Ever since people have gotton real excited about 3D in 1996 after Quake developers have been producing 3D games . But what about 2D games ? Maybe because developers think its bad marketing or they think 2D games just aren''t a game any more , I don''t know but one thing is for sure 2D games have disappeared . Some of the best games have been 2D and it seems developers go out of their way to make games 3D . I suppose people don''t want to ever go back the "archaic" 2D but there is nothing wrong with that . Some games are just ment to be 2D such as Mario . Although Mario 64 is a good game it just wasn''t some how Mario anymore . I think it would have been great if it was 2D ( although it never could have been , I mean what stupid way to pilot the N64 with a 2D game ). Now let''s take a moment and jump to the late 1980''s and early 1990''s . Super Mario Bros. makes its break to the NES . Everybody loved , it was incredible . Then later Super Mario Bros. 2 came out but in my opinion was a messed up game with Mario characters slapped into it . Now we jump to Super Mario Bros. 3 . The game was outstanding , this was like the original only better . It had everything and was incredibly well done . See , now you take that jump from Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 3 and you can see that the following games in the Mario series naturally fit a 2D evironment . So like I said some games are just better 2D . If you think I''m just taking some nostalgic trip to the game classics I''m not . I am simply stating that 2D games can have a place in the market today and some games just are better if they are 2D . But not to mention that some outstanding games are 3D . Like quake , that game will never leave my hardrive . Another one to mention , among hundreds , is Catycalism . A some what duely noted game that just blows you away . It is 3D realtime war strategy game that takes place in space and really takes advantage of the third dimension .So in closing , where are those 2D games ? --reality_G

We''re in a transition right now. Games were 2D back in the day because systems couldn''t do 3D.

Now systems are doing 3D better than they ever did 2D and developers are moving on to take advantage of the technology. Gameplay will catch up when people get over the wow factor.

Eventually we''ll all have Caves in our room and wonder how anyone could have played Mario 3rd person.

Conker''s Bad Fur Day I could never imagine being as much fun if it had been 2D.

Ben
http://therabbithole.redback.inficad.com

I agree that some games are better in 2D. For instance, Atari released a 3D version of Space Invaders and it looked TERRIBLE! 3D graphics generally look worse unless the game really needs them, and it takes a LOT more work to make the 3D graphics (the engine, the models etc.)

Look at the best selling games of the last few years. StarCraft was 2D, so was Diablo II, and these games sold quite a few units. Until developers concentrate on GAMEPLAY and not the 3D effects, the 2D games will still be better.

Edited by - Supernova on July 4, 2001 11:27:52 AM

A few units!?

Diablo 2 sold over 2 million copies
and Starcraft sold over 1 million copies

Those were big sellers!

xEricx, that's what I meant by "quite a few" I always thought that meant "a lot" maybe I'm wrong. I think StarCraft sold a million in Korea alone by the way

Edited by - Supernova on July 4, 2001 12:31:34 PM

2 million in Korea.

2d graphics are gone, 2d gameplay is not. Kirby64 is a traditional 2d side scrolling game but with 3d graphics. Modern strategy games are all going to have 3d graphics but continue to have good old fashioned 2d gameplay.

I think 2D games can have an association with amateurism. If I''m downloading a game, and it''s 3D, I can be reasonably assured that the developer has some experience, but if it''s 2D, it could easily be made by a 14 year old playing about with DirectDraw

That''s not true. Many people can make a 3D game, but the graphics will suck. I''ve personally seen a few like that. There are still many companies that use 2D graphics for ISO games and such because they look better. It''ll still be a while before realtime 3D graphics can compete with pre-rendered or pre-drawn graphics.

While 2D graphics are easier to do, and "amateur" programmers often do resort to 2D programming for a game rather than 3D, I think that professionally done 2D games (ie: by nintendo, squaresoft, capcom, etc.) are by far more addictive, immersive, and replayable than a lot of the 3D games that have been released recently (in my opinion at least).

I did enjoy Mario 64, it was one of the best 3D games I have ever played, but it was one of the few of it''s kind. Mario 64 was 3D, but it had an adventurous type of feeling like all the other mario games had (even though the game''s style was different from all it''s predecessors). Most of the 3D games that are coming out are first-person shooters.

2D games were really good, since well-made 2D games had good enough graphics to impress you, but the emphasis of the game was more oriented towards the gameplay itself rather than special effects (while some 2D ghames did pull off some very nice looking effects in 2D at the same time). Bomberman was and still is one of the most successful 2D games, mainly because of it''s addictive multiplayer mode.

Anyway, I think the initial topic of this thread was whether or not 2D games are abolished? I think that 2D games have disappeared recently, but if someone either makes a more creative 3D game (by straying from the first-person shooter style that everyone seems to be making), or brings back a good 2D game, I think it would sell.