3D is not better than 2D

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I personally am starting to dislike the mind set that people and games makers are starting to have (well ok alot have had it for a long time.) That 3D is better than 2D.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that 2D is better then 3D, it's just more appropriate for some types of games than 3D.

I'm referring to strategy and tactical game, primarily.

Case and point, I have both Hero's and Might and Magic 2 and 5.

Hero's 2 is an old game from 96, It has 2D graphics with a large overhead view.
I enjoy this game.
Now there are alot of complains I can level against Hero's 5, but I of the most prevalent is the fact that they decided to go 3D, which in game play terms means you have to constantly rotate the camera angle to see where anything is and this has a habit of making you lose your bearings.

It's a far cry from making the game unplayable yes but it's an annoyance that really sucks the enjoyment out of it.

Another good example would be Odin Sphere, you can't really duplicate the game play with 3D.

Not to be a dick, but would it kill you to include some images? If you're talking about the differences in what you see on screen, it would be reeeaaally helpful to include examples. This also makes it easier for you to point out differences.

Because at the moment... I have no fudging idea what you're on about. I get the camera/rotate point... but that's about as much as I have extracted from your post. I don't know what Hero's is, or Might and Magic... and I don't particularly want to go google image hopping.

Use pictures! Get more response.

Edit
If you're saying that developers believe 3D to be better than 2D... then I think you'd best put on some flame proof clothing. Fact of the matter is, developers who do work on 3D games, do so because the demographic demands it. ie, the general public, who continue to buy more 3D games than 2D. And you could say "there aren't as many 2D games, that's why"... you'd probably be wrong on that. There are an insane number of 2D games out there, they're a great deal faster to create. The majority simply doesn't care about them though, that's why we don't see them all over magazines and in the trailers before a film starts. You're also not including web-based games... the majority of which are certainly 2D.

I could go on a lot more with this... but I'd rather not. At-least not yet anyway.

It all really depends on how well its exacuted. The 2D has come and gone but its still possible to make some visually beatufil things with it. Don't stress to much, 3D probably gonna have the same problem when this magical '4D' comes out.

There's also the argument that 2D has not been crushed. And is infact alive and well, living within 3D. Developers have Texture Artists for a reason, y'know.

Silent movies were much better too. And slavery.

But slavery was good for a small portion of the market. Just like 2D games are good for a small portion of the market.

*dons white sheet*
DEATH TO THE GPUS!
SPRITE POWER!
SPRITE POWER!
SPRITE POWER!

OurGloriousLeader:
Silent movies were much better too. And slavery.

Ha Ha. Given that last part of the statement I assume you mean this sarcastically though in many ways the first part is correct.

Case and point, in 2005 the movie Call of Cthulhu was released, this is a black and white silent film.

See here
http://www.cthulhulives.org/cocmovie/

This was a good movie, but if they had done it in the latest special effects and CGI, it would have been a piece of shit. Why? Because black and white and silent were the appropriate motifs for the story.

Seriously special effects killed the horror movie.

I'm not saying modern special effects are bad, (Though alot of movies do tend to focus to much on them.) but they can be entirely inappropriate for a genre.

Geedave you wanted pictures here

Hero's 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HoMM2_screenshot.png

Simple and informative.

Hero's 5, not the best image to illustrate my point but,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HeroesV_Gameplay.png

Very pretty but tilt it slightly it becomes pretty useless.

OurGloriousLeader:
Silent movies were much better too. And slavery.

Both completely true AND completely necessary!

2x "Guffaw"

Littlebigplanet is reason enough to think side-scrolling is superior to worlds in 3 actual Dimensions!

But, 3d is MUCH better than 2d. It's MORE d's......Heh, needless boob joke.

Really, for me it's about gameplay. Oblivion could have been 2-d and played like Metroid, but I probably would have enjoyed it just as much.

I suppose the issue at heart here is change, via modernisation.

