Apparently, in his, and by his claim- "Many peoples" eyes, it just doesn't match up to what 3D can deliver.
Not looking to start a riot, just figured I'd share this bit of "dialoge", and ask- have you ever heard similar from someone you know, or have talked to?
Younger people are generally into 3D. 2D is nostalgic to older people and it could be argued either way. I like them both, I can't make 3D games and I don't charge for 2D games I make.
So if your friend is bitching about 2D, then let him bitch. He will miss out on some real gems.
thinking is like pong, it's easy, but you miss sometimes.
Yes, 95% of the population. These days realisim sells, and obviously you can't have realism in 2 demensions. Unfortunately 2D never went as far as it could have, the jump to 3D was made too soon. Imagine sidescrollers and such with fluent disney style animation. . . that's probably where it would have gone. Oh well. . .
And edit to the above post...
Unfortunately younger is probably the majority too, since things went from 2D to 3D in just a few years. Take someone a few years younger, maybe 15 or 16, they probably didn't even start playing games until they were 5 or 6 and that's in 1996! By then N64 was competing against PS1.
Young gamers all have A.D.D, Period. I hate realism so much. They are going way to far with it, because now I'm just like, wow this is damn boring. Just a bunch of flashy graphics and shiny things is enough to suck kids in these days, when they don't understand the meaning of video games. You're meant to get away from the real world when you play video games, and have fantasies about being in that virtual world.
Ironically enough, he is 16 years old. Normally I'm not one to claim age has anything to do with it...but it would seem with gaming, and with the choice between genres and such, age plays some sort of role. Worth noting however, he thinks I'm insane for not liking the 3D Metroid games, and also disliking the 3D Zelda games. I mean I'm 23, so I was around before 3D gaming was apparently the "standard". Most of the 3D games I did enjoy, they often used sprites, or felt the same as the classics I played when I was a kid.
A good example of this would be somthing like Brave Fencer Musashi or Valkyrie Profile on PSX.
My thing is, that 3D often times lacks any sort of personality, or as I love to say this word- a soul.
I look at stuff like that, and well, I see a soul. Then again, I'm a traditional artist, and I know how difficult it is to take somthing flat, and make it appear to be alive. For me, I see more challenge in making somthing 2D, have depth and life...versus somthing thats 3D, where you can see every single angle.
The problem is that most of the 3D stuff looks utter crap. I wouldn't mind if it had a bit of artistic style to it, but most of the time it's just aiming to be realistic. And realistic is not something we can achieve.
I'm 17, and I have to say I had much more fun playing games on the SNES and Sega that I did later games, whilst many people will argue they're not graphically as good, I still think that just as much, if not more, talent is needed to create the 2d sprites and all the movement animations.
Most of today's games are too heavily graphic orientated, and this just spoils them. Sure, they look good, but 10 hours of repetetive gameplay doesn't really make a good game.
My signature is never too big!!!
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
8th July, 2006 at 07:27:44 -
I'm 18, which was around the N64 era I think, but I always only had experience with older computers, a bit of the SNES and my Gameboy back then. So I grew more to 2D.
It's a matter of taste, mostly. However there are some 3D games I just love. For example, Duke Nukem 3D and Rayman (both the 2D and 3D versions actually).
The problem is, the younger generation of gamers does not know that good games come from an original thought and not the graphics. We, the older generation (sounds weird XP), know that instinctively because we grew up with NES/SNES/Genesis and got the feeling pried into our spines. Of course stating that that counts for everyone would be faulty. A lot of the new generation gamers know very well what makes good games and a lot of old generation gamers has fallen for pretty graphics (politically correct answers, hate those, but sometimes fitting) I'm 20, and counts myself as an old generation gamer.
I agree with both Noodle and NeoHunter on their points. I don't mind 3D at all. It's an artform in itself, but still most 3D games actually look like crap as Noodle said. Super Mario 64 is a really old 3D game nowadays, but graphically it still kicks a lot of other games arses. Mainly because it had an obvious style and consistency. A lot of games on the market today lack that.
A lot of developers are aiming for realism or uses realism as their main marketing scheme. I realise why people find realism intriguing. But as an artist I don't see the reson for it. Why duplicate the world we've already seen a quadrillion times? (this is an entirelly different discussion, I know) In Andrew Rollings & Ernest Adams "on Game Design" they raise some interesting thoughts about realism and abstraction.
If 2D doesn't match up to what 3D can do, why haven't developers applied basic animation rule #1 of deformation in their 3D games? In animation deformation is used to trick the eye to percieve fast movements of the characters. Since this isn't used in 3D games the characters movements often look bland and stale. I believe that the reson that it haven't been implemented is either that it's very hard or impossible to implement (not sure why that would be though) or just that the developers doesn't think it's necessary (which it is!). That is an upside 2D has against 3D so far.
In general, I'm with you guys on 3d games being crap- when done incorrectly. Personally, I thought that the art style of Zelda's Wind Waker was incredibly well done and didn't look or play bad at all (although way too much sailing's in it.) When I heard that they were taking Metroid into 3d I, like a lot of others, were a bit up in arms about it since I played and ejoyed the hell out of the NES, GB, and SNES 2d Metroids. Eventually I saw Prime for cheap and picked it up. For what it is, it's an awesome game, but it still pales in comparison. For starters, while in the 3rd dimension you can miss a lot of things because you can't see every area directly around you at once like from the 2d perspective.
