3D updates of the classics

[Atarinvader]

I've been building 3D games recently, and want to do a few updates of classics, what would you guys recomend as working well in that extra dimension?

 

I've started on a version of Asteriods, but its just not working out very well.

[Doc4]

Holy crap! I think you should bust up some Dolphin. That game is amazing. Being forced to listen to the sound wave to determine your swimming height and depth. But then again I sure would love to see some 3-D Aventure. I love that game. Definitly not Doom-like though something more like, Resident Evil. But Adventure 3-D. OH YEAH

[StanJr]

Yeah, 3D Adventure, still with the VCS graphics, though. No upgrades, just our good ol' Adventure in 3D.

[Atarinvader]

quote:

---

Originally posted by StanJr:

Yeah, 3D Adventure, still with the VCS graphics, though. No upgrades, just our good ol' Adventure in 3D.

---

 

This would be pretty easy to do aswell. I'll look into it, maybe get started in a minute and post some screen shots.

[Mindfield]

Well, I actually think that updating the graphics wouldn't hurt, as long as the gameplay remained completely unchanged. Ditto for level layouts 'n stuff.

 

How 'bout an updated Haunted House? Or Spike's Peak and Ghost Manor? (I used to have that Xonox double-ender and played it to death. :-)

 

Ooh, a 3D version of Riddle of the Sphynx! That'd be cool...

[ATARIPITBULL]

What's going on here? I hit your link but nothing comes up atarinvader.

[Atarinvader]

The site is down AGAIN!!!!!!!! Grrrrrrr....someones gonna get hurt!

 

 

3D adventure, the spheres are just there to give an idea of perspective. This is basicaly how I figure it would look.

[mos6507]

Camera perspective is key when moving a 2D game to 3D. Almost all 2D games require full 360' perspective in order to see oncoming threats. Robotron is a good example. Adventure too. In Adventure you need to see the dragons and the bat whether you are facing them or not. Otherwise you can get cheap-shotted.

 

That's why I think most 2D games do not benefit from the 3D perspective because you wind up either doing a slightly tilted overhead perspective (so why bother??) or a first person perspective where you rely mostly on a tiny 2D radar.

 

Without the radar you'd need to constantly rotate to check behind you which would be visually annoying to everyone but FPS experts.

[Mindfield]

Actually, you don't really need to go with the radar if you have decent audio cues. If you're walking ahead somewhere and you hear some creature plodding around somewhere in your vicinity, then you check if something's behind you -- just like reality.

 

Or you could do a bit of a radar thing that pops up only when something's close by -- y'know, maybe have an arrow pop up pointing in the general direction of the pursuer.

 

Also just like in real life. :-)

[StanJr]

Or the character could have a Spidey sense, just like real life...err...

[Atari-Jess]

I like LCARS, but thats Star trek, hell even my windows doesn't look like windows anymore seriously! but getting back to topic, I agree, although adventure in 3d is cool unless the dragons move slow enough when behind you and are somewhat noisy, its gonna be much harder than the original!

[Atari-Jess]

Oh and BTW stan, I dont seem to have a spidey sence persay, its more of a AGR sence, I can seemingly sence where the Ass Grabbing Robots are and if they are about to attack yuno?

[Atarinvader]

Thats the problem I found with Asteriods, so I'm going to add 2 'radar' one on the XY and one on the YZ.

 

Asteriods seems to be going quite well now so I'll continue with that for a bit then put it up for download.

[uosipa llamxew]

...

Edited September 23, 2005 by mojofltr

[Inky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by atarinvader:

Thats the problem I found with Asteriods, so I'm going to add 2 'radar' one on the XY and one on the YZ.

 

Asteriods seems to be going quite well now so I'll continue with that for a bit then put it up for download.

---

 

There was a psuedo-3d (read: Can't move up or down) 3-D version of asteroids floating around the net. This one is different because it uses the Arcade roms! I used to have it, but can't remember where I got it.

 

I'd like 3-D Yar's revenge...

[slapdash]

Monster griefan an wrote:

quote:

---

Holy crap! I think you should bust up some Dolphin. That game is amazing. Being forced to listen to the sound wave to determine your swimming height and depth.

---

 

You know, you're not FORCED to listen and find the depth -- you can simply jump over the top of the obstacles. :-)

[StanJr]

Russ is right, its actually easier to jump over them! Odd that they let you do that...

 

Squid Stan

 

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: StanJr ]

[mos6507]

>>

Also just like in real life. :-)

<<

 

Since when have games been about making things just like real life? At least not until recently.

 

When you have a game that plays out mostly in a flat 2D manner, if you restrict vision to 1st person perspective you are just making things harder to play and you are having to add in extra views that just force you to look in multiple screens at once to get that missing perspective back.

 

For flight sims and driving games I can understand, but not games with gameplay that is designed around a series of 2D screens that pop in and out (i.e. Adventure).

 

Think of what it does to the gameplay when you are in the mazes, for instance, if you can't see the fact that something is on the same screen as you because it's behind a wall. That would be a nice feature of a different game, but to impose this on Adventure CHANGES the game dramatically. If you raise the camera high enough to peer over the walls then you are back to a perspective that is almost identical to a flat 2D one anyway, so why bother? If you give the player camera control then it's just one extra thing for the gamer to control that he shouldn't have to worry about.

 

Think of classic 2D games as "omniscient" perspective, and the gameplay is tuned accordingly.

 

Perspective problems began real early. For instance.. Anyone remember Sega's Strategic Operations Simulator? I like the game, but the 1st person display is almost useless except for lining up long-range shots. It's pretty much a glorified Space War game because you focus your attention on the radar screen. The same is commonplace with a lot of 3D games with "2D Omniscient" gameplay.

 

The radar in Defender and Wizard of Wor are really good examples of using the radar, because the game intentionally obscures part of the game from you to make it more challenging. But you don't want a radar to become your primary playfield display.

[Mindfield]

I don't think it's so problematic as you describe. Consider some of the earliest 3D adventure games -- especially the Freescape ones on the Speccy and Atari ST/Amiga. I'm speaking of Driller, Castle Master I/II, etc. Or dungeon crawlers -- Dungeon Master, Eye of the BEholder, Ultima Underworld, etc. These are all games that would translate as well in 2D as in 3D. That in 3D you lose this "omniscient view" is a product of all 3D games. I didn't necessarily suggest that the game had to imitate life. Rather, consider the primary reason to update a game in 3D: to enhance its realism. To further extend the suspension of disbelief in order to draw the player that much further into the game world -- to make it seem more real, even if the subject matter is anything but. It's a chance, in this case, to take a previously two-dimensional world and turn it into a fully explorable 3D world that draws the user into it and makes the player feel all the more a part of the action, instead of merely a detatched bystander who's only controlling the action. That's why 3D games are so popular, after all; they're more realistic. Accordingly, you're restricted to certain laws of this realistic universe relating to anatomy -- specifically, you can only see in front of you and a bit of peripheral vision. If it's within the scope of the game you could provide radar or a HUD to make up for the lack of "rear-view vision" but otherwise you're pretty much stuck with your human (or at least bifocal) shortcomings. However the migration to 3 dimensions gives license to use auditory cues to make up for the lack of 360-degree vision. Using stereo sound allows you to determine if someone or something is to either side of you, and if it's in the center channel, and there's nothing in front of you, there's a good chance it's behind you. Such simple cues, while not translating verbatim from the original 2D blueprint, nevertheless are logical progressions when going from a 2D to a 3D environment.

 

Sure, it's not authentic -- but either is the transition to 3D. Certain modifications and sacrifices are necessary when making such a change.

[mos6507]

>>

Sure, it's not authentic -- but either is the transition to 3D. Certain modifications and sacrifices are necessary when making such a change.

<<

 

That's the problem. Why bother if it isn't authentic anymore? Lots of games BECOME other games when you change the perspective.

 

If you consider text games a predecessor to 2D games, then you can say that things like Star Raiders and Adventure were remakes of earlier text adventure games. But really, they were entirely new games because of the realtime graphics. The originals have enough reason to exist as the new ones, hence things like Dark Mage or Stellar Track being technological contemporaries.

 

But when you talk about remaking on a modern system, you have to ask yourself whether the end product might lose its connection to the original in the process and play just like another game already in that genre (first person shooter, 3D RPG, whatever).

 

Take Hasbro's Galga remake, for instance. They turned a great classic 2D game and wrung all the good aspects away from it to turn it into a railed Starfox type shooter.

 

The irony here is that one the one level, the reason we even think about remaking the classics is because of their quaint charm, but in doing so the first thing we do is throw away the quaintness in favor of the everyday state of the art.

 

You're probably asking then how CAN you remake a classic game on a modern system? Well, if people can't accept a more faithful adaptation, maybe you can't. But I definitely do support things like the Archon project. There is nothing shameful about doing a 2D game, especially if you put as much effort into tweaking the gameplay that the original designers did. Too often 2D games for the PC are sloppy shareware programming exercises. People don't devote enough care to them.

[Mindfield]

First off, let's agree to forget Hasbro's remakes ever existed. As remakes, they're bad. As unrelated games in their own right, they're mediocre at best, so let's put them aside.

 

Now, as to the issue of remakes becoming new games in their own right, thus losing their connection to that which they're remakes of -- yes, certain that has happened. Activision's supposed update to Battlezone several years back maintains its connection by the thinnest of threads: it has tanks. Quite apart from that, it's uttelry nothing to do with the original.

