PDA

View Full Version : Monkey Island 1 remake - come on


paprik123456
06-15-2007, 08:23 AM
Can somebody help me with MI 1 remake? I am very good background artist and I need character artists and programmers....thank you

ICQ: 138997911

ThunderPeel2001
06-15-2007, 09:41 AM
Can somebody help me with MI 1 remake? I am very good background artist and I need character artist and programmer....thank you

Second question: Can somebody take pics out from MI 1 game and also updated put them back?? If there is any profi man, contact me... I would also make MI 1 look better and put new pics to old engine.....thank you..
ICQ: 138997911I've been wanting to do this for a long, long time. The only way it can be done is by re-creating MI in another engine, such as AGS, which would be very easy and pretty sensible, too.

It's not a popular idea, though, but I do believe if it was done well, it could be really good. Any chance I could see some samples of your work?

EDIT: Just found your website.......... WOW! Nice stuff! I would love to help out any way I can... I can easily help with the coding aspects. Your work on your site is really nice. I wonder if a few digital touch-ups could remove the '3Dness' a bit and soften the edges, as it were? Stunning stuff!

Laserschwert
06-15-2007, 11:28 AM
Nice work, Patrik, although your lighting and texturing might need some work.

Since you're working with 3dsmax, I'd suggest you'd take a look at the free versions of VRay or Brazil, just to test how you get along with either one. I still prefer VRay, but that might just be because I'm using it for years now, and I got used to it.

Modeling- and composition-wise your images look really good though.

bgbennyboy
06-15-2007, 11:36 AM
Agreed, I like those backgrounds.

There isn't currently a tool to replace MI1 backgrounds and even if someone were to create one it wouldn't necessarily be right for you as the V5 SCUMM engine is limited to 256 colour backgrounds. As Thunderpeel says, a remake in a more modern engine would be a better (albeit legally dubious) option.

elTee
06-15-2007, 11:48 AM
Very nice! (http://www.3dspacek.webz.cz/img/3dgallery/Monkey3-l.jpg)

I can be of no help here, but there was a Maniac Mansion remake that came out a few years ago (Maniac Mansion Deluxe (http://www.adventuregamers.com/underground/gameinfo.php?id=385)) and as far as I know, those guys haven't been accosted by the LucasArts legal team. But I would imagine Monkey Island is a property they would defend more aggresively than Maniac Mansion - perhaps you could contact the MMDX team and see if they got permission (or the equivalent of) before releasing?

ThunderPeel2001
06-15-2007, 02:50 PM
Yep, I was thinking of MMDX when I recommended AGS... They did a very decent job with that software, so I don't really think there'd be any need to use anything else.

This is my favourite one:
http://www.3dspacek.webz.cz/img/3dgallery/Monkey4-l.jpg

Looks 99% perfect! Amazing! Some of the other stuff (especially Melee Town Centre) looks a bit blocky, but I imagine some digital painting TLC could sort that out. Great job! Really, really nice!

joelphilippage
06-15-2007, 06:02 PM
I really hope you continue with this project. You should take a look at the 3d character plugin for AGS. Heres an example of what I made with it.
http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/pumpkin.PNG

heath1992
06-15-2007, 06:10 PM
Hey guys. I'm a programmer, but I don't think I would be able to devote enough time to a project such as this (which is a great idea by the way). There are other options than AGS as well. The tool that I use is called SLUDGE (a programming language meant for adventure games) made by Tim Furnish (creator of 'Out of Order' for those who have played it). It's great, free and a really flexible programming language. You can get SLUDGE at http://www.hungrysoftware.com/tools/sludge/ . You should check it out.

scabb
06-15-2007, 09:06 PM
Absolutely love the 3D backgrounds, my favourite is probably the shop (http://www.3dspacek.webz.cz/img/3dgallery/Monkey1-l.jpg). Looks a little like a Grim Fandango. It would be nice to see a 3D Guybrush wandering around these environments, I don't think AGS or Sludge could really do them justice. Get someone to write it in C using OpenGL. :)

john_doe
06-16-2007, 01:20 PM
IMO creating a small engine for this kind of game wouldn't be that hard. especially if you don't make it as flexible as AGS or other general-purpose adventure engines but tailor fit it to this one game.

Blondebeard
06-16-2007, 02:04 PM
You mentioned on other thread you had done 25 backgrounds. I only see 7 on your page, could you show us the others please?

BTW, fantastic job I really like them!

iceman12
06-16-2007, 08:36 PM
I love the enviroments you've made for this and think it's a great a great idea. In fact I love it so much I joined this forum just to post on this topic. I am a recent animation graduate and would very much like to help on this project. You can find my portfolio at www.trent3d.com, please let me know if I can assist.

paprik123456
06-19-2007, 03:53 AM
Hi guys,.... I have got a few offers to help me with that project and its great, thank you. Backgrounds which you can see on my webside are 1-2 years old so, I am fixing their problems now. Anyway, I take any help with backgrounds, characters,items etc. If you are skillful 3D or 2D artist, let me know, but you must be very skillful, we dont want to make a crap...right? What I am looking for right now is painter, somebody, who will make our 3D backgrounds looking like MI 3 or Runaway. Somebody who will repaint it. Its not easy job, but we wants to use 2D characters, not 3D...and keep old style.... so guys, lets make a demo.

Threepwood42
06-19-2007, 08:44 PM
are you going to have people do voices for the characters for this remake? I could round up a whole cast and I could do Guybrush's voice if you wanted to have voices. you can hear me in the Changes at School movie on this website www.movies.lionhead.com/studio/snakeeater42 if you don't dont want to have voices. ok thats cool I CANT WAIT FOR THIS. :)

plamdi.com
06-20-2007, 04:12 AM
Personally, I'd suggest combining Monkey1 and 2 into a single game. That's what Gilbert would have done, if he could. I'd also suggest making the game more difficuilt by adding to the puzzles to make them more complicated; or by introducing new puzzles. Using this method it would also be possible to lengthen the other parts of the game; seeing as how Part 1 takes up more then half the game as it is. Good work on the backgroungs, though... I do see a problem with this one:

http://www.3dspacek.webz.cz/img/3dgallery/Monkey4-l.jpg

however if you're thinking about having them painted I don't forsee it as being a problem once it's been painted. You might want to use the digital paintings for MI1 and real paintings for MI2 as this is exactly what LEC did! I think you should aim more for the look of M1 and M2 then CMI; CMI used different background artists (mainly Tiller) who didn't work on the first two; and thus was a very different style.

Heh, I'm already thinking of the details... like make sure doors are painted open if they can be opened... I'm sure you don't need me to say any more.

UrsinhoFeliz
06-20-2007, 09:24 PM
Man! Ive just signed to this forum, only to answer to this post. MI1 is my favorite game ever, and I'd love to help, any way I can. I don't know if you'll need a programmer, but I'm experienced in graphics programming. Even if I cannot help, I'm excited to see what you are achieving.

I'm glad to know that you're planning to use 2D characters. MI4 was a little bit disappointing to me just because the 3D characters.

Can't expect to see a demo!

And congratulatios for your great artwork!

seann33uk
06-21-2007, 04:10 AM
Yes the idea of SMI and MILR in a 'monkey-mix' sounds brilliant, esspecially 3D, slightly enhanced graphics, although you couldn't add to the puzzles of make the harder, it would ruin it, Unless you do a 'MI puzzle fantasia' and a 'over the monkey business mayhem' version or something and the characters you should do in 3D but dress it down to 2d looking, like simpsons movie will be.
Also i make games, sort of, I use clickteam(.com)'s MultiMediaFusion which does the basic game modeling layout, but doesn't require code, so i can't code in other words.

Xepeto
06-22-2007, 04:49 AM
I am Spanish and I post this project on my web,i dont know program but, if this project finish (Good luck! ;) ); I could traduce all the dialogs on my language.
Congratulations!
http://www.monkeyhispano.es.vg

madghetto
06-23-2007, 03:30 PM
I could probably help out for some 3d modeling. I use a free program called Anim8or and I've gotten good compared to when I started. I know exactly how to model to shapes from box modeling from a simple cube to extruding it and shapping it by cutting new vertices. I am still poor at making heads and skinning mesh correctly to a bone. But for simple objects or background you bet I'll help! I have a old site www.freewebs.com/bacstab but it lacks proper layout and enough content. My new site will be www.freewebs.com/gamehobbyist. My new site will have some examples of my 3d work. And for email : madghetto12@hotmail .com and I also use IRC chat (irc.afternet.org #gamedev) and (irc.bigbluecup.com #ags)
Great work so far, making the fangame for MI that I've been making has been real hard. It's cool that you want to dedicate yourself to remaking a entire game th
ats already made.

uomoartificiale
06-24-2007, 04:59 PM
..so actually is not my engine. It's a "mod" for the RealityFactory engine (based on the old-but-still-interesting Genesis3d). I called it s.c.u.R.F. (script creation Utility for Reality Factory), the idea was to write somenthing that could be moved with simple scripts. Actually you only have to fill the world with entities with an editor and place numbers and strings in the scripts (mainly arrays identifying the entity index). It should have been a complete creation system but my time for developping is quite limited right now, so I'm switching my projects again toward the creation of a game in a team. I can't develop, create demos, write docuentation: too work for a person only. Instead I can use my system as main programmer with other artists.

The engine is intended to create 3rd person 3d adventure games but I'm thinking a workaround to have 2.5D (still not ready).

The website is here:
scurfproject.co.nr (scurfproject.co.nr )
You can download the English demos showing the capabilities of the engine.
scuRF Demo2 (English) (http://files.filefront.com/scurf+alpha2ENGzip/;7158764;/fileinfo.html)

The demo mainly shows the conversation system, featuring:

- multiphrase
- multiple animation for each phrase
- attribute or trigger dependant conversation logic (add/remove reply option depending by triggers or inventory attributes)
- multiple camera setup, including fixed or moving camera, targetting the player or the NPC
- Characters can carry objects
- improved cinematic system, used also for in-game sequences
- Translation system: easily translate your game interface and objects name. This data are separated from the core system.
- complex interactions (try to use the pipe on the trash... Wink )
- conversation audio implemented
- working save/load

Walthrough:Pick the pipe. Use the pipe with the trash. Pick the newspaper. Talk with the woman. Select: option 2, option 2, option 2, option 1 and then "ho questo giornale". Notice that this reply option will be displayed only if you pick up the newspaper.

some videos are on youtube:
Video:

Early Stages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVbGkHkpPGs

Basic Action + Book Reader:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APe6XK37EfU

Complex Action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfLeVUzuyaw

Cinematic + ChangeLevel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8BFV-PbJT4

Head Turning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP24Dqa_J8U

early stages for conversation system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt4I5Nam6xw

seann33uk
06-27-2007, 04:07 AM
there is actually a program called LASSIE which is a very well designed flash/shockwave-game making program based on scumm system used for MI3
lassie program site (http://lassie.gmacwill.com/) I have not actually made any games with it yet but i have played some games and its got a good MI feel to the way it works.:3headed:

Elvis_Yeah
07-02-2007, 08:46 PM
First time posting!!
What a cool idea!
I would certainly buy it!
I would like to help you but my skills in designing and scripting are really bad...
I could be a tester though...
And I'm French so could traduce the game in French!!

ThunderPeel2001
07-04-2007, 10:32 AM
It's great to see such enthusiasm! I'll happily give whatever I can, whenever I can. Please don't make these mistakes: Making the graphics 1600x1200 or whatever. 800x600 is more than enough (CMI was only 640x480 and I think that was fine). Don't bother making it 3D. 2D is difficult enough and good enough. I think making a demo is very good idea, because it will be easier to finish than the whole game and it will generate more enthusiasm (provided it went well!).

Great stuff!

Thrik
07-04-2007, 11:12 AM
Wait, what? How is producing the graphics with a high resolution a bad thing? It's not like they can't be scaled down for people with smaller resolutions like 800x600.

I don't know if you use an LCD monitor, but if you do you ought to be aware of the fact that anything other than the monitor's native resolution invariably looks like absolute crap, and this goes for any any all of LucasArts' older adventure games. It's no different to getting a picture like this:

http://serve.ryanjohnwilliams.com/images/tpav.gif

And then doing this:

http://serve.ryanjohnwilliams.com/images/tpav_big.jpg

Because the LCD just stretches it up like you would in Photoshop. It has no ability to rearrange the pixel dot pitch like a CRT does (which gives you that squarey effect on lower resolutions).

The definition of an LCD is a blessing and a curse. ::

Lagomorph01
07-04-2007, 09:12 PM
I'm no 3D artist but I do consider myself quite the voice artist. If I can contribute to your project in this way I would love to do so. I'm from the Netherlands but I can do accentless english, and a lot of accents. PM me if you need some samples.

plamdi.com
07-05-2007, 01:49 AM
RE: Thrik - LCD is much better for television - of course, you still have up-scaling of NTSC to PAL's resolution (well, you and I do - or would if we owned LCD TV's - the yanks have PAL downscaled to NTSC on their LCD's!); but for HD sets it's certainly good because HD 24p, 25p and 30p is all 1080 lines (although not all sets support all three in progressive modes, most 1080p sets are only 24p, and 25i and 30i). It's true that you should always use your monitor's resolution when using an LCD for a computer monitor; this in itself isn't all that bad, games are about the only thing that would cause you problems anyway. The one thing that I do get annoyed about CRT's is that 17" really means almost 16", and so forth; and of course, widescreen monitors of the same diagonal size have less picture size then 4:3 monitors (4:3 is better anyway for everything except movies).

Anyway, I don't think paprik is committed to doing a full remake - only a demo (he wants to work with LEC on an official MI5; which of course is very unrealistic), I'm going to try to talk him into it though; even if it means I have to take on some work I don't really want to do (lol); but really it is about time someone did a MI remake. If you read the thread carefully, you'll see he's using scanned painted art based on his 3D rendering; so it will look good. I think he should aim for 1024x768; but then again, it doesn't *need* to be that high.

Several years ago on the old SCRAMM forums, Bill Tiller showed up wanting to make a short adventure game; etc... and he's finally reached that goal now. He had to walk away from LucasArts though to form his own company to do it; it's not like LEC wants to do that kind of thing anymore. With the right team, an original adventure game could be successfully made; and the rights could be sold to a number of publishers to get the game in stores. The fans of adventure games really need to realize that the genre needs to be reinvented in many ways, rather then just plagiarizing ideas from the old ways of doing things. You can still make highly successful black & white mainstream movies today - shooting on 16MM stock; but you can't do it the way it was done in the 1940's that wouldn't work anymore.

Thrik
07-05-2007, 04:39 AM
Yeah I know of the benefits, but the difference between monitors and televisions is that televisions almost always come with a good-quality upscaling chip that does a good job of making smaller images look okay on higher resolutions, while conversely monitors almost never do. Heck, quite a few people buy dedicated upscaling boxes to go next to their DVD player that run all sorts of resizing algorithms on the image.

They don't always look completely awful if it's upscaled by the same ratio, but you still generally get artefacts of the upscaling and moderately illegible text as a result. This is why not allowing people to run games in the player's native resolution is a really bad thing these days, even though it might be excusable for a fan project.

I totally disagree about widescreen monitors, though. :) I use a 22-inch widescreen at work and it's great for having a lot of stuff open at once, while at hope I use a 24-inch one that's similarly great for playing games (which thanks to consoles running on televisions generally have widescreen resolutions nowadays). Especially real-time strategy!

john_doe
07-05-2007, 05:37 AM
The problem is, you can't possibly create 2D images and sprites for every possible native resolution some LCD-monitor could have.
(In 3D that problem would vanish more or less.)

seann33uk
07-05-2007, 05:49 AM
I don't know. you lot are talking about LCDs and Tvs when the forum is about a remake for mi1 LOL :elaine:

Thrik
07-05-2007, 05:51 AM
You could reduce the lack of definition people on higher resolutions would see by using high-resolution assets in the game, and then have the game scale everything down and run in a lower resolution if needs to. This would mean people on smaller resolutions would be essentially wasting processing power on such high-resolution 2D art, but with higher resolutions and LCD screens becoming so predominant these days is it really the worse of the two options?

ThunderPeel2001
07-05-2007, 09:38 AM
You could reduce the lack of definition people on higher resolutions would see by using high-resolution assets in the game, and then have the game scale everything down and run in a lower resolution if needs to. This would mean people on smaller resolutions would be essentially wasting processing power on such high-resolution 2D art, but with higher resolutions and LCD screens becoming so predominant these days is it really the worse of the two options?

It takes a hell of a lot longer to create artwork at 1600x1200 resolution than it does to create it for 640x480... when quite frankly, it isn't going to add anything to the *game*. It's probably worth mentioning that Curse of Money Island ran at 640x480 and that it is higher res than DVD (which is good enough, if you ask me).

The slight distortion you're experience on your 22" Widescreen LCD is not worth making the project so unwieldy that it never reaches fruition!

There's a real danger with this sort of thing of a) Biting off more than you can reasonably chew and b) Losing track of what's actually important.

I've been part of many amateur projects that have fallen to pieces because the person in charge didn't know when to say "that's good enough". Instead they get caught up in trying to beat the best thing they've ever seen, visually, instead of using the project's strengths (eg. MI's atmosphere and comedy) and focusing on them.

I've also been part of amateur projects which were successful. This was because they kept sight of what was feasible with no money and what made sure they didn't waste their limited resources dong things that actually weren't important to people's enjoyment of the project.

If paprik and his team can cobble together a version of MI, even if it's a demo, that looks as good as CMI (which ran beautifully at 640x480), then they will have done *brilliantly* well.

Thrik
07-05-2007, 10:08 AM
CMI looks shagged on even the smallest resolution an LCD monitor generally comes with (1280x1024 @ 17 inches). The fact it has to be upscaled makes it, and Grim Fandango, extremely offensive on the eyes.

Perhaps if filters were used to improve the image for higher resolutions like those you see in ScummVM it'd be less jarring. This goes some way towards making the original Monkey Island trilogy playable.

Make no mistake though, people with 19-inch+ monitors are no rarity these days. The days of the CRT are numbered, and I very rarely encounter them these days.

Creating higher resolution artwork shouldn't be as difficult as you make it sound. If you're doing CMI-esque art, there's nothing stopping you from digitally painting the initial backgrounds a bunch of zoom levels out and then using larger brushes, and in fact this is good, common practice so the artist has maximum flexibility when it comes to using/distributing the assets afterwards. Kind of like how a band wouldn't record the music for their album with a **** tape recorder.

I'd be surprised if the CMI artwork itself wasn't created at a much higher resolution than we see in a game. It was almost certainly simply scaled down to fit, and of course cropped, etc.

I really don't understand your adversity to higher resolution graphics, Thunderpeel, and wonder if you actually know what you're talking about. Producing at a higher resolution isn't really very difficult and has been standard fare for years; the only reason older games like CMI aren't in a higher resolution is because of the monitor and storage capabilities of the day. If it were released now it'd go up to just a little beyond whatever maximum people are likely to use these days (1920x1200) and then downscale/crop for those below.

Thrik
07-05-2007, 10:13 AM
And incidentally, if not improving the technical level of the game then what exactly is the point of a Monkey Island 1 remake? After all, by most accounts it's pretty much a symbol of perfection with regards to atmosphere and story, etc. Why go to all the effort of making it a more modern piece of game design if you're not going to actually accommodate modern hardware properly?

elTee
07-05-2007, 12:13 PM
And incidentally, if not improving the technical level of the game then what exactly is the point of a Monkey Island 1 remake? After all, by most accounts it's pretty much a symbol of perfection with regards to atmosphere and story, etc. Why go to all the effort of making it a more modern piece of game design if you're not going to actually accommodate modern hardware properly?
An excellent point.

And I have to reply to the person who said CMI runs at a higher resolution than DVDs: that's not true. DVDs are like 720x576 or something, and even this has become 'too small' with the next-gen DVD format wars between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - two things I know quite little about, but I assume will be commonplace in a matter of years.

Thrik's absolutely right - this isn't a fan project in the traditional sense; there's no original content. Look at the Maniac Mansion Deluxe fan project - the game itself is indistinguishable from the original in every regard, they've just updated the graphics and the GUI. This I presume is why they didn't get shut down by Lucas Legal. That said, they obviously value the Monkey Island property a lot more than any of their other adventure properties.

Personally, apart from the time factor, I can't imagine the project being that difficult just because you're essentially not designing the game yourselves. It's all there in front of you. Rip all the backgrounds with ScummRev then you'll have a folder full of artwork for you to re-imagine in photoshop at a higher resolution. You've got a finite number of characters. And whoever's doing the actual coding doesn't need to wait for the actual images/sprites/3D models, because they can just be slotted in as-and-when.

I know I'm simplifying it somewhat.

ThunderPeel2001
07-05-2007, 05:11 PM
Make no mistake though, people with 19-inch+ monitors are no rarity these days. The days of the CRT are numbered, and I very rarely encounter them these days.

Rather than just ramble on, why not use the data to back yourself up.

Resolution usage stats:
1. 1024 x 768 (56.15%)
2. 1280 x 1024 (15.79%)
3. 800 x 600 (12.04%)
4. 1280 x 800 (4.09%)
5. 1152 x 864 (3.90%)

I'm sorry but your post is still ignorant and seems to ignore my original point: It takes a lot longer to create artwork for 1920x1200 resolution (as you suggest) than it does for 640x480, which is slightly lower resolution than DVD (sorry, you were right, el tee). If they want to do it, fine, but it will take longer. More effort with less overall ouput (unless you feel like posting your own attempts at drawing a Monkey 1 background at the res you suggest to show how 'easy' it is?).

You also seem to suggest that updating the graphics wouldn't be worth doing unless they were superior to CMI's.... as if the difference between Monkey Island 1 and CMI isn't big enough to warrant it!!

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkey1.gif

I'm sorry, but I can see a ****ing huge difference...

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkey1.jpg

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkey3.jpg

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkey2.jpg

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkey2.gif

'Offensive to the eyes', my butt! CMI still looks wonderful.

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkey4.jpg

I fail to see what mega-important, story and atmosphere-enhancing details we're all missing out on in CMI's wonderfully drawn backgrounds...?

I'd just like to see paprik and co spend time on things more profitable than creating background details that less than 1% of the population will ever see. Plus, I know how easy it is to burn yourself out on a project like this. CMI created wonderful artwork at 640x480... unless the results are jaw dropping, they don't really need to go much higher than this.

Thrik
07-05-2007, 05:51 PM
Sorry, did you even read what I said?

It's not the detail or quality of CMI's artwork I'm questioning. It's the fact that the definition will degrade significantly if scaled up from 640x480, which basically includes 100% of those using LCD monitors. The statistics you posted do absolutely nothing to back up your point as LCDs come in 1024x768 too, and 640x480 still looks quite poor when scaled up to that resolution.

Do you use an LCD screen? Because if you do, I really can't see how you can be arguing with me about this. LCDs don't look very good when not in their native resolution -- simple as that. They don't resize the images in the same way CRTs do. They have to process it and try to make 307,200 pixels (640x480) fit into 786,432 pixels (1024x768), which invariably results in the image quality being comprised. This is different to CRT monitors which simply make the pixels physically bigger (meaning it's easier to see each individual one on lower resolutions).

And, again, your comment about it taking longer to create the art is absolute nonsense as I said before. Do you think it takes so much longer because they have to paint over twice/thrice/etc the area or something? If you do, let me correct you now: it doesn't. You zoom out in Photoshop or whatever you're using and use bigger brushes. Job done. And if we're talking about 3D renders, it's a five-second option change (and maybe a bit longer to render, which is completely automatic).

If you sincerely believe that only 1% of the population uses an LCD monitor then I'd probably be inclined to suggest you take your head out of your ass and see beyond yourself. But I assume you weren't saying that.

I'm beginning to wonder if you understand the concept of resolutions at all based on your "wouldn't be worth doing unless they were superior to CMI's" comment. As what I've said above explains, the same piece of artwork in CMI would look a lot sharper and like Bill Tiller intended if it were big enough to look clear on 1600x1200 instead of just 640x480. Or if this analogy helps you, if it were poster-sized instead of postcard-sized. It wouldn't take him any longer to paint.

ThunderPeel2001
07-06-2007, 03:40 AM
I DO use an LCD screen, you complete muppet!

Thrik
07-06-2007, 05:14 AM
I'll take that enlightening comment as an acknowledgement of my points about how easy it is to support higher resolutions and create higher resolution art assets, and that it doesn't take significantly longer. Thanks for totally ignoring all that and just picking out the one thing you could actually argue with, coupled with an insult. Good show! ;-*

As I said, LCDs don't look good when the resolution isn't native. The fact that you use one doesn't change this assertion, and only demonstrates that you either have poor eyesight or are simply too used to looking at low upscaled resolutions (kind of like how someone who's only ever used VCR tapes might not know better). It looks worse and worse the higher up the resolution chain you go.

Since I've pretty much established my original point which is that supporting high resolutions shouldn't be difficult and that a modern remake of Monkey Island 1 probably should be made to support modern technology properly, I think it's best we drop the spin-off arguments now.

Ray Jones
07-06-2007, 07:24 AM
Err, I think you cannot simply redo a game in hi-res and claim it to be better looking than the original.

For instance, Maniac Mansion Deluxe basically just updated to 256 colours and thus the gave impression of more detail, nothing else. Additionally you can chose 640x400 resolution what does nothing more than to double the pixels. I did not really change the look of the game or added anything. Monkey Island 1 is already 256 colours. And double pixels can be done with ScummVM. So the MM fan game is not anywhere near where this project is aiming at.

It's also different with CMI, because up-scaling those non pixel-ish graphics, which already have a relative good resolution and amount of colours is much easier. Even Monkey Island 2 and its hand drawn scanned backgrounds it would be easier to scale, but the MI1 graphics have been created natively for a 320x240 resolution, combined with the restriction that these have to be displayable with only 32 (or 16) colours.