For those of us that still boot up our classical love for 2D games, it's very easy to dislike the 3d versions. We're all aware of the term "less is more"... and to put it quite simply, 2D games were basic, but could focus on just an enjoyable game.

I'm not saying 3D games are less enjoyable here though.

What I am saying is that I'm sure the 4th installment of Monkey Island is actually quite good. But I'm in love with the first 2... and somewhat adore the third. But the fourth... as it entered this new age of 3D-ness, it just lost all hope for me. See below:

Monkey Island 1:
image

Monkey Island 2:
image

Monkey Island 3:
image

Monkey Island 4:
image

I will one day play the fourth installment, and possibly find it to my liking. But I'm an artist inside (A 3D artist... ironically) and I just could not stomach the drastic change in visuals. The 2D worked fine, hell it was perfect for that type of game play. So I can understand that from this perspective, the change into 3D was simply not necessary. But again, as I stated previously... it had to be done, to 'keep up with the times'

No doubt we'll see someone come along with a beautifully drawn HD 2D point and click adventure, and the earth will shake with joy. It will be referenced as a modern day classical and hailed as a god among games (provided the puzzle work is good to!).. but for what? For regression? They say history repeats itself, right?

Now the above ramblings are pretty specific to a genre. 3D simply had to happen for most games, it was also a positive and welcomed progression. I love 2D, but I can't ignore the sheer power that 3D has over it, especially when done correctly. And 3D games can still retain amazing visuals as I briefly stated earlier about the Texture Artists. Textures are the most resource guzzling components that you can have in a computer game, so it's no surprise then to know that developers will try their best to squeeze as much as they can out of every allocated pixel space. This is becoming less of a 'problem' nowadays though, I think (and I may need to be corrected on this) that the Ps3 and/or Xbox 360 can handle up to 2048x2048 texture sheets for a particular asset. That's huge... that's crazy huge for a game.

Your issue though, appears to be perspective dependant, and how some things might be blocked from view due to the perspective, causing you to either move or rotate the camera. The same problem lies within 2D games that feature perspective. Off the top of my head I'm thinking about Diablo 2 with it's isometric views (2D projected to look 3D). If you went behind walls and various other things, they had it so that the object obscuring your view would fade out slightly, allowing you to see your character. But this did not always happen, and your view was completely blocked.

Not the best example, but see the pillars here:
image

Your character can stand directly behind one of these (from the players perspective), and they will not fade. For all you know their could be a demon hiding their too, ready to slash you down.

I haven't got the energy to make a conclusion here... plus I think i've typed more than enough for the time being! The end.

I noticed that I don't actually rotate the camera that much in 3D strategy games, I think it's just a matter of how picky you are and how many details you need to see. Hell, then there's Total War...I don't think I could live without a camera that I can rotate.

2D and 3D are fine depending on how they are implemented, but I think 3D is becoming somewhat of a necessity, you don't need a full 3D camera but if you look at most of the new sidescrolling games that are coming up (mainly just things you'll find for download or on PSN/XBL) they are in 3D anyway, but the 3rd dimension doesn't hinder you, even with the fixed camera.

Odin Sphere, anyone?

thepopeofatheism:
Odin Sphere, anyone?

I assume you are asking about the game.
Website here.

http://www.atlus.com/odinsphere/

Nazrel:

thepopeofatheism:
Odin Sphere, anyone?

I assume you are asking about the game.
Website here.

http://www.atlus.com/odinsphere/

Oh, I am very aware of the game. I own it.
I was attempting to make a somewhat subtle suggestion of how 2D games still have their place. No one can argue that that game does not look amazing.

thepopeofatheism:

Oh, I am very aware of the game. I own it.
I was attempting to make a somewhat subtle suggestion of how 2D games still have their place. No one can argue that that game does not look amazing.