I started off on the Atari and trust me, when the Nintendo and Sega Master System came out (not in that order, mind you), EVERYBODY wanted a piece of that. Even with the Master System's outrageous $400 price tag. At that time, nobody waxed nostalgic about the Atari that I knew (although I'm sure some did.) Now contrast that with people with Super Nintendos when the N64 and Playstation came out. Quality 2d games had been out for so long, it was a bit harder for a lot of people to jump ship over to a gaming system primarily for 3d games. The jump from 2d to 3d didn't happen too fast, it's just that everyone and their mother tried to capitalize on the new technology and release all of their 3d games at once. Does anyone remember the PS1's early years? How many of those 3d games were utter crap?
I would also disagree on the guesstimate of 95% of people prefer 3d to 2d games. I'd think it would be more like 60-70% instead. Especially with the huge popularity of the gameboy systems which mostly run 2d, SNES-style games.
--
"Del Duio has received 0 trophies. Click here to see them all."
"To be a true ninja you must first pick the most stealthy of our assorted combat suits. Might I suggest the bright neon orange?"
DXF Games, coming next: Hasslevania 2- This Space for Rent!
Modern games today tend to use 3d to deliver atmosphere, scale and are more focused on a visual experience which has arrisen from the advances in technology in terms of graphics and sound etc, which opens up opportunities for games to be developed in different ways. And I think thats a good thing. 2d is never going to die, is it, thats what we're here for
If 3d never happened, don't you think we'd be completey sick of 2d platformers and side scrollers? I sure would.
The claim is bullshit because the comparison is flawed. There is no, and cannot be, any question of '2D' vs '3D': certain genres are two-dimensional, and others are three-dimensional in design. It has nothing to do with graphics, we just couldn'y utilise much in the way of 3D design until around the time we could also render in 3D. There are one-dimensional games, and I've played four-dimensional noughts and crosses. Then there are games that don't express a playfield physically at all.
i can tell you this much - dragon quest for the ps2 is a very enjoyable game - the graphics are only there to enhance the game, not the focus of it. the main story, though very simple, has many exciting details. the gameplay, old school turn-based, brings on some nostalgia for the older generation yet is very simple, fun, yet challenging for the newer generation as well. one can only realize why this game got such a great rating.
[shameless plug]this game is also one of the inspirations in the game i am currently making [/shameless plug]
radix is right as well, there is no comparison between 2d vs 3d, anyone who opposes 3d must oppose the world they live in becasue it most definitely is a 3d world of some sort (there's 4d with time and the such and can go as high as 8d as einstein theorizes but i'm not going to go into that). the argument of 2d and 3d is mostly relative and not absolute and being so it's all a matter of tastes, waht you're accustomed to, etc.
I wrote a review on it for GameFaqs because I liked it so much. They pulled off a great old-schooly game wrapped in a modern blanket (or something like that). It is leaps and bounds beyond Dragon Warrior 7 (A 2d game no less!) IMO. Go figure.
--
"Del Duio has received 0 trophies. Click here to see them all."
"To be a true ninja you must first pick the most stealthy of our assorted combat suits. Might I suggest the bright neon orange?"
DXF Games, coming next: Hasslevania 2- This Space for Rent!
Greasy, go screw yourself. I love old 2D games, hate [almost all] new 3D games [I only own a NES, SNES, and an arcade machine], and I don't have A.D.D.
I don't think it's any better to hate 3D games for no reason any more than it's right to hate 2D games for no reason. The lack of great games these days(which is questionable since there are plenty of great games coming out) can probably be more attributed to the hollywood style changes the gaming industry is going through, and not just the fact that they're 3D. People also rate graphics of 3D games with a much more critical eye than they do 2D. 2D isn't real in any way and it can never look real, while 3D games are expected to have realistic textures, human looking models, etc.
As for a users comments on deformation, the Jak and Daxter games really played with proportions and stuff, and those are some of the best looking games on ps2. Another game(which I haven't played but have seen videos of) is God of War, it doesn't seem to use and deformation on characters or anything, but the movements are very exaggerated, and it just has more life than a lot of games.
That's what I said. It's not the 3d that makes the game bad, it's the way they try to make it so real that it becomes completely boring. Though there is the certain games that ARE 3d but aren't made to be realistic, and they become fun.
Realism isn’t the cause of a boring game. It's when realism is the main focus of the game, and the only method to attract players, and things such as game play, or anything else the pertains to the game, are forgotten or ignored, that the game becomes very boring &/or stupid. Take Prey for example, this is an example of a game that focuses much on graphics, however more focus was placed on making the game original, by adding very disturbing things such as walking on walls, wormholes or portals, and leaving your own body to get around puzzles. However a great majority of games released, don't put this much work into the rest of the game, and that is why people with more then half a brain, find the game boring and not fun at all.
In your idea, you are saying that any game that was not made to be realistic, is more fun. This could be true, but to a limited extent. That extent being that, often when games aren’t focused more on graphics, the designers often don’t have anything to focus on other then the actual game itself. However, when you find game designers who are in it for the shear money, you find game designers who don’t put focus to neither the game or the graphics. Both need to be taken advantage of, it just happens to be that games with a less realistic touch, have grown a style that is more enjoyable, thus people are starting to assume that we can completely disconnect the idea of making realistic games, and everyone would be happy. Even though this is not the case.
This is bullshit. I've seen plenty of realistic 2D games. Ever play the Police Quest series (or Blue Force)? There was also another game I once played that had some pretty impressive physics for a 2D side scroller but I forgot the name of it.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
