2D Versus 3D

[njiska]

Several times this week i've heard many people talk about how 3D gaming killed off the fun of 2D games. Specifically i've heard a couple of Generic "3D Zelda ruined the series" comments. On several forums i've heard people claim that 3D killed gaming. Personally i think that anyone with that opinion has his head up his ass and is a pig-headed curmudgeon who is so biased they can't give 3D a fair shake. Mostly i think people have that opinion because of current industry focus on graphics.

I think that 3D helped to create better games. Metal Gear is an example of this. Classic 2D MG was amazing and was leagues ahead of it's time. But MGS is one of the most beautiful games ever made and i'm not talking graphics. MGS had an amazing story, cinematic presentation, solid gameplay and is widely considered to be the best game on the PSX and is in the running for the best game of that era.

I think 3D was a creative tool that the industry needed to thrive, but i know some people out there have a different opinion.

So i really want to know, does anyone think that 3d is the root of all gaming evil and that we'd have been better off to stay 2D? I'm not talking about updating classic series either, i mean should we have never gone 3D?

Oh and in case anyone is wondering, i'm not some childish 2D hater either. For example i love Metal Slug just how it is (although i'm open to a 3D update so long as it kept it's gameplay and style like Contra: Shattered Soldier did.) and i love my classic 8 and 16-bit era games as well.

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

I don't care if a game is two-dimensional, three-dimensional, or pan-dimensional so long as it's fun. :)

[Sylentwulf]

Kind of pointless poll. Noone is going to say one or the other is the ONLY choice for them

Do I think they should still be releasing SOME 2-D games? Yes. Would I prefer all 3d games stop being released? Obviously not.

[jajaja]

Well said Phosphor :)
For some games i prefer 3d, for others i prefer 2d (fighters etc.) and for some i prefer both (FPS i.g).

[NintendoMan]

Well when a game is done right in 3-D, my opinion Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 and Mario Sunshine then I think lately I have been having alot more fun with 3-D games.
But then again, OVERALL I have way more 2-D games that I like.

[Slave to the Parasites]

I've given 3D 10 years. I think that's more than a fair shake. I used to like 3D when it was something new and exciting. But it is no longer new or exciting and now it bores the shit out of me. I have come to realize that 3D has always been about attracting people to gaming that should have never picked up a controller.

These nongamers are buying bad games and ignoring good games. With the increasing cost of gaming with the next gen, I don't think it will be long before they will tire of throwing out tons of cash for the same games they played last gen only with new coat of paint. And I believe once they put down their controllers, that is it, they are gone for good.

The game industry will crash and I will predict that will happen in about 10 years. In that time, if Nintendo, Sega, Capcom, etc. haven't become more like EA and Activision, they won't be around. What will these companies do to keep us interested in video games when the nongamers are gone? Will they focus on gameplay over graphics? Will there be anybody left that can create and innovate new genres? Will there be enough gamers still around to even bother? I doubt it. So, yeah, I think 3D was a huge mistake, and I don't think it will be long before that becomes obvious to everyone.

[esquire]

Kind of pointless poll. Noone is going to say one or the other is the ONLY choice for them.

I agree. The poll is rather vague and overbroad. Some games are going to be better 3D (FPS for example) while some may be better 2D (Shmups).

I'll take both please.

[njiska]

Hey i realize that obviously some things are better suited for 3D, but that doesn't change the fact that i still hear alot of people bad mouthing it. Those are also the same people who hate FPS games and generally anything that uses 3D. But that's not what the disscussion is about.

The whole disscussion is about how 3D changed the industry. Many people beleive it is responsible for the massive decline in quality over the last few years because the industry has become more focus on better 3D processing then on gameplay and story elements.

The question is should we have stayed with 2D or was the switch to 3D worth it? I think it was because 3D allows for better gameplay elements, the more realistic look increases immersion, and it allows you to tell a more cinematic story.

[chrisbid]

i want variety, there are more games released on a given week now than at any other time in the history of the hobby, yet there is very little variety. there should be a lot more 2D games out there.

[Jumpman Jr.]

Both are equally as good for me, so I couldn't even vote. My top 6 favorite games consist of 3 2D games and 3 3D games. Its not about how many dimensions there are in a game, its about how good it is.

[FurinkanianFrood]

As for the topic at hand, the problem with 3D is:
1. It is used very badly.
2. It has stifled development of 2D games.

I love some of the best 3D games.

3D didn't harm Zelda. I like OOT better than any Zelda except the first.

Bad game companies are the problem, not 3D.



The game industry will crash and I will predict that will happen in about 10 years.


That long? I think it will be much sooner..... around 2008 maybe, or sooner if some of my (so-called crazy) ideas are correct.

I don't think the industry as we know it is in very good shape, of the console manufacturers, only Nintendo is actually turning a profit. Sony and MIcrosoft have been hemorrhaging money for a long time with their consoles, and I don't see an end to that.

In fact, I have to question the wisdom of corporations such as those even being involved in the market. I doubt they will ever see much benefit from those enterprises.

The Japanese game market is a wreck. The US economic situation will get worse before it gets better.

I don't think that a $450 dollar PS3 would sell well enough to prevent Sony's console related losses from multiplying significantly.

It was bad enough when they were losing $$ on each system sold, but what happens when they aren't even selling through sufficiently.

MIcrosoft is making arrogant mistakes as well, what with the stupid two tier scheme. What do they take people for?

Something will be horribly wrong with the PS3 launch. WIth all of the various possible problems with price point and manufacturing of hardware and software I think it's pretty bleak. And for the sake of gaming, it had better be.

The 360 has issues, though it looks less ridiculous than PS3 in a number of ways.

WIth all of the 3rd party support going to consoles that cost $400+ (hence small user base early on), combined with increased development costs on those consoles, and a probable lack of significant improvement of the last-gen in the first wave of games, devs will be hit hard.

Negative perception at launch can be fatal to anyone. Even Sony.

Of all the console manufacturers, I think Nintendo would be the only one to survive the crash.

The DS is outselling PSP more than 2 to 1 in Japan. Software support is picking up, as are US sales. PSP support is very weak, which is understandable when you consider that Nintendo still controls 90%+ of portable market share in Japan.

I think that the industry goes in long cycles of death and rebirth, and that nearly everyone is (understanbly) oblivious to this because we are only in the second cycle.

Arrogance caused the first crash. What are Sony, MS etc. if not arrogant?

Don't underestimate Nintendo, they may have just been waiting for the right time to act. IMO, there has been no window in which timing and other companies mistakes have aligned properly to provide a chance to strike. Until now.

Nintendo is simply waiting for a Sony console to fail. If not PS3, then the one after that.

Nintendo has survived this long. They can wait for Playstation to grow old and die, which may be sooner rather than later.

[FurinkanianFrood]

The game industry will crash and I will predict that will happen in about 10 years.


That long? I think it will be much sooner..... around 2008 maybe, or sooner if some of my (so-called crazy) ideas are correct.

I don't think the industry as we know it is in very good shape, of the console manufacturers, only Nintendo is actually turning a profit. Sony and MIcrosoft have been hemorrhaging money for a long time with their consoles, and I don't see an end to that.

In fact, I have to question the wisdom of corporations such as those even being involved in the market. I doubt they will ever see much benefit from those enterprises.

The Japanese game market is a wreck. The US economic situation will get worse before it gets better.

I don't think that a $450 dollar PS3 would sell well enough to prevent Sony's console related losses from multiplying significantly.

It was bad enough when they were losing $$ on each system sold, but what happens when they aren't even selling through sufficiently.

MIcrosoft is making arrogant mistakes as well, what with the stupid two tier scheme. What do they take people for?

Something will be horribly wrong with the PS3 launch. WIth all of the various possible problems with price point and manufacturing of hardware and software I think it's pretty bleak. And for the sake of gaming, it had better be.

The 360 has issues, though it looks less ridiculous than PS3 in a number of ways.

WIth all of the 3rd party support going to consoles that cost $400+ (hence small user base early on), combined with increased development costs on those consoles, and a probable lack of significant improvement of the last-gen in the first wave of games, devs will be hit hard.

Negative perception at launch can be fatal to anyone. Even Sony.

Of all the console manufacturers, I think Nintendo would be the only one to survive the crash.

The DS is outselling PSP more than 2 to 1 in Japan. Software support is picking up, as are US sales. PSP support is very weak, which is understandable when you consider that Nintendo still controls 90%+ of portable market share in Japan.

I think that the industry goes in long cycles of death and rebirth, and that nearly everyone is (understanbly) oblivious to this because we are only in the second cycle.

Arrogance caused the first crash. What are Sony, MS etc. if not arrogant?

Don't underestimate Nintendo, they may have just been waiting for the right time to act. IMO, there has been no window in which timing and other companies mistakes have aligned properly to provide a chance to strike. Until now.

Nintendo is simply waiting for a Sony console to fail. If not PS3, then the one after that. The PSP has made very little progress against the Nintendo. And as time goes on the momentum against the PSP continues. Look at JP sales figures.

Nintendo has survived this long. They can wait for Playstation to grow old and die, which may be sooner rather than later. I hope.

[djbeatmongrel]

i cant zote on this becuase both styles have merit and work well for certain game types and work crapily for others. as long as its good it doesnt matter to me

[Push Upstairs]

Both are good.

[RCM]

It all depends on the genre. Racing is far superior in 3D. Platformers are better in 2D. All depends on genre and taste. It's too bad that 3D dominates though. We need balance!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[BrokenFlight]

Just think of how bland the market would be if we'd had another 10 years of nothing but 2D games.

As has been said before, different styles for different genres are what's best.

[njiska]

Of all the console manufacturers, I think Nintendo would be the only one to survive the crash.


I think i've said this before but even though i think Nintendo is fucking up with the Revolution launch, they are the only manufacturer that isn't actively contributing to a major crash. Sony and Microsoft are quickly pushing gaming in the the high price range. With $400+ systems and game development costs rising 20% they're going to eventually cause a sharp rise in price and they're going to run all the big studious are going to over saturate an unstable market causing what will most likely be the worst the industry has ever seen. And yes all of these higher development costs are because of the, not entirely unreasonable, demand for better graphics.

But i don't think it will crash in the next generation. In 2010 when the following generation comes along it will either bring the industry back from collapse or push it so far over the edge that the industry will destory almost every company in it.

Only companies like Nintendo and MS with their vast resources will survive. EA will buy it's self into a grave and drag Ubisoft down with it. Majesco is already pretty much fucked, same goes for take-two if any more scandles happen. Japanese companies might do better but they're still gonna bite a painfull bullet.

[Dr. Morbis]

I've given 3D 10 years. I think that's more than a fair shake. I used to like 3D when it was something new and exciting. But it is no longer new or exciting and now it bores the shit out of me. I have come to realize that 3D has always been about attracting people to gaming that should have never picked up a controller.
Now there's a quote! "I feel the same way"

However, you're dead wrong about there being another crash. There are new people (or should I say consumers) born every day. I'm sure people said the same thing about movies when color and specail effects started pushing plot and character development into the background. I think the state of Hollywood movies right now is much much worse than the state of gaming... but people still line up to see every new wretched movie.

[Xexyz]

I like both styles but do have a preference for 2D over 3D. I only ask that there was a little more flexability with the current market. 2D is almost extinct on home consoles. If 2D could at least compose about 10% of all console game releases (in the West of corse, Japan doesn't have this problem) in a generation, then I would be much happier.

[Wavelflack]

I actually expected to see more people pining away for the old days of 2D. Color me surprised.

Some people DID show up to the 2D snob party, though. Good for them!
At any rate, 3D is not a cheap tool to ensnare the dumb common folk (as has been previously inferred). Elitist points of view such as this are ridiculous. I'm sure somewhere there is a group of people who are monochrome purists, text adventure purists, etc.

"Back in my day..."

ZZzzzz...

[Retsudo]

I didnt vote because I like them both.

[fpstream]

Well said Phosphor :)
For some games i prefer 3d, for others i prefer 2d (fighters etc.) and for some i prefer both (FPS i.g).

How can you have a 2-D FPS, do you mean a schmup?

[junglehunter]

Well said Phosphor :)
For some games i prefer 3d, for others i prefer 2d (fighters etc.) and for some i prefer both (FPS i.g).

How can you have a 2-D FPS, do you mean a schmup?
Travel back in time ~10 years my friend, to a time when my friends and I used to play the DOOM games.