I mean those hi-res backgrounds are all good and stuff, but seriously, regardless if 640x480, or 1900x1200, whatever, I consider it pretty much impossible to "enhance" Monkey Island 1 in any way through high resolution graphics. Also, I am not sure if those more or less realistic looking backgrounds would live up to the Monkey Island universe. It does look good, but just not right. Even more, what kind and style of character design is to be chosen with those? I have a hard time coming up with something good, except the idea of totally imitating the drawing style from the original box, but those again would not fit into the 3D scenes we've seen from paprik.

Seriously, before we all get wrapped up in decisions about final resolutions, I'd really like to know how is this scene is going to look like in the remake:
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkey1.gif

Fact is, a lot of the Monkey Island 1 feel is due to its unique look (despite the "bad" resolution). Maybe if the original MI1 look or any really similar would be simply redrawn in higher resolution, that is something I can imagine would go with the game. But still, the details, like the character's faces, clothes and the like, is something that has to be drawn very thoughtful to keep the game's spirit.

Another idea I have is using vector graphics a la Flashback and Another World to recreate the graphics (but way more enhanced), that would make the game resolution independent too.

Thrik
07-06-2007, 07:55 AM
On that note, it might be worth pointing out that all of Monkey Island 2's backgrounds were original paintings that're completely smooth; they only became pixellated when the scaled down to the low resolution in the game (320x240) and then upscaled again by the monitor.

If the resources were put there by LucasArts we could realistically have a version of MI2 where the backgrounds are on a similar level of quality to CMI's, simply by allowing the game to natively run in a higher resolution and using larger resolution art assets by scanning the originals in at a larger size.

You can kind of see an example in the Monkey Island (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=142) forum header (the Voodoo side), although that was resized; the real thing is bigger and just as smooth. That's what I was saying about having higher-resolution art assets in the game, which are usually drawn far bigger than necessary by artists anyway.

That said, I agree with what Ray said. Is this really a worthwhile endeavour considering it's the whole package of MI1 as a whole that makes it so nostalgic to people? I don't think so, personally. While I'd love to see something like CMI with the original background art in high resolution rather than the scaled-down 640x480 backgrounds and cleaned-up character sprites (smoother edges, for example), I wouldn't want it to go any further. Same goes for the original two.

ThunderPeel2001
07-06-2007, 09:28 AM
I'll take that enlightening comment as an acknowledgement of my points about how easy it is to support higher resolutions and create higher resolution art assets, and that it doesn't take significantly longer. Thanks for totally ignoring all that and just picking out the one thing you could actually argue with, coupled with an insult. Good show! ;-*

As I said, LCDs don't look good when the resolution isn't native. The fact that you use one doesn't change this assertion, and only demonstrates that you either have poor eyesight or are simply too used to looking at low upscaled resolutions (kind of like how someone who's only ever used VCR tapes might not know better). It looks worse and worse the higher up the resolution chain you go.

Since I've pretty much established my original point which is that supporting high resolutions shouldn't be difficult and that a modern remake of Monkey Island 1 probably should be made to support modern technology properly, I think it's best we drop the spin-off arguments now.

Your entire posts are insults, filled with assumptions and demeaning comments! The muppet insult, which come on, is really more playful than anything, was only written because I had precisely .2 seconds to construct a reply. I wasn't deliberately avoiding your comments, sorry.

I still disagree with your assertion that doing 1920x1200 artwork is just as easy as doing 640x480 or 800x600. If what you're talking about doesn't actually add any details, but rather upscales the artwork more effectively for LCD screens, then why not just do it at a lower res and include bicubic upscaling within the software? That's how it would be done today (although probably at 1024x768 and in 3D).

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, eh?

BTW - Maybe my LCD is just better at upscaling than yours? :-P

ThunderPeel2001
07-06-2007, 09:34 AM
Is this really a worthwhile endeavour considering it's the whole package of MI1 as a whole that makes it so nostalgic to people? I don't think so, personally. While I'd love to see something like CMI with the original background art in high resolution rather than the scaled-down 640x480 backgrounds and cleaned-up character sprites (smoother edges, for example), I wouldn't want it to go any further. Same goes for the original two.

So why were you arguing??

Even more, what kind and style of character design is to be chosen with those? I have a hard time coming up with something good, except the idea of totally imitating the drawing style from the original box, but those again would not fit into the 3D scenes we've seen from paprik.

I still think, based on Paprik's early artwork, that it's a worthwhile endevour. Some of the things he's allowed us to see look stunning and fit precisely in with the original artwork, too. Lastly, we'll all still have the original, so it's not like this will replace it.

Thrik
07-06-2007, 09:51 AM
Because it'd be better to produce it the artwork at a higher resolution and then bicubically downscale it, so those on the higher resolutions still see a nice sharpness and clarity as opposed to the unavoidable blurriness that a bicubic upscale would cause.

I'd imagine the CMI background art was originally painted in a much higher resolution than 640x480. But because of space and practicality reasons it would have been downscaled to fit. This means if you run it on something like 1600x1200 it will blur as it's stretched up, no matter what processing is used.

This problem could have simply been avoided if DVDs and slightly better hardware was prevalent when CMI came out, allowing the developers to include the larger originals at a greater size, thus meaning it'd have been future proofed for higher resolutions.

It's like in a first-person shooter game. The textures on the walls in an old one would have been something like 128x128, which means when you play it on 1600x1200 the walls look like crap as the definition is lost, while on a smaller 640x480 screen they once looked fine as they weren't being stretched so much. However, if that game also had an option to enable 640x480 textures they'd appear super sharp and detailed in 1600x1200.

The difference is that now all such technology is common fare, and including high-resolution art assets shouldn't be an issue. Having to create more detail seriously isn't an issue because the paintings are so detailed to begin with and simply lose detail when compressed down to 640x480; if we were talking about a 1990 game where games weren't drawn in full painted colour then fair enough, but we aren't.

I remain unable to see why you can't grasp this concept. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm absolutely exhausting myself trying to put across why it wouldn't be much effort but would benefit any game a lot.

All that said, I think we all know this'll never come out. Heh. :(

elTee
07-06-2007, 11:18 AM
<ramble>
Because it'd be better to produce it the artwork at a higher resolution and then bicubically downscale it, so those on the higher resolutions still see a nice sharpness and clarity as opposed to the unavoidable blurriness that a bicubic upscale would cause.
Interesting idea... there are other ways to upscale - expensive and patented, of course, but I'm sure I'd be able to, uh, get my hands on the necessary tools... leave it with me, just out of interest ;

I'd imagine the CMI background art was originally painted in a much higher resolution than 640x480. But because of space and practicality reasons it would have been downscaled to fit.
I hate to bring this up because I know so many people will be jealous, but I was lucky enough to hear some of the CMI soundtrack before it had been compressed for the game once, and I know you did too. It's kind of a moot point because no-one else here has heard it, but it was literally worlds apart from the stuff you can rip with ScummRev. Music and artwork are interchangeable in this regard - the uncompressed game (as with any game I suppose) is probably several gigs in size, whereas when crammed onto two CDs it becomes a paltry 1.4 gigs or so. There's a quality/size tradeoff. When your media is in the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD range - hell, even just double-layer DVD - the quality increases tenfold.

I seem to have gone off the point. What I'm trying to say is that if this project is done at a low resolution it is essentially pointless, because nostalgia is so important with this games. It's not like Maniac Mansion Deluxe where the resolution was secondary to just making the game bloody viewable... I mean hell, I play Secret of Monkey Island in EGA mode with PC speaker sound just for the full retro experience.

</ramble>

ThunderPeel2001
07-07-2007, 10:37 PM
The difference is that now all such technology is common fare, and including high-resolution art assets shouldn't be an issue. Having to create more detail seriously isn't an issue because the paintings are so detailed to begin with and simply lose detail when compressed down to 640x480.We don't really lose any detail in CMI's backgrounds, because they were designed with that resolution in mind. The worse thing is the reduction in colours which creates all sorts of banding/diffusion artefacts. It it was scanned in at super higher-res and used in-game, you would just see the pen strokes in more detail, not actually any more detail. Of course, I would *love* to see it at 800x600 or 1024x768 in 16-bit colour, but any higher than that wouldn't actually yield much difference. (You may as well upscale for LCDs at this point.)

I remain unable to see why you can't grasp this concept. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm absolutely exhausting myself trying to put across why it wouldn't be much effort but would benefit any game a lot.Maybe it's because I work with printed artwork and scans for a living (not digital paintings, though). Maybe if someone could furnish us with some answers from the world of digital art then they could shut us both up? :) (Where's Bill Tiller when you need him?)

One thing to add: Zooming out in Photoshop, (ie. when you're working at 40%) often gives you an incorrect/distorted impression at what it will look like at 100%. That's why I don't think it's realistically feasible (in an amateur project with limited resources and energy); I think an artist might find themselves working at 100% to make sure everything looked ok.

All that said, I think we all know this'll never come out. Heh.I hope we at least get to see paprik's finished artwork... :( If CMI hadn't drawn Guybrush so tall and lanky then they could have probably just used that version and saved themselves a lot of problems. Ah well.

ThunderPeel2001
07-07-2007, 10:41 PM
I hate to bring this up because I know so many people will be jealous...

Yep, you're right. I wish I could hear some of that stuff, I bet it was amazing. Now you've gone and filled my head with dreams of a CMI Special Edition with super music and high-res art...!

ThunderPeel2001
07-07-2007, 11:06 PM
For anyone who's interested, here's what these two look like next to each other:

http://thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/monkeycompy1.jpg

I'm quite surprised at the changes he's made. I know it's nothing major, but its interesting none-the-less. The additional detail, especially on the cannon, is really great. He's also actually added more depth... the circus tent feels a little bigger.

plamdi.com
07-08-2007, 08:27 AM
And I have to reply to the person who said CMI runs at a higher resolution than DVDs: that's not true. DVDs are like 720x576 or something, and even this has become 'too small' with the next-gen DVD format wars between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - two things I know quite little about, but I assume will be commonplace in a matter of years.You're not going to notice the difference between SD and HD on a 68cm TV, movies which are shot in digital (Wolf Creek, Attack of the Clones, Superman Returns) look stunning on 11-meter wide cinema screens!Thrik's absolutely right - this isn't a fan project in the traditional sense; there's no original content. Look at the Maniac Mansion Deluxe fan project - the game itself is indistinguishable from the original in every regard, they've just updated the graphics and the GUI. This I presume is why they didn't get shut down by Lucas Legal. That said, they obviously value the Monkey Island property a lot more than any of their other adventure properties.Yes, but they defend them all the same.If you sincerely believe that only 1% of the population uses an LCD monitor...I know I'll probably read him saying so himself... but he's talking about the 1% of PC owners who even know what Monkey Island is!Additionally you can chose 640x400 resolution what does nothing more than to double the pixels.No, that's 4 times the pixels!On that note, it might be worth pointing out that all of Monkey Island 2's backgrounds were original paintings that're completely smooth; they only became pixellated when the scaled down to the low resolution in the game (320x240)...I think you mean 320x200 (320x144 if you discount the interface area and just count the picture!)

Thrik - all serious PC computer geeks (gammers) own CRT MONITORS.

Thrik
07-08-2007, 10:54 AM
Erm, no they don't. I know a lot of gamers both online and offline who're what you could consider 'hardcore' and pretty much every single one uses an LCD, and if you look at Steam's latest hardware survey (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html) 41% of people use 1280x800, which as far as I'm aware is very unlikely to appear on any CRT. A large portion of the 36% on 1024x768 are probably on smaller LCDs, too. Steam's results are probably slightly skewed too as although the userbase is massive, a lot of them play older games like Counter-Strike for Half-Life 1. If you were to restrict results to people who mainly play 2005/2006 games you'd probably find the results even more in LCD's favour.

But anyway, it's not a hugely relevant point we're going to get much fruition out of discussion. What I really came to say is that the circus render above is great. Seriously good job done on that!

BTW Thunderpeel, if you zoom out by two steps in Photoshop (assuming you're using the 'zoom out' tool and not directly entering an integer) it'll do a little processing and essentially give you a perfect downscale. It only goes a bit dodgy and uses nearest neighbour rescaling when you go in odd increments.

Also, if we're talking 3D then it should definitely be output in as high a resolution as possible since we're talking about just changing a number. Why not future proof if you can do so with almost no effort? :D

elTee
07-08-2007, 05:54 PM
I've resized the circus image to 1600 pixels across, using a variety of different resizing methods, which can be compared below. Please click each image to see the full-res version.

Pixel resize (looks awful, probably as it would appear on an LCD)
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/3859/monkeypixelresizewg7.th.jpg (http://img119.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeypixelresizewg7.jpg)

Weighted average (slightly better than pixel resize, still bad)
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9623/monkeyweightedaverageza7.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeyweightedaverageza7.jpg)

Bicubic (not dire, but artefacts clearly visible on cannon - clearly an upscaled image)
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6420/monkeybicubicoj1.th.jpg (http://img245.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeybicubicoj1.jpg)

Bilinear (very soft focus; see rope ladder - not great)
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/4443/monkeybilinearhp5.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeybilinearhp5.jpg)

'Smart-size' (artefacts still visible on cannon, tightrope looks bad)
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3739/monkeysmartsizeto4.th.jpg (http://img178.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeysmartsizeto4.jpg)

S-Spline (better, but artefacts on cannon still apparant; tightrope still not right)
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1431/monkeyssplinepr6.th.jpg (http://img245.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeyssplinepr6.jpg)

S-Spline (w/edge-preserving blur) (artefacts smoothed at cost of clarity; looks like a pastel painting - tightrope still looks funny)
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8642/monkeyssplineedgeblurtf3.th.jpg (http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeyssplineedgeblurtf3.jpg)

S-Spline (w/texture-preserving blur) (some clarity regained, best image - but still 'stylised' in order to cover-up problems)
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7932/monkeyssplinetexturebluzf8.th.jpg (http://img245.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monkeyssplinetexturebluzf8.jpg)

What is the point of this? Well, mainly to show that even using complicated resizing methods the images still don't look great. Even if they did, your computer wouldn't be able to do it on-the-fly anyway - the best looking images out of the bunch above were not only resized but then post-processed to smooth some of the artefacts out. If you were playing an upscaled game it would look something like one of the first four images, not the last four.

The only way to achieve this kind of quality - assuming the game isn't made to a reasonably high resolution anyway - would be to edit each image and then recompile a second 'hi-res' version of the game with physically larger artwork etc. and offering it to people as an alternate version.

Which would be confusing and time consuming. And Thrik's right - and we all seem to have forgotten this for some reason - it is 3D, so it really wouldn't be difficult to make it hi-res. If I had seen that before I had uploaded these images, I wouldn't have uploaded them :p

plamdi.com
07-09-2007, 06:37 AM
Erm, no they don't. I know a lot of gamers both online and offline who're what you could consider 'hardcore' and pretty much every single one uses an LCD, and if you look at Steam's latest hardware survey (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html) 41% of people use 1280x800, which as far as I'm aware is very unlikely to appear on any CRT. A large portion of the 36% on 1024x768 are probably on smaller LCDs, too. Steam's results are probably slightly skewed too as although the userbase is massive, a lot of them play older games like Counter-Strike for Half-Life 1. If you were to restrict results to people who mainly play 2005/2006 games you'd probably find the results even more in LCD's favour.What a baseless argument, you can't conclude at all from that who uses LCD and who doesn't (1280x800 works fine on both of my "old" CRT's). I'll also add that the people I know with LCD's generally have 1024x768 LCD's; and that everyone I know who uses 1280x800 uses a CRT monitor (so does everyone I know that uses 1600x1200). I don't think many people would use LCD's with a resolution of 1600 x 1200 or higher. You'll find in your survey a question on monitor refresh rates in Hz - LCD's are not measured this way; thus the survey is clearly assuming that its participants are using CRT monitors.What is the point of this? Well, mainly to show that even using complicated resizing methods the images still don't look great. Even if they did, your computer wouldn't be able to do it on-the-fly anyway - the best looking images out of the bunch above were not only resized but then post-processed to smooth some of the artefacts out.You could if you wanted, all you need to do is set the program to resize its images once... not every frame (ie the background image is stored resized in memory, not "upscaled" every frame - same with characters and objects).

Thrik
07-09-2007, 07:42 AM
1280x800 might work fine on a CRT, but like I said very few people are likely to actually be using it on a CRT. Why? Because it's a widescreen resolution. As such, I think your comment about everyone you know using 1280x800 on a CRT is absolute bogus because there are hardly any widescreen CRT monitors on the market whatsoever, let alone actually being used by people. Only a fool would use 1280x800 on a CRT, thus vertically stretching the image dramatically, when they could use 1280x960 which is the 'square' ratio a CRT monitor generally uses.

And no, refresh rates aren't limited to CRTs. LCDs also come with an upper limit on what rate they can handle, even if the measurement is largely geared towards CRTs. If you use 50Hz on an LCD that can handle 60Hz, you'll only be seeing 50 frames per second in games as opposed to 60. Where you may be getting confused is that LCDs don't (or shouldn't) flicker with low refresh rates as they 'overwrite' the previous frame, rather than flicking to black at lightning speed first like a CRT. This, however, doesn't mean the refresh rate doesn't exist.

So no, the survey isn't assuming anything, and no, my argument isn't baseless. LCDs are completely ubiquitous now, and if you actually look around homes you might find what you see backs up my argument (unless you only look in student hovels, I guess).

Thrik
07-09-2007, 07:52 AM
Another thing worth mentioning is that LCDs do actually tend to come with higher resolutions than CRT monitors as standard, so I'm not sure where you got your assumption of people using 1600x1200 being on a CRT from.

In fact, you only need to get a 22-inch LCD (which isn't considered in the larger bracket, since they go up to 30 inches) to get a resolution of 1680x1050, and if you step up to 24 inches you'll be greeted with 1920x1200. Hit 30 inches and you're looking at a gigantic 2560x1600.

If you can show me a CRT monitor that can satisfactorily display that resolution without making for difficult reading I'll be impressed. Despite what you've somehow led yourself to think, LCDs are far better at displaying higher resolutions than any CRT monitor, and any gamer wishing to play on such a high resolution would invariably get an LCD.

As if the size of the monitor and sharpness (CRTs are unavoidably blurrier) wasn't enough, LCDs also have perfect geometry, which means there's zero tweaking of the size and edges of the picture to make them straight. Coincidentally, this happens to be something you not only need to do on CRTs, but it gets worse at higher resolutions.

CRTs are a dying technology, and rightfully so.

Ray Jones
07-09-2007, 08:15 AM
*I* use 1280x800 on an LCD. And since this is a resolution that came with 16:10 widescreen displays which began with LCDs, it's more likely to find it used with an LCD instead of an CRT. (as Thrik already said)

Also, what's so uncommon on LCDs with resolutions of 1280x1024, 1600x1200 and above? I hardly can find CRTs where ever I go and the standard resolution is 1280x1024 for most people I know who own an LCD.

No, that's 4 times the pixels!:rolleyes: You double the number of pixels for each ordinate.

You'll find in your survey a question on monitor refresh rates in Hz - LCD's are not measured this way; thus the survey is clearly assuming that its participants are using CRT monitors.The survey is rather pointing out which refresh rate was actually used, and I would be rather surprised if you don't "need" refresh rates when using an LCD.

--
BTW: Looking at the screenshots, I'd rather use the first two methods than any other, as both are as near as possible to the "original". I mean I see the pixels anyway and I prefer them over those rather unsharp and blurred results delivered by the more intelligent algorithms.

However, I really would like to see characters added to the circus background.


[edit]
Damnit Thrik.

ThunderPeel2001
07-09-2007, 05:09 PM
*I* use 1280x800 on an LCD. And since this is a resolution that came with 16:10 widescreen displays which began with LCDs, it's more likely to find it used with an LCD instead of an CRT. (as Thrik already said)I agree, it's more likely, but I highly doubt that 46% of all Counter Strike players use widescreen LCD monitors! Common sense dictates that it's much more likely to be a typo for 1280x1024 (especially since a) the next resolution is 1024x768 and b) 1280x1024 isn't listed!). Which all combines to prove absolutely *nothing* about LCD usage.

Also, what's so uncommon on LCDs with resolutions of 1280x1024, 1600x1200 and above? I hardly can find CRTs where ever I go and the standard resolution is 1280x1024 for most people I know who own an LCD.It's very common for LCDs to have a native resolution of 1280x1024. Not so much 1600x1200 though!

:rolleyes: You double the number of pixels for each ordinate.It's still 4 times the number of pixels. Period. (Why even bother pointing out that 320 x 2 = 640? :))

The survey is rather pointing out which refresh rate was actually used, and I would be rather surprised if you don't "need" refresh rates when using an LCD.No, it isn't. It's clearly showing resolution. Also, just as an aside to Thrik: LCD screens can only use one refresh rate, the way they can only really display one resolution. See for yourself in your Display Properties.

BTW: Looking at the screenshots, I'd rather use the first two methods than any other, as both are as near as possible to the "original". I mean I see the pixels anyway and I prefer them over those rather unsharp and blurred results delivered by the more intelligent algorithms.The screenshots are absolutely pointless and don't really show anything at all. For a start you're not going to see anything of value unless you're viewing at 1600 resolution. Secondly, these look WAY worse than they should (I have no idea what you did to them el tee). I really don't see why they're "complicated methods" when they produced such cruddy out comes.

Here's one (which is all you need) at 1600 pixels wide, using bicubic:
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/Monkey1600.jpg

BTW Thunderpeel, if you zoom out by two steps in Photoshop (assuming you're using the 'zoom out' tool and not directly entering an integer) it'll do a little processing and essentially give you a perfect downscale. It only goes a bit dodgy and uses nearest neighbour rescaling when you go in odd increments.Firstly, it may appear to the layman to be an accurate representation at 50% and 25%, but trust me, if you work all day, every day, in Photoshop like I do, you know it's not the case. Secondly, odd increments ALWAYS distort the image (yes, even in Bicubic). Lastly, why would you bother altering the preferences to "nearest neighbor"?

elTee
07-09-2007, 08:24 PM
Stupid algorithm settings >:

plamdi.com
07-09-2007, 09:57 PM
I agree, it's more likely, but I highly doubt that 46% of all Counter Strike players use widescreen LCD monitors! Common sense dictates that it's much more likely to be a typo for 1280x1024 (especially since a) the next resolution is 1024x768 and b) 1280x1024 isn't listed!). Which all combines to prove absolutely *nothing* about LCD usage.Now, I'm confused - isn't 1280x960 the aspect-ratio-correct resolution for 4:3 - not 1280x1024?No, it isn't. It's clearly showing resolution. Also, just as an aside to Thrik: LCD screens can only use one refresh rate, the way they can only really display one resolution. See for yourself in your Display Properties.LCD's refresh is measured in ms, not in Hz, and the term is "response time" not "refresh rate". It's not as rappid as CRT can handle either.As such, I think your comment about everyone you know using 1280x800 on a CRT is absolute bogus because there are hardly any widescreen CRT monitors on the market whatsoever, let alone actually being used by people.Okay, so they use 1280x960, and I know no-one who uses 1280x800. The reason gammers are far less likely to use LCD is because LCD is mainly sold with pre-built computers, and CRT displays a superior picture and does resolution correctly (important since games come in many resolutions).

Thrik
07-10-2007, 05:00 AM
Okay, firstly Thunderpeel you're wrong about LCDs and refresh rates. Look at any proper set of LCD monitor specifications like these (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4335) and you'll find evidence of this. It's referred to as the sync rate, which from a functionality standpoint means exactly the same thing.

Although Windows only lets you set one refresh rate, LCD monitors are actually capable of using any rate up to their maximum sync rate without any problems whatsoever, including intermediate rates such as 59Hz, etc. Indeed, Windows only offers the monitor above 60Hz, but people can and do use it without incident at 75Hz. You simply use your graphics card's display drivers to set it.

The critical difference between the way that LCDs and CRTs handle refresh rates is simple: CRTs flicker on lower rates, LCDs don't. However, with both the maximum frame rate is whatever the refresh/sync rate is set to.

And as for Photoshop, it just so happens that I do work in Photoshop every day, at work, in my full-time job. And I'm going to completely contest your assertion that it distorts the image. You will lose clarity for sure (should be obvious since you're compressing a number of pixels into one), but infinitely less so than you'd lose if you did it the other way round because the rescaler at least has the original data to work with when optimising the smaller version, while it wouldn't the other way round -- especially if intelligent rescalers are used. And with digital paintings this is barely an issue anyway.

Most digital artists I've come across paint in a high resolutions so they have flexibility when downscaling if they need to (try putting a 1024x768 painting onto a poster). Heck, I've come across a fair few who paint without boundaries at a high resolution and then crop the best frame like a cameraman would.

And finally, anyone with an interest in good colour reproduction would use an LCD. This is because although CRTs are capable of blacker blacks when viewed in dark conditions (although both can't achieve true black, and the difference is minimised with the newest LCDs), the huge advantage LCD has is that it more accurately displays colours and they're more vivid to boot. It's no exaggeration to say that a decent LCD can pick out the difference between an RGB grey of 1 (out of 255) and 0, which is black.

Indeed, from the second you start using a CRT the colours will start to degrade and the whole monitor will generally get darker, eventually becoming impossible to bring out the darker greys. An LCD on the other hand doesn't degrade in this way at all, and only the backlight will start to dim very slowly with time, not impacting colour accuracy at all. In addition, newer LCDs have negligible response times.

There is absolutely no real defence for using a CRT over an LCD unless you almost always play older games which have no facility for working in higher resolutions. Even then, an LCD is probably preferable due to less eye fatigue (generally caused by a CRT's super-fast flickering). If you somehow still don't believe LCDs are as widespread as I say they are, then seriously, just go look around. Excluding students who often live on barebone equipment (myself included at the time), LCDs are the way most people go.

I'm going to drop the resolution thing though since we've already established the art is in 3D so employing it at a higher resolution isn't a concern.

elTee
07-10-2007, 05:46 AM
Ho ho! I don't understand any of all this. But I like my LCD monitor (1280x1024, for the statisticians) because it's nice and thiiiiiin.

