Slashdot Log In
The Comparative Value of 2-D Vs. 3-D Graphics In Games
Posted by
Soulskill
on Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:30 PM
from the tetris-vs-quake dept.
from the tetris-vs-quake dept.
GameSetWatch is running a feature discussing the value of graphics styles in games. The authors point out that while certain genres, such as first-person shooters, benefited immensely from the advent of 3-D graphics, some types of games didn't handle the transition as well. A player's perspective, and his interaction with the game's camera, can often make or break an otherwise excellent release.
"Before making the full jump to 3D, many genres made a move from classic 2D to isometric 2D as an intermediary step. For example, the original Civilization had a traditional top-down grid view while Civ 2 had a three-quarters isometric view. While this new perspective gave the game world a more life-like appearance, the change did come at a cost to the user's game experience. Namely, distances are much more difficult to judge on an isometric grid as the east-west axis takes up twice as many pixels as the north-south axis. To solve this problem, for Civ 4, our 3D perspective actually hearkened back to the original game as we showed the game's grid straight ahead and not at an angle. The easier the players perceive the grid through the graphics, the better they can 'see' their possible decisions."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
"hearkened?" (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, come on...
---edit
I am SO glad I decided to doublecheck before I hit the post button. Who knew I'd been wrong about how to spell a word for the last 20 years?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Joking aside, here's the definition [merriam-webster.com].
Graphic transition has nothing to do with it (Score:2)
I know many people don't like their rts in 3D, but Homeworld is an utterly amazing game. That being said I could imagine the game being just as fun in 2D, though it would loose its artistic value, and would thus be slightly less appealing. Then comes the sequel with jacked graphics and features, but a loss of that nostalgic feeling that the old one had. Not long after I started pondering why, I came with a very quick conclusion. Although I was playing a 3D rts, the controls and interface had turned it into
2D is most likely best (Score:2, Insightful)
Stickers are most likely best (Score:4, Insightful)
"2D gameplay is generally best when playing on a 2D surface."
Chess as a peel'em and stick game.
Parent
In the CAD World... (Score:5, Funny)
This is great fun to try to solve when a 3D CAD user moves an element "only" 500 feet away (temporarily, so s/he can re-use it later, and then forgets it) in the X-Y plane, but it goes 6 billion kilometres away in the Z dimension, making the graphic environment slightly larger than the solar system.
What usually happens then is that the wildly out-of-proportion 3D model is appended into visualization software (along with hundreds of others) and it's near impossible to figure out why the designed facility is so hard to find in the blackness of space.
Re: (Score:2)
Oohh I wish I had mod points for you! (And I'm so glad I'm alone in my office just now.)
Thanks mate, I can always need a good laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
It happens with 2d CAD as well. People leaving dots and bits of crap out in the middle of space mean that you may have to print a couple of hundred drawings and can't just say plot extents. At least the vendors fixed the issue where the center of very shallow arcs caused the same problem.
I've seen most of the evil people can do to CAD designs. I once threatened to replace a guy's machine with crayons, but was told he'd think he was a design checker and cause even more damage.
I want 2d metroid back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want 2d metroid back (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I hate about the transition from 2D to 3D is, especially in 3-rd person games, how controlling the camera becomes as important as controlling the character.
Look at how many Playstation games have one stick for controlling the character and the other stick for controlling the camera, which just isn't an issue with a 2D game.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that. But it's mainly a question of bad design/ignorance.
The (necessarily 3rd person) 2D levels have always been specifically designed for easy viewing from a 'static camera'. Otherwise you would hardly ever see your character. Somehow people manage to forget this aspect of level design when they move to third-person 3D.
Unless you have some amazingly awesome automatic camera controls, or are willing to spend on levels that are well-designed for well-placed static 3D cameras, you better stick to th
Re: (Score:2)
So? You can control your head and feet independently, what's wrong with implementing that in a game?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at how many Playstation games have one stick for controlling the character and the other stick for controlling the camera, which just isn't an issue with a 2D game.
I'm not replying to dispute your point, but your comment here reminded me of something that's semi-on-topic, here. 2D scrolling games did have a camera, and that camera did cause problems. We never really percieved it as a camera because a.) it was 2D and the metaphor didn't really make sense until it we saw it in 3D and b.) the problems were far less prevalent in 2D than they were in 3D. Still, though, they were there, and we noticed them. Remember when Super Mario 2 came out and everybody oo'd and aa'
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on Metroid, but at least they're still making 2D Metroid games. I want more 2D Mario, 3D Mario was a fscking travesty (I know they made New Super Mario Bros, but that's one game in the past 18 years. Hardly adequate.).
I don't agree that Zelda was better in 2D, though. I enjoy Zelda in 3D much more than I did in 2D.
Re:I want 2d metroid back (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree and disagree. In the case of both series, my favorite games are 3D, but the 2D games really had their merrit, ESPECIALLY metroid. Metroid Prime is probably my favorite game in the series, however, it's the only 3D Metroid that I thought was anywhere close to being as good as Super Metroid or Zero Mission. The other 3 3D metroids (if you want to even count Hunters) were pretty terrible (well... Prime 3 had it's moments).
Zelda, I have to completely disagree. I think the nature of that series really made it shine in 3D. Since it's a more epic, cinematic adventure game, with less attention on action, and more on problem solving... adding a third dimension really opened up a lot of new possibilities in their puzzle creation and navigation... not to mention expanding the epic/cinematic feel. Twilight Princess, Majora's Mask, and OoT far surpassed their 2D counterparts, and I think the team really learned a lot about good storytelling as the series progressed (especially Twilight Princess), while Link to the Past and Minish Cap have their charm, I've been forever greatful for the mainstays of the series going 3D. The exceptions were Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass, which I thought took the series in an unbelievably boring direction.
All-in-all I think that Nintendo has been the best company to make the transition from 2D to 3D. I really trust their judgement in the matter. Metroid is Retro, who as creative as they are, do not have the 3 decades of experience behind them in game production, and sometimes end up tripping over themselves. However, Mario Galaxy, and the Zelda series really proves to me that they really know how to make the jump from 2 to 3 dimensions while a) keeping the games as easy to control as in 2D, and b) knowing what to change and what to keep when making the transition.
That's the thing. Some companies throw everything they've done previously in the series away, and basically create a new series with the same characters. This means that the series suffers, once again, from the same basic learning curve as any new series. Other companies try to keep everything EXACTLY the same... and in the process make a game that is completely out of its own dimension. The wise game designers are able to pick and choose elements that work well in the transition, and throw out the old.
RPGs don't count, however... pretty much every RPG can be done well in 3D, since the lack of timed action means that precise control is not an issue. Not that every first in an RPG series to go 3D is great (I'm not a huge fan of FF7 when compared to the games on either side of it, for instance), but there's no reason why 3D should hinder that genre. That pretty much goes for adventure too, with some exceptions.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think Zelda was very cinematic before it turned 3d, it was less linear and more about exploration.
Phantom Hourglass was way better than the 3d Zeldas though too damn easy. Then again, all somewhat recent Zeldas are too damn easy since the damage you take doesn't grow much while your HP and the healing items you carry increase a lot and in any Zelda after the first two there are tons of breakable things to get hearts from instead of having to beat up enemies to get health back.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tomba? (Score:2)
3 words (Score:2)
Mega Man 9
Worms (Score:5, Insightful)
The Worms series suffered greatly from 3D. The extra degrees of freedom made craters and other hazards much less of an obstacle (side-stepped!) - and stray ordnance was much less likely to hit anything hilarious.
I've been playing around with Entanglar [dunnchurchill.com] lately - which is a 2D physics / multiplayer library. Hopefully I'll be rich off the next Geometry Wars, and I will donate my considerable riches to the person who can troll twitter in the funniest way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, 'geometry wars' is some of the most fun i've had on my NDS.
its also a perfect example of 'game-play first' kind of game design. the particle effects make the visuals interesting enough to hold their own against today's FPS, but its still button mashing greatness.
zelda: phantom hourglass (also for the NDS) is, in my opinion, another example of 3D done well in a game. it is a 3D game, but its overhead view is almost 2D.
i'm sick of playing games that look fantastic, then get horribly boring after 15
Re: (Score:2)
"i'm sick of playing games that look fantastic, then get horribly boring after 15 minutes of game play."
So sex is out for you, huh?
what? sex that lasts MORE than 15 minutes?
I'm posting on slashdot from my parent's basement.
if i were anywhere close to a woman, i'd likely be finished well before ubuntu had even finished loading on my system.
(i would have said 'vista', but that's more than enough time to do it twice)
Re:Worms (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
good in some games, bad in others (Score:5, Insightful)
The advantage of 3D graphics, even without zooming the camera, is that it means you've gone away from the limits of the sprite sets. Consider how silly top-down flying games like Star Control looked when the ships could only point in eight directions. You fire your gun and the shot passes to the right of the target, turn one click, now it passes to the left. Ridiculous. IF this ship were rendered, you would have a true 360 degrees of rotation without creating an intolerable number of bitmaps.
