The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In the light of the news on Jet Set Willy and Manic Miner being updated, does 3D really make games any better? What do you prefer?
3D games mean that the game seems more realistic and has spawned numorous classics such as Doom, UT, Goldeneye and many more. It seems to be the dimension of choice for any modern game, from racing to FPS, mostly due to Wolfenstein on the PC and the Playstation's selling point of high-quality polygon graphics when it first arrived on the scene. It does make the games prettier and more realistic, but it doesn't really make the gameplay any better. When Sonic and Mario went 3D there were many 'wows' from gamesplayers and, yes, the games were good and afforded much more freedom to explore the gameworld.
2D game have, of course, been around since gaming existed, and are still rife today in Capcom's beat-em-ups like the Street fighter series, platform games and in most handheld games. The left, right, up and down limitations are well established but have been used in such classics as the command and conquer series, strategy games and most decent top-down football games. They are, however, increasingly rare to find in magazine screenshots as 3D is the order of the day.
I believe there is still room for the 2D game, and games firms shouldn't try to make everything 3D just to sell their products. Save the 2D game before it falls flat, you know it makes sense.
3D games mean that the game seems more realistic and has spawned numorous classics such as Doom, UT, Goldeneye and many more. It seems to be the dimension of choice for any modern game, from racing to FPS, mostly due to Wolfenstein on the PC and the Playstation's selling point of high-quality polygon graphics when it first arrived on the scene. It does make the games prettier and more realistic, but it doesn't really make the gameplay any better. When Sonic and Mario went 3D there were many 'wows' from gamesplayers and, yes, the games were good and afforded much more freedom to explore the gameworld.
2D game have, of course, been around since gaming existed, and are still rife today in Capcom's beat-em-ups like the Street fighter series, platform games and in most handheld games. The left, right, up and down limitations are well established but have been used in such classics as the command and conquer series, strategy games and most decent top-down football games. They are, however, increasingly rare to find in magazine screenshots as 3D is the order of the day.
I believe there is still room for the 2D game, and games firms shouldn't try to make everything 3D just to sell their products. Save the 2D game before it falls flat, you know it makes sense.
Page:
Speaking of Manic Miner... did anyone read the new article some guy wrote about the re-release on Daily Radar... he started saying how imposibly hard Manic Miner was to play?!?!? ...
Nintendos devtion to the GBA being a primarily 2D machine shows that the 2D game is far from dead...
The Baulder Gate series showed that both hard-core RPG's are still popular, and that games didnt need polygons to sell (as did Diablo2)...
I reckon there going to have to be very careful with Manic Miner and JSW to try and make a game that appeals to the original gamer (sticking a copy of the original in doest count) and entertaining for the more demanding current market... which has gotta be tough not to screw up!
Although they reelased a Manic Miner for the Amiga, which was excatly the same game with updated graphics, and scrolling screen, which was kinda fun, if I hadnt played the original so much that even looking at the title screen now leaves me feeling kinda queezy! :) ... Hopefully the'll keep the keyboard on the title screen though :)
Anyway, even though 2D games dont look good on the backs of boxes, so most of game buyers or game journo's (Is it me or do game reviews seem to know less and less about games) wont whant to know, I'll stake that theres a fair few years left in the 2D platformer yet.
Nintendos devtion to the GBA being a primarily 2D machine shows that the 2D game is far from dead...
The Baulder Gate series showed that both hard-core RPG's are still popular, and that games didnt need polygons to sell (as did Diablo2)...
I reckon there going to have to be very careful with Manic Miner and JSW to try and make a game that appeals to the original gamer (sticking a copy of the original in doest count) and entertaining for the more demanding current market... which has gotta be tough not to screw up!
Although they reelased a Manic Miner for the Amiga, which was excatly the same game with updated graphics, and scrolling screen, which was kinda fun, if I hadnt played the original so much that even looking at the title screen now leaves me feeling kinda queezy! :) ... Hopefully the'll keep the keyboard on the title screen though :)
Anyway, even though 2D games dont look good on the backs of boxes, so most of game buyers or game journo's (Is it me or do game reviews seem to know less and less about games) wont whant to know, I'll stake that theres a fair few years left in the 2D platformer yet.
'beneficiaries' was the word you were looking for, Juz.
:-)
:-)
Although Mario 64 was revolutionary and insprational to many games companies give me a 2D Mario platformer, Mario Land 2 is one of my favourite games. RPG's and racing games are the main benefitors (if that is a word) of 3d graphics. I feel however that original game characters should remain in their 2d worlds and keep the mystery and depth they have always had. New characters like Banjo and Kazooie however should be in 3d.
Graphics CAN make the game better, they just can't make a bad game good. If a game already has good gameplay then proper use of the right graphics can make it even better. The point is that some older games were built with the limitations of the technology back then and now they are being remade, there is a chance that the whole game may be ruined by using the wrong type of graphics engine.
Gameplay is the first and most important part of the games ingredients, but it's like saying that Apples are the most important part of an apple pie, does it matter how well you make the pastry? Of course it does, because it adds to the overall taste of the pie.
Anyway, I'm chuffed that this topic has spawned so many replies, I must have hit a nerve!
Gameplay is the first and most important part of the games ingredients, but it's like saying that Apples are the most important part of an apple pie, does it matter how well you make the pastry? Of course it does, because it adds to the overall taste of the pie.
