Author Topic: 2D or 3D  (Read 2252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 09n

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
2D or 3D
« on: February 22, 2005, 05:37:08 AM »
I dunno where this should go so I'll stick it here.

Which was better 2D or 3D games. Would you prefer to play Zelda a link to the past or Zelda the Wind Waker. Sonic 2 or Sonic adventure. Super Mario or Mario Sunshine. I know this is a tired agument but I would like your input.  
No, we're not eating Nibbler - leela
I'll fire up the grill - Bender

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: 2D or 3D
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2005, 06:18:02 AM »
2d. More precision, more style, no annoying camera. well, generally I prefer arcady games with style and most of them are 2d. A well executed 3d game is good as well but VERY rare.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: 2D or 3D
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2005, 06:45:41 AM »
I find that my favourite games ever are 3D.  But like KDR said a well executed 3D game is rare.  I find that 2D is more consistent because it's a lot harder to screw up.  Full 3D provides a lot of freedom but that can be very ambitious so only a couple of developers can successfully pull it off.  When there is an enforced limit on movement then it allows for more streamlined gameplay which is easier for a lesser developer to pull off successfully.

I also prefer the look of 2D sprites.  Since 3D models are made off shapes there tends to always be some blockiness and jagged edges.  Plus since the animation isn't frame by frame it's more common so see really weird out of place movements.  There are other things too as frame rate drops and clipping look worse with polygons.  There's much more realism to 3D graphics which makes goof ups look more out of place.  Again like 3D gameplay 3D graphics require real talent to pull off convincingly.

2D graphics are bright and colourful and require less talent to make them look good.  Plus they limit realism which I like since I much prefer fantasy elements in games.  I can't stand games that try to make everything look exactly like real life.  I find it boring.  In 2D even something like Street Fighter II which has characters that are proportioned realistically has a more fantasy element to the style.

If we go by sheer potential I prefer 3D because I know that in the hands of the right developer a great 3D games can draw me into its world better than anything else.  But for consistent quality 2D is better.  And due to my preference in 2D graphics I HATE 2.5D games.  It has the ugliness of 3D but lacks the freedom of movement.  It takes the limitations of the two styles and morphs them together.

Offline BlkPaladin

  • Score: 9
    • View Profile
    • Minkmultimedia
RE: 2D or 3D
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2005, 08:14:11 AM »
Well it depends on who it handles. There can be some stinkers in 2d. Though 3d is ripe with bad camers and bland enviroments when they are done correctly I find that they are more immersive than 2d. So I can't say I like either of them over the other.
Stupidity is lost on my. Then again I'm almost always lost.

Offline Bill Aurion

  • NWR Forum Loli
  • Score: 34
    • View Profile
RE: 2D or 3D
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2005, 10:18:21 AM »
2d, for sure...Out of my top ten, I'd say 7 or 8 are 2d, with the first 3d game placing at 5th (Wind Waker)...
~Former Resident Zelda Aficionado and Nintendo Fan~

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE: 2D or 3D
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2005, 10:33:03 AM »
I don't base my enjoyment of a game off of the perspective.  I like plenty of 2D and 3D games.  I like 2.5D games, unlike Ian (Mischief Makers is one of my favorite games ever, and games like Viewtiful Joe and Kirby 64 were also quite fun; not sure what category Alien Hominid would go under, but it's good too).  It depends wholly on the quality of the games, not how I look at them.  I'd say my favorite games balance is just about equal in terms of 3D and 2D.
And while I know good 2D games are easier to make than good 3D games, I have a lot of trouble accepting this: I've played far more terrible 2D games than 3D games, simply because I've gotten smart enough to not play bad 3D games and 2D games are more accessible.  The ratio of good to bad for my 2D/3D perception is out of whack.
Still, I rate them equally.  It just depends on the game.
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: 2D or 3D
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2005, 06:48:43 AM »
2d games are easier to make at all, means all those idiots with no real skill can make 2d games.

I have nothing against well executed "2.5D" but it's really rare. VJ is a good example, Smash Bros. adventure mode not that good and MANY shmups using that style plain out suck. Especially the japanese indies know how to screw up 2.5D (and 3D), ugly and unplayable.

Offline Mr. Segali

  • PAY YOUR RENT!
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:2D or 3D
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2005, 01:03:57 PM »
2D all the way. Games like A Link to the Past, Super Mario 3, Super Metroid, Symphony of the Night, etc. always beat out their 3D counterparts in my book.
Imported Super Princess Peach