Remember back in the day when games were run off of sprite engines? Like those old sierra once were nothing but sprites everywhere... Remember how fun the games back in the day were? Now, think about games nowadays. What are people looking for in the ''new bestseller''? Realistic environments. Seriously, it''s like the gaming community has adapted from the old 2D sprite games to these 3D model/ fast action games... Don''t get me wrong, I still love RtcW, UT, CS, OF, RA2, etc, but seriously, if I were to make a 2D strategy game like starcraft now, no one would buy it ( I think ). Actually, that is my question right now. If I were to make a game with sprites and absolutely no 3D (save for false 3d when sprites are in front of others), would anyone play it? I have an idea right now for a comical game with the setting of something like Space Quest/King''s Quest/Indiana Jones... 3rd person, with an interface and such. The game would be like Sam and Max, you know? Funny, to the point, really senseless, but still: Fun. Now I realize that people would still have to redefine fun and such, but I still think that even though people nowadays better make a 3d game to compete with anything, does anyone here think a 2d game would actually sell? ~Dwarf PS Please express your thoughts and opinions about the death of 2d and the rise of this new and complicated 3d genre. Complicated because I remember programming 2d games as being fun, and now I see programming 3d games (which I have been doing) as being long, tedious, and complicated.

I don''t think that 2D is dead but it has definately moved out of the spot light. But is it possible to make a 2D game and compete with the 3D monsters that are out there now? Probably not but you are also targeting a different style of game player. Back when Space Quest, Kings Quest, Leisure Suit Larry and the rest of the single player adventure type games were out the intenet was nothing compared to what it has grown into. So back then the game makers had to really push for content over flash, not to say they did a bad job in that department with what was available. Now today there is a certain appeal to being able to log on a multiplayer game and frag the hell out of a complete stranger. But some current games like Civilization and others have drawn a large, loyal following since not everyone that plays games on their computers are interested in fragging. That would explain why other games line casino type games, puzzle games, childrens games, educational games are all doing well in their own "markets" and out of all the 3D shooters, how many of them are actually original? Most are regurgitated from previous games, not that is is a bad thing to refine the old to make the new. But there are only so many ways you can blow someone up before it becomes senseless. So in recap, yes I believe there are quite a few untapped markets for programmers to persue without being forced to go 3D.
Just my .029999999


GRELLIN

CGP | IYAOYAS | Linux.com | Linux Game Development Center

Don''t fear the penguin!

I''d buy it, if it was good (and if I could afford it, but that''s beside the point). Far too many games these days focus heavily on graphics and very little on content. (I personally hold something of a grudge against 3D in some games: Why on Earth did they make the fourth Monkey Island game 3D? They had a great, distinctive look with their cartoon style in the third one.)

The real question, though, is probably "Would the market buy it?" -- and I don''t know. I''d like to think that quality games sell, flashy graphics or no flashy graphics, but that might be an optimistic thought.

Step 1: Examine PC games sales data
Step 2: Extrapolate answer

-------------

"The Sims" ring any bells? Roller Coaster Tycoon? Hmm..do 2d games sell, you tell me...

...of course 2d games sell. The question is what audience are you aiming for? If you aim for kewl kids who love their 3d headshot blood-splatters, your 2d game probably won''t do so well.

But if you are making a 2d aventure game, I don''t see why it wouldn''t sell if it was good. You could make the 2d a strong point with interesting stylized graphics. AFAIK no 3d aventure games sold any better than 2d ones. (Except for Myst, the popularity of which was a one-time phenomenon) I can''t even think of a 3d aventure game of note to tell the truth. Remember Kings Quest 7...yeah neither do I...

I think if you are making an adventure game the primary concern is that nobody plays adventure games any more. For reasons that have little to do with graphics.

The fact that so many people are willing to play The Sims, and in the past played Myst makes me think there is plenty of potential for an adventure game. So the question is why have adventure games become almost irrelevant to gaming, and how do you fix that?

I MISS SAM AND MAX.

I personally feel 2D just needs to be taken to a higher level in some way. Games like Sage Frontier 2 and Legend of Mana had me a a few moments with their stylistic 2D graphics, but you could see the huge amount of detail and artwork put into it. I think this is a hard example to follow in general though since it would mostly depend on the art talent that you have and your finances to spend on such a project.
Suikoden 1 and 2!!! (although slightly dated now) I loved em.
There are scene that can still visually amaze me in 2D. With higher resolutions,more animation frames coupled with more focus on great gameplay and even the 3D special effects to add a bit of a punch, I think that 2D in general can make a comeback! Look at Hangames. No 3D (although their card games), but hey...

The idea that games are becoming too realistic is by no means a new one; this idea, however, is terribly unfair. Yes, it would be hard for most independant game programmers to make a 2d game and have it sell big; by the same token those very same game designers would have an equally difficult time even if they were supplied with an infinite budget and a team of talented supporters. 3d has replaced 2d for one simple reason-- 3d graphics allow for much more versatility in almost every field of game design. No longer are characters (theoretically) limited to a fixed number of animation cells. Scenes can be seen from any viewpoint. Stories can be conveyed with much more subtlety and grace. Drama can be increased while moments which snap one out of the videogame world can be reduced. Most importantly, a myriad of gameplay options open up with a 3d world. Can you imagine Metal Gear Solid done with sprites. 3d is often unfairly blamed for the decline in videogame quality. However, one must ask oneself if games were truly better in the past or only seem so when seen through the rosy lens of nostalgia. Even if games in the past were generally better in terms of fun factor, realistic graphics could by no means be seen as the cause of the decline. The blame would rest in the gameplaying public at large. In the past it was inconceivable that a videogame could make millions of dollars as they do today. Companies/programmers/designers could afford risks, since little was at stake. While quite a large amount of crap was created, a couple of choice jewels were as well. Flash forward. Videogames, which now form an industry set to surpass many of the standard entertainment industries, are now capable of making some serious dough. Therefore games are being designed to move product regardless of originality or quality of gameplay. This is a fundamental decaying to the mob, a falling to the lowest common denominator, a gray sky lit by an occasional star.

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
I can''t even think of a 3d aventure game of note to tell the truth.

Omikron: The Nomad Soul

BEST game ever, IMHO

-----------------------
"When I have a problem on an Nvidia, I assume that it is my fault. With anyone else''s drivers, I assume it is their fault" - John Carmack

if you use a licensed technology like UT/Q2 engines, or direct3D RM (a bit dated but hey...) you can produce a much more convincing game in a fraction of the time.

im a delphi programmer mostly and use RM all the time. can have something prototyped and running, looking great inside three hours. that''s with level load/save, textures, particle effects, the works.

3D MAKES IT EASIER, AS LONG AS YOU DON''T GO WRITING LOW-LEVEL RENDERING CODE.

perhaps consider the time it takes for your poor artists to render all their MAX creations in 16 different orientations, compared to MAX->3DS->X conversion?

the loss of quality comes in when the programmers USE 3D AS AN END IN ITSELF and a DISTRACTION FROM THEIR CRAPPY STORYLINE.
there is no reason why well done 3D games should be any worse than well done 2D games.

my two cents'' worth...

Qatal


die or be died...i think

2D requires some sophisticated and professional artists to take a grid of colored squares and make them look beautiful. 3D games don''t require the same work neccessarily. Not to say 3D is easier than 2D on the artistic scale, just by the very nature of a rotating environment with some mathematical shading, 3D is more natural to what everyone strives for. Remember that in the 2d games by sierra that you listed, Space Quest and the like, the environments were layed out in a 3d fashion and the sprites all scaled so that they appeared to move about in 3D even though it was a 2d screen. Bear in mind that you could still make a 2d game and have it pass for genious. Square did it for a few years with the PSX Final Fantasy games. Just they did their best to make the environments appear to have a natural look to it, which is what better graphics is probably all about.

-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.