Thrik
07-10-2007, 06:05 AM
Hee, yes, that's another reason why LCDs are popular. My grandparents actually got some based on specifically that reason, as well as various friends. Also workplaces generally roll them out en masse, even the stingy social services. :D

To not see that they're taking over is mental. Not catering for them properly is doubly mental. My original point (since buried under a thousand side-arguments) still stands completely in that regard.

plamdi.com
07-10-2007, 11:30 AM
Hee, yes, that's another reason why LCDs are popular. My grandparents actually got some based on specifically that reason, as well as various friends. Also workplaces generally roll them out en masse, even the stingy social services. :D

To not see that they're taking over is mental. Not catering for them properly is doubly mental. My original point (since buried under a thousand side-arguments) still stands completely in that regard.LCD may be popular, but it isn't better then CRT (for computers). For large sizes LCD is more practicle; and does use up less power then CRT's would at the same size - but they simply cannot use diverse resolutions the way that CRT can.

Thrik
07-10-2007, 11:41 AM
You hardly ever need to use different resolutions for modern computing though, so for anyone not using software that's old it's not really an issue at all. People of today don't really expect to have to use different resolutions because all software is designed to just run at whatever native resolution someone is using, games included.

This is why my driving point has remained that not catering for this very basic modern standard would be a bit mental considering how easy it'd be to do so.

LCD is better for computers, and the points in my last post that you neatly sidestepped back that up. The only perceived advantage that CRTs have is being able to run different resolutions on a 1:1 pixel basis, whereas LCDs have a set number of pixels. All a CRT does is physically make the gaps between those pixels a bit bigger to fill the screen, while an LCD processes it.

I'm sorry, but CRTs are not better for computers and haven't been for a long time. I can't even think of any situation at all where I've needed to run an LCD in a non-native resolution other than when installing Windows (because the graphics card isn't fully installed at that point) and when running old games (which is extremely rare).

john_doe
07-10-2007, 01:03 PM
You'll need to settle for one resolution that satifies CRT users as well as LCD users. The best compromise is to use either 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Admitted, it will still be scaled on some LCDs but you can't make everyone happy, and the less scaling needed on LCD monitors the better.

Yes, one could "simply" render all the graphics at several resolutions. BUT other game relevant data would need to be adjusted/created from scratch for each different resolution, so that would be too much work.

I don't know which engine will be used in the end, and they have limits to the resolution, too, so you'd be limited by that anyway.

Unless you make the game in 3D, then resolution wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Personally I think LCDs are a result of 3D games, and vice versa, since resolution doesn't matter with 3D games, and 2D games look like crap on LCDs when they're not in the native resolution.

ThunderPeel2001
07-10-2007, 06:22 PM
I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. One thing I do know: CRTs have more accurate colour representation. If you can spot 000000 against 010101, then it means your LCD can't display dark tones very well (in fact it's rather poor at it). Try seeing the difference between d6d6d6 and d7d7d7.

Also, like I said before, my LCD makes 2D upscaled games look fine. They're not pin-prick sharp, like on a CRT at the correct resolution, but these days we tend to use filters to take the edges off those old graphics anyway. I can't imagine anyone saying that older games look "extremely offensive to the eyes" on my monitor.

Finally, as I've shown with paprik's image, upscaled to 1600 pixels wide (which is large enough for anyone), the image still looks perfectly fine.

I wonder how paprik is getting on?

Thrik
07-10-2007, 06:32 PM
I've agreed to drop the resolution argument since we were getting nowhere, but just to clarify my "can make out the difference" comment I meant this on a good LCD it's very possible to pick out the difference between a grey of 0 (out of 255) and 1 (out of 255), which is basically the darkest grey you can put into an image.

CRTs have trouble with this because of colour bleed which means surrounding bright colours can bleed into the darks, and because of the general age-induced darkening a CRT suffers which means its greys become darker and darker until they're eaten up. LCDs don't age in this way at all.

No doubt about it, LCDs are the preferred display for colour accuracy and design these days. Perhaps not when the technology was in its earlier days, but it definitely is now. They've really moved on. Just so you know!

BTW, re-reading my earlier posts I realise I was being a bit more snarly than I meant to be. I was at work and was writing in a rush so I was kind of running off the top of my head, and didn't really see if what I was writing might seem a bit attackish. It wasn't meant to be. ;-*

plamdi.com
07-11-2007, 12:03 AM
I don't like completely flat screens, never have, and I prefer the quality that comes with CRT - which can be well calibrated using brightness and contrast adjusted - this can't be done on LCD, which is why CRT remains the best form of monitor for computers (each pixel can only display 256 levels of brightness regardless of the settings, this can somewhat be modified with the level of the back-light but the control is no-where near what you get with CRT).

Don't tell me you'd put an LCD into an arcade cabinet? The quality will never equal equipment that is specifically designed for the task:

http://www.highway.net.au/parts/monitor_&_chassis/4809.html

LCD is better for television - that much I do agree with, since (after all) it only needs to be designed to do one thing. Customers should have the freedom to select the screen resolutions they prefer with computer monitors. I used to use 1024x768 on a 15" monitor, and when I upgraded to 17" I went to 1152x864 because it kept the pixels the same kind of size, and I've used that for many many years now (at least 10 years). If I was to buy an LCD I'm essentially forced to use its resolution rather than *my* resolution.

There are many situations where LCD monitors for computers are suitable; however for computer games which have the freedom to be designed for specific resolutions, it is still best to use CRT. Remember, a PC with a 1600x1200 LCD may be too slow to render a game at that resolution, and may need to render it at 1024x768 - no problem if you've got a CRT. They're not a dying technology; just an older technology which is far more refined then LCD.

Thrik
07-11-2007, 04:37 AM
They really are a dying technology. Last I checked Sony has withdrawn its entire CRT line and no longer produces them, and other manufacturers are expected to follow suit before long; CRTs also tend to be relatively obscurely listed on sites. The demand for them is very quickly dying, and demand = supply.

And on the matter of calibration, you most certainly can adjust the individual brightness/gamma/contrast, as well as the intensity of each individual colour. LCDs also have more lastingly accurate colour as the colours do not degrade with age, which is something I've repeated several times.

It's also worth noting that LCDs in general come much brighter than CRTs (as in, they can push out more light) and have purer whites, which is a desirable trait to most. This has been furthered by the new LED-backlit LCDs which debuted in monitor form this year.

I appreciate that you like CRTs, but pretty much every argument you've used has been rendered completely obsolete as LCD technology has progressed. I can only put your dislike of LCDs down to an outdated perspective, because there's no real justification for not using one unless you predominantly play old games with fixed resolutions or have a massive LCD but not the computer to support it.

plamdi.com
07-11-2007, 07:20 AM
As I said earlier LCD is only good when the screen resolution is fixed and doesn't need to be changed - this is not the case with games (new as well as old); and never will be. LCD's may not loose brightness overtime - but instead their pixels die permanently (and this is by design since they now fade black instead of white). A good CRT will out-live any LCD. Why do you think LCD technology didn't increase the range of colours it can display (it's the same standard RGB as before)?

LCD doesn't have as rich contrast or colour purity either; but the simple fact of the matter is that it's not suited to the needs of computers. It's suited to specific needs such as laptops, or work computers - or in situations where the above mentioned features are not important. But for the home or entertainment use - or professional use it simply doesn't hold up against CRT monitors.

The best LCD response time is around 8ms - which is equivalent to 80Hz at best (or about 75Hz I think). Good CRT's can achieve up to 200Hz - this is better for games. As for brightness, I set my CRT at +41 brightness, and it goes up to 100!

Thrik
07-11-2007, 07:31 AM
The best response time is actually 2ms, now available across Samsung's fairly inexpensive line of LCDs. In addition, the LED-backlit LCDs I mentioned before dramatically raise the lifespan of LCDs and they will outlive most CRTs. But of course, the CRT will technically die long before that once the colour quality starts to degrade as I mentioned before.

LCDs fade, sure, but extremely slowly. With the new LED-backlit ones on the block, it's much longer.

The fact is that LCD monitors are constantly moving forward quickly, and nullifying most arguments I assume you've been using for several years now. Dead pixels are now barely an issue, colour purity and contrast is way ahead, and lifespan is huge. Add to that the econonomical and space savings and it's hard to make a case for CRTs.

Using multiple resolutions isn't really an issue anymore as no software is really made these days that doesn't run in any given native resolution. Even games with 2D elements like Company of Heroes adapt their GUI to add more spacing between areas and such so the 2D art isn't compromised but still fits nicely onto any resolution given.

Not running in your native resolution is a thing of the past. Games very rarely come without this facility these days, and with Windows software it's not an issue anyway.

Thrik
07-11-2007, 07:33 AM
I think it's become apparent neither of us are going to change either's stance on this though, as clearly we are adverse advocates. Since we're now a million miles off topic it might be best to just drop it completely, heh. :~

elTee
07-11-2007, 10:19 AM
I think it's crazy to say that CRTs are better because they were 'designed for the job'... it's like saying the telegraph is better than the telephone (or e-mail) for sending messages across the Atlantic. It's not that the technology was designed for the job, it's that it was the best that was available at the time to achieve the job. Just a means to an end. If LCD TVs had been commonplace back when the home-computer boom started, do you think they'd have chosen CRT for the displays? Why choose obsolete technology? I mean hell, they could probably have made a robotic arm holding a piece of chalk to a blackboard and it would have 'worked', but it's just pointless and archaic.

As the technology for the screens changes, so will the mechanics of displaying images. Any problems LCD monitors have that CRTs don't will be overcome in time. And it'll happen again when we take the next leap. Bloody, holographic displays or something.

ThunderPeel2001
07-11-2007, 05:25 PM
BTW, re-reading my earlier posts I realise I was being a bit more snarly than I meant to be. I was at work and was writing in a rush so I was kind of running off the top of my head, and didn't really see if what I was writing might seem a bit attackish. It wasn't meant to be. ;-*

No worries. I'm sure being in work myself (and stressed out to oblivion, as usual) did nothing to help my tone, either. What do you do for a living, btw, that forces you to monkey around in Photoshop all day, like myself?

Thrik
07-12-2007, 09:54 AM
Web designer. :o

ThunderPeel2001
07-12-2007, 10:48 AM
Cool. Graphic designer, myself. I've been getting into Web work. Recently put together a PHP/SQL driven site... nightmare!

My this is off-topic, and yet, oddly compelling... sorry everyone!

bgbennyboy
07-12-2007, 12:11 PM
This thread burns. My eyes, my poor eyes.

I bet Paprik's wondering what he's started.

Ray Jones
07-12-2007, 01:26 PM
I still want to see character design :(

ThunderPeel2001
07-14-2007, 07:04 PM
I think Paprik is off elsewhere doing things much more productive... At least, I hope he is! He didn't seem to take up anyone's offer of help, so I can only assume (hope) that he's busy on another, more productive, forum that's teeming with talented bods.

SeaTurtle
07-15-2007, 11:43 AM
another, more productive, forum that's teeming with talented bods.

You mean like the Monkey Island forum (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=180449)?

plamdi.com
07-17-2007, 06:38 AM
I think Paprik is off elsewhere doing things much more productive... At least, I hope he is! He didn't seem to take up anyone's offer of help, so I can only assume (hope) that he's busy on another, more productive, forum that's teeming with talented bods.Yes he has, he's just not been talking about all of it on here. I stared a new job jast week myself (8AM-5:30PM 6 days a week); which means I've had less time for internet forum stuff too.

ThunderPeel2001
07-17-2007, 09:26 AM
Six days a week... ouch! :( How do you know what he's been up to? Have you been in touch with the guy?

Mesden
07-17-2007, 07:08 PM
I couldn't help with Programming or Design or anything like that, but if you're pretty much redesigning the characters, the background, and everything else, I could probably get you some voice-overs. They wouldn't be the same voice-overs as the other Monkey Island games, but they would be belieable nonetheless.

And no, this won't cost you anything.

If you're interested, please E-mail me:
Undernet01@Shaw.ca

Mesden
07-20-2007, 12:21 AM
"Bumping" this topic.

Ray Jones
07-20-2007, 10:23 AM
Well, actually, there is no need to "bump" a two days old thread, which also was still the first (after the stickies) listed on page one. People will find it if they have something to post, and just because it's been bumped doesn't mean new posts will flood in. ::

In fact, this wasn't bumpage, but double posting which is only allowed to our almighty dictThrik.

I might add that this kind of behaviour might cause the admins to reduce the insane post count of yours towards nada.

tizerist
08-05-2007, 07:45 PM
those of you wanting to help paprik make this game reality might be pleased to know that he has been sighted here
http://www.worldofmi.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3217
here
http://www.worldofmi.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6009

and more recently, here
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2354877#post2354877

he seems to need help, and you guys sound good enough to lend a hand.

laters.

shadow_judge
08-08-2007, 04:33 AM
I think we should use the sprites, music, background... by using LucasHack or ScummRevisited to rip it out. But, I was really disappointed with the silence in SMI, may be because I played the MI2 first then the first one :D

Shmargin
08-10-2007, 07:27 PM
I dont see the point of doing this.

Not to be a jerk, I mean, I can see the personal gains one can get from working on any kind of project that can show their skills as an artist or programmer.

But uh, you guys do know that Lucas will shut you down/sue you any way they can right?

More power to you, but fanmade remakes suck 9 times out of 10 anyways.

(That 1 belongs to Maniac Mansion Deluxe by the way, and they only win cause they stuck to the basics.)

Murray the Chao
08-11-2007, 02:50 AM
Idiot! The remakes of KQI - III were all quite excellent, and the remake of QFG2 is also looking to be just as good.

funk monk
08-18-2007, 11:30 AM
I'm a huge Monkey Island fan...and in my fourth or fifth time returning to play monkey island 1, I noticed that unless I change my screen resolution to 1024 x 768 or 800 x 600, I can not play the game, unless I allow it to take up only 50% of the screen, and even then, the edges of the game are cutoff.

I propose that if a remake is in order, the graphics be fit or configurable for HD resolutions. At least 1280 x 720 compatible. As technology grows and expands, we dont want to leave monkey island behind.

I'm waiting for the movie to come out too btw...I am involved in video production and wouldnt mind helping out a movie should it be in the works, but as far as creating the game, I'll just test it when it comes out...I would love to play it on my 32 inch monitor, please dont remake the game and keep people in my situation out of the playing loop!

DanielH
08-26-2007, 10:16 PM
IMHO, I don't think it should be in 3D, I never really felt EMI had the 'monkey' feel the others had. But if your remake is in 3D, I'll certainly try it.

paprik123456
12-09-2007, 12:10 PM
Hello Guys, some of you are right. I haven't been answering for long time, but I want to tell you what is new now. Me and my friend still work on this project, but very very slowly. I am still looking for character artist who will make great characters with animation. Our home-made engine works with sprites. So all backgrounds, all animations, anything in game is 2D. After 1yr when I spoke to Ron Gilbert he changed mind and He disagree with Monkey Island 1 remake, but we don't care actually and his classic game will never be forgotten. He doesnt have to be worried about that. Remake will have 800x600, without menu its 800x640. Most of the pictures has long distance scrolling. Many people offered me help, but 99 percents of them were pretty beginners and we dont want to make game with bad graphic and animations. So there are only 3 people, who work on this project: Me as a Artist, Friend as a programmer and Friend as a musician. There are very good talented guys and we all works for free. They are from Czech Republic as me, but I am the one, who lives in USA-Illinois and work for High Voltage company. We are very busy guys, but we love what we do, so one day we will finish this project, and then, I will go to jail probably :o)))) Some of the pictures already got new coat and has richer details. Pictures which you can find on my website are old. There is also a guy from MixnMojo, who work on MIremake website, which should be done till New Year 2008. My personnal website should be done in 2 weeks. Any questions send to my email: patrikspacek@yahoo.com

Gabez
12-09-2007, 12:38 PM
Oh yes, I need to get going on that. I am slow.

Also, my grandfather was from the Czech Republic!

ThunderPeel2001
12-09-2007, 06:00 PM
Well six months on and it sounds like they're struggling. I hope they're just focussing on the first couple of screens in order to create a demo. Once people can see what they can do, more people will likely come forward (provided it's good enough).

Good luck to them, I say!

santorini_islan
01-27-2008, 04:17 PM
Can somebody help me with MI 1 remake? I am very good background artist and I need character artists and programmers....thank you

ICQ: 138997911


Hi paprik!

First of all congrats for the wonderful 3d artwork that represents the Melee Island without losing the original feel of the area.

If you still need programers, I will be happy to help. As I am doing a PhD and I have to fisnish my quals at February, I am very keen to start working at March.

Regarding my experience with computer programming, I have a BSc&MSc in computer engineering, I have been programming mostly in C/C++ since high school and I have professional experience. So far I haven't programmed computer graphics (apart from some ultra short games which I had coded as a child and worked in DOS, no directx back then!), but I will be very happy to get familiar to DirectX/OpenGL libraries if Secret of Monkey Island is to be remade!

Apart from that I must say that MI1 is my favorite game and I have been waiting for years for people to remake it. I even though of doing this myself, but my artistic skills wouldn't do justice to the game.

if you are interested, please send me an email at:

meleeisle 'at' gmail 'dot' com (replace 'at' and 'dot' with the well known symbols ;-) )