Damnit, I came here to say the same thing. Odin Sphere is not only damned pretty, but the colorful spriteyness makes it absolutely timeless. I have in my bedroom an absolute bushel of PSX-era games that seemed so revolutionary, so beautiful at the time which now I can barely stand to look at. By intentionally scaling back the graphical level to something not so currently cutting-edge, Atlus has made a game that's going to age as beautifully as it currently looks.

Well the Playstation 3 has 4D Graphics so that better than everything!

On a serious note, if you're viewing 3 dimensional images on a 2 dimensional monitor, isn't it still 2D (isometric?) & not true 3D?

I'm surprised the name 'Sonic The Hedgehog' hasn't dropped yet.
Well... actually, I don't need to explain anything when I say the name, eh? It all just speaks for itself...

There are, however, series that did survive the step to 3D. But mostly it's just an entirely different concept of gameplay: the Metroid series would be a prime example (lolpun) of that. Or even simply Super Mario 64.

An argument that would support the OP, would be the 'New' Super Mario Bros. for the DS. It got lauded, but what was it in essence? Just a 3D rehash of an old franchise. Not that anything's wrong with it when it's executed properly, though.

2D vs Fake 3D vs True 3D...

Some games are just that much better in 2D. Arcade style games and puzzle/adventure titles get ruined with 3D, as Monkey Island shows above. 2D doesn't mean low bitrate or pixelated garbage. 2D is also very much preferred in console gaming.

Fake 3D, by my definition, is where 3D aspects (such as characters or terrain models) are present in a 2D world. Classic example, Total Annihilation. All the models were 3D, but the map is a static 2-dimensions. Fake 3D is my favorite style as you can have all the detail 3D allows without loosing what makes 2D styles fun. I hate how DoW or other RTS games let you reposition the camera, it offers me nothing extra but adds to system resource usage and the graphics are worse off since EVERYTHING must be 3D rendered, instead of just the units.

Real 3D for me, FPS games and simulations. That's what it's for, that's where it works best, that's where I want it.

Legend of Mana. 2D characters. 2D backgrounds. Absolutely beautiful game.

One of my favourite games of all time was Stars!, a 2D 4X game which is one of the most in depth 4X games before or since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars%21

Minimum requirements are Intel 80386 CPU, 4MB RAM, Windows 3.1 or higher :)

Monkey island 4 is horrible, never actually managed to complete it. It's slightly wierd, you really need to have played MI1 (and 2) to get most of the jokes in it, yet by making it 3d (and bad 3d at that) they alienated the core fanbase....

It's also a great example of a game that went needlessly 3D (another example by the looks of it is the new Guilty Gear for 360)

However some games can make good trasitions to 3D, metroid, Sam and max (huzzah)

Some games should stay 2D, but in general i think 90% of games are enhanced by being 3D

I'm frequently annoyed by badly implemented 3D. It's often unclear (grey means realistic!), unintuitive (age of wonders II, very pretty and I'm very much lost) and unimaginative (crates!).
The monkey island example above shows this very clearly. I don't think it's an inherent problem of 3D vs 2D, but that creative artistic qualities for 3D have not been explored and developed very deeply yet.

Look at bioshock or team fortress 2. That's 3D working beautifully. If you put either art team or art direction and apply it to a monkey's island game, it will be like monkey's island 3, but 3D.

I'm positive that cool 2D games can still be made, but I doubt you'll see another AAA 2D game. What game would really make more sense to develop in 2D? Adventure games are only barely games. It wasn't the game mechanics that made adventure games fun. Every adventure game that was good, was good only because the designers beat the odds, cheat the rules and humourously skipped to the finish line. I loved these games, but would you pay 50$ for an adventure game now when you can also get guild wars, GTA or orange box (depending on your flavor)?
Most of such games, guild wars, GTA, orange box, have tried and true game mechanics that make those games fun, regardless of beating odds, cheating rules and humour. We miss the oddball contributions. I do too. Star control 2 anyone?
But until we get a quentin tarantino of gaming, we'll have to do with good production values of gigantic games with immersive worlds and 2.0 content. I think we'll get through.