 

But it needn't be that way. The problem with many -- most -- of the remakes, aside from the authors of them not having anything to do with the originals, is that they try and cram too many ideas into them, thus forever killing the charm of simplicity that made the originals so appealing. You can't, for example, get much simpler than Pac Man; the controls were a four-way joystick, and the object was to eat dots and evade ghosts, occasionally chomping a power pellet and turning the adversarial tables for a time. Of this game, there are more imitations than $10 rolexes, yet most of them retain the original simplicty and are thus generally as enjoyable as the original (give or take a few "fun" points for things like enemy AI and gameplay mechanism.) However, as soon as you try and change the fundamental formula, such as adding additional powerups or new enemies and whatnot, you change the texture of the game and thus, how it is recieved by the player. The more complex it becomes, the more it deviates from the original, the more purists will dislike it even if only because it deviates from the original's simple formula.

 

Enter, on the other hand, Pacmania. Same essential game. Same simplicity with only one extra: you can jump. Now, the bit about jumping I didn't really care for 'cos it made the game a little too easy I thought. The only other change is cosmetic: it was remade in isometric 3D. Everything else is the same, and it's more or less just as enjoyable. Sure, you couldn't see the entirety of the maze as you played, but in a way that added to the tension about what was around the next corner.

 

Or how about maze games. Traditionally, overhead view, occasionally with creatures roaming about the maze. I enjoyed them. Now enter the 2600 CBS game Tunnel Runner. Precisely the same game, except for an added task: You need to find the key to the exit before you can leave. The gameplay too has been taken down into the maze for a 3D perspective. This very quickly became one of my favourite VCS games of all time. The suspense of waiting for a "not-so-happy-face" to pass by, or to turn a corner, as you head for the key, was killer. The 3D perspective really added a new dimension (uh, literally as well as figuratively) to the traditional gameplay of the average maze game, heightening the suspense of the game and making you feel like you want to keep checking over your shoulder.

 

Tunnel Runner is to me the ideal example of the perfect way to convert an otherwise 2D game into the 3D realm: it retains all the simplicity of the traditional style games, thus making them just as enjoyable to play, yet bring it into a 3D realm that makes you feel a part of the action, right there in the corridors evading the roaming beasties, searching for the key as you negotiate the maze, then making a mad dash for the exit.

 

I see a 3D remake of Adventure in very much the same light: Retain the same simplistic controls and elements of the original: Use colour-coded keys to open like-coloured castles, bridges to span labyrinth walls, spears to slay dragons, and magnets to attract objects, while embarking on your quest for the holy grail, which you will then promptly return to your home castle upon obtaining it. Retain the same controls: An 8-way joystick for movement, and the button to pick up and drop objects. Retain the same ... erm ... "AI" (Okay, retain the same random flight paths of the bat and the same straight-as-an-arrow path of the dragons in pursuit of you.) Retain the same room layouts (or even offer additional ones for those who've memorized the existing layouts and want a new challenge.) Retain the same skill levels (again, maybe adding new ones for further challenges.)

 

BUT!

 

Make it all in 3D. In other words, make the game nothing more than a change of perspective while leaving the rest unchanged. Well, add some audible cues to add to the realism and give a sense of direction when enemies are near, but that's the only other necessary change I could see.

 

I firmly believe that as long as you don't go upgrade happy, you can retain the same quaint charm and elegant simplicity of the original while at the same time giving it a welcome facelift. Again, it's not authentic -- but the very nature of an update precludes at least some level of authenticity; that's what an update is all about, even if the change is only cosmetic, which is really what putting Adventure in the 3D realm is all about.

 

Let me paint a picture for a moment.

 

Imagine you could be in Adventure. Really in it. Castles carpeted in red with hanging tapestries and paintings adorning the walls, lit by a single, elaborate chandelier in the center, illuminating the shiny grail as it sits upon a nacreous, opalescent pedestal. You grab it and make a run for it. As you leave the castle under an overcast night sky filled with angry-looking striated clouds and enter the hedgerow maze, you get turned around, losing your sense of direction. Worse, you can hear a dragon nearby -- somewhere off to your left. You right yourself and spend some time extricating yourself from your labyrinthine prison only to find yourself facing Rhindle (no, not our Rhindle!) across an open field. You make a dash across the field, off to the left and generally away from Rhindle as he pursues you. You hug the stone walls as you dash towards the portcullis that separates you from your castle, though you know he's gaining on you and you probably won't make it in time. Ahead of you lies a spear. You quickly put down your key, pick up the spear, and spin just in time to shish-kebab Rhindle on it. You turn around only to discover a nasty little bat flying off with the grail. Damnit. That little airborne rodent could drop it anywhere! Oh well. At least you've got your spear...

 

Now. Tell me that doesn't sound just a little intriguing.

