Hello - There doesn''t seem to be many 2d/side scrolling games being made any more. I think that this is a shame because these types of games offer unparalleled control and often times have superior graphics. Two of my favorites are R-Type Delta and Castlevania : Symphony of the Night, both for the Playstation. Castlevania:SOTN is one of my favorite games ever. It has incredible game play and depth, as well as beautiful sound and graphics. I think it is much more of an immersive experience than almost any other game I''ve played, including RPGs and FPS. One of the unique features that adds to the game play is you can cast spells by executing button combos, much like in a fighting game. Thats not terribly exciting, but factor in that there are hundreds of weapons you can collect, some of them magical with their own unique spells, and this becomes awesome. There is also other cool stuff, e.g. gravity boots. They let you jump straight up until you hit something. Pretty cool! Now would you rather have weapons have a definite effect on game play like this, or just say (as in a RPG) : "You find Fire Sword. +5 to damage."? Sure, you can say that in a FPS different weapons have different effects and you can see them. But I think that the way they are handled in SOTN is much more cool and immersive, and I think anybody whose played both types of games will agree with me. My point is that 2d games offer the ability to add so much into game play that is just not feasible in 3d. The only problem is that people seem to have forgotten this - I don''t see anybody pushing the limits of game play and technology with 2d games anymore. R Type was cool because it added 3d graphics but kept the side scrolling view and game play - and the game is awesome (and also by far the hardest game ever! There are levels where you have to memorize everything and literally have to try them hundreds of times before you get it.) Also, the enemies in R Type are by far the coolest you will ever see. RPGs, Quake and Unreal enemies all look lame compared to them. If 2d games kept evolving after the 3d explosion took place I bet we would have a lot more really amazing games on the market. So here is a question for everybody to discuss: If you were going to make a "next generation 2d/side-scrolling game" what innovative features and game play would you add? p.s.: As you can probably tell, I am a big fan of action games. And you''re probably going to stop reading this now and think to yourself that action games are too "shallow". I will agree that most are. But the best ones, like Castlevania, in my opinion, are some of the most immersive games out there and have the deepest game play.

__Hmm, interesting topic, but I think you missed the mark on some points.

__Yes, 2-D games often had more of an "experimental" factor to them in the way of trying out actions to see the effect they have. But I don''t think the form of 2-D itself nescesarilly allowed for this freedom. I have recently begun to create maps for Unreal Tournament in my spare time, and I for one can attest that the Unreal engine has quite some depth to it. There are many unused/underused parts to the engine. If one who understood the power these pieces have, they would be astounded by thinking of what could be accomplished if they were used to their fullest potential. I digress though. 3 Dimensional games do have a tendency of squelching such creativity, but not directly. It is not the form of 3-D games that hinders the possibilities that can be had, but rather the lengthy and ardruos work they entail which nibbles away at the true power of the game.

__As for what I would include in a 2-D game, I would choose the "line-of-sight" rendering that some newer Isometric games perform. Basically, it is almost as if the only source of light in the game is at the center of the player. Only what this "light" can reach is drawn. Sometimes this light is literal, as in Diablo II. Other times it is mearly figurative, as in Nox.
__I don''t think that the game need be isometrically drawn, mind you. The same priciple can be aptly applied to the two-dimensional realm as well.

Yes! My brother bought Castlevania: SOTN awhile ago, but I was skeptical at first and didn''t play it. Later I gave it a try and I couldn''t believe it! That game rules, it totally put new life into the 2D action genre for me in a time when everyone had moved to 3D.
I totally agree that 2D games have given an unparalleled depth of gameplay that most "modern" games lack. I realized after playing through Castlevania that the utilization of today''s hardware and software technologies and application of them to a 2D game has an awesome potential. With less focus on better graphics, other game design areas could be addressed and improved beyond anything out there today. This is uncharted territory, man!
Prince of Persia is another classic 2D sidescroller action game- The swordfighting in that game is a lot of fun, even if it does only consist of step, swing, parry, swing.

Nothing is difficult, only the mind makes it so.

SonicSilcion:
I agree with you in a way. One reason that 2d games are better thought out is indeed because of the relative simplicity
of the game engine compared to 3d (I assume this is true). That does leave the game programmers / designers more time and resources to work on gameplay and not just graphics.
But I''m also suggesting that there is more to it than that. You can do different things in 2d that are just not feasible in 3d. For example control. No 3d game can even compare to the control in a good 2d game. The problem is you lose so much information in projecting a 3d environment onto a 2d screen - you are going to have to give up some amount of control. The best 3d control IMO is mouse look. But I still feel that I have a lot more control over mario than I do in Quake. Imagine trying to make some of the precision jumps that you do in a platformer in Quake. It would be way too hard! So I''m wandering what other things can be done in 2d that add to gameplay that cannot be done in 3d?
Given both of these reasons I think that there would be some really kick ass games if 2d didn''t stop evolving. Your idea of line of sight is interesting - I haven''t really thought of it much yet but I''m imaging a 2d side scrolling Metal Gear Solid. Don''t know exactly how yet but I''ll post later when I come up with some stuff!

