I think 2d has a definate advantage over 3d when it comes to puzzles. They require a kind of standing back and looking at the whole picture, and a certain level of abstraction. Very few puzzle games even work in 3d, and if they do, it doesn't add anything. Puzzles in 3d haven't come much farther than moving boxes around so you can get higher or finding the right key for a door.

Here's my take on the advantages of 2D over 3D:

- more intuitive (in some situations); sometimes it's just easier to conceptualise the game world in 2D rather than 3D (see puzzle games such as Tetris, Worms etc.), as there's an extra dimension to think about with 3D.

- easier/cheaper to create and debug (in most cases)

- 2D can be prettier than 3D; this is becoming less so as 3D progresses, but it's still the case that a talented 2D artist can present prettier more detailed backgrounds than a 3D modeller can represent. This is certainly true if you factor in time and cost in the equation. See the drop in quality between Monkey Island 3 (Curse of Monkey Island) and Monkey Island 4 (Escape from Monkey Island).

- less hardware dependent; assuming this is true 2D (sprites and such), the game can be made to run well on any video hardware today, rather than be based on the speed of the 3D video card of the system. This will also mean the game is more likely to be stable.

- 2D is different to 3D, and differences will help make a game stand out.

I think 2D will be around as long as we are still forced to project everything we do on computers into a 2D viewing pane on our monitors. Even if we get 3D hologramatic monitors sometime in the future, we'll still have 2D games as well due to the 'intuition' reason; look at the enduring popularity of 2D board games.

Well, when you guys are speaking of certain genres being better in 2D, why exactly is that? It's not just the controls or view, is it? Because that could be accomplished by simply not moving the camera in a 3D world. Any 2D situation can be represented in 3D (compare Street Fighter series to it's EX 3D brother). I believe that under it all, it's the sprites you're in love with. Not the controls or view :)

Quote:

Original post by Jiia Well, when you guys are speaking of certain genres being better in 2D, why exactly is that? It's not just the controls or view, is it? Because that could be accomplished by simply not moving the camera in a 3D world. Any 2D situation can be represented in 3D (compare Street Fighter series to it's EX 3D brother). I believe that under it all, it's the sprites you're in love with. Not the controls or view :)

Actually, with me both are correct, in different genres.

For old-school type action games, such as the side-scrolling spaceship shoot-em-up, or the 2D platformer, the genre becomes 'different' when translated into 3D. Not necessarily worse or better, but different (for example, comparing the 3D Mario and Zelda games to the 2D ones).

Then there's the puzzle games like Worms and Tetris, where the extra dimension really does wreck the game. Worms is a blast in 2D, but in the 3D versions the extra dimension really wrecks it for me. I think this is partly due to the limitations of our 2D monitors in representing 3D space.

But in other genres, like the adventure games of Lucasarts and Sierra fame that were the backbone of the PC gaming scene in the early-to-mid nineties, really did benefit from the sprites. Like I said, Monkey Island 3 (all cartoonish sprites) was a lot better looking than its sequel, Monkey Island 4 (ugly 3D modelled characters). The adventure game genre never really made the transition to the 3D era.

I was just noting that there are three varieties instead of two. 2D, 3D, and 3D worlds with 2D interface (opposite of Doom 1[wink]). Imagine a fully 3D third person rpg. Now what happens if you force the camera to always look almost straight down and prevent any rotations? Compare this to the same game built completely with 2D resources matching the exact angle. The only difference is sprites verses polygons. There are zero other differences between the two games.

So what I'm saying is that it's not necessarily the number of dimensions that dictates how well the game controls or plays or feels. Tekken is 3D. Or at least most would claim. You can side-step. Other than that, the control and interface is extremely similar to Street Fighter.

Take a look at the 2D game n - way of the ninja. I don't think such accurate jumps can be made properly in a 3D game. The only game close this this level of accuracy I saw was "The Neverending Story: Auryn Quest" (I know this game sucks, but they had a good idea which alowed them to make those accurate jumps). Anyways, what I'm saying is that in 2D games you can do more stuff you can't do in 3D games.

The biggest problem of nowadays 3D games is that they fail to capture the best camera views for human eyes, the 'bird eye' view fits human perception the best so far, unless we see some smart alpha blending is supported by 3D engines softwarewise and hardwarewise. 3D fails to represent in narrow environments and for house decoration in an mmorpg. 2D view is also better in capturing the feeling of char/toon control. It's annoying in games like EQII or WoW when you fail to watch your "back". In FPS games however, 3D is always better.

some workarounds in 3D mmorpgs:

1) WoW (and EQII)
Use WASD and an extended First Person view, realism of narrow environments and tight spaces is well represented, but you wont have much control in "watching your back".

2) Lineage II
Use PnC such that you have a better sense of your surroundings and need not worry about your 'back'. But no narrow environment is allowed, eg, all dungeons are made to be *huge*.

3) Dark and Light
Easy, use PnC and simply remove *all* dungeons from the game, lol.


[Edited by - Hawkins8 on July 4, 2005 11:18:01 PM]

Jiia, the anonymous poster got it right that I was talking more 2D gameplay vs. 3D gameplay. Megaman X8 and Super Smash Bros. come to mind when it comes to games with 3D graphics and 2D gameplay. I also agree with you though, that one of the reasons I like 2D games so much IS the sprites, and that's one of a game with 2D gameplays strengths. I know that I usually end up caring way more about a character that's a sprite than a 3D modeled character.

Someboddy, I've actually played N. It's a great game, incredibly hard at times though. I actually can't imagine this game with even 3D graphics, because of the pace it moves. Then again, I suppose a minimalist graphical game could produce some very nice 3D models and animation.

The technical aspects of art-rendering are more for the "Programming" forums than the "Design" forum. So I will leave the engineering aspects aside (as difficult as that is) and emphasise the _DESIGN_ of games.

We have come to an evolution in technology where games should not be designed around the hardware we play them on but more around the things the kinds of experiences we wish to have. We get ourselves into a design rut when simply recreating 3D versions of 2D gameplay and calling it creative and new. Do we really need tweakable camera in a Real-Time Strategy? How does that contribute to the gameplay?

Which leads me to my contribution to the thread's topic: The strengths of 2D games are that they allow the player to focus on the important aspects of the game's design rather than on the superfluous ones -- such as torturing the camera into the right position. A fully two-dimensional RTS (StarCraft) allows the player to focus on building his armies and hurling them into a mixing pot of destruction. In a game like "Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation," the three-dimensional aspects work against the playability of the game.

Games that are designed from a fun gameplay point of view tend to be 2D on the principle that the designer did not hinge the concept of his game around hardware capabilities but rather, around entertaining and challenging the player. There are exceptions to this rule, of course.

Quote:

Any 2D situation can be represented in 3D (compare Street Fighter series to it's EX 3D brother). I believe that under it all, it's the sprites you're in love with. Not the controls or view :)

Bad example. The EX series is garbage and has no competitive merit as far as the hardcore community is concerned. D;

My qualms with 3D have already been covered. Too much time and effort goes into the presentation, and not enough into gameplay. In any case, it feels like certain games don't even really need to be in 3D-- lots of times it just makes the whole experience awkward (i.e. the 3D Castlevania game on the N64).

Whoops, gotta go. More thoughts later, maybe. D: