worldwideweird (29) on 1/17/2008 6:00 PM · Permalink · Report

By the way, "King of Dragon Pass" comes to mind as a rather recently created (er...sort of ten years ago, I guess, but 3D was already the norm back then) totally 2D game which even lacks ANY animation. It's just a long series of paintings, really, but they beautifully represent the "historical" feel of the game. Just an example where, to my opinion, 3D wouldn't have managed to get the same notion across so elegantly.

mobiusclimber (235) on 1/17/2008 6:10 PM · Permalink · Report

i think i gave several examples of 2D games that don't benefit and probably never WILL benefit from being in 3D. but besides the thought of whether or not the gameplay can even accomodate 3D, there's the question of should it. just b/c you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. i don't think run and gun games like metal slug or platformers like sonic and mario should be exclusively 3D in that it changes the core gameplay into something else. a foray or two into 3D isn't bad, as i stated i enjoyed sonic adventure on the dreamcast and i'm sure mario 64 was as great a game as everyone says it was, but from what i've played of that one and from having played sonic adventure and several other 2D franchises turned into 3D i can tell you right now that the gameplay feels vastly different, and usually not for the better.

can you imagine a 3D version of vib ribbon? would there even be a point?

at the end of the day graphics do not make the game. gameplay does. everything needs to serve gameplay in the end, that's what makes a game fun. (i know i'm being simplistic here, but while other factors serve to increase enjoyment, gameplay is the core of what a game is.) so if 3D doesn't properly serve the gameplay then it needs to go. if i'm having fun w/ a game, i won't miss 3D.

but just like i can't imagine an fps in 3D there are certain games that shouldn't be in 2D. it isn't a "pick one or the other" it's a "pick the one that suits what kind of game you're making." i think we went thru a period where developers where blindly shoving every game into 3D whether the gameplay could handle it or not. i think we've finally come out on the other end of that tho. i'd like to think most developers are no longer constrained to only produce games in 3D. but maybe i'm just being optomistic, or maybe it's just handhelds that are allowed to have 2D games, i dunno.

mobiusclimber (235) on 1/18/2008 12:03 AM · Permalink · Report

well, st. martyne, you might be right that you and i look for different things in games and maybe you'll never see my point of view. perhaps a game has to have a huge amount of exploration for you to enjoy it. i don't know. generally speaking, 2D games that need to be 2D are all very restrictive. you follow a certain path, tho it might branch off in a few directions and maybe you might have to do some back tracking, but it's still a set path or paths, you only get one view-point and it pretty much locks you in. because of this, the control is a lot tighter than in games of this sort that have been done in 3D. if you're running and gunning you probably need a targetting system that ends up being more cumbersome than not, if you're playing a platformer you always have to be careful not just of making it over a gap but in making sure you're not too far to one side or the other, all the while fighting against a camera system that wants to show off its fancy lens flare rather than show you where you need to stand in order to make that jump w/o plummeting to your death. i'm sorry that you can't at least appreciate the classic mario, sonic, castlevania, metroid, etc etc old school platformers, but that seems to be more of a defect of yours than anything else. i've never been good at them and i mostly don't like them because of this, but i can certainly see their charm. (sonic and kirby are my main two games out of this genre b/c while they're difficult, they're not impossible and not from the get go.) the fact is no 3D iteration of this kind of gameplay is going to be nearly as much fun as these simply b/c 3D cannot recreate 2D gaming. it's impossible by its very nature. yes you can have tunnel-style 3D like in crash bandicoot, but adding 3D here doesn't actually add anything. it might as well have been in 2D (the graphics would have looked better for one thing!). and if you have to constantly stop what you're doing to adjust the camera angle... shit like that gets old really quick, especially when there's no need for it.

worldwideweird (29) on 1/18/2008 12:54 AM · Permalink · Report

You had some good arguments there. I especially agree on the point that the additional manpower usually put into the creation of another dimension might actually cost time, talent and money which could probably serve certain games (but NOT all, or most, or anything) more had it been invested into more "creative" matters such as planning, writing, designing etc.