I''m with you guys all the way. C:SotN is one of my all-time favorite games, and I still pick it up on occasion just to screw around, despite the fact that I''ve cleared 209.5 percent. It''s not very often a good side-scroller comes along, especially one that can hold its own in a market dominated by 3D.

I would love to see a contemporary side-scroller making use of 3D accelerated features, but you''ll have a hard time convincing the market that your game rocks. Sadly enough, pictures on a box do nothing for your game''s play value. I''ve purchased a game that had decent pics and a great description, only to never pick it up again after the first five minutes. It was a 3D game, ironically.

Still, some of the best games are 2D, such as all the latest RPG''s Interplay has been releasing for the past couple years. Diablo II is the last 2D game I can remember with 3D features. There''s still a niche for side-scrollers, but you''ll have to open it up a bit before you can expect to make money with it.

If you can somehow get a license to make the next Castlevania, that would be your greatest step. Otherwise, you''ll be starting from the ground floor.

You don''t see anyone "pushing the limits of game play" with 2D games any more, because most 2D games, especially side-scrollers and shooters, have always followed a very thin path in terms of design. That is, people have expectations about 2D side-scrollers and shooters, so if you''re going to write a side scroller then--by definition--you have to stick to a certain set of cliches. Perhaps a better approach would be to try to branch out in terms of gameplay by not deciding to write a "side scroller," but rather use the good elements of those games to come up with something new. Otherwise you''ll end up with something trite.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
That is, people have expectations about 2D side-scrollers and shooters, so if you''re going to write a side scroller then--by definition--you have to stick to a certain set of cliches.

That''s not true, you never have to do anything. Saying this game is going to be implemented with 2D side-scrolling is the same as saying this game is going to be implemented in the 3rd person in 3D. It''s only as limiting as you make it. I agree that its better to work from the bottom-up and not try to fit into established categories, but it really depends on your intent.

quote:
Perhaps a better approach would be to try to branch out in terms of gameplay by not deciding to write a "side scroller," but rather use the good elements of those games to come up with something new. Otherwise you''ll end up with something trite.

The same applies to anyone trying to write a "real-time strategy", or a "first person shooter", or a "role-playing" game. Your argument applies to any design, not just 2D games. The reason for writing a 2D game would not be to reminisce about the old days and lock yourself into another mario clone, it would be to utilize today''s hardware and capabilities to create something altogether new. A big reason that people moved to 3D is because it had a greater implied design freedom, an extra whole dimension to work with. Yet the same design ruts have been created that existed in old-school games. But by moving to 3D to keep on the cutting edge of graphics and flashiness, a lot of areas of design have gone under-developed. One problem is that 2D and 3D graphics have been seperated in people''s minds as two entirely different platforms to work with. 2D was the old way, and 3D is the newer (therefore better) thing to do. Yet there''s a lot of things that have been missed; there''s a lot of stuff that hasn''t been done yet that could be done by basing your design off an older concept. For instance, gdalston has a good point about old 2D games having tighter control than most new 3D games. A lot of 3D games seem clumsy and hard to control, especially since monitors and mice are 2D interfaces. The more realistic graphics and game worlds get, the harder it is to interact with them. Maybe design needs to take a few steps back, look at how things used to be done, and see what new ideas can come of it.
Well anyways, that''s just a bunch of stuff I thought up. Maybe some of it doesn''t really apply, but whatever.


Nothing is difficult, only the mind makes it so.

BTW have just downloaded the new fallout tactic demo (its a 2d side scroller) - its have great gameplay!.

Merry Xmass.

We are doing a 2d sidescroller at the moment (demo should be done in early march). And we´re using 3d acceleration (transparency effects and so on).

I´m not sure if the thing will be marketable, as there haven´t been any 2d-arcade games for ages... we´ll see.

quote: Original post by gdalston
...But I'm also suggesting that there is more to it than that. You can do different things in 2d that are just not feasible in 3d. For example control. No 3d game can even compare to the control in a good 2d game. . . Imagine trying to make some of the precision jumps that you do in a platformer in Quake. It would be way too hard! So I'm wandering what other things can be done in 2d that add to gameplay that cannot be done in 3d?

Hmm, perhaps that is a perspective problem. I've had as much luck landing Lara Croft where I wanted her as I've had with Mario. Both could be thought of as having 3rd person perspectives. It's just plain hard to do some things from the character's point of view.

Anyway, I don't entirely understand what your getting at. Another example might help.

(BTW, the only positive feature I can think of that 3D has that I've never seen in 2D is the ability to see things a great distances without changing view. (The little radar thingys hardly count.) I think I've come up with a way of representing the phenomenom in 2D, though. Just playing devil's advocate )


Edited by - SonicSilcion on December 29, 2000 9:54:10 AM