What I am trying to say is that:

A)Older games are better than newer ones, because back in the day people focused on making fun games instead of realistic ones.

B)Most types of games WORK BEST in 2D. In 2D you have better control and overview and best of all you do not have to take the job of babysitting a camera who cannot behave it self.

C)If there would come a console, with a price tag of like 50 bucks with focus on fun 2d games (of course it would have development capabilities I would defintively buy it (considering that the games where good)

D)Just look at the Game Boy Advace. I havent had that fun in ages. Circle Of The Moon, Metroid Fusion, Megaman Battle Network and Phantasy Star Triology are all excellent 2D games ... it beats the crap out of my PS2 ... if only it wasnt so small!!!

quote: Original post by vtwin
Not really. I can''t imagine anyone getting that upset because some kid likes 2D games better than 3D games.

...and another one completely misses the point.
He claimed that it is a fact that "old" games are 500 times better than "new" ones. He presented a subjective decision as the truth. He ignored all of the "new" games that satisfy his criteria for goodness, and acts as though everyone should agree with him.

quote: it beats the crap out of my PS2

why do you have a PS2 then ? You bought the PS2 and i assume youbought games for it ? Why should they stop making 3D games when people are buying them.....even the people that think they suck ?

"I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes home crying to his momma."
- Mr. T

So if you choose a game such as Sonic 3 (TM SEGA), and replace the zones by high-detail polygonal worlds and the sprites by models, will it be less fun to play?

And if you choose a game such as the Sims, and replace all models by beautiful hand-drawn sprites, will it become better and more addictive?

2D (or 3D for that matter) ASPECT does not make a game fun or or boring. If the game looks better if it''s 3D, then make it 3D (Warcraft 3). If a game looks better if it''s 2D, then make it 2D (KOF 2001).

Basically, what I understood from what you said is "Old games are far better than new ones (I mostly agree with you on that points). People loved PLAYING them. So let''s start doing games that LOOK like them."

I will now return to my 0-Dimension D&D3...

ToohrVyk
-------------
Extatica - a free 3d game engine
Available soon!
Click here to learn more

1) How is your "2D is better then 3D anydayoftheweek" argument constructive at all to OUR game development??? I am work on several different projects, one happens to be 2D, another is 3D, and yet another is a CCG.

2) Dude if you feel your PS2 sucks that bad, can I have it?!?!?!

I suggest you drink some more water and really replay some of the old games. In most of them gameplay was atrocious, the difficulty was way too high and the frustration factor nearly unbearable.
Just because you were a kid then and tend to see things in a somewhat more rosy light now doesn´t mean that games have gotten any worse.
What did happen however is that there are more games. And that means that there are more crap games. Naturally.

edit:
I am making games, are you?

[edited by - Hase on January 5, 2003 5:25:15 PM]

quote: Original post by Edison Bright
What I am trying to say is that:

A)Older games are better than newer ones, because back in the day people focused on making fun games instead of realistic ones.

I wouldn''t call most newer games anymore realistic than older games, and why is it that people always thing other things (graphics, realism, storyline, whatever) is taking away from the fun aspect of the game. No developer makes a game saying "This game should look really good and be very realistic but players should derive no enjoyment from it whatsoever."

quote:
B)Most types of games WORK BEST in 2D. In 2D you have better control and overview and best of all you do not have to take the job of babysitting a camera who cannot behave it self.

This definitely isn''t true. Besides, a lot of genres are still basically 2D (RTS, fighting games and use 3D for aesthetic reasons. You can argue that 2D sprites look better than 3D models, but that''s a personal perference, and there are a lot of graphical things you can do in 3D that you can''t do you with sprites.

quote:
C)If there would come a console, with a price tag of like 50 bucks with focus on fun 2d games (of course it would have development capabilities I would defintively buy it (considering that the games where good)

D)Just look at the Game Boy Advace. I havent had that fun in ages. Circle Of The Moon, Metroid Fusion, Megaman Battle Network and Phantasy Star Triology are all excellent 2D games ... it beats the crap out of my PS2 ... if only it wasnt so small!!!

You will soon be able to play GBA games on a gamecube with an addon from Nintendo, so your dreams have been fullfilled, you can play GBA games on your TV.

quote: How is this flamebait? What is he flaming, the concept of 3D? LockePick, you = dork.

Last time I checked, flaming wasn''t the best way to avoid... flaming.

------------
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155
"It''s all part of the conspiracy of conspirators conspiring to conspire their own conspiracies..."

Wow, seems I got a lot of people upset there. Sorry.

"So if you choose a game such as Sonic 3 (TM SEGA), and replace the zones by high-detail polygonal worlds and the sprites by models, will it be less fun to play?"

That depends on if you keep the 2D gameplay intact. 3D platform games are generally miserable in my opinion because the control gets fucked up, and the fact that you have to take care of the camera makes everything less fun. But if you still kept the "2d gameplay" the same it would certainly be as fun, just look better. Donkey Kong was a great game with 2d gameplay and 3dish graphics.

I am not saying we should go back to 320x240 16 color 2d games, but that we should go back to the gameplay of older games. There i sno reasonm why you cannot make a game with the ameplay of a platform side-scroller that uses modern graphics (just lock the camera, and limit the directions of movement). The question you should ask when you are designing a game is, "does this NEED to be 3d?"

"And if you choose a game such as the Sims, and replace all models by beautiful hand-drawn sprites, will it become better and more addictive?"

Absolutely not. But I dont consider The Sims a game in the first place. The only thing you do really is buy a house and decorate it. The rest of the time you just need to sit back and relax. Thats a total lack of actuall gameplay.

Edison Bright: The whole "2D vs 3D" argument is just another flamebait topic like OpenGL vs Direct3D or Windows vs Linux etc. They usually end up going nowhere, because they are essentially based on personal preferences.

Also, your viewpoint seems to be heavily skewed to a particular genre - namely the platformer. Obviously you will look back to the 'good old days' when four out of five games was a platform game, because that seems to be your favourite genre. For those that prefer different styles of game, e.g strategy games or epic interactive stories, or super realistic simulations, those 'good old days' sucked for the most part.

Finally, your point about 'the sims' not being a game - so what if it isn't? While you personally may not enjoy it much, there are enough people out there who do to make it one of (if not the) best selling games of the last few years.

At the end of the day, it is all a matter of taste and personal preference, and for that reason, arguing about it will get you nowhere. I'll leave the thread open for now, but I'll be keeping an eye on it...


[edited by - Sandman on January 6, 2003 11:54:30 AM]