neone played Strider 2 on the PSX? That is 3d, but the gameplay is 2d, you know left right, jump is up etc(well it isn''t). But i thought it was fun. I read some reviews that flamed it becos it wasn''t 3d gameplay. My only concern was that it was too short. But the mixed system thingy worked quite nicely i thought.

2D games are still great. Its just that alot of 2d games are now on the net with Java etc. I play em all the time.

I''m sure i had something else to say, but i'';ve forgotten, mebbe another time

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

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

quote:
Pal, my words in your mouth. I'd say until developers concentrate on GAMEPLAY and not EFFECTS (0d, 1d, 2d, 3d), games will simply be boring. It's like Hollywood: the best films are not those with the best special effects (remember Balir Witch Project? Budget about $40000, income in the first month somwhere at $100'000'000 :-)

Gabriel

Yup i agree with you two there. I mean we still remeber those great 2d games with great gameplay don't we. I mean who's gonna remeber a title like….Klingon Honour guard or summink in 10years. I mean, and all those thousand of doom clones that came after. I got a game on my shelf called Cyclones, i don;t even remeber buying it! cos its another of those, oh isn't it falshy titles Not only that in 10years we'll still play the games with crappy 3d graphics and good gameplay but look at the flashy ones and think. Damn that's crap

Edited by - Foobat on July 22, 2001 6:08:43 PM

Just as 3d is a tool, 2d is also a tool.

Some would say that 2d is a primitive tool... but so is the hammer, yet it is still around... ok, bad analogy, but my point is that the types of games which benefit from 2d are not going to suddenly disappear.

And people still enjoy 2d games... well, at least I hope so, because I started a 2d rts a month ago (no, it isn''t another C&C, don''t worry, whenever I make a descision with this game, the phrase "gameplay first" comes into my mind. I''m following the rules of the Dogma 2001 because I agree with everything =)

I think this link is very relvent. Check it out has some good stiff to say.

for example

"Does anyone here doubt that Blizzard couldn''t have done Starcraft as a fully 3D engine strategy title? Anyone who''s coded a 3D engine can tell you that it''s not rocket science to do one for a strategy game. Blizzard made Starcraft 2D, took their lumps from reviewers and hardcore gamers, and made a great product that sold a ton of copies. That''s why Blizzard''s a huge success -- they know who they''re developing to."


http://www.avault.com/developer/getarticle.asp?name=bwardell5&page=1


As Mr Cup always says,
''''I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.''''

I''m glad Adams wasn''t serious about Dogma 2001. Of his ten rules, I can only agree with three of them as applied to modern game design:

1. No specific hardware requirements
8. No good vs. evil
9. No health kits in oil drums

The rest of his assertions are absolute nonsense. He made a few good points, but every rule is made to be broken, and his are no exception. I would never take up the Dogma 2001 challenge. It''s far too restricting on my sense of creativity.

Why can''t anyone make an original side-scroller? Why can''t anyone find a new use for wizards and dragons? Why can''t anyone tell a story through violent death? Movie producers are doing it all the time. And there''s no freaking way I''m going to make a game that supports less than four buttons on a game pad. If you''re too cheap to pay five bucks for a four-button pad, you don''t deserve to be playing games at all.

My point is, Adams'' Dogma 2001 article has absolutely nothing to do with 2D games. I think ragonastick is gonna have a hard time making sales if he follows all those rules to the letter. I hope you like going hungry.

Dimenion is all about presentation. It''s like CGI vs. live action; you do what works for your theme. It has nothing to do with 3D acceleration, violence, original stories. I believe that someday 2D is going to die, because there will no longer be any demand for it. Fortunately, that day won''t be coming anytime soon.

I can''t remember who it was, but somebody once said that 2D is more intuitive than 3D because it requires a much smaller range of control. Monitors, mice, and keyboards are ill-defined as 3D control/feedback mechanisms because all three of them are two-dimensional. On the other hand, gamepads are also two-dimensional, so they function perfectly in a 2D game. I mean, how many people actually use a gamepad to play Unreal Tournament on the PC? Anybody who says they do is lying.

That last post was me, by the way.

I prefer 2d over 3d. I can play them with one hand.
(no not that, so I can eat or drink with the other)

You say Monkey Island or Kings Quest, and everyone will know what you are talking about, but if you say one of the hundred 3d shooters that come out every year, people will look at you funny. Once in a while a good game will come out nowadays. I remember when good ol sierra or lucasarts were making kickass 2d adventures all the time. Lucasarts have gone all starwars on us and I won''t even talk about the shit that is now sierra.

The real question on my mind on this topic is whether there really is a market for 2D games anymore. Let me put it in a way that hits the gamer in all of us and be honest:

Let''s say you''re browsing your local Comp-Usa and you have a couple of $20 bills burning a painful hole in your pocket. You stroll down the aisle where the video games are, looking for your next gaming fix. You see the cover of a box that looks interesting, but the words "3-D acceleration required" are nowhere to be seen on the box and all of the screen shots are done in pre-rendered 2D isometric. Would you buy this game, based on the information given?

A regretful fact of the entire entertainment industry is that first impressions *do* matter. A lot of folks today won''t buy a game that isn''t 3D, never mind the simple fact that 3D engines require a lot of processing power that can be better used for more immersive stories and more interesting gameplay. The demand for better graphics is real, and it hits companies on the bottom line. To remain economically viable, companies like Square, EA, Activision and the like will not be returning to the 2D market. That leaves the rest of us without a $30mil budget to spend on motion capture, 3-D modeling, and advanced mathematical theory still riding on the sinking cruiser S.S. DirectDraw and floundering in the wake of the Mega-Carriers of real-time 3-D rendering.

To the last Anon, that is a fair question. My answer is, yes I would prefer the 2D game over any 3D game unless I specifically knew the 3D game were better. My reason is simple: most people who make 2D games know what they''re doing, because 2D is a refined technology and it''s been around forever. I play 3D games all the time, and 95 percent of them suck. Because a technology is flashy is exactly the reason you shouldn''t trust it, because flashy graphics usually means zero gameplay. The designers'' budget can only cut so many ways.