[mos6507]

>>

Make it all in 3D. In other words, make the game nothing more than a change of perspective while leaving the rest unchanged.<<

 

That's just it. You CAN'T leave it unchanged unless your 3D perspective is basically just a tilted overhead view, like a relief effect.

 

While your ideas sound good on paper I really think you are going to run into gameplay problems with the shift to a more realistic perspective. You can't really go halfway, it's all or nothing.

 

So much of Adventure relies on unrealistic physics and an unrealistic perspective that you can't avoid losing some of the quaint features when you shift to 3D.

 

Remember, Adventure isn't really a top down perspective. It's like a flattened isometric 2D perspective. I call it "iconic" perspective. This is the way most classic games are done. When you move to 3D, all your sprites magically stand up rather than being on their side. And the background graphics becomes cubic rather than seeing just the front face (think of the castles in particular and how you can walk into the battlements).

 

To make matters worse, think about the screen tiling for the mazes, how they are symmetrical per screen, but to get around that, they don't completely line up on the edges. I don't think you could emulate that in 3D if the entire game is one big level rather than separate screens that you walk into and out of (kinda like fog of war in a RTS).

 

There is something very ESCHER-like about the perspective in classic games. The perspective is impossible to exist in reality, but that's what makes it cool.

 

The screen-by-screen perspective is also very key in the way the gameplay works. If you could see down the hall you'd gain extra reaction-time against dragons and the bats where in other places you'd get cheap-shotted by your view being obscured by maze walls.

 

You really should go ahead and make a demo so you can see what I'm talking about.

[calamari]

I've always wanted to play Space Paranoids (Tron), but I guess that doesn't fit the definition because it wasn't released as a game

 

calamari

[Mindfield]

I understand your point to a degree. As I said, there are some slight alterations that need be made in order to make the game work in a 3D realm. That would be true of any 3D conversion. What I'm saying, though, is that the changes, other than cosmetic, need not be drastic. Gameplay mechanics can pretty well be left untouched. Sure, you'll no longer be able to walk around to the "back" of the castle and suddenly be atop the the battlements -- but that's hardly an aspect I'd mourn the loss of, and it's really of no strategic value in the game anyway.

 

With regards to the mazes and their misleading symmetry -- sure, that's an aspect you can't quite do in 3D, but aside from giving the 2D version an escher-esque quality, it is again nothing of great importance or strategic value. A few creative alterations will make it line up, and I doubt it would be anything anyone could really tell teh difference in anyway.

 

As to the issue of increased depth perception giving more advanced notice, that, too, can be overcome. Some creative use of volumetric fog and/or progressively dark depth cueing would take care of that so that your view distance would be no more than one "room" long. Sure, you'd lose the flick-screen aspect where you can't see into the next room from the trailing edge of the one you're in, but that again is one of those alterations necessitated by the change of perspetive. Yes, it would turn the game into one big level, as it were, thus removing the segmentation clearly delineating one area of the game from the next, but it's a change I wouldn't be all that much bothered by given the advantages presented by being in immersive 3D. I consider it a tradeoff: Camp and quaintness for immersion and atmosphere. It might bring a more serious mein to the face of Adventure, but I think that might be a good thing.

 

Besides. You could always cordon off separate rooms with strategic use of gaps in hedgerows, walls with portcullises, gated fences, porticos, etc. It's not authentic, of course, but it's the closest you'd ever come to segmenting the game in a similar manner as the original.

 

Besides. We are talking about an update to Adventure, not a replacement for it. When and if done, both games would stand on their own merits -- the original for its quaint charm, its overhead (or "iconic") perspective, its simplistic but effective graphics, and the update for its new perspective, updated graphics, and slight alterations necessitated by the change. I still firmly believe that the gameplay itself would change little and would retain the vast majority of play value that made the original the vaunted classic that it is and deserves to be. I'm sure we all of us, when playing the game back in the day, imagined ourselves down there in those rooms questing for the grail, slaying dragons, and chasing down mischievous little flying rodents. This to me, if done right, would really put you there in a way we previously only imagined.

 

Oh, and I'm not the one planning on writing it, though if I could code in 3D (I have a great deal of trouble working out the maths involved in creating and moving objects around in 3D space -- as you might guess, math was my most feared and loathed subject in school) I'd probably have attempted it myself, even if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

 

Don't get me wrong; no matter how good it was done I'd probably find myself quietly but insistently longing for the camp and charm the original brought to bear, but I think the novelty of immersion and free exploration in a game I had previously only been able to play in overhead 2D would overrule such comparatively trivial matters, and I'd enjoy it just the same.

[mos6507]

>>

Oh, and I'm not the one planning on writing it, though if I could code in 3D <<

 

Until someone builds it, then it's really just a useless exercise in hypotheticals.