Anyway, I'm chuffed that this topic has spawned so many replies, I must have hit a nerve!
One of the problems with 2D is the fact that movie clips in 3D don't go with the 2D games as well as they would with 3D games.
However 2D clips can be just as effective in getting you more involved in the game as was the case in Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island on the SNES.
Some of the graphics were kind of 3D in the cut scenes but they still seemed like flat images. The clips were of the story of Mario and Luigi, the twins being brought to their mother by the stalk (what happened to Wario?) The stalk was attacked by Magikoopa and the stalk dropped Mario. Then Yoshi finds him and decides to help him get to his brother.
All this was in 2D and it was just as effective as a 3D clip would've been.
Then we come to the question, Are movie clips really essential to a game whether it's 3D ir not?
It depends on the game, Pac man didn't need any and neither did tetris but that's cos they were simple games which didn't need an intro.
If the Command & Conquer series and the Zelda series of games didn't have and clips then they wouldn't make sense.
Therefore it depends on the game.
The graphics aren't always important as has been said before, once again they depend on the game!
If you alter the balance between Graphics and Gameplay then you could end up with a really rubbish game but with excellent effects. Or you could end up with an excellent game, less effects and it could be a gaming masterpiece!
But then people would complain about it's lack of graphics.
Everything depends on the game.
However 2D clips can be just as effective in getting you more involved in the game as was the case in Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island on the SNES.
Some of the graphics were kind of 3D in the cut scenes but they still seemed like flat images. The clips were of the story of Mario and Luigi, the twins being brought to their mother by the stalk (what happened to Wario?) The stalk was attacked by Magikoopa and the stalk dropped Mario. Then Yoshi finds him and decides to help him get to his brother.
All this was in 2D and it was just as effective as a 3D clip would've been.
Then we come to the question, Are movie clips really essential to a game whether it's 3D ir not?
It depends on the game, Pac man didn't need any and neither did tetris but that's cos they were simple games which didn't need an intro.
If the Command & Conquer series and the Zelda series of games didn't have and clips then they wouldn't make sense.
Therefore it depends on the game.
The graphics aren't always important as has been said before, once again they depend on the game!
If you alter the balance between Graphics and Gameplay then you could end up with a really rubbish game but with excellent effects. Or you could end up with an excellent game, less effects and it could be a gaming masterpiece!
But then people would complain about it's lack of graphics.
Everything depends on the game.
2D, or not 2D, that is the question!
(I can't believe that hasn't already been said ;-) )
I think it depends on the game. Some genres are more suited to 2D, such as fighting games, whereas adventures are added to greatly by being in 3D.
You don't really get the traditional platformer anymore in 3D, because a TV can't really represent it well enough for you to perform jumps, and see where you're going (Bring on the holograms). You always end up going just to either side. Not possible in 2D land.
Games often try to combine 2D and 3D, such as 3D characters on 2D backdrops, or in the case of Paper Mario, 2D characters, on 3D backgrounds.
(I can't believe that hasn't already been said ;-) )
I think it depends on the game. Some genres are more suited to 2D, such as fighting games, whereas adventures are added to greatly by being in 3D.
You don't really get the traditional platformer anymore in 3D, because a TV can't really represent it well enough for you to perform jumps, and see where you're going (Bring on the holograms). You always end up going just to either side. Not possible in 2D land.
Games often try to combine 2D and 3D, such as 3D characters on 2D backdrops, or in the case of Paper Mario, 2D characters, on 3D backgrounds.
SNIPER wrote:
> I'd have 2D cos not so much effort could be put into making so good
> 3D graphics they forget about the gameplay!
that's what I said
> I'd have 2D cos not so much effort could be put into making so good
> 3D graphics they forget about the gameplay!
that's what I said
I'd have 2D cos not so much effort could be put into making so good 3D graphics they forget about the gameplay!
rastabillyskank wrote:
> Who really cares wether it's 2D or 3D? Aslong as the game itself is
> fun to play and has a decent multiplayer (not absolutley neccessary)
> then I'm happy.
Yep, right on RBS. Take some examples. MicroMachines was great in 2D, even better in 3D, but still great in 2D all the same.
Then you have Road Rash. Great in 2D, terrible in 3D.
Then you have Planetarion. Just a bunch of static screens with no moving images whatsoever (unless you count the banners). Great gameplay again.
So whether it's 2D or 3D it doesn't matter, like the man said.
> Who really cares wether it's 2D or 3D? Aslong as the game itself is
> fun to play and has a decent multiplayer (not absolutley neccessary)
> then I'm happy.
Yep, right on RBS. Take some examples. MicroMachines was great in 2D, even better in 3D, but still great in 2D all the same.
Then you have Road Rash. Great in 2D, terrible in 3D.
Then you have Planetarion. Just a bunch of static screens with no moving images whatsoever (unless you count the banners). Great gameplay again.
So whether it's 2D or 3D it doesn't matter, like the man said.
rastabillyskank wrote:
> Who really cares wether it's 2D or 3D?
Most people in todays society are more likely to go for a crap 3D game than the best 2D game!
It's because they assume that 3D is better even though most 2D games have more playbility.
> Who really cares wether it's 2D or 3D?
Most people in todays society are more likely to go for a crap 3D game than the best 2D game!
It's because they assume that 3D is better even though most 2D games have more playbility.
Page: