashing yellow light and beeps, and could just enjoy the film without pressing buttons all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SignorSuperdouche Posted February 27, 2009 The draw of this game at the time was that the graphics were incredible. If you make it more interactive then you can either stick with the hand drawn animation and hand animate every possibility or go for more traditional computer graphics techniques and loose the game's visual appeal. Neither option would really be viable. I think Dragon's Lair is important as a failed experiment to learn from, but it could never be a game I'd want to play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted February 27, 2009 And maybe give it better graphics... Like 3D graphics. Whoa! You must be crazy. Those are awesome hand-drawn cartoon frames! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted February 28, 2009 I'm bewildered there's someone in the Idle Thumbs forum that doesn't know about Dragon's Lair. Dragon's Lair 1, 2, and Space Ace can be found in many arcades still rotting in their original cabinets. They must have all been repackaged for nearly every system. The amount of times they have been reported and said to have "new graphics and sequences" and to be "just like the original" on the PC or DVD is probably in the dozens now. I think these three Don Bluth games might be the kings of shovelware. Isn't the original "game" the one that basically created quick time events? Who would you improve it ? Let's see, you'd have to give some freedom in the choice of path to the player, and maybe lower the annoying beeps. And maybe give it better graphics... Like 3D graphics. Here's said game: Now that's the good recipe to make a Dragon's Lair 3, and it would pretty surely make a shitty game from my point of view. You can also buy a recording of someone playing said game and control their recording by completing the correct quicktime events! I'm not trying to be a cranky forum member, nor am I a Don Bluth fan, but if this is a joke, I guess I'm the butt. Anyways, Dragon's Lair 2 is probably the best example of what they were trying to achieve. the "inventory" system they had added a little bit of depth, as well as making it much more clear with what you are supposed to do with the flashing objects and ledges. It was probably the least buggy and best timed out of all of Don Bluth Laserdisc series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fineline Posted February 28, 2009 I Dragon's Lair 1, 2, and Space Ace can be found in many arcades still rotting in their original cabinets. Indeed, my local cinema has an ancient DL2, can't imagine the hundreds of sticky hands have been on that joystick . . . must say I waste more money on Marvel vs. Capcom 2 wait'n for my films. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted February 28, 2009 Whoa! You must be crazy. Those are awesome hand-drawn cartoon frames! It was kind of a cynic comment but yeah, fuck it i'm crazy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted February 28, 2009 You must be. When has anything good come of converting something from hand-drawn 2D to 3D? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted February 28, 2009 Monkey Island 3 was pretty sweet, and Prince of Persia Sands of Time does kick ass compared to the second ^.^ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted February 28, 2009 Man, all those polygons in MI3 were sweet. And the first Prince of Persia game that had 3D graphics was... Prince of Persia 3D, which sucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SignorSuperdouche Posted February 28, 2009 MI3 had some of the best hand drawn art in a game I've ever seen, MI4 (which, I assume, is the game you meant) didn't look nearly as nice. In fact it looked positively ugly in comparison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted February 28, 2009 I actually am still in shock about how ugly EMI was. What was wrong with LucasArts? Why did their craftsmanship go down the toilet (After Grim Fandango I mean)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted March 1, 2009 Man, all those polygons in MI3 were sweet. And the first Prince of Persia game that had 3D graphics was... Prince of Persia 3D, which sucked. You are both right on the MI3 thingy which is just completely erased from my memory cause I didn't play it, so I jumped from the second one to the fourth which you will admit is quite an improvement although it was a shitty example cause it looks more like computer drawn than hand drawn... Ok my bad I suck I'll kill myself later on... Btw, Prince of Persia 3D was pretty decent compared to other 3D stuff that I was playing at that time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SignorSuperdouche Posted March 1, 2009 I jumped from the second one to the fourth which you will admit is quite an improvement Hell. No. MI2 is gorgeous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted March 1, 2009 Hell. No. MI2 is gorgeous. It's so cool It's really neat It's super duper But beautiful... eeeerm no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted March 1, 2009 Oh I dunno. The art style has definite charm, and if you can appreciate pixel art you can find plenty to like in MI2. Looking good does not necessitate high resolution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted March 1, 2009 That's in essence what I find: charm, check, liking the graphics, check, beautiful, definitely no >_> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SignorSuperdouche Posted March 1, 2009 I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted March 1, 2009 I guess... That's strange, I can't find any beauty in the contemplation of this picture, it's sure awesomely wicked and strangely distorted kind of in a german expressionism way, burtonesque picture I would say, But I dunno... Sure is interesting and all but my beauty chord is not rang by this... I loved the game btw •^.^• Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted March 3, 2009 Please don't call it "Burtonesque." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted March 3, 2009 Please don't call it "Burtonesque." Is there a reason for that? Cause in the 80's he drew stuff at Disney's when the game was not out, he was drawing distorted houses since the beginning Genesis 1:12 And god created creepy distorted gothic houses and shit, and saw it was good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted March 3, 2009 Burton didn't invent distorted cartoon landscapes at all, and that screengrab is not gothic, nor really that creepy. I'm guessing that's a Steve Purcell background, although it's hard to tell without seeing the original scan as the pixels obscure the original stroke quality. I'm pretty sure there are little to no influences from Tim Burton's underdeveloped scribblings in his paintings and comics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
