There was a thread recently about 2D and 3D games, and specifically, why someone would want to have 2D instead of 3D. I just thought of one good reason.
I think that often 3D games look sort of fake. Since the game is in 3D, you tend to raise your expectations and expect the game to look realistic, which is hard to do with computer graphics. It’s kind of like watching a pro football game, and getting pissed when the players make mistakes. They may be perfectly ordinary mistakes, but you kind of expect them to play perfectly since they’re pros.
The same problem doesn’t exist in 2D. So that’s why a 2D game can have really good graphics, and a 3D game can have mediocre graphics, even if the 3D is technically a greater accomplishment.
3D’s nice because it does make a game more realistic. You can only go so far with a 2D system. Go play Metroid Prime. That’s one of the best games (graphically) I’ve played.
Another plus for 3D is that you may become more attached to the characters (as much as you loved your party in FFI, you didn’t mind if they died (for the most part (sniff)), but in FFVII-X, you’re probably going to become emotionally attached to the characters (Tidus, anyone?)).
Originally posted by Cala Another plus for 3D is that you may become more attached to the characters (as much as you loved your party in FFI, you didn’t mind if they died (for the most part (sniff)), but in FFVII-X, you’re probably going to become emotionally attached to the characters (Tidus, anyone?)).
I don’t know, I got far more attached to Palom and Porom than I did to Tidus.
And I will not be completely happy with any 3D game until they can give me some DECENT FUCKING CAMERA CONTROLS!!!
I tired to get into Mischeif Makers, but it just wasn’t too much fun if you ask me. But yeah I do agree that for the most part 2D games were harder than 3D games. It seems that they are more concerned with the graphics than with the gameplay itself.
I know there can be crappy games no matter what the graphics look like, I am just saying that the majority of games seems to have gotten easy to make more room for graphics. The games on Nintendo were really hard, some of them unbeatable, where I can’t think of any game on N64 or GC that I haven’t beaten.
Originally posted by d Galloway It doesn’t matter if the game is 2D or 3D; it’s quality that counts. There have been crappy 2D games, and there have been crappy 3D games.
I have to say that some games were better for 2D. Castlevania for instance. I haven’t played Lament of Innocence yet, but the ones on N64 were terrible. Hopefully they fixed the bugs. As for the Metroid series, i think that Metroid Prime was a good game, but seemed to stray from the roots of the series. Metroid Fusion was basically Super Metroid but a great game that stayed true to its roots. I don’t think that all 3D games are bad. Some are great. The fact remains though, that it is hard to stay true to the original formula of a series when you change the game engine up. Thats my to cents.
I disagree with 3D being necessarily more realistic. I find what draws me into a game is the story, not the graphics, so a photorealistic game with no story doesn’t mean much to me. It might still have other merits that make it worth playing, but it would still feel like a game, not an experience.
You people are insolent, arguing which system of gameplay is better…all games suck, all games rule. Either way, you’re going to find shit that sucks, and shit that rules. It’s all about opinion, so don’t start a funckin flame war over this, somone close this shitty thread…<b>NOW!</b>
… I don’t see any flamewar here, and I don’t see any signs of one starting. Could you please try to think about what you’re saying before you click submit? You might not have so many issues around here if you did that.
I don’t have a concrete preference between 2D and 3D, but I do have different (higher?) expectations of 3D games. I enjoy the richer environments they’re meant to provide, but like Dark Knight said, I really want the visual control to go with that environment. Especially with series games (Metroid, Zelda), it’s really neat to see them in different lights by changing the graphics.
Graphics are a great thing in games, but it’s just a thing. Typically that doesn’t make or break the game for me.
3D gives some more freedom, but you also doesn’t have the same control - Especially when it comes to console games. That is probably the biggest reason why games are easier today…
And I’ve yet to find a more challenging and fun game than Turrican 2. I just made it to the second world after 3 months of intense playing!
Originally posted by d Galloway It doesn’t matter if the game is 2D or 3D; it’s quality that counts. There have been crappy 2D games, and there have been crappy 3D games.
Games SHOULDN’T be realistic. Any sane person knows that there is no realistic game, anyway. Just think about it. It’s not TRULY realistic, even though it sometimes can be more realistic than the others.
Plus, it should not be realistic. According to me, you play games, because it IS unrealistic. Just to run away from reality for a while. That’s my opinion.
I remember when 3D games were downright impossible. Hell, my <i>own</i> computer is still pretty sucky when it comes to rendering, so I <i>will</i> pick 2D over 3D with regards to gaming if that will help. I watched the rise and fall of the N64, and I said: “Huh. That’s interesting.” And today, both 2D games AND 3D games are still around, and still selling with great awesomeness.
There is little difference, gameplay is more important. I would use the old ‘graphics don’t make a game’ saying, but they kinda do, they just don’t affect the gameplay.
I remember when 3D games were downright impossible. Hell, my <i>own</i> computer is still pretty sucky when it comes to rendering, so I <i>will</i> pick 2D over 3D with regards to gaming if that will help. I watched the rise and fall of the N64, and I said: “Huh. That’s interesting.” And today, both 2D games AND 3D games are still around, and still selling with great awesomeness.
So what’s your point?