Poll: I need to settle an arguement
- Thread starter Singularly Datarific
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think a FAR better question would be if the nearly universal move to 3D was a wise choice.
To that, I say no. There are a lot of games that have benefited from 3D, and would have been otherwise unplayable in a 2D game. The same can't be said so much for 2D games not working as 3D, but MANY games that were 2D pushed the 3D realm and failed.
Examples of games like Super Mario and Castlevania just show how much better games can be in 2D if you aren't pointlessly pushing the graphics. You even have games that are just completely different but are good both ways like Zelda. Then you have racing games that were pretty much unplayable in 2D.
It all comes down to what is best for the game, and I don't think that devs always consider what 2D could bring to the table in making a game better or worse. More games need to be 2D, but that doesn't mean that I think 2D is universally better.
To that, I say no. There are a lot of games that have benefited from 3D, and would have been otherwise unplayable in a 2D game. The same can't be said so much for 2D games not working as 3D, but MANY games that were 2D pushed the 3D realm and failed.
Examples of games like Super Mario and Castlevania just show how much better games can be in 2D if you aren't pointlessly pushing the graphics. You even have games that are just completely different but are good both ways like Zelda. Then you have racing games that were pretty much unplayable in 2D.
It all comes down to what is best for the game, and I don't think that devs always consider what 2D could bring to the table in making a game better or worse. More games need to be 2D, but that doesn't mean that I think 2D is universally better.
You can't tie a knot in a space with greater or fewer dimensions than 3. (and a forwards-only time dimension to do the "tying" in)
Something to think about.
Something to think about.
Like it was stated before it all comes down to the game. I have to say 2D, thats where it all started.
Kill an enemy, then try looking at its corpse from different angles, then you'll get it.Zeeky_Santos said:Doom was the second ever FPS, it was even more revolutionary 3d technology than wolfenstein 3d (the first fps). it had the ability to make walls span off of a corner at any angle, wolfenstein 3d could only make 90, 180, 270, 360 degree corners. what are you talking about "doom syndrome"?Doug said:Also known as Doom syndromeneedausername said:
well it's a question of interface and style really (I am summarizing what people have generally)
3-d interface has the advantages of giving you an entire area to explore, while a 2-d interface is incredibly concise, and let's you do something very specific without cheaply hedging people in (invisible walls, narrow alleys etc)
3-d style has the advantage of giving you an involving feeling, and a feeling of space. 2-d CANNOT accomplish this. Bioshock would suck in 2-d.
on the other hand, 2-d allows you to effectively use sprite based graphics, which allow an artist to go nuts on the style. you can have stained glass windows dancing to the macarina in 2-d without seeming more ridiculous then the concept. my example: Odin Sphere.
3-d interface has the advantages of giving you an entire area to explore, while a 2-d interface is incredibly concise, and let's you do something very specific without cheaply hedging people in (invisible walls, narrow alleys etc)
3-d style has the advantage of giving you an involving feeling, and a feeling of space. 2-d CANNOT accomplish this. Bioshock would suck in 2-d.
on the other hand, 2-d allows you to effectively use sprite based graphics, which allow an artist to go nuts on the style. you can have stained glass windows dancing to the macarina in 2-d without seeming more ridiculous then the concept. my example: Odin Sphere.
Very this.Dr. Nerfball said:
I'm indifferent though, you should have had that option. Both have their advantages, both have their disadvantages, but onr isn't better than the other.
I voted 2D to balance them out.
Some 2D games wouldn't work in 3D.
My example is the Oddworld games. The first two (2D) were absolutely amazingly good. The third one (Munch's Oddysey) was in 3D, and the gameplay just didn't work as well. The games suited 2D.
However, 3D is usually better looking...
(Especially in the cinema; went to see Monsters vs Aliens in 3D - it was SO GOOD)
My example is the Oddworld games. The first two (2D) were absolutely amazingly good. The third one (Munch's Oddysey) was in 3D, and the gameplay just didn't work as well. The games suited 2D.
However, 3D is usually better looking...
(Especially in the cinema; went to see Monsters vs Aliens in 3D - it was SO GOOD)
If you give a selection of 2d and 3d games to a bunch of people that have never seen or played either before then they would pick the 3d games every time given a choice
Wooh, calm down mateZeeky_Santos said:Doom was the second ever FPS, it was even more revolutionary 3d technology than wolfenstein 3d (the first fps). it had the ability to make walls span off of a corner at any angle, wolfenstein 3d could only make 90, 180, 270, 360 degree corners. what are you talking about "doom syndrome"?Doug said:Also known as Doom syndromeneedausername said:
I was just teasing because Doom was 2.5D as opposited to 3D (ironically, given Duke'm Nuke'm Forever's INSANELY long development time, 3D realms hasn't released a full 3D title yet
). I wasn't passing judgement, I really don't remember the FPS scene that well - if anything, Doom is one of the few games I remember - so that says something about it, no? Something good.
Not quite.Leorex said:
You can move back and forth in the X, Y & Z dimensions of space; but you are prevented from moving backwards in the T dimension at anything larger than a quantum-electrodynamic level (i.e. Feynman diagrams support 'stuff going back in time', but it is so small that we can effectively disregard it - in much the same way that bridge-builders have gotten away with Newton rather than the more accurate Einstein, it is only when you are dealing with things like GPS satellite triangulation from atomic clocks that Einstein has to be taken into account).
So, I could have said:
You can't tie a knot in a space with greater or fewer dimensions than 3.5
However, I thought people wouldn't grasp what half a dimension actually meant...
i prefer the major theft kill heroes series more personally, final gear evil is way too generic for meGhadente said:
no... there can be dimensions other than time - time's not really a dimensionLeorex said:
it's hard to explain without writing like a huge thesis, but basically imagine how the world is endless from a 2d view cause bends back on itself, but when in 3d it can quite easily be seen not to be endless and actually just a 3d object
and you can say the same thing about the universe, it can very easily be a 4d object only viewable in 3 dimensions by us, and it's quite possibly/likely that we cant and wont ever be able to view 4d