2D or 3D games- Which is better?
WildKim
that was so popular has been giving way to 3D and its polygons. But is
this a good or a bad things? Is the fact that
3D games are now the norm mean that they are better than 2D games? I
personally don't agree. I love 2D platform games and I have played
many which I find throughly addictive and just
great fun to play. One of my favourite platform games is in fact
Castlevania: SOTN for the Playstation. It is great fun to play, has
atmospheric music and voice overs and yet looks
stylish despite being part of the 2D genre. Now, although there are a
lot of good 3D games out on the market, none of them for me hold the
sheer addictiveness that 2D games seem to posess.
I love the likes of Spryo the Dragon and Gex 3D but something just
isn't there for me to keep my attention. Sure, the graphics are nice
and the control is fluid but to me, the freedom that the game allows
seems to limit the gameplay.
Although 3D can give you better graphics and a lot more potential to
explore better worlds, they all lack that certain something. And yet,
2D games such as the old Super Mario games on the NES can hold my
attention for far longer than any of these 3D games can. But
unfortunately, game developers do not seem to view it like this. Many
are just out to create the best graphics and to make the ultimate game
technically. But all I want is addictive and a playale game and no
amount of flashy 3D techniques is going to give me that. Take fighting
games. Now, many of them are described as 3D games but they are in
principal 2D games with flashy graphics. Sure, Tekken 3 has polygons
and looks 3D but is it 3D? No. And yet it is an extremely playable
game. Even the Crash series which are great games are not 3D. They are
essentially 2D games with 3D graphics. So what's my point, some of you
might be asking? I am just saying that I don't think the 2D genre
should be buried like developers are trying to. Sure, 3D games are
good but I feel that nothing beats a great 2D game and I see no reason
why we can't have both, instead of the Tomb Raider clones and 3D
shooting games. Maybe it is time that developers started focusing on
2D games as they do with 3D games as I feel
that both types of games still have a lot of life left in them.
Kim
Hiro Lunar
Baneł, the Final Incarnation
Hiro Lunar wrote in message
<19990421143536...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
>2d is always bette in any genre imo.
Uh...not in FPS
-Baneł, the Final Incarnation
Wielder of the Ketsurui
Ancient wielder of powers long forgotten, from times no longer remembered
(sometime late 1997)
AOLIM: Bane Final
ICQ: 29713335
My Webpage (Not that anyone cares)
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/suikoden/52/
Ankoku Kishi
<da...@DELETEME.erols.com> wrote:
>
>Hiro Lunar wrote in message
><19990421143536...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
>>2d is always bette in any genre imo.
>
>
>Uh...not in FPS
>
Didn't you ever play the old shareware Lethal Tender? A terrible
Wolf-3D clone. 3D environment with 2D walls.
*shiver*
>-Baneł, the Final Incarnation
>Wielder of the Ketsurui
>Ancient wielder of powers long forgotten, from times no longer remembered
>(sometime late 1997)
>AOLIM: Bane Final
>ICQ: 29713335
>My Webpage (Not that anyone cares)
>http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/suikoden/52/
>
"Matt Groening, what's he doing in a museum?
He can barly draw! Ah! Oh no! I'm Being erased!" -
Homer Simpson
Hiro Lunar
Baneł, the Final Incarnation
Ultimax wrote in message <372272fd...@news.alt.net>...
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:13:59 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>>(WildKim) wrote:
>>
>><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>>
>>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>fully 3D.
>
>What would be the advantages of making a game using 2D and 3D
>together?
>
>--
It looks good when done right, like FFT or Xenogears
Torajima
3-D works well for some games, but I for one am VERY happy that Square
chose to use 2-D graphics for the new Secret of Mana game. The game
looks absolutely gorgeous...
Torajima
--
--
Send email to torajima "at" mindspring "dot" com
Torajima
<ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net> wrote:
> Xenogears' 2D in 3D graphics looked like crap IMO, and others i've
> spoken with have felt that way about FFT's (Although I did not).
I can't see how anyone would think FFT's graphics looked like crap.
With the possible exception of the character portraits (which were a
bit too stylized for some), the graphics were top notch. The sprites
were detailed and well animated, and the polygon backgrounds were some
of the most convincing I've seen on the Playstation. And the spell
effects were beyond reproach.
> Both
> games were probably made that way in order to make the games easier
> for the processor to handle, and in both of those situations it made
> no real difference whether sprites or polygons had been used.
You're part right, but another reason to mix the two is that sprite
based characters tend to be more detailed than their polygon
counterparts. But this will change as more powerful systems are
released...
Neal Evan Wilson #i
÷With the event of hardware becoming more sophisticated, the 2D genre
÷that was so popular has been giving way to 3D and its polygons. But is
<snip>
Why do I feel like I've read this somewhere before?
Neal Evan Wilson
To see my real .sig, go to http://www.execpc.com/~wilcafe/.../.sig
Last update: 1/30/99
Current size: 6,131 bytes
Sod Enfopol98
the 21 Apr 1999 20:43:50 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like
to know:
>lol first person shooters? how pathetic
GoldenEye 64!!!! 4-player deathmatch, turbo mode, slappers only and
licence to kill. Mix with quality eccies - mondo fun!!!!
