The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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.
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.
Page:
how about 4d games??
he he
he he
yeah. I think we should smash em wiv stik till they stop!
As I have said before, I beleive (especially in the case of platformers) that the 2D and 3D games aren't the same genre. When you add that extra dimension, it becomes a whole new genre. In 3D you can just walk around the side of an enemy. No such luxury in 2D games. 2D games are often called linear. Look at the SNES and MegaDrive platformers (Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong) and tell me if those were linear? loads of routes for every level in most cases.
I think the two are seperate genres, and can peacefully co-exist. I partly blame casual gamers for the death of 2D. They buy the game with the nice graphics, which is more often than not the 3D choice.
Anyway, I wish more companies would continue doing 2D games as well as 3D games.
I think the two are seperate genres, and can peacefully co-exist. I partly blame casual gamers for the death of 2D. They buy the game with the nice graphics, which is more often than not the 3D choice.
Anyway, I wish more companies would continue doing 2D games as well as 3D games.
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.
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.
Page: