Viewing Thread:
"2D or not 2D, that is the question..."

Yes, I know that it has been a hotly debated topic for years, but I have never heard any really good arguments that convince me that 3D games are a huge step up from 2D games or that 2D games are better than 3D games.

Graphics : The one part of the argument that is perfectly obvious as to which is better. No 2D games can really compete with 3D games in this department, bar perhaps the early Saturn 3D games where a 2D version would have been much more polished.

Sound is one factor that has changed, but that is not down to the ‘Revolutionary’ change in dimensions, more down to the increase in sound channels.

Now, game play is what really counts and some people will argue that “there are any no real improvements in this department when 3D games are compared to 2D games, many great 2D games lost all of their charm and quality when 3D updates were released.” Probotector on the SNES and MEGADRIVE was great, simple and addictive, and a good example in how a 2D game can be addictive and brilliantly fun to play, but perhaps a bad example in this argument as no 3D update has ever been attempted. Good examples though, are the entire shooting genre. Gradius, Defender and R-Type were fantastic but many 3D games trying to do the same ( Incoming, for example ) ended up being less fun than watching some fish fingers thaw for an afternoon. Defender is another game shortly to get a 3D update ( on PS2 ), but hopefully this will break the mould.

Then, there is the other side of the argument, which does argue that 3D games are indeed better than 2D games. They argue that some games like Mario 64, Ocarina Of Time and Metal Gear Solid are no way near as good in 2D and could never hope to be.

However, in my opinion, MGS was great in 2D ( SNES, GB ), as were the Mario games and Oracle Of Ages / Seasons on GBC. Some people even welcome character’s reappearances in 2D, such as Sonic in Sonic Advance ( GBA ). ( It is obvious that the GB is the 2D gamers platform of choice.) We must also remember that unless we are really young, even 2D games were revolutionary at first and many a magical youth was spent whiling away time with them. And don’t even get me started about the camera problems in 3D games ...

The question I ask you is... Is 2D magical, or an unwanted memory?
I would value someone else’s opinion on the matter... but for now, I remain completely neutral ( I enjoy both ).

Again, sorry for posting on such a frequently debated topic, but thanks for reading.

*cough* tetris *cough* best game of all time *sneeze*

old 2d games were good nowadays to make a good 2d game is just too much hard work and making a good 3d game is not as hard. besides gamers don't wana see that same 2d platformer again and again with just different characters they wana see something new (ie brillent 3d graphics).

sherman wrote:
> ok, take the best 2d game and then the best 3d game, which is better? cough *3d*
> cough.

Anyway, if you said your 'best' 2D game and your 'best' 3D they would probably be totally different to mine or anyone elses...
It is a complete matter of opinion, and I'll bet for every person who says 3D is better there is another who prefers 2D or one (like me) who believes that both still have a place, and that both should still be made.

Solskjaer said that he preferred 3D adventure/RPG type games (I assume you meant stuff like Zelda) but I personally felt that Zelda:OOT was not such a huge jump from the other adventures, and it certainly should have been bigger (which it could have been in 2D, because 2D takes less time and memory to make) Majoras mask was pretty controversial, but I felt it was better, just because it had more original ideas, and I guess to me it just 'felt' more like Zelda (even though the classic plot wasn't used that time round!)

I still love the Zelda on Snes, and the one on game boy, and I want to get one of the two Capcom Zelda games on game boy colour. And Mario on Snes and even on NES had many ideas which were awesome, but simply cannot be implemented when in 3D, but really do enhance gamelay.

3D games are better in their RPG-Adventure format, like Zedla. I honestly didn't like it in it's 2D format. Paper Mario has 2D graphics in a 3D world. It all looks brilliant and is sposed to be a good game. So 2D games do still have their place, they just need to be experimented with.

sherman wrote:
> ok, take the best 2d game and then the best 3d game, which is better? cough *3d*
> cough.

err... cough* matter of opinion *cough...

ok, take the best 2d game and then the best 3d game, which is better? cough *3d* cough.

It really depends on the gameplay. I would rather had a really amazing, involving 2D scroller over a game that was in 3D but played like my Grandmother at tennis.

err... I never said it didn't matter. I said I didn't care about it. A difference.

In my opinion- It shouldn't matter. Want to know why? Because fashion is basically away from being an individual. Something fashionable is something that lots of people like and buy. But why does it become fashionable? Because one (or some) 'cool' people get it so others go "ooh, if I get it too, I'll be cool!" when all they are really doing is following the crowd, and not developing their own sense, opinions, and tastes.

Fashion sucks.

Sibs wrote:

what? Sorry, but
> that made no sense to me. Am I missing something here?

fashion does matter is the point.

sherman wrote:
> Sibs wrote:
hmmm... do I care what is in
> fashion?

unless you wear
> cavemen style cloth's etc then no.

what? Sorry, but that made no sense to me. Am I missing something here?