2D games seem to have more effort put into them.

3D games lack originality alot of the time.

Oh, Dude! Stars! was one of my favorites... Moo2 still kicks its ass, but Stars! did rock.

And so did Scorched Earth.

Worms has kinda died after it went 3D.

Baldur's Gate / Planescape Torment --> Neverwinter Nights
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

Simon the Sorcerer 2 --> Simon the Sorcerer 3D
image
image
image
image

Jump & Runs like Earthworm Jim
image
image

Rather keep them 2D, up the resolution & detail, renew the UIs and make them a great experience and I'd still be all in and even more please... and if you make them 3D then at least try to simulate 2D environments and don't change the whole gameplay on a whim.
There's also some good or rather better examples for those genres today but nowhere near what they did or could still do with 2D.

Also another thing is in 2D games the engine isn't that complicated and you have only a few artists that can do lots of stuff and even use concept art directly in the game, in 3D games you need a LOT more people working on the technical part i.e. Engine, Textures, Models and all that crap and the end result doesn't even look all that good/unique but rather often "similar" and uninspired.
Also there's a lot less time to focus on the actual gameplay and story/gimmicks etc. and there's stuff that's not even possible or that easily doable in 3D as it is in 2D.

Sonic old > Sonic new

ANTI-SANTA:
Don't stress to much, 3D probably gonna have the same problem when this magical '4D' comes out.

Excuse me, but should I be taking that with a grain of salt or a tablet of cyanide?

Anyways.

I'd say that I agree completely with Dexter, and the general voice in this thread that fancy 3D graphics are not always suitable, and often end up hogging time in the development cycle and lead to the gameplay itself being mediocre.

But who's fault is that, really? The majority of people love flashy graphics, and if it looks good enough to distract them from the gameplay itself, they're fine with it - that's why Crysis succeeded. If you give the mob a metaphorical shit sandwich that looks like the most delicious thing made, they'll eat it, savour it, and tell all their friends about how amazing it was.

Jamash:
On a serious note, if you're viewing 3 dimensional images on a 2 dimensional monitor, isn't it still 2D (isometric?) & not true 3D?

Isometric projection -- that's when two parallel lines will always appear parallel in the projected image -- is a technique mostly employed by what people call "fake 3-D" games. If you have some artistic talent, it's pretty easy to create this kind of thing with sprites (as long as you have a fixed camera, of course -- panning around in an isometric space can be downright trippy).

What we normally think of as "3-D" video games use perspective projection. That's where two parallel lines seem to meet at the horizon, basically.

Wikipedia has some decent articles on this stuff.

-- Alex

ZettaSan:
2D games seem to have more effort put into them.

3D games lack originality alot of the time.

Many 2D Sprites were actually pixelized and reduced raster paintings. When you put effort into painting, it comes out great. When you put effort into 3D Animation, it comes out mediocre; you have to put in somewhere inbetween dedication and obsession to make it good. Like Pixar.

think about how long this would take a painter to make, nevermind animate
think about how long this would take a painter to make, nevermind animate

LOL at digging the QTE grave

This video explains why i wasnt too impressed when i recently played the following games

- Grim Fandango (everything except the dialogue trees sucks)
- Baldur's gate 2 and planescape torment (combat is BROKEN, battles are basically decided in the first 3 seconds when status effects are launched, if 2 or more guys get hit with that stun/hold/confuse/level drain/fear just reload, shitty AI and pathfinding only makes it worse)

Yes we need a 2D revival we are at the point now where 2D can be done perfectly I would happily play a new 2D sonic or even if diablo 3 was like diablo 2 but with better art and the same with BG + IWD > Neverwinter
The infinity engine was simply the best at translating D&D to the pc all it needs is better art to match what can currently be done

Man, I made this thread a while ago :]

As Yahtzee said, Bionic Commando Rearmed didn't need to be 3D. I like how MM9 is NES-style graphics, ah, nostalgia.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked