2D VS 3D

[PlaystationFan.Com]

PLAYSTATIONFAN.COM ARTICLE

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 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.

As I started to rant on this topic I became curious as to what other people felt about 2D and 3D games. Here are some people's opinions about this everlasting topic:

I like both, but it seems that 3D has gotten very derivative very quickly. A proliferation of 3D platformers and Doom clones seem to be all the rage and all people are prepared to do with 3D).  With 2D games, the graphics tend to be more stylised and the environments a lot cleaner.  3D games are still quite "rough" in appearance (even the best ones) and ill-proportioned, deformed looking characters seem to be ubiquitous in the third dimension (take Goldeneye for example or some parts of Parasite Eve).

Also, some games lend themselves better to 2D than 3D (2D Beatm 'em ups and sometimes RPGs, for example).

In a perfect world, 2D and 3D gaming would co-exist in perfect harmony, but 3D is all the rage, developers want to shift everything to the third dimension indefinitely, but they still have  a lot to learn about 3D games.  And I fear that if we lose touch of 2D gaming altogether, we'll lose one of the best things to happen to videogames.

- Phoenix Gamma

Mario64 type games really suck I perfer the originals as they are less complicated and I personally think that the gameplay is better. Give my Super Mario World anyday, I think this is one of the reasons the N64 isn't as popular as the playstation. 1st person shoot'em ups are alot better than platform shoot 'em ups though. 3D graphics should be used to enhance gameplay and not be the reason for making the game.

- Jonny

I like 2D better, for the most part, especially for RPG character design. IMO, 2D still beats out 3D in every genre, because many 3D games are very unoriginal. For the most part, they fall into 3 categories, Mario wannabes, Doom/Quake wannabes, and Tomb Raider wannabes(which I dislike the most). Some of the games are fun, if they don't have many problems with the camera. I think the 3D games will be improving, but it will be a while until they match the quality of 2D, mostly because 2D has been around much longer. I like the games where they mix 3D and 2D, like Xenogears. I thought Xenogears' nicely drawn spites on rotatable 3D backrounds looked much better than FF7's blockhead-like polygonal characters on prerendered backgrounds.

- Blazing Sword

Well, I think whether 2D or 3D is best depends highly on the genre of game, and the type of feel you're going for.  For instance, 2D has come a long way in the last couple years, and making the characters in 2D look good is really easy, as is show-cased by recent games like Guilty Gear, Darkstalkers 3, etc.  3D technology hasn't been used as much, and hence isn't as spectacular yet.  I personally prefer these 2D/3D combination type games, like Xenogears, FF7, FF8, FFT, etc.  I like seeing my characters with that more fluid anime look, and my backgrounds done in beautiful 3D, or vice-versa.  So, all in all, I'd prefer they keep a good mix of both, after all, variety is the spice of life!

- Kyoto the Dark Angel

I like 2D graphics and I like 3D graphics. I don't like 3D graphics being used when they do not in any way enhance my enjoyment of the game the graphics are used in. I also don't like 2D or 3D graphics that do nothing to show that the game is in some way different from other games out there. For example, some years back I found a group that had two Mac games which were basically Doom clones with a Dragon Quest style combat system. I downloaded both games. I started up the first one and it was okay. The 3D graphics were such that it blended well with the combat system and overall I think that they did a nice job of the game. After a while I got bored of killing off preaching televangelists and decided to open the other game up. Aside from the walls having different textures, the sounds, monsters, and maps being different, I could not tell the difference between the two games. It looked as if they had just taken the exact same code base and put different resources in. And the programmers had the nerve to ask for the shareware fees for both of these games separately! I was angry because I was being asked to pay twice for the same game. Both 2D graphics and 3D graphics must do something so that you can tell that the game isn't just another Donkey Kong or just another Doom. And certainly the graphics must show that the game is not the same as the last game that group made. Graphics need to be thought about before they're implemented.

It's not so much a complaint that there are too many 3D games coming out and more that there aren't enough quality 2D games coming out anymore. Everybody is jumping on the boat to get out games that use the best polygons and texture mapping. With the current state of hardware (large capacity games, fast processing, etc.), especially on console systems, some gorgeous 2D games could be created, but they aren't being created because corporations that make games seem to think that the buying public isn't interested in 2D games anymore and likely point to the poor sales of old 2D games ported to the target system compared to the latest 3D thriller to prove the point. They may be right, we might not be interested in putting down money for a game that uses graphics that take up less processing power. I don't know and honestly don't really care (I'm still trying to get through Koules and that's free).

-  Neal Wilson

I think the largest problem with 3D is that some developers slap the word "3D" onto the title of an existing game and make it sound like it will be a major improvement over the previous game.

IMHO this backfired for Bubsy 3D and Road Rash 3D. Both games were based on solid 2D games (the Road Rash trilogy and "Bubsy in Claws Encounter of the Furred Kind") but their 3D equivilants had nowhere near the quality factor of the previous games. Their gameplay was shallow and quite difficult, and the graphics (although officially different) were no major improvement over the previous two games. I loved Road Rash, but felt like returning Road Rash 3D to the store the day I received it. It just felt like a negative upgrade to me.

Then again, some 3D games are major improvements over their 2D equivilants. These games tend to be sports games. After playing some 3D sports games; including Madden 99, Gran Turismo, Int'l Superstar Soccer, etc. I could never imagine a 2D game coming close to those titles. They could try to have somewhat realistic physics in the 2D game, but at the expense of smooth animation and most likely the changing camera angles that 3D sports games are notorious for using.

-  Nick Zitzmann

Well, the 2-D single screen game (a la Donkey Kong, Asteroids, and several other old classics), while not definitely implying a bad game, is far too dated for now.  The 2-d sidescroller is a good genre, but its just gotten so basic.  The typical 2-d sidescroller now has an easy stage, a less easy stage, etc. etc., a hard stage, with powerups and pits.  Such a basic design, its as if they only change the graphic for the player character and the background of the setting.  I don't like that much mimicking.  These days the only 2-d platformers I like are the ones that were originals before it became a mimick game, a la the first Super Mario Brothers and things around that time.

-  Ismail 'Slipgate' Speed

The following opinion is based on N64 games, but I feel it is one that could be applied quite easily for Playstation games and what makes a 3D game good or bad.

Alright, here's an example of a game that is a GOOD game, but that mostly is criticized for its akwardness.  Mario 64.  Good game, lots of settings, definitely classic nostalgic Mario, appeals to old Mario fans and newcomers, etc. etc.  However the implementation of the 3-D nature of the game has so many akwardnesses it pisses off veterans of Mario and newcomers alike.  Some examples:

- Although the game world can have aspects of it drawn from miles away, entities in it (enemies, items, etc.) can only be drawn when you are relatively close to them.

- Super low polygon counts, which wouldn't be so bad except that they are combined with ultra close up perspectives.

- The first 2 are things I forgive but are complaints that I've seen people make.  This one is my pet peeve.  The damn stupid camera!  Ack.

On a side note, my nephew, even after having logged many hours with Mario 64 (70 some of the total 120 stars, which isn't too shabby on play time out of total possible play time), still can't believe that this is Mario, because he's still so accustomed to a sideview Mario.  Mario hails from a time when he was 2-d.

Now, going to Zelda (and hopefully I won't sound superficial here, I see some honest-to-god improvements and differences both in manner of communicating the world and in engine).

- Your field of view is VAST.  If there's something a few miles away (yes I say miles) and there's nothing blocking your view to it (like say a really steep hill you are at the bottom of), it may be small, but it will be THERE.  Much vaster distance handling than Mario had.  Also it doesn't quite as quickly make things "vanish" and "appear".

- Higher polygon counts used.  Much more detailed architecture AND creatures.  Less indescript graphics.  A rock looks like a rock, speckled surface and all.  Bushes look like bushes.  Grassy or dirt plains look as such (and sound as such when you walk on them, and also when Link or anyone rolls or moves fast over dirt you see it come up as dust, like you would in other "throw dirt up into the air" situations.

- Super duper camera!  Very smart in terms of what a good angle would be, and even if you don't like the angle, instead of wasting the majority of the controller to camera movement buttons, instead they allow the Z button (Z targeting, or the "focus button") to automatically recentralize the view behind Link facing forward, so that forward on the control stick can be forward in the direction you want to go in practice at like anytime.

Zelda fits into the 3-D perspective much better than Mario since the 3-dimensionality is more appropriately, immersively, and realistically used, and also since Zelda hearkens back to top down gaming instead of sideview platforming.  On top downs it was natural to be able to go any which way, which couldn't be done in sideview, and polygons didn't exist yet to make a solid realistic world feasible on an older console.  I personally feel that top-down was the way to do behind-the-back back then, which allows you freedom of movement in all directions and taking in your surroundings, like 3-D, but is less hardware intensive.

-  Ismail "Slipgate" Speed

So there you have it. As for which is better, the answer seems to vary from person to person and the type of games they like. Now, what is your opinion on 2D and 3D games? Should 2D games be buried in the past or should more of them flood the market? What do you really think about Playstation games? Email me with your views at k...@playstationfan.com. If I get enough feedback, I'll compile them together and then print them on the website.

Looking forward to your views :) -Kim

PLAYSTATIONFAN.COM ARTICLE

[Mark Daniels]

"PlaystationFan.Com" wrote:
>
> PLAYSTATIONFAN.COM ARTICLE
>
> With the event of hardware becoming more sophisticated, the 2D genre
> that was so popular has been giving way to 3D and its polygons.

I'll say one thing about 3D games - I've been playing Quake2 deathmatch
recently (only just really got into it). It's incredibly engrossing,
because basically you are running around what resembles a 'real'
environment, playing against real people. It's extremely addictive and
actually warps your sense of reality - if you play it before going to
bed, you lie there with these scenes playing round and round in your
head. That's why I think 3D games like this are going to be more and
more at the forefront, the more realistic and interactive they get. I
could be wrong...

Mark D.

[Eric A. Sim]

I agree to the point where the more realistic games are often the better and
more played games, but 3D doesn't necessarily mean better...
some of the more engrossing games aren't even visually complex. Explainsthe
sales of such games as tetris and pikachu.
I do think, however, that 3D tech. is actually needed to sell some games as
in the case of sports and traditional first-perspective games where the
rules can't be changed much and the plots, if any, are simple.

Don't get me wrong, I like to play online Quake2 too once in awhile to lap
in the luxuries of technology too, but 2D will always be around to give us
some depth and intelligence and Street Fighter will always be back with a
new collection.

Have Fun-E.

[Mark Daniels]

"Eric A. Sim" wrote:
>
> I agree to the point where the more realistic games are often the better and
> more played games, but 3D doesn't necessarily mean better...
> some of the more engrossing games aren't even visually complex. Explainsthe
> sales of such games as tetris and pikachu.

No! Of course! My favourite games of all time are Tetris on the C64
and Lemmings on the Amiga (esp. 2-player). I'm just saying that
obviously if you are going to simulate reality, it has to be in 3D.
Even 2D games can warp your sense of reality though - playing Lemmings
against a friend for a full day (250 games!) made me go loopy by the end
of the day.

Mark D.

[Eric A. Sim]

>No! Of course! My favourite games of all time are Tetris on the C64
>and Lemmings on the Amiga (esp. 2-player). I'm just saying that
>obviously if you are going to simulate reality, it has to be in 3D.
>Even 2D games can warp your sense of reality though - playing Lemmings
>against a friend for a full day (250 games!) made me go loopy by the end
>of the day.
>
>Mark D.

Some games can get by just fine using 2D... Most realistic strategies and
battle simulators use 2D to open up the field of view, making the game more
immersive.

Yes, I do think that 3D is necessary to make such games as Quake feel
"real", but in any case, 2D and 3D should just get along, they're both quite
needed in the gaming industry.

E.

[Mark Daniels]

>
> Some games can get by just fine using 2D... Most realistic strategies and
> battle simulators use 2D to open up the field of view, making the game more
> immersive.
>
> Yes, I do think that 3D is necessary to make such games as Quake feel
> "real", but in any case, 2D and 3D should just get along, they're both quite
> needed in the gaming industry.
>
> E.

Agreed.