Yeesh...kids these days... :roll:

[hbkprm]

wow, i was pleased with 2D games (and i'm still pleased today). when i played virtua fighter and killer instint, that change the whole specrem.

[buttasuperb]

I don't care if a game is two-dimensional, three-dimensional, or pan-dimensional so long as it's fun. :)

Same here, but there are few fun 3D games, and very many fun 2D games.

[Slave to the Parasites]

At any rate, 3D is not a cheap tool to ensnare the dumb common folk (as has been previously inferred). Elitist points of view such as this are ridiculous.


There are two types of gamers: the gamer that plays for the reward of mastering challenging, skillbased games (HC gamer) and the gamer that plays to pass the time (casual gamer). The HC gamer's reward from each game mastered is simular to that you would get from learning a new word of a new language or a martial artist mastering a new move. To these gamers, playing games that do not require skill are more painful than fun. These gamers are longterm, they've likely been around for awhile and will likely keep coming back for more as long as there are more challenges, they are addicted to the feeling of accomplishment they get from conquering the seemingly insurmountable odds of dodging thousands of bullets in a shmup or holding the the run button down through every level of Super Mario Bros. without dying once. They are perfectionists and they get off on perfecting. They prefer 2D.


The casual gamer plays games because they are bored, or for social reasons (friends are over, time for some friendly competition, or they play games to have something in common with friends at school, etc). Generally, these gamers do not care much for games that demand skill, they feel that skill requires too much of them and is just frustrating, they just want to have some fun. Give them a game with a story, nice presentation, kick ass graphics and they'll be content to "experience" the game. These gamers are short-termers, they'll eventually become bored with games and move on to something else. They prefer 3D.


I don't play games to kill the time. I play for the reward. If I wanted to kill some time I'd watch a movie, read a book, jerk off... There are thousands of things you could do besides destroy another art form out of boredom. The casual ones have killed the music and movies... now they want the games. If you're casual... go impregnate a female or two, go in debt, buy a $30,000 vehicle and $100,000 home to impress some chick. Hurry up and get broke so you can't afford games. I don't care, just stay away from my hobby. I need these games, they are like a drug and it is becoming harder to find a fix. WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! With no fix, I get green with anger.... Hulk eyes burn red like fire.... Hulk Smash face... Hulk want to "experience" your ass!

[Wavelflack]

Thank you for providing a textbook example of elitism to go with my thesis.

[Slimedog]

Wow. Slave, I don't know what to say. That is elitist and flawed on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Pretty much every sentence where you aren't talking about yourself is a baseless generalization. I smell a troll.

[RCM]

Wow. Slave, I don't know what to say. That is elitist and flawed on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Pretty much every sentence where you aren't talking about yourself is a baseless generalization. I smell a troll.

So he's a bit misdirected. I dig his passion for gaming though!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Slave to the Parasites]

I'm just trying to explain why the industry is doomed. There is no doubt in my mind that it is coming to an end, it's just a matter of when. I say 10 years... maybe less, maybe more... I'm not sure, but it's coming. The sooner the better, I say.

Now the reason I feel so strongly that the industry is heading for a crash? Well, the casuals... once they have experienced all that 3D has to offer they will be finished with games. To them it's all about experiencing things they can't in real life, that is why simulations and RPGs are so popular today. The problem with this, though, is that they will eventually run out of new experiences to experience through video games. By the end of this coming gen I believe they will have seen it all several times over. And there will be, it seems, fewer companies willing to take risks. With no risks there will be no new genres and no new experiences. What you played yesterday is what you will be playing tomorrow. Now add that to the growing costs of gaming, $400 systems, $60 games and it just isn't worth it to play the same crap again. And the costs are just going to keep climbing. The gen after next the games could cost $70-80, systems $500-600?

In a few years from now, even if you're still not bored of the same o' crap by then, gaming will become too expensive. So expensive that it will not be worth it just to experience the same experiences you experienced last gen and the one before that.

Now, you could make the argument that there will be a new generation of kids coming around and everything will be new to them. But with the ever increasing costs of game development, they alone will not be enough to sustain the industry.

[kevin_psx]

3D games main flaw is s-l-o-w p-a-c-e. Like Metroid Prime. Too much standing around & looking at blurry textures. Is that fun??? No.

I prefer faster pace of the 2D screen. Less boring.

[evildead2099]

I think that 3D helped to create better games. Metal Gear is an example of this. Classic 2D MG was amazing and was leagues ahead of it's time. But MGS is one of the most beautiful games ever made and i'm not talking graphics. MGS had an amazing story, cinematic presentation, solid gameplay and is widely considered to be the best game on the PSX and is in the running for the best game of that era.

I agree with your Metal Gear example, and I feel that another great example is Grand Theft Auto, except that GTA was never any good when its gameplay was confined to 2D hooliganism.

[Damaramu]

I like 2D and 3D equally. -_-

[Descartes]

I agree with everything Slave said. All expect for one thing, that is. He says that the casuals are in line to ruin games. I believe they already have, just like they have ruined music and movies. There is nothing wrong with elitism among the elite. We didn't spend all that time mastering our hobby to be defecated on by those who care nothing for the electronic bliss we call gaming. To have watched this great art, for which we have invested blood, sweat, tears, and plenty of quarters degrade into its current state of superficial, aesthetic driven, mainstream, pop cultureized hell, has been one of the utmost atrocities of my coming of age. I must say, there was a time when the very thought of gaming meant to appeal strictly to the lowest common denominator was laughable at best, and at worst.....idiotic. Such is the reality today. gone are the days of ferociously attempting to one up each others score. The days of practicing until are hands require ice packs. The days of dissecting the psychology of every enemy's movement pattern. The days of intelligent gaming mags, as well as the overall intelligence of the community itself. Gaming back then wasn't big, it wasn't "cool", and it wasn't expensive...but it was ours. True gaming is a culture, certainly not a fad. I canceled my subscriptions back in the 90's and started looking backwards instead of forwards. That was one of the greatest decisions of my life. No 50 Cent: Bulletproof for me, thank you. No sir, I'll take a double dose of Defender.

[Eternal Champion]

This is an interesting thread. I think when 3D was first possible, on SNES (Starfox), then Playstation, I think was hyped and hyped, but in the end there were some extremely dull games (Banjo Kazooie or whatever the hell). I think PC games did 3D with much more depth in gameplay for many years; I'm thinking of non-FPSers like System Shock 2, Thief especially, one of the best games I have ever played. Also Quake and Half-Life I'd say are revolutionary games.

I think, like everything else (mainstream films especially), depth of content is jettisoned for flashiness. Casual players want the coolest looking games. A game like Thief or any of the mentioned console games are for the hardcore. How well did Thief 3 do on X-Box? Not well enough, as Ion Storm has folded.

I think I've read that only the top few most popular games (what are they nowadays?) keep the industry afloat.

[Ed Oscuro]

3D presents more opportunities than 2D - you've got a whole z-axis to play with, after all! The thing is that this accursed z-dimension can be too much freedom; many game concepts work just fine in 2D. If you're going to make a 3D game, it needs to take advantage of those extra dimensions in some form (and yeah, Klonoa does, before anybody gets uppity).

Your garden is never complete until you can remove nothing more from it, as they say.

I must admit that I have yet to see a one- or zero-dimensional (line and point) game, though, unless you count shifting beads along an abacus as a form of entertainment.


I think PC games did 3D with much more depth in gameplay for many years; I'm thinking of non-FPSers like System Shock 2, Thief especially, one of the best games I have ever played. Also Quake and Half-Life I'd say are revolutionary games.
Counterpoint: LoZ - Ocarina of Time. Released in 1998, before System Shock 2. Tenchu and Metal Gear Solid were both part of the late '98 stealth game revolution that Thief was a part of (with Tenchu released first, Thief next, and MGS latest, in a span from August 31st to early November).

[Eternal Champion]

I think PC games did 3D with much more depth in gameplay for many years; I'm thinking of non-FPSers like System Shock 2, Thief especially, one of the best games I have ever played. Also Quake and Half-Life I'd say are revolutionary games.
Counterpoint: LoZ - Ocarina of Time. Released in 1998, before System Shock 2. Tenchu and Metal Gear Solid were both part of the late '98 stealth game revolution that Thief was a part of (with Tenchu released first, Thief next, and MGS latest, in a span from August 31st to early November).
True, true. To be honest, I've never played MGS. Did it have the light and sound system that Thief's engine did?

[Ed Oscuro]

Did it have the light and sound system that Thief's engine did?
Nope, and Tenchu, as you recall, had that wholly different fog o' war + ninja sixth sense thing. Out of the three, though, MGS seems the most natural (certainly easiest) to play.

[Eternal Champion]

Well, to me, Thief's light and sound system (the amount of light you were in affected the enemy AI, i.e., how much they can see you, and the amount of noise you made) really added depth that I had never experienced before. It seems that most of the gaming public don't care.

[smokehouse]

I have read many of the interesting responses and agree with some points, disagree with many. First off, as far as the 2D-vs-3D thing goes, it’s 50/50 with me. My only complaint is that the industry for the most part thinks of 3D as a replacement for 2D. That is the current problem. 3D is not a step forward; it’s a step sideways. They should both be able to exist.

Some games flourish in 2D, others in 3D.

2D gems
-The early Mario games
-Contra and Metal Slug titles
-Fighters such as River City Ransom and Double Dragon
-Castlevania titles

3D gems
-Racing titles
-FPS titles
-Sport titles

Hybrid titles that have been great in both
-Metal Gear
-Final Fantasy
-Sonic


As for the industry crashing…I have to cry bullshit. It’s not going to anymore than the crap mainstream music industry.

When it comes to the gaming industry going mainstream and the move from 2D to 3D, they have nothing in common. Both just happened at the same time. Just like the music industry, 90% of what’s out there sucks but there are still gems to be found. Most of the bands I listen to cannot be found on MTV or on the radio. The same goes with the games I play. No, they may not see a spot on the absurd Spike Video Game Awards but who cares? I’m just steering clear of the crap.

Are things different than what they used to be? You bet. Are they 100% in the toilet? Nope. Be patient and supplement the slow times with great classic titles. New good games will trickle out and when they do, snatch them up.




You can also come post on DP from time to time as well. :D

[Kamino]

Both 2d and 3d have their strengths.
Good in 3d:
First person shooters
Third person shooters
Action RPGs (except zelda, booo)
OK in 3d:
Sports
Bad in 3d:
Platformers(VERY BAD)
Puzzle games

Good in 2d:
SHMUPS of course!
Zelda games
Platformers
Puzzle games

OK in 2d:
Sports

IMO platformers went to shit in 3d. Where the hell is the timer at the top of the screen?

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, to me, Thief's light and sound system (the amount of light you were in affected the enemy AI, i.e., how much they can see you, and the amount of noise you made) really added depth that I had never experienced before. It seems that most of the gaming public don't care.
Well, but then they latched right onto the concepts with Splinter Cell. I think they were just waiting for an appropriate-feeling military shooter to come along LOL

I have to admit I haven't played the original Thief all the way through. Should change that; I love stealing things! :D

[le geek]

I voted keep 3D, but I prefer 2D games :rocker:

Cheers,
Ben

[darknut101]

For me certain games work 3D and certain don't.

For example the Mega Man X series was killed for me as soon as it went 3D. Although Metroid Prime on the other hand was an amazing transformation into 3D. I didn't get into the 3D zeldas though. I played through most of them but never finished any. On the other hand I've finished all the 2D zeldas 100+ times. I would prefer a good 2D side-scroller game any day over one of these newer 3D platformers. But certain games such as RPGs or fighting games I have no problem being in 3D.

I guess it just depends on how well they present the game.

[The Manimal]

I prefer 2D games over 3D games but do agree with the second point about 3D games, so I voted for that one. And I feel dirty about it, because it's the tie-breaker! 30-31 now.

[njiska]

This has got to be the most evenly divided issue i've EVER seen on a forum. God Damn. we've been tied since day one with never more then 2 votes seperating the sides.

[Rob of the Sky]

Wow, it was difficult to make a decision on this poll. I voted for 3-D though. While I enjoy both 2-D and 3-D games, had the gaming industry not went 3-D, I would not be able to enjoy many masterpieces. I enjoy playing games on a game by game basis and not on whether or not they are 2-D or 3-D. I like to play all kinds of games, reguardless of their dimintion.