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.

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

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

===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> I completely disagree with you Sibs when you say that adding an extra dimension
> changes games' genres.

You completely disageree with me eh? Makes a change... ;-)

I have to say, a majority of the "3d" games
> I play actually use the same old 2D gameplay, and don't utilise the third
> dimension in any useful way!

ah, but I am talking about 3D games that DO utilise the third dimension, my simian friend...

For example, Tekken is certainly not a proper 3D
> fighter... just because you can move into the background adds little to the
> game, and the same could have been acheived in 2d.

Exactly! That is why Tekken is not really a 3D fighter. The characters may be polygons, but the arenas aren't they are just pre rendered back drops... And it gives the illusion of 3D while not actually allowing proper 3D movement.

The fact is that
> developers use 3d where it is not needed, simply because the mass market will
> not buy a 2d game over a nice looking 3d one!

YES! It's very irritating isn't it?

That said some games certainly
> do utilise 3d, like the Mario style 3d platformers, and FPS games.

Yes, and do you count 2D shooters, like err... R-Type (or any similar scrolling space ship shooter) as the same genre as games like Lylatwars? Is Contra or Gunstar heroes (I wonder how many people know Contra) the same genre as Jet Force Gemini, or err.. some other 3rd person 3D shooter? I don't think they are! And the gameplay in Mario 64 was very different to that in Marios 16-bit (and 8-bit) outings.

Sonic
(this post isn't actually by Sonic, but I can't be arsed to delete his signature, so instead I am writing this sentance to you which takes much more effort than deleting his signature. So there.)

I like the Simpsons better as well but Shrek is funny 'cos it's so realistic.

Weird Wonder wrote:
> Is Recess 2D! No! But it's still cool. but take Shrek. They can use 3D to make
> things more humourus because these things they do could happen in real life.

I reckon the Simpons is more humerous than Shrek?

sherman wrote:
> well 2d games can be good for example gta, abes, street fighter but as games
> head towards making the game experiance more movie like 2d graphics just don't
> cut it. as for 3d games the graphic are much better but the main problem with 3d
> games are the controls and camera angles. but as recent games have shown that
> the control system and camera angles are improving in 3d games (e.g jak &
> daxter) just shows how superior they are to 2d. besides 3d graphics look much
> better that 2d games now, but 3d graphic in the past were ugly i have to admit.
> i'm sorry to say but 2d graphics are out of fashion.

hmmm... do I care what is in fashion? Fact is that many people love 2D Snes/Megadrive era games. If companies still made 2D games on their consoles then they would have awesome graphics, just as good as the 3D graphics. Sprites don't have to be all blocky you know? Anyway, some 2D games are still being made (GBA games are prime examples) and many of these are awesome games even when comparing them to the latest 3D games. My point is just because something may not look as pretty, or seem as 'advanced' doesn't mean it is not as good.

Is Recess 2D! No! But it's still cool. but take Shrek. They can use 3D to make things more humourus because these things they do could happen in real life.

sherman wrote:
> 2d is definetly out, although disney have started making 3d cartoons (at least
> someone finally gets it)

But Disney havnt stopped producing 2D cartoons... they've just started producing 3D ones as well...

I completely disagree with you Sibs when you say that adding an extra dimension changes games' genres.

I have to say, a majority of the "3d" games I play actually use the same old 2D gameplay, and don't utilise the third dimension in any useful way!

For example, Tekken is certainly not a proper 3D fighter... just because you can move into the background adds little to the game, and the same could have been acheived in 2d.

The fact is that developers use 3d where it is not needed, simply because the mass market will not buy a 2d game over a nice looking 3d one!

That said some games certainly do utilise 3d, like the Mario style 3d platformers, and FPS games.

Sonic

IIIIIIIIIIIII Knew that!

really it's Pixar who do the work but Disney take the credit.