However, I disagree on the notion that 3D games aren't "directed" and that the player is actually taking over the creator's "control". There are still your most likely walkways, there are still points which you can't pass, there are still points which you're bound to pass...there's an endless list of restrictions which still apply. Also one has to take into account the "natural way" the human eye reacts to certain views. If the player is presented with a tree so big that he only sees its roots he will certainly look up to see the rest of it and bang! there goes another image of which the creators will know quite well that it won't be missed.

It's all about a basic decision one has to make when creating any game: how much freedom will be allowed to create the illusion that the player is discovering all this "for him/herself" and "just now" vs. how much restriction will be necessary to still be able to "lead" the player and not put one's own creative ropes out of hands - thus losing the ability to remain "dramatic".

As I already said, I think 2D is, among other things, simply a completely legitimate way of creating restriction, whereas 3D is an equally legitimate way of creating a certain amount of freedom (if it's done right).

St. Martyne (3648) on 1/18/2008 10:13 PM · Permalink · Report

Look at PC gamers today. When they talk about graphics, they talk about the megaflops of their GPUs, about the numbers of polygons, the mipmapping and bumpmapping, the FPS rate and the particle physics, the lensflares and the ragdoll physics. How much of that is artistic work, how much is thought out by an artist?

You're right. That is the most unfortunate to see this happening, but it's not an inherited fault of 3D. 3D artists should concern themselves with the technical aspect but only as a painter is concerned with his brushes and paints, and the filmmaker with the innards of his camera.

Each artistic endeavor has a more menial, more technical side to it, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Still, everyone knows that a good camera won't make a good photographer out of you, and that a good engine won't make your game artistically ambitious by default.

Does Civilization 2 have camera control? No, only if you count the zoom function and the rotate function working in 90° steps. Does it need camera control? No, because all that there is to see can already be seen from the isometric view.

Really? Well, excuse me, for preferring a crisp and clear picture rendered by 3D engine of Civilazation 4 to the blurry mess which is Civilization 2. And those sprites do not convey the majesty of my Wonders on full scale. Why would I care about that? Well, because playing Civ is taking a role as a master of nations, and visuals should contribute a lot to this feel.

I don't believe you played a relatively new PC RTS game, called Company Of Heroes, this game features state-of-the-art visuals. And they are there not only for eye-candy, but for much more. If you take a good zoom on one of your units, you won't see a unit anymore, you'll see a living breathing person, frightened to his death. Could such effect be possible in 2D? I sincerely doubt it. Talk about benefits.

That something may be preserved doesn't mean that it is easy, or that it is worth the extra trouble. Streetfighter II was ported to the ZX Spectrum. For what good?

That's true. Given the aim of a certain project, the number of people comprising a certain team behind it, sometimes, benefits riped by introducing 3D into a game would not be worth it (casual games). But it's not like 3D is going to hurt the game.

That is a much too simple argument. You could say that Dolby surround holds much more potential for a musician than plain stereo, but many musicians wouldn't agree with you.

I won't say that, just as I won't say that every artist (painter) should switch to 3DS Max and Maya from this day onward. But you forget that Surround sound has become a norm in film making. So should 3D in video games. That much is correct.

3D has been possible for almost as long as 2D in games. Flight simulators have always been in 3D, whereas platformers have traditionally been in 2D. You can ask the game designers about their reasons for that.

That's a good one. So, you're asking why 3D was present in the games, which had their basic premise based on the notion of free movement in 3D space, and absent in games which relied on striking visuals aimed for kids, 3D couldn't provide for some time (visuals, not kids)? Care to answer yourself?

And I bet you're aware that when 3D has advanced enough, all the platforms gladly changed their dimensional residence.

Or how would you explain that Tetris is much more popular than Welltris? Welltris has a lot more potential than plain old Tetris.

