Entrance to the 3D Era...a vintage rant...

[zektor]

After a few weeks of enjoying my newly acquired Sega Saturn, and some solid playing of my beloved Dreamcast before, I started to think about the past. I started to think about our gaming world..and when it entered the 3D realm.

I realized something about myself in the past few weeks, and that is that I *really* love 2D games. I can "see" where I am, I think the graphics (in most cases) are just a work of art, and I find myself overall more engulfed in many of these games.

I think back to my purchase of the N64....the beginning of the 3D gaming era at least for me. Now, I loved SM64, *but* I was always waiting for that killer 2D game...2D shooter or perhaps platformer that would just rock. I don't think that ever happened for me on that system. Then, the Dreamcast. Much better....many 3D games of course (which were great, don't get me wrong) but only a few hands-full of 2D games.

When and where did these people decide that >I< needed 3D as opposed to the 2D goodness that I was addicted to for two decades prior? It almost seems like I was force-fed 3D gaming....and that really sucks.

The only modern gaming in the 2D realm that I have been able to really enjoy comes in the form of the handheld. The GBA in particular. The NDS has some great 2D games too, but even more 3D.

All of the new systems of course want to show off their power by displaying true to life graphics and gameplay. But what about a guy that doesn't want his past-time to be that "true".

I personally think we *need* more 2D in our gaming lives. Most likely not going to happen, but I find it hard to believe that I am part of a small minority of game players that think this way.

Welp, that is my retro rant of the day!

[pato]

I feel the same way you do.

The most recent console I bought was the original Xbox. When I look at my collection, all I have are all the arcade compilations (2d games). With exception of Halo and a few others, I would always buy the retro compilations first before considering anything `next gen` or 3D.

That`s when I knew I would not dive into the next generation after. I have no desire to buy a PS3 or a 360. The Wii seems to be pretty interesting, but I still can`t see the point in getting it. I know about the downloadable content and I can get all these retro games, but I still prefer to have the original hardware it was meant to be played on. Ok, going a little off topic now lol.

[zektor]

I would just love to see more NEW 2D titles produced. It is really sad that some of the only 2D goodness we get in this day and age come in the flavor of compilations of games that we have played over and over. I was actually quite pleasantly surprised with the New Super Mario Bros. game for the NDS, as it is pretty much a new 2D(ish) title. We need much more than just that tho...bring on the 2D revolution!

[theMot]

If they made more 2D games now it would be good i guess. I enjoy new 2D games like Advance Wars and Tetris or the remakes of final fantasy but i dont find i ever go back to the older games now. Whenever i get the feeling i want to play SNES i go through the hassle of unpacking it all then get a reality check because i dont really find the games to be of much interest anymore. I guess im too used to Gears of War etc. Despite what people would like to think graphics do in a lot of instances make the game and you can only go so far with 2D.

[smokehouse]

The problem is the common thought that 3D is an evolution of 2D and thus better.

It’s not.

3D naturally took longer to master simply due to hardware constraints. What I do not get is why both can’t co-exist as different types of gaming. 3D was necessary to realize the artistic vision of many games but not all games should be that way. Look at titles like Castlevania and Contra, they are just better as 2D games. Then look at games like Metal Gear and Dragon Warrior, they are brilliant in 3D.

One should not have replaced the other…this is the problem.

[Blitzwing256]

psttt, odin sphere, pass it along.

[lkermel]

The problem is the common thought that 3D is an evolution of 2D and thus better.
It’s not.

This is exactly right. The same thing happened with feature animation. 3D replaced traditional 2D animation, but for me it's just another medium, not an evolution.

[Promophile]

Pick up a DS. Unlike the PSP, the DS is all about 2D. Too many new 2D titles to mention here.

[cyberfluxor]

I've been reading a few early 90's articles about VR technology and how it'd evolve the gaming industry. So many great things were expected yet at the end it became too expensive (and some other negatives) for arcades and home users yet it's still thriving at amusement parks. When will these big clunkers come home? It's been over 15 years since we were told we'd have this technology everywhere! My opinion is that the technology moved away from VR and went to 3D rendering on CRTs (cheaper, easier to code for and most homes already have them), seeing quicker and better profits plus it'd continue improving in its own way. In addition, corporations (Nintendo, Panasonic and Atari come to mind, but mainly Sony) pushed 3D as the new generation and as a result fewer companies went the route of 2D since the mid-90's.

At any rate though, I'd love to see HD 2D sprites on a nice side-scroller or puzzle game with 60 FPS and no slow-down.