And Perfect Dark is out soon...
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: flat...@freeuk.com (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace"
- Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
Ultimax
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>(WildKim) wrote:
>
><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>
>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>fully 3D.
What would be the advantages of making a game using 2D and 3D
together?
--
Ultimax
AIM - Fakeioel
"Real men go out and take themselves a fresh
piece of meat. With consent, or without." - FlowDawg
Animeg3282
>There should be at least a few instances where 2D would be a
>better choice, for gameplay or graphic reasons. I just can't
>think of any right now. :shrug:
>
>
RPGs 2d-FFt 3d-FF7,nuf said ^_-
platform games.
Contra
Chisa Tori
Co-defender of the Scouts, AOL, and Relm
AGFF Goddess and Guru of Cute, Diminutive Mistress of Leather and Lace, and of
Small Words
Yaoi Brigade Member
Pledged to the Way of the Wimp
Ultimax
<da...@DELETEME.erols.com> wrote:
>
>Ultimax wrote in message <372272fd...@news.alt.net>...
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:13:59 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>>>(WildKim) wrote:
>>>
>>><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>>>
>>>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>>>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>>fully 3D.
>>
>>What would be the advantages of making a game using 2D and 3D
>>together?
>>
>>--
>It looks good when done right, like FFT or Xenogears
Xenogears' 2D in 3D graphics looked like crap IMO, and others i've
spoken with have felt that way about FFT's (Although I did not). Both
games were probably made that way in order to make the games easier
for the processor to handle, and in both of those situations it made
no real difference whether sprites or polygons had been used.
--
Ultimax
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:53:56 GMT,
>ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net (Ultimax) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:13:59 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>>>(WildKim) wrote:
>>>
>>><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>>>
>>>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>>>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>>fully 3D.
>>
>>What would be the advantages of making a game using 2D and 3D
>>together?
>
>I don't know. But it sounds as if it would work well. ;)
>
>There should be at least a few instances where 2D would be a
>better choice, for gameplay or graphic reasons. I just can't
>think of any right now. :shrug:
There are games in which 2D gameplay is the better choice (Contra),
but I still see no advantages of combining the two.
Ultimax
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 02:40:40 GMT,
>ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net (Ultimax) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:24:36 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:53:56 GMT,
>>>ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net (Ultimax) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:13:59 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>>>>>(WildKim) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>>>>>
>>>>>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>>>>>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>>>>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>>>>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>>>>fully 3D.
>>>>
>>>>What would be the advantages of making a game using 2D and 3D
>>>>together?
>>>
>>>I don't know. But it sounds as if it would work well. ;)
>>>
>>>There should be at least a few instances where 2D would be a
>>>better choice, for gameplay or graphic reasons. I just can't
>>>think of any right now. :shrug:
>>
>>There are games in which 2D gameplay is the better choice (Contra),
>>but I still see no advantages of combining the two.
>
>Er, okay, I think I've got an example. Sort of.
>
>(This is assuming development on a next-gen system, BTW.)
>
>Say you want to make a game like Xenogears. You could do the
>entire background in polygons, and create lots of sprite
>animations for the characters, to the point where they are
>almost cartoon-quality. (Referring especially to the rather
>rough animation when the camera in Xenogears rotates around
>a character.) You could view the character from virtually
>all angles, without a noticeable degradation in frames of
>animation or quality.
>
>The memory and storage capacity (mostly needed for the
>frames of animation), not to mention processing power, would
>be adequate to bring the two (2D and 3D) together
>seamlessly.
>
>3D effects look nifty and all, but there is a certain
>personality and charm to 2D graphics, especially sprite
>based characters. Polygons are just too artificial and
>stiff, currently. Sprites have a certain freedom of movement
>and looseness that gives them a sort of life, or something,
>that is very appealing to people like me. That is primarily
>what I'd like to see preserved.
Why not create the environments in that way also?
>I guess I'm just sort of confused. I think 2D should be kept
>alive, in some manner, but I don't really know how.
There are some games which are better in 2D, but if games can be
improved by making them 3D they should. If developers can realize
this, 2D will be kept alive by the games which it's better suited for.
Animeg3282
And the spell
>effects were beyond reproach.
Yes,they definalty were! During the final battle,I enjoyed wacthing the spell
effects best,but I loved the ending! The scene of Alma and Ramza riding away on
chocobos and the music was just topnocth!
Baneł, the Final Incarnation
Mr. Coffee wrote in message <374e78ea....@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>...
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:53:56 GMT,
>ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net (Ultimax) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:13:59 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>>>(WildKim) wrote:
>>>
>>><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>>>
>>>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>>>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>>fully 3D.
>>
>>What would be the advantages of making a game using 2D and 3D
>>together?
>
>I don't know. But it sounds as if it would work well. ;)
>
>There should be at least a few instances where 2D would be a
>better choice, for gameplay or graphic reasons. I just can't
>think of any right now. :shrug:
>
Well, for one, 2D has been practically mastered graphically, take a look at
any of Capcom's fighting games, they're beautiful. Gameplay reasons, well,
I, for one, hate 3d fighting games
Baneł, the Final Incarnation
Ultimax wrote in message <372e8b9e...@news.alt.net>...
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:24:36 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:53:56 GMT,
>>ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net (Ultimax) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:13:59 GMT, xb...@oryyfbhgu.arg (Mr. Coffee)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>>>>(WildKim) wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>>>>
>>>>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>>>>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>>>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>>>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>>>fully 3D.
>>>
>>>What would be the advantages of making a game using 2D and 3D
>>>together?
>>
>>I don't know. But it sounds as if it would work well. ;)
>>
>>There should be at least a few instances where 2D would be a
>>better choice, for gameplay or graphic reasons. I just can't
>>think of any right now. :shrug:
>
>but I still see no advantages of combining the two.
>
Well then, I guess you haven't played Einhander yet
Ultimax
I played the demo. I don't really remember too much about it though.
Baneł, the Final Incarnation
Ultimax wrote in message <37204ef8...@news.alt.net>...
bade out of polygons, and occasionally there'd be some shifting around
screen-wise, it was a pretty cool game.
My favorite shooter, come to think of it....that's kinda scary
Simon Barker
>2d is always bette in any genre imo.
Whatever suites the game better is best.
Edwyn
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:40:25 -0400, "Baneł, the Final Incarnation"
> <da...@DELETEME.erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hiro Lunar wrote in message
> ><19990421143536...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
> >
> >
>
> Didn't you ever play the old shareware Lethal Tender? A terrible
> Wolf-3D clone. 3D environment with 2D walls.
That's USUALLY the way walls are made, though. 2D bitmaps
plastered unto the thing. O.o
-Edwyn
Edwyn
>
> lol first person shooters? how pathetic
*coughs* Thief: The Dark Project *coughs* Half-Life *coughs*
Then again, you're probably one of those "CONSOLE RULZ D00DZ!"
gamers, aren't you? Pity.
-Edwyn
Edwyn
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
> (WildKim) wrote:
>
> <snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>
> The answer is, both. They should be applied when
> appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
> content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
> instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
> fully 3D.
2.5D? You mean, go back to the days of Doom and Ultima Underworld,
with 3D environments and 2D sprites? You're crazy, right? O.o
-Edwyn
BrothaJiro
Edwyn wrote:
No. I think it's a good idea. Doom was a great game.
~~~~~~~~
- TPMF,
Overseer of AGFF ORDER!!!,
Owner of 20 Dragonslayer points, and some other random points I forget
300+ Posts to AGFF!! Toilet medals are good.
Disciple of New Hope,
Chris/Jiro
Edwyn
>
> With the event of hardware becoming more sophisticated, the 2D genre
> that was so popular has been giving way to 3D and its polygons. But is
> 3D games are now the norm mean that they are better than 2D games? I
> personally don't agree. I love 2D platform games and I have played
> many which I find throughly addictive and just
That's mainly due to the fact that there are programmers experienced
in creating for the 2D genre. 2D games have a head start of 20 years,
so of course most of them would be considered better. At least in
terms of gameplay. New advances means new ground to explore, and
while 3D games still cut their teeth occasionally, (trying to make
the graphics the gimmick, or trying to convert what was meant to be
a 2D style game into 3D, of which few have been successfully
converted) the current glur of 3D games suggest that game programmers
have found their unique niche in the gaming community, rather than
trying to emulate the success of their 2D brethren.
> great fun to play. One of my favourite platform games is in fact
> Castlevania: SOTN for the Playstation. It is great fun to play, has
> atmospheric music and voice overs and yet looks
> stylish despite being part of the 2D genre. Now, although there are a
> lot of good 3D games out on the market, none of them for me hold the
> sheer addictiveness that 2D games seem to posess.
Speaking on the most basic level, 3D opens new options for the player
to explore. When you could only go in 4 directions in 2D games, 3D
opens those options up to 6, and gives the heightened experience of
"being there" rather than controlling a sprite onscreen. There are
few games that use this added dimension as a gimmick now. Take for
example, Thief: The Dark Project, a, for one of a better term, "thief
simulation". I seriously doubt that the effect of walking around
stealthily, listening at doors, and clubbing unfortunate guards over
the head would have worked quite so well in 2D.
> I love the likes of Spryo the Dragon and Gex 3D but something just
> isn't there for me to keep my attention. Sure, the graphics are nice
> and the control is fluid but to me, the freedom that the game allows
> seems to limit the gameplay.
On the otherhand, with platform games, this is where the 2D aspect of
the gameplay ultimately brings up the graphics short. There are
platformers at their very core, they don't need the extra dimensions,
it was done simply to appeal to graphic freaks. So... Nuts. This is
just a 2D game in 3D's clothing.
> Although 3D can give you better graphics and a lot more potential to
> explore better worlds, they all lack that certain something. And yet,
> 2D games such as the old Super Mario games on the NES can hold my
> attention for far longer than any of these 3D games can. But
> unfortunately, game developers do not seem to view it like this. Many
> are just out to create the best graphics and to make the ultimate game
> technically. But all I want is addictive and a playale game and no
> amount of flashy 3D techniques is going to give me that.
It certainly isn't going to give you 2D gameplay. 3D gameplaying is
an altogether (or should be an altogether) different niche to 2D
games. Perhaps it's unfortunate that game developers stick to one
genre while ignoring the rest. But the freedom that comes with 3D
style worlds is simply too tempting to ignore. Forgive their lack of
foresight.
> Take fighting
> games. Now, many of them are described as 3D games but they are in
> principal 2D games with flashy graphics. Sure, Tekken 3 has polygons
> and looks 3D but is it 3D? No. And yet it is an extremely playable
> game. Even the Crash series which are great games are not 3D. They are
> essentially 2D games with 3D graphics. So what's my point, some of you
> might be asking? I am just saying that I don't think the 2D genre
> should be buried like developers are trying to. Sure, 3D games are
> good but I feel that nothing beats a great 2D game and I see no reason
> why we can't have both, instead of the Tomb Raider clones and 3D
> shooting games.
Maybe I should have read further on, before I expounded the same view
you just did. Eheh.
> Maybe it is time that developers started focusing on
> 2D games as they do with 3D games as I feel
> that both types of games still have a lot of life left in them.
See "Starcraft". ;-)
-Edwyn
Edwyn
>
> Edwyn wrote:
>
> >Mr. Coffee wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
> >> (WildKim) wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
> >>
> >> The answer is, both. They should be applied when
> >> appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
> >> content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
> >> instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
> >> fully 3D.
> >
> >2.5D? You mean, go back to the days of Doom and Ultima Underworld,
> >with 3D environments and 2D sprites? You're crazy, right? O.o
>
> No. I think it's a good idea. Doom was a great game.
Unfortunately, expectations are much higher for in-game graphics,
nowadays. Nobody would have willingly gone out to get 16 colour
EGA games four years ago, and so the same can be applied to the
prototype 3D games of Doom.
-Edwyn
BrothaJiro
Edwyn wrote:
Doom Updated, now requiring the use of a 3dfx card. For Doom is good. @_@
H.P. Ford
>lol first person shooters? how pat--*STAMP*
[OPINION: IGNORE]
; ; ;", ;" ,", ;", ;",
""" :": :" :" : : :". : :
' ' " ' " ' ` ' ' '' "
H.P. Ford
[SNIP]
>3D effects look nifty and all, but there is a certain
>personality and charm to 2D graphics, especially sprite
>based characters. Polygons are just too artificial and
>stiff, currently. Sprites have a certain freedom of movement
>and looseness that gives them a sort of life, or something,
>that is very appealing to people like me. That is primarily
>what I'd like to see preserved.
The key word in that paragraph is currently. Games have always been
moving forward, and there was a time when even side-scrolling was new.
Think about the games that have the best "personality." Is it simply
because they are 2-D? No, they have good art direction and animation
as well. Just as 2-D went through birthing pangs in the early phases
of console systems, 3-D is doing the same. 3-D is the future. 3-D more
closely approaches reality, and can thus provide better immersion.
It's just that, technology wise, we're just getting to the point where
consoles can do 3-D with as much spirit as 2-D. Over the next few
years I think 2-D will grow even more uncommon, residing in the realm
of retro.
>I guess I'm just sort of confused. I think 2D should be kept
>alive, in some manner, but I don't really know how.
I think the main confusion is over 3-D "graphics" versus 3-D
"systems", like Kim mentioned. Just because a game is rendered in 3-D
doesn't mean you have to force the player to play in a 3-D world.
Sometimes that freedom isn't appropriate for the genre. Legend of
Legaia and Einhander are two examples of wildly differing games which,
although they feature 3-D graphics, retain a 2-D system.
H.P. Ford
>In article <372d8a8b...@news.alt.net>, Ultimax
><ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net> wrote:
>
>> Xenogears' 2D in 3D graphics looked like crap IMO, and others i've
>> spoken with have felt that way about FFT's (Although I did not).
>
>I can't see how anyone would think FFT's graphics looked like crap.
>With the possible exception of the character portraits (which were a
>bit too stylized for some), the graphics were top notch. The sprites
>were detailed and well animated, and the polygon backgrounds were some
>of the most convincing I've seen on the Playstation. And the spell
>effects were beyond reproach.
>
>> Both
>> games were probably made that way in order to make the games easier
>> for the processor to handle, and in both of those situations it made
>> no real difference whether sprites or polygons had been used.
>
>You're part right, but another reason to mix the two is that sprite
>based characters tend to be more detailed than their polygon
>counterparts. But this will change as more powerful systems are
>released...
2-D graphics stuck in a polygonal 3-D world have a big difficulty
escaping the cardboard cutout syndrome, by which I mean you turn the
camera and the 2-D character suddenly "flashes" to another angle, as
though he's a paper figure. Granted this can be muted in games where
the 2-D characters have a lot of cells of animation, but the effect is
still noticable.
H.P. Ford
>
> Edwyn wrote:
>
> >BrothaJiro wrote:
>>>
>>> Edwyn wrote:
>>>
>>> >Mr. Coffee wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>>> >> (WildKim) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> <snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>>> >>
>>> >> The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>>> >> appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>> >> content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>> >> instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>> >> fully 3D.