I can't tell. Maybe Tetris is a better game? The inclusion of 3D may be done in different ways, each new one yielding completely different results. Reshaping the pure concept of Tetris, meant that we would have a totally new game, which success is impossible to predict by the success of previous game alone. Personally, I care little for either of those games. I've never been addicted to Tetris, although I hold the the art of Tetris Classic very close to my heart.

A typical 2D game has a control over every pixel of the screen

And what do you think Pixel Shaders do?

One of the pitfalls of 3D is that the creative team no longer have the control over the final result. Not only can the gamer choose the resolution, he can even choose the perspective at will. This is just like the ultimate kind of interactive TV – what is a director to do if he no longer can enforce his vision? What is a writer to do if he no longer can write the conclusion to his story?

Well, that's clearly identify the difference between you and me. You've stated it yourself. I care about things for the sake of which designer abandons a part of his control over his creation, to incorporate a new variable - player. I like when the stories are written in a way to account for my own take on them. But that doesn't even matter, since you're wrong in assuming that 3D automatically makes the artist or designer to abandon his control over the final product.

I believe most of the time you're thinking about FPS, you despise so much. But that's not just it. You can force the perspective if that's your bidding, if you feel that your idea would be conveyed better such way.

It's remarkable - the way your talked about manga and how much a certain perspective and viewing angle can bring to the feeling. But, you know what the problem is? I haven't seen it done in 2D games. The only viewing angles we are seeing are side-scrolling, top-down or isometric. Not much room for creative freedom, eh? Maybe you're talking about cutscenes art, but I don't see what prevents a 3D game to utilize 2D art to the best of its effect. The recent The Witcher had plenty of those Remember Alone in The Dark? You couldn't render cobweb in 3D back in 92, but it didn't stop the developer from doing it in a 3D game, with lots of toying with perspective, viewing angles and so forth.

3D is no action figure or sculpture. It's a recreated environment which you light, shape, animate as much as you will.

Take a look on the most abstract side of this. Three dimensional space is "better" than two dimensional, because it already does incorporate every property of 2D in itself. In its essence 3D is an infinitely multiplied 2D stacked upon each other. So using 3D doesn't prevent from incorporating 2D elements in it,

The leaves on a tree in the newest 3D game are still rendered as sprites, hair too. But it goes even further. Want to have real actors performing in a real-time rendered 3D environment? Here you go. Care to have a classic 2D platformer, but with some superior lighting and 3D touches here and there. No problem.

And I don't think I have to remind you of all the years sprites were used for character-drawing. In Myth you can even mistake them for the real-time rendered 3D.

The moment Nintendo started to fool around with their Super FX2 chip in Super World Mario 2, the moment when a notion of "depth" was added to it was a moment when it stopped being a 2D game. And do you dare to say that it hasn't been beneficial for this game?

3D may do anything 2D does, but not vice versa.

From my point of view 3D is like a color in movies. It has become a norm, however no one prevents a modern movie-maker to make his film in B&W, or maybe switch between those two to convey a certain feeling (although I often fail to see which one). Or maybe even go an extra mile in doing a B&W movie but fooling with colors here and there, like Rodriguez in Sin City.

But you do realise that this makes your standpoint harder to defend, don't you? If you say that some of the best and most influential platform games don't have gameplay, how are we to discuss anything?

Well, somebody said that he doesn't care that much about games at all, and we're still discussing them, aren't we? I am sure we won't be seeing each other eye to eye either, if we were to discuss the influence and impact introduction of the 3Dfx accelerator had on gaming.

And I didn't say that Sonic doesn't have gameplay, I said it was "lacking" as "deficient". And don't forget the context in which I have said that. Sonic's gameplay had never had any appeal to me, so it would be hard for me to comment on how different it has become after transition of the franchise into 3D.

It looks better though. And I mean artistically. Sonic Heroes had some marvelous views of the shorelines and palms and the beaches. And the scale has increased dramatically, giving a better impression of a speed Sonic is capable of. Not that I care about it.

This doesn't go along with what you said earlier about the primate of 3-dimensionality at all.

I've lost you here. How so?