2D or 3D?

[digitalpress]

Just in general.

If you feel 3D games have ruined gaming, explain why. If you think 2D is overrated, explain why. If you wear your underwear on your head... don't explain why.

[punkoffgirl]

Who said it was MY underwear? It might be my sister's!

My main "complaint" about 3D games (and hence why I tend to like 2D games better) is all about the cameras. Bad angles, poor control, or some that give you NO control. It's like playing darts, blindfolded (well, with less real bloodshed.)

[kainemaxwell]

I'll agree with POG about the camera angels but also the fact that most 3D game shave become of the teasure hunting sorts such as DK64.

[Happy_Dude]

It really does depend on "who's" underwear it is

....and if they have been washed recently or not

[Arrrhalomynn]

It all depends on the games.
Racing games suck in 2D, but platform games suck in 3D.
I prefer my rpg's to be 2D, just like puzzle games, but an adventure game like tomb raider should be 3D.
Fighting games have good and bad points in both modes.

[ClubNinja]

While I do have some favorite 3D titles, I generally find the 2D games to be much better. It seems that, with this whole 3D thing, games have lost substance to visual flash. I don't care how pretty looking a game is if it plays like a Mythicon title in 3D : )

[Retsudo]

Depends on the game. I still like the old school Defender better than the new 3d version

[IntvGene]

I just finished playing Onimusha 2, and I couldn't stand the camera at times. I can't tell if an enemy is in range, sometimes I can't even see them and they're hitting me, I can't tell if there is another passageway at the end of the hallway, and none of this helps the gameplay. I've also had extreme displeasure with Maximo. These types of games truly deserve to stay in 2-D. The controls for these games are another problem. I have to use the anolog stick, and I try to attack an enemy and end up gliding past them and then having to rotate around to meet them again. It only adds unnecessary confusion!

I tend to agree that first-person shooters and racing games tend to be better in 3-D, but I don't think that the majority of today's games need to be 3-D these days. It's all for cinematics and pretty graphics! Who cares? I don't mind if it is done successfully, but I haven't had many experiences where it is. Some of the modern fighting games have done an okay job in my opinion... they've kept the 2-D feel, while adding a little bit of the 3-D aspect.

I loved the 2-D Contras and Castlevanias... and to me none of these new games come close to that. So, my question is when are these game companies going to learn that these games don't need to be 3-D!? x_x

Best 3-D game that wasn't: Guardian Heroes

[bargora]

Like Arrrhalomynn said, it depends. 3D platforming / treasure hunting = teh yuck. But could you really have Steel Battalion in 2D? Well, I mean, besides the crappy tree sprites...

[Sylentwulf]

I love em both, only problem is there IS NO 2D gaming anymore outside of handhelds.

If they still HAD 2D games, then there would be no problem. I still don't understand why developers feel ALL games NEED to be in 3D. Hasn't the "Alll new 3-D!!!" fad passed yet? It's not like it's breaking technology anymore.

[Gunstarhero]

In General, I can't stand 3-d anymore, even though some of my favorite racing games are 3-d. I can put up with racing games. I'm gonna have to sound like a parrot and say that 3-d games generally suffer from crappy control and camera angles. How many times have you suffered a cheap shot because the camera wouldn't swing around to the right angle?

I've never understood the argument that 3-d games somehow have 'better' graphics than old school 2-d games. Better how? You can't compare them, I mean, sure, Starfox64 looks better than Galaxian thats easy, but you can't convince me that Starfox64's graphics are prettier to look at than say Raiden DX. 3-d game graphics are only better in a sense that they look more realistic. Big deal, I don't play games because I want it to be real life. I think the judgement of how good graphics are is surely objective, and I prefer the beautiful artwork you can only find in a 2-d game.

Another comment, I'm not technical wiz concerning gaming hardware, but if the next gen consoles are designed around playing 3-d games, would that maybe affect the ability of programmers to produce a good quality 2-d game on it? Maybe thats why we don't see alot of 2-d games anymore except on the GBA.

[bargora]

I love em both, only problem is there IS NO 2D gaming anymore outside of handhelds.

Thank goodness for the soon-to-arrive Gameboy Player. At last--Advance Wars, Gradius Galaxies, and The Pinball of the Dead on my TV!!!

Shit. I forgot--I don't have a Gamecube yet. Soon...

[Kamisama]

I usually like 2D Games more. Somehow i like all the 2D SNES-RPGs Graphics more than most of the recent 3D PS2 RPGs.
However there are games like Racing games where i think 3D Games CAN look cool.

[YoshiM]

In general? Yeah, 3D isn't the end-all be-all of gaming. As it was mentioned before, camera angles can really futz up your gaming. You'd figure that after almost 8 years someone would have figured out how to do the cameras properly on a regular basis. With platformers or 3rd person adventures, the developers seem to forget that the TV can't really show depth all that well. Remember the water temple in Zelda, OoT? The center tower in the main area had various platforms. One of the passages was behind and down beyond the floor, below the square piece you walk on when you enter the tower. No fargin' way I could see it until Link had a collision issue with the wall and the camera happen to point in the direction of the floor, revealing the passage. It took me forever to try and find that.

Speaking of collision, that's another thing that gets me: bad collision detection. If these games take so long to make in order to "perfect" them, why can't the developers work on collsion detection for some of these games? Weapons going through walls and hitting, items that you need sometimes disappearing into walls. Seems like the 3D games have the majority of those problems.

I will say that some genres of games require 3D and for them it works. FPS games 3D is a necessity and as most of them are in a first person view and the sense of depth is there. Simulators, same thing. Other genres like sports titles benefit greatly from 3D as it makes the experience more life like and dynamic.

[brandver3]

I can't say either way.

I liked Maximo and thought it has a good camera.

It doesn't really matter about the format, it matters wither the programmers care or not. Anything can be done with good programing. The problem is that we're in this era of "have to get my game out as fast as possable" so things like camera tweeking and polygon break and better collision detection get lost in an effort to throw something on the market. Good example -VIce City. Great game, but my god, how many glitchs can one game have!!!

If designers would just take more time on the fine tuning of their games, we wouldn't have to have threads like this.

[Nature Boy]

Give me Ico over Adventure any day...

[jaydubnb]

IMost of the games in my collection are 2D offerings from the 16 bit era, but the 3D has truly reinented one genre: sports games. The athletes look and move like their real life counterparts creating the "sporting event at home" vibe. Still. no baseball game today can touch NES' Baseball Stars

My biggest complaint about 3D gaming is that every game that comes out goes for the "free roaming, find every damn piece of the treasure, and make sure you look under the bed for the special one you passed on level 12 or you cant advance" crap.

[maxlords]

Really finding myself not liking 3D personally. It's great for things liek FPS games, but for the most part, the crappy cameras, bad level designs, and difficult perspectives are all inherent problems. The only way that 3D can avoid those problems is 3D on rails like Pandemonium, and most people don't like that. It's just sad that with all the graphics hype and crazy game development going on, the old 2D games are mostly more fun.

[Arqueologia_Digital]

I think that a lot of 3D games are cool, but there are 3D new versions of 2D games like "Street fighter EX" that sucks. Also, games like Final fight in 2D are the best and now this genre die...

[nesman85]

i prefer 2d. i also like 3d a lot, but it seems most of my all time favorites are 2d. the camera in 3d can be a problem sometimes but it doesn't bother me much.

[Six Switch]

I like both kinds,but I think overall I like 2D a lot more.The camera is what really does it for me.It may not seem like that big of a deal but where your still stuck in one part,or can't make a jump because of the camera,not because of you,then you start to get mad.
And that leads to throwing things.Which somehow ends up with someone with someone else's underware on their heard. :P >

[zektor]

I voted 2-D. Only because almost every game I really enjoy playing is 2-D. Classic shoot-em-ups and classic arcade games mainly. I do love Space Harrier, Out Run, and Chase HQ, but I really don't consider them 3-D like some people do. I consider games like Super Mario 64, Quake III Arena, and most of the newer games that follow this type of gaming 3-D.

[Nature Boy]

My biggest complaint about 3D gaming is that every game that comes out goes for the "free roaming, find every damn piece of the treasure, and make sure you look under the bed for the special one you passed on level 12 or you cant advance" crap.

Not that I'm critizing your choice of 2D over 3D, but I think this is more a sign of the modern age of gaming as opposed to being a 3D thing. I call it artifically lengthing the game, and I hate it too.

[Alex Kidd]

I agree with whats been said that really, 2D or 3D itself does not make good or bad games, it's all in the games premise and how it's actually programmed.

But in general I must say if I had to go one way or the other I would go with 2D.
3D is by all means unessecary, we had video game for years and years that were plenty fun without 3D.
And really 3D doesn't enhance the "Fun" at all... it can make a game more realistic, more indepth, but not more FUN.
And really all 3D does is tax system resources... think of all the audio and graphics quality we have today, imgaine how more they could put in if they kept the games engine 2D or pesudo 3D while being TRULEY 2D.
Hell, we might not even need the 128 bit/200MHz CPU consoles we have now and still be enjoying games on a cheaper/easier to produce console.

And ANY game that is 3D now, was either 2D at one time, or could easily be translated to a 2D game without losing much of it's "fun", and inversely I can think of MANY games that were 2D and should not be (or shouldn't have been) turned into 3D.
WITH THE EXCEPTION:
Alone In The Dark series/Resident Evil series.
THEY MADE TRUELY GOOD FUN USE of a 3D engine, and I can't imagine them being a 2D game.

Alex Kidd

[Nature Boy]

And ANY game that is 3D now, was either 2D at one time, or could easily be translated to a 2D game without losing much of it's "fun", and inversely I can think of MANY games that were 2D and should not be (or shouldn't have been) turned into 3D.

Again, I don't really feel that it's valid to compare the games this way. Of course there are a lot of games today that used to be 2D. That's just the nature of business - with the rising cost of games publishers would much rather work with an existing franchise than come up with something new. It's the same line of reasoning that gives us more sequels and wanna be in the movie industry than new, take a chance type of stuff.

That's what hurts 3D gaming the most IMO. If there was the freedom that existed when the costs were lower you'd see more innovation, and therefore more games that just wouldn't work in 2D. Today it's just going to take that much longer - but genres like Survival Horror and FPS are good examples of genres that are definitely 3D in nature and show promise.