[Barbarianoutkast85]

I find myself playing GBA and my classic systems more then my current gen consoles becuase I feel the same as you do. Although I know 2D isnt going to be making a big come back most likely. I just deal with it and play my GBA.

[Ze_ro]

One thing that I think you need to keep in mind is that doing artwork for a 2D game gets much more difficult as the scope of the game increases, whereas that isn't necessarily so for a 3D game. Take fighting games for instance... If you were working on Street Fighter 3, and the boss tells you that they've decided to add a new move for Ibuki and they want you to draw all the animation frames for it... so you have to go and draw maybe 100 pictures of Ibuki, and maybe a few other pieces of art depending on how the move works. On the other hand, imagine you were working on Virtua Fighter 2, and you are given the same task for Jeffrey. Now, the 3D model is already done, there's no art to draw. All you have to do is come up with a few spatial coordinates that describe where his legs and arms and such go.

This complexity can get far worse too... For a long time, developers have been trying to make games more immersive, so that you can feel like you're actually there. Well, what do you do when you want someone to be able to explore world, but you're using 2D graphics? You end up with something like Myst... the world can still look amazing, but you're restricted to only seeing things that people actually drew artwork for. With a 3D engine, you can let people see every nook and cranny without creating a whole lot of extra work. In fact, some whole genres today wouldn't be possible without 3D (first person shooters for example).

I think one of the real problems with 3D is that you really don't get any actual 3D... you just get a 2D representation of 3D. Only a couple of systems have managed to get depth perception to actually work, and they were either failures (Virtual Boy), required extra hardware (SMS, Vectrex), or were far too expensive to market to consumers (Virtuality's arcade machines). It's really too bad that VR has essentially disappeared, because I think that really could be a revolution in gaming, and unlock the potential that 3D has.

There's actually a second problem that I have with 3D graphics that I think is far more significant than people would think... and that's that 2D artists can see their work as they make it, and they know exactly what to do to make it better. 3D artists don't usually have that ability, as they're stuck trying to draw a texture to be applied to a polygon, or altering some vertex coordinates to make something look smoother. These days we have the tools to see the object while this is being done, but there's still a seperation between the 3D artist and his work that doesn't exist between a 2D artist and his work.

--Zero

[crazyjackcsa]

One thing that I think you need to keep in mind is that doing artwork for a 2D game gets much more difficult as the scope of the game increases, whereas that isn't necessarily so for a 3D game. Take fighting games for instance... If you were working on Street Fighter 3, and the boss tells you that they've decided to add a new move for Ibuki and they want you to draw all the animation frames for it... so you have to go and draw maybe 100 pictures of Ibuki, and maybe a few other pieces of art depending on how the move works. On the other hand, imagine you were working on Virtua Fighter 2, and you are given the same task for Jeffrey. Now, the 3D model is already done, there's no art to draw. All you have to do is come up with a few spatial coordinates that describe where his legs and arms and such go.

This complexity can get far worse too... For a long time, developers have been trying to make games more immersive, so that you can feel like you're actually there. Well, what do you do when you want someone to be able to explore world, but you're using 2D graphics? You end up with something like Myst... the world can still look amazing, but you're restricted to only seeing things that people actually drew artwork for. With a 3D engine, you can let people see every nook and cranny without creating a whole lot of extra work. In fact, some whole genres today wouldn't be possible without 3D (first person shooters for example).

I think one of the real problems with 3D is that you really don't get any actual 3D... you just get a 2D representation of 3D. Only a couple of systems have managed to get depth perception to actually work, and they were either failures (Virtual Boy), required extra hardware (SMS, Vectrex), or were far too expensive to market to consumers (Virtuality's arcade machines). It's really too bad that VR has essentially disappeared, because I think that really could be a revolution in gaming, and unlock the potential that 3D has.

There's actually a second problem that I have with 3D graphics that I think is far more significant than people would think... and that's that 2D artists can see their work as they make it, and they know exactly what to do to make it better. 3D artists don't usually have that ability, as they're stuck trying to draw a texture to be applied to a polygon, or altering some vertex coordinates to make something look smoother. These days we have the tools to see the object while this is being done, but there's still a seperation between the 3D artist and his work that doesn't exist between a 2D artist and his work.

--Zero

Most of those 2d problems could be fixed if you programmed a 3d game with a 2d perspective. Most people call it 2.5d, you can't use hand drawn animation, but you can still use 2d

[Kid Ice]

A
I think back to my purchase of the N64....the beginning of the 3D gaming era at least for me. Now, I loved SM64, *but* I was always waiting for that killer 2D game...2D shooter or perhaps platformer that would just rock. I don't think that ever happened for me on that system. Then, the Dreamcast. Much better....many 3D games of course (which were great, don't get me wrong) but only a few hands-full of 2D games.

Is there a reason the Playstation is not mentioned in your original post? That system has some nice 2D games.

[Jorpho]

It is quite baffling that, in all the years since the N64 and Playstation originally came out, there are still reviews of new games in which people complain about bad cameras.

[KingCobra]

3D Backdrops and 2D gameplay is whare it's at IMO!

Contra SS, Under Defeat, Ikaruga, VS Fighting games ect...

3D has it's place such as 2D, it got stupid when the gaming world try'd to take almost everything 3D, thus, suckness to the MAX!

[smork]

At any rate though, I'd love to see HD 2D sprites on a nice side-scroller or puzzle game with 60 FPS and no slow-down.

Alien Hominid HD?

I think online distribution systems and the ability for smaller houses to make boutique games will see a bit of a rise in 2D. 2D is a difficult sell in this day and age when a new title is $20, minimum (and that's for super budget titles), but at $10 on Live Arcade more people might take a flyer on a game -- so more dev houses might take a flyer on a forgotten genre or style.

I do hope we'll see more 2D in the future! It's really only the current gen where 3D has come into its own artistically, which only makes sense as the most beautiful 2D games didn't really appear until the later days of Genesis, SNES, and the life of the Saturn.

[Cryomancer]

You should try Bangai-O, it's a 2D shooter, and it's on both N64 and Dreamcast. I would also suggest Elemential Gimmick Gear for Dreamcast.

I fear the next handheld wave. Will 2D truly be dead? Or at least caged off as downloadable content?

[ccovell]

And another rant about modern 2d...

Nintendo started a GREAT idea with Super Mario All-Stars, BS Zelda, Wrecking Crew '98, etc... ie: graphic & audio enhanced versions of classic 8-bit games, with the gameplay retained.

But so few companies followed suit. Now it's all the old "classic" games simply emulated in compilations, with no redone artwork or enhanced music. No love at all.

:-(

[zektor]

Is there a reason the Playstation is not mentioned in your original post? That system has some nice 2D games.

I'm sure it does, but I personally didn't live with the PS1 for as long as it took for this to happen. The PS1 (for me) originally consisted of mainly 3D titles from what I recall. Games like Jumping Flash, Ridge Racer, Battle Arena Toshinden, etc....are what I remember initially of the PS1. When it was released, the general consensus among everybody I know was that the "Saturn was the 2D system, Playstation was the 3D system". Again, don't get me wrong. The games were great (I *loved* my PS when I first bought it), and this thread/rant is not about me not liking any 3D games. It is about how the 3D era simply "took over" almost overnight.

I also have to point out that the extra work it took for the developers of many 2D titles is not without vain. These games (for the most part) age very well visually....unlike many 3D games I know.

[50s Brawler]

I hear ya man and agree 100% with just about everyone here. I've owned just about every system ever made on both sides of the pond, and save the next gen stuff I will not be buying and a few others (FM Towns Marty, Bandai Playdia, etc.) 2-D is still king of the hill. I'm honestly surprised by the fact more ppl aren't rediscovering the medium of 2-D versus 3-D, simply on the fact alone that Japanimation/Anime has become globally "accepted", and the sprite based 2D medium is largely like playing out anime adventures. But this point has never seemed to resonate with the masses I guess, they'd rather watch some anime and then go power up HALO 2 or GTA: San Andreas.

At the end of the day (and like 12 years later), I'd much rather play something like "Gunstar Heroes" which still looks amazing to this day, or hit the mean streets of Double Dragon and Streets of Rage 2, than to worry about 14 different button functions, a half hour tutitorial, and save points that take hours to reach. 3D does have it's place though no doubt, I mean I can't see a game like Max Payne being in 2.5 But I was always more impressed with 2D games with faux 3D elements. But alas I'm 29 yrs young and it's probably just a generational thing. Outside of a quick fix for open minded tweens and teens in 2007, or the bored gamer wanting a virtual console trip down memory lane... I know 2-D is never going back to the glory days, and that makes me the cynical and burnt out dude I am.

Excuse me, I've got to save President Ronnie now.

"IIIIIIIIIIIII'M BAD!"