>>> >
>>> >2.5D? You mean, go back to the days of Doom and Ultima Underworld,
>>> >with 3D environments and 2D sprites? You're crazy, right? O.o
>>>
>>> No. I think it's a good idea. Doom was a great game.
>>
>>Unfortunately, expectations are much higher for in-game graphics,
>>nowadays. Nobody would have willingly gone out to get 16 colour
>>EGA games four years ago, and so the same can be applied to the
>>prototype 3D games of Doo
>
> Doom Updated, now requiring the use of a 3dfx card. For Doom is good. @_@
Quake is better. Half-life is best..
Edwyn
>
> Edwyn wrote:
>
> >BrothaJiro wrote:
> >>
> >> Edwyn wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mr. Coffee wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
> >> >> (WildKim) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
> >> >>
> >> >> The answer is, both. They should be applied when
> >> >> appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
> >> >> content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
> >> >> instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
> >> >> fully 3D.
> >> >
> >> >2.5D? You mean, go back to the days of Doom and Ultima Underworld,
> >> >with 3D environments and 2D sprites? You're crazy, right? O.o
> >>
> >> No. I think it's a good idea. Doom was a great game.
> >
> >Unfortunately, expectations are much higher for in-game graphics,
> >nowadays. Nobody would have willingly gone out to get 16 colour
> >EGA games four years ago, and so the same can be applied to the
> >prototype 3D games of Doo
>
> Doom Updated, now requiring the use of a 3dfx card. For Doom is good. @_@
It's been done. It's called "Half-Life". Go play it. ;-)
-Edwyn
Luke Drelick
What about Unreal? When I get my new PC for Graduation, this is the
first game I'm getting for it :)
Baneł, the Final Incarnation
Luke Drelick wrote in message <3720c21...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
Heh...Unreal...<laughs>
Great engine, the game itself sucked, IMO. It was pretty mind you, it just
didn't have very good gameplay
BrothaJiro
Edwyn wrote:
Does it have Cyberdemons and Spider Masterminds?
Can you killed said monsters with a rocket launcher?
If not, then it is not DOOM. HTH, HAND.
neo_zo...@my-dejanews.com
ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net (Ultimax) wrote:
>
> >It looks good when done right, like FFT or Xenogears
>
> games were probably made that way in order to make the games easier
> for the processor to handle, and in both of those situations it made
> no real difference whether sprites or polygons had been used.
I don't think polygons have matured to the point where they look "better"
than good 2d. The best polygons still come off as somewhat boxy and pointy,
and the worst can look completely horrible, with polygons that don't mesh
well, don't move well together, or poke holes in each other. Polygons just
can't do most character designs justice. Compare the polygonal Street
Fighter to SF3 or SFA3. Compare Castlevania SoTN to Castlevania 64. Etc...
-ZFP
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Edwyn
>
> In article <372d8a8b...@news.alt.net>,
> ult...@hartford.crosswinds.net (Ultimax) wrote:
> >
> > >It looks good when done right, like FFT or Xenogears
> >
> > Xenogears' 2D in 3D graphics looked like crap IMO, and others i've
> > spoken with have felt that way about FFT's (Although I did not). Both
> > games were probably made that way in order to make the games easier
> > for the processor to handle, and in both of those situations it made
> > no real difference whether sprites or polygons had been used.
>
> I don't think polygons have matured to the point where they look "better"
> than good 2d. The best polygons still come off as somewhat boxy and pointy,
> and the worst can look completely horrible, with polygons that don't mesh
> well, don't move well together, or poke holes in each other. Polygons just
> can't do most character designs justice. Compare the polygonal Street
> Fighter to SF3 or SFA3. Compare Castlevania SoTN to Castlevania 64. Etc...
On the other hand, 2D graphics can't do justice to 3D graphic games.
I notice you're concentrating mainly upon the not so subtle
conversions from 2D to 3D gaming of a lot of popular titles. Why not
look at titles which were created with the 3D realm in mind in the
first place? That would make your comparisons slightly fairer, as
there are plenty of 3D games out there that would positively NOT work
in 2D. Or possess quite the same charm.
And clipping problems are attributed to the hardware at the time;
remember 3D stuff is fairly young compared to 2D, and 2D has had 20
years to improve upon its repetoire (remember C64 EGA games of way
back when? 3D gaming may be compared to be at that point, relatively).
-Edwyn
neo_zo...@my-dejanews.com
Edwyn <ed...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > I don't think polygons have matured to the point where they look "better"
> > than good 2d. The best polygons still come off as somewhat boxy and pointy,
> > and the worst can look completely horrible, with polygons that don't mesh
> > well, don't move well together, or poke holes in each other. Polygons just
> > can't do most character designs justice. Compare the polygonal Street
> > Fighter to SF3 or SFA3. Compare Castlevania SoTN to Castlevania 64. Etc...
>
> On the other hand, 2D graphics can't do justice to 3D graphic games.
What do you mean?
> I notice you're concentrating mainly upon the not so subtle
> conversions from 2D to 3D gaming of a lot of popular titles. Why not
> look at titles which were created with the 3D realm in mind in the
> first place? That would make your comparisons slightly fairer, as
> there are plenty of 3D games out there that would positively NOT work
> in 2D. Or possess quite the same charm.
A 3d game couldn't be made in 2d, no, but "charm"? 3d games allow a whole
additional level of immersion and realism, but that's really a matter of
gameplay, isn't it?
> And clipping problems are attributed to the hardware at the time;
> remember 3D stuff is fairly young compared to 2D, and 2D has had 20
> years to improve upon its repetoire (remember C64 EGA games of way
> back when? 3D gaming may be compared to be at that point, relatively).
I don't think so. Old 2d was limited by hardware. The people doing 3d have
MUCH more to work with in that respect.
Edwyn
>
> In article <372129...@ihug.co.nz>,
> Edwyn <ed...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think polygons have matured to the point where they look "better"
> > > than good 2d. The best polygons still come off as somewhat boxy and pointy,
> > > and the worst can look completely horrible, with polygons that don't mesh
> > > well, don't move well together, or poke holes in each other. Polygons just
> > > can't do most character designs justice. Compare the polygonal Street
> > > Fighter to SF3 or SFA3. Compare Castlevania SoTN to Castlevania 64. Etc...
> >
> > On the other hand, 2D graphics can't do justice to 3D graphic games.
>
> What do you mean?
What I say below.
> > I notice you're concentrating mainly upon the not so subtle
> > conversions from 2D to 3D gaming of a lot of popular titles. Why not
> > look at titles which were created with the 3D realm in mind in the
> > first place? That would make your comparisons slightly fairer, as
> > there are plenty of 3D games out there that would positively NOT work
> > in 2D. Or possess quite the same charm.
>
> A 3d game couldn't be made in 2d, no, but "charm"? 3d games allow a whole
> additional level of immersion and realism, but that's really a matter of
> gameplay, isn't it?
Hmmm..... Well, let's take a few snippets of Half-Life as an example,
ahem, spoilers:
In one sequence of the game, as you find yourself crawling down an
air duct deep within the research facility that you are trapped in,
you suddenly notice little pinpricks of light that have abruptly
appeared in the floor in front of you, and are increasing in number.
It is then you realise then someone underneath the "floor" has heard
your presence and is shooting up, trying to flush you out. The next
few seconds of your life will now be spent backing away desperately
as the the floor tears up in front of you.
And it's all happening in real time. No cutscnes, no pull aways, it's
this kind of movie-like, adrenaline pumping experience that gives 3D
games its charm. I doubt the same visceral appeal would have been
emulated quite so well in a 2D environment.
> > And clipping problems are attributed to the hardware at the time;
> > remember 3D stuff is fairly young compared to 2D, and 2D has had 20
> > years to improve upon its repetoire (remember C64 EGA games of way
> > back when? 3D gaming may be compared to be at that point, relatively).
>
> I don't think so. Old 2d was limited by hardware. The people doing 3d have
> MUCH more to work with in that respect.
Yes, they have much more to work with. Then again, they have much to
work FOR. They're still crippled by the technology and how much they
can do with a polygonal character considering the current level of
technology and their experience. Hell, there was a whole schtick
about how much time they spent trying to make clothing move naturally
on a character while they were moving (Pixar). 3D gaming is still
(relatively) in its infancy. As stated above.
-Edwyn
Edwyn
Picky, picky, picky.....
-Edwyn
WildKim
Coffee) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:47:56 GMT, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk
>(WildKim) wrote:
>
><snipples - feeling long-winded today, Kim? ;)>
>
No. I wrote this months ago and decided to post it.
>The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>fully 3D.
I agree with you.
Kim
WildKim
(Neal Evan Wilson #i) wrote:
>In article <3749fbf5...@news.eidosnet.co.uk>, ki...@eidosnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>÷With the event of hardware becoming more sophisticated, the 2D genre
>÷that was so popular has been giving way to 3D and its polygons. But is
><snip>
>
>Why do I feel like I've read this somewhere before?
>
You probably have. It was up on the website a few months back. I just
felt like reposting it here rather than re-write my opinion.
Kim
WildKim
wrote:
>WildKim wrote:
>>
>> With the event of hardware becoming more sophisticated, the 2D genre
>> that was so popular has been giving way to 3D and its polygons. But is
>> this a good or a bad things? Is the fact that
>> 3D games are now the norm mean that they are better than 2D games? I
>> personally don't agree. I love 2D platform games and I have played
>> many which I find throughly addictive and just
>
>That's mainly due to the fact that there are programmers experienced
>in creating for the 2D genre. 2D games have a head start of 20 years,
>so of course most of them would be considered better. At least in
>terms of gameplay. New advances means new ground to explore, and
>while 3D games still cut their teeth occasionally, (trying to make
>the graphics the gimmick, or trying to convert what was meant to be
>a 2D style game into 3D, of which few have been successfully
>converted) the current glur of 3D games suggest that game programmers
>have found their unique niche in the gaming community, rather than
>trying to emulate the success of their 2D brethren.
>
Yeah, that's true. 3D programming is still very much experimental at
the moment. But some people seem to focus on 3D graphics rather than
true 3D games.
>> great fun to play. One of my favourite platform games is in fact
>> Castlevania: SOTN for the Playstation. It is great fun to play, has
>> atmospheric music and voice overs and yet looks
>> stylish despite being part of the 2D genre. Now, although there are a
>> lot of good 3D games out on the market, none of them for me hold the
>> sheer addictiveness that 2D games seem to posess.
>
>Speaking on the most basic level, 3D opens new options for the player
>to explore. When you could only go in 4 directions in 2D games, 3D
>opens those options up to 6, and gives the heightened experience of
>"being there" rather than controlling a sprite onscreen. There are
>few games that use this added dimension as a gimmick now. Take for
>example, Thief: The Dark Project, a, for one of a better term, "thief
>simulation". I seriously doubt that the effect of walking around
>stealthily, listening at doors, and clubbing unfortunate guards over
>the head would have worked quite so well in 2D.
>
I agree. When 3D games are done properly, they are great. Few people
have attained this however and if 3D is not necessary when it is a 2D
type game, then they shouldn't try to alter it drastically.
>> I love the likes of Spryo the Dragon and Gex 3D but something just
>> isn't there for me to keep my attention. Sure, the graphics are nice
>> and the control is fluid but to me, the freedom that the game allows
>> seems to limit the gameplay.
>
>On the otherhand, with platform games, this is where the 2D aspect of
>the gameplay ultimately brings up the graphics short. There are
>platformers at their very core, they don't need the extra dimensions,
>it was done simply to appeal to graphic freaks. So... Nuts. This is
>just a 2D game in 3D's clothing.
>
MTE
I would but my computer is not fast enough.
Kim
Luke Drelick
<da...@DELETEME.erols.com> wrote:
>
>Luke Drelick wrote in message <3720c21...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:38:58 +1200, Edwyn <ed...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Hiro Lunar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> lol first person shooters? how pathetic
>>>
>>>*coughs* Thief: The Dark Project *coughs* Half-Life *coughs*
>>>
>>>Then again, you're probably one of those "CONSOLE RULZ D00DZ!"
>>>gamers, aren't you? Pity.
>>>
>>>-Edwyn
>>
>>What about Unreal? When I get my new PC for Graduation, this is the
>>first game I'm getting for it :)
>
>Heh...Unreal...<laughs>
>
>Great engine, the game itself sucked, IMO. It was pretty mind you, it just
>didn't have very good gameplay
>
I played Unreal today, it was fine... The graphics were nice, the
gameplay seemed standard Doom style stuff, but then again, I haven't
played too many innovative 3-D shooters =) It seemed fine, a solid
game, but I only played like the first 3 levels... The graphics are
nice but the monsters kinda look corny.
YG
>With the event of hardware becoming more sophisticated, the 2D genre
>that was so popular has been giving way to 3D and its polygons. But is
>this a good or a bad things? Is the fact that
>3D games are now the norm mean that they are better than 2D games? I
You are comparing apples to oranges. Why are you even trying to
compare them? Doesn't make sense.
Let me guess, when Pong appeared in arcade halls, you started
comparing it to pinball machines and jackpots?
Think of Alpha Centauri, Simcity 3000, Civilization: Call to Power,
Rollercoaster Tycoon etc. Aren't they doing great 'despite' being 2D
games??? 2D has its place, as does 3D.
>personally don't agree. I love 2D platform games and I have played
>many which I find throughly addictive and just
>great fun to play.
Yeah, anything is possible.
>One of my favourite platform games is in fact
>Castlevania: SOTN for the Playstation. It is great fun to play, has
>atmospheric music and voice overs and yet looks
>stylish despite being part of the 2D genre.
Atmospheric music and voice overs can be both in 2D and 3D games.
>Now, although there are a
>lot of good 3D games out on the market, none of them for me hold the
>sheer addictiveness that 2D games seem to posess.
Well, for a person who loves platform games that may be true. I don't.
But then I like driving games for example, and I think they would suck
in 2D. First person shooters or flight games too.
>Although 3D can give you better graphics and a lot more potential to
>explore better worlds, they all lack that certain something. And yet,
Too vague.
>2D games such as the old Super Mario games on the NES can hold my
>attention for far longer than any of these 3D games can. But
>unfortunately, game developers do not seem to view it like this. Many
>are just out to create the best graphics and to make the ultimate game
>technically. But all I want is addictive and a playale game and no
>amount of flashy 3D techniques is going to give me that. Take fighting
But it doesn't make sense if you are implying that only 2D graphics
can give you an addictive and playable game. Why??? Some games are
much better as 3D games, and some as 2D. What is the problem?
No I would not like to play Rollercoaster Tycoon from a first person
3D view, it would be too hard to construct the machines that way.
>games. Now, many of them are described as 3D games but they are in
>principal 2D games with flashy graphics. Sure, Tekken 3 has polygons
>and looks 3D but is it 3D? No. And yet it is an extremely playable
>game. Even the Crash series which are great games are not 3D. They are
If those games are not 3D, how do you define 3D game then?
>essentially 2D games with 3D graphics. So what's my point, some of you
>might be asking? I am just saying that I don't think the 2D genre
>should be buried like developers are trying to. Sure, 3D games are
They are not doing that. Instead, they are using 2D _when_ it is
appropriate! Previously they had to use 2D in _all_ games only because
3D graphics usually was computationally too hard.
>good but I feel that nothing beats a great 2D game and I see no reason
>why we can't have both, instead of the Tomb Raider clones and 3D
>shooting games. Maybe it is time that developers started focusing on
But we have both! Unless you think Rollercoaster Tycoon is a 3D
game...
YG
>2d is always bette in any genre imo.
Yeah, I just luuuuv 2D driving games and flying games! They should
have made Gran Turismo into a 2D game with sprites! Falcon 4 in 2D,
great!
YG
> What about Unreal? When I get my new PC for Graduation, this is the
> first game I'm getting for it :)
Since you had smiley, I think you meant that as a joke. Good, because
Unreal is boring. Buy Half-life and Thief instead, there are lots of
others too which are better than Unreal (Requiem, Wages of Sin,
KingPin...).
YG
>Hiro Lunar wrote:
>>
>> lol first person shooters? how pathetic
>
>*coughs* Thief: The Dark Project *coughs* Half-Life *coughs*
Thief is a first person stealth game, not a first person shooter, as
there is minimal amount of shooting in it.
YG
>> The answer is, both. They should be applied when
>> appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>> content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>> instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>> fully 3D.
>
>2.5D? You mean, go back to the days of Doom and Ultima Underworld,
>with 3D environments and 2D sprites? You're crazy, right? O.o
Hey, Lands of Lore 3 is a very new RPG/adventure (just released), and
it has a similar system, 2D sprites on 3D environment.
It is true the characters look a bit like cardboard cutouts, but when
they are animated and they speak to you, they look much better than
they could with current technology, if they were made of polygons.
Aeaen
>>> appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
>>> content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
>>> instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
>>> fully 3D.
Alrighty. I'm working on a 3D shooter with (get this, and make sure you have
oxygen) A PLOT! (gasp)
A plot, you say? Not possible in a 3D shooter, you say! I beg to differ!
This's gonna be cool.
Here's why (without giving much away, since it's gonna be a while before
it's done):
- You can choose from different characters (7, in fact) each with their own
weapons, special abilities, and other cool stuff.
- The missions aren't linear. Meaning, you get to choose which one you go
into, and this ultimately generates the outcome of the game.
heh heh.......
Even though our website is by no means finished, you can see our cool logo
at www.indestruction.com if you like.
-=Aeaen
This mad ranting was made possible by a grant from
Aeaen, the only one with detailed instructions for insert-foot-in-mouth!
=======================================
-=Chronic user of Murasame=-
-=Guardian of the Northern Cross Materia=-
-=Destroyer of all things shiny=-
-=Addict of Ether potions=-
-=Only possessor of the Void materia=-
-=Proud owner of the Make-An-Ass-Of-Yourself Materia=-
(bought it at the Home Shopping Network)
======================================
(Will be added to as events warrant)
Edwyn
Yeah, but it demonstrates the capabilities of a FPP game, rather than
a slugfest.
-Edwyn
--
Master of "Sock with a half-brick in it" technique
Wielder of the Cerese Darksurveysaber
Defender of Cyanspeak
AGFF's FF5 Patron Saint
Black Knight (well, not really, but I liked the sound of that better
than a White one)
One Understated Post Of The Day Award (AGFF)
Vigilantes Award for Logic
GFOX medal for a kick-ass Star Wars post in AGFF
Winner of 1 Ash666 Pin of AIM Deletedness
- "I saw Ash666 type deltree C:\progra~1\aim95 and all I got was
this commemorative pin!"
Winner of 1 Blackmail Point
Winner of 1 Shining AIM Smiley Award (tm)
Winner of 1 Suave Point
Winner of Pi Unright points
Winner of 5 Wyvern Points
Winner of 10 Bribery Points
Winner of 12 Dead Fish Points
Winner of 15 Jiro points
Winner of 25 NightShade Undead Madness Points
Winner of 32 Night Angel points
Winner of 45 Jappy Points
Winner of 50 Survey Suppressor Points
Edwyn
>
> >>> The answer is, both. They should be applied when
> >>> appropriate. 3D is still too much of a gimmick. I'll be
> >>> content when developers start using 2D and 3D together,
> >>> instead of making a fully 3D game just to boast that it's
> >>> fully 3D.
>
> Alrighty. I'm working on a 3D shooter with (get this, and make sure you have
> oxygen) A PLOT! (gasp)
Half-Life's done that already. O.o But I see your point.
> A plot, you say? Not possible in a 3D shooter, you say! I beg to differ!
> This's gonna be cool.
>
> Here's why (without giving much away, since it's gonna be a while before
> it's done):
>
> - You can choose from different characters (7, in fact) each with their own
> weapons, special abilities, and other cool stuff.
Certain arcade games had up to three, or even four such pilots at
one time.
> - The missions aren't linear. Meaning, you get to choose which one you go
> into, and this ultimately generates the outcome of the game.
Starfox64?
> heh heh.......
>
> Even though our website is by no means finished, you can see our cool logo
> at www.indestruction.com if you like.
-Edwyn