Like anything in games, you can use too much and too little of the right tools. Dawn of War was pretty neat to look at but most of the capabilities of the engine were wasted. Yes, it's very cool to do in-engine cut scenes and yes, it's cool to be able to zoom right in and look a unit in the eyes but there's simply no time to do that when playing a frantic battle. There's not even a playback feature so you can see the results of your handiwork from the ground. No, you zoom in like that and you lose the ability to play properly. In the end it is a cool yet useless feature.
The thing that developers have kind of forgotten from time to time is that some play mechanics work in 3D, others don't. Others disagree with this but I never thought Sonic worked in a 3D format, it was always meant to be 2D. You can use 3D to render it but the camera should remain fixed and it should be a side-scroller. Was never a Mario fan so I don't know how they feel about the classic versions versus the 3D ones but I would imagine that they feel like entirely different games. Of course, we know why this happened in the PSX/N64 era. 3D graphics were the new thing and management pushed the mandate that everything should be 3D, period, just like Ted Turner colorizing old classics.
I like that they brought up Advanced Wars. The beauty of that game is that it looks great on the small screen and does it using techniques familiar to us from the SNES days, just with higher bit depths. But the core gameplay is there, the graphics look great, and the game accomplishes exactly what it set out to do and looks good doing it. I can just imagine some designer coming into the sequel and getting all gaga over making it 3D. Nope, it ain't a 3D game, never was and never should be. There's many good 3D combat games that could be made but they wouldn't be Advanced Wars. If that's the game you want to make, go make it and leave AV alone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's nothing wrong in using 3D where 2D usually goes. The problem appears when you try to use the mechanics wrongly, as you note.
Take star control. Render said ships in 3D, but keep the view mechanics the same... problem solved! And the game looks better now too!
Re: (Score:2)
One however has to be careful with that. In games like Contra or similar games using 3D models instead of sprites can make the collision detection pretty unpredictable and using 3D backdrops in combination with 2D gameplay can often feel very restrictive and unnatural, something that you don't get with classic 2D sprites. Of course much of that trouble can be avoided when handled with care, but I have seen quite a few 2D games with 3D sprites that I would have preferred with 2D sprites instead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would imagine that they feel like entirely different games.
That much isn't always bad. Not a great example, but Duke Nukem 1 and 2 were kind of "meh" for me -- could never really get into them. Duke 3D was a whole different story, and if Duke Nukem Forever does come out, I'll play it.
And for some things, like Zelda, it really feels like an evolutionary change -- like yes, this is the same game, but that's the natural direction for them to take it. Ocarina of Time is still one of my all-time favorites.
I don't disagree about some play mechanics, but it is somewhat a
Re: (Score:2)
The things you
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have to disagree with you.
I'm a VFX artist so I use a lot of 3D to solve problems. And I also use a LOT of 2D to solve problems.
First. You can have one sprite rotate an infinite number of degrees without ever entering the third dimension. If it's an isometric top down view. Just rotate the sprite. There. Done. A "Sprite for each direction" has been outdated for decades. Next you're going to be saying we need a unique sprite for every screen position. ;) I kid I kid.
Secondly. I think that we're ex
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a VFX artist
Good, I need your help. I'm a coder, not an artist.
I've been recently (last year or so) playing around with various game programming, so maybe you can help me with one of the problems I'm encountering with sprites.
I have a game framework that allows for character movement in any one of the 8 cardinal directions. I would like the appearance to match the direction.
Outside of of having 8 different views of the sprite pre-rendered, how could you make use of sprite rotations to do the same? A character facing
Re: (Score:2)
> The advantage of 3D graphics, even without zooming the camera, is that it means you've gone away from the limits of the sprite sets. Consider how silly top-down flying games like Star Control looked when the ships could only point in eight directions. (...) IF this ship were rendered, you would have a true 360 degrees of rotation without creating an intolerable number of bitmaps.
Actually, 3-D gives you 4*pi steradians of rotation.
As someone previously mentioned, it is possible to "render" in 2-D as wel
Re: (Score:2)
Dawn of War did have a play back feature, but I don't know of anyone who bothered watching the game over again.
There was a planned instant replay window in the Winter expansion for sync kills but nothing ever came of it. Hopeful DoW2 will handle it better.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect, South Park is for most part 2D vector graphics [spscriptorium.com].
Little Big Planet (Score:2)
LBP is an interesting modern example of mashing 2D and 3D together. It's essentially a 2D platforming game implemented in a 3D environment with 3 2D planes which your character can move between.
The creators chose this design because they thought it was more enjoyable to play. A full 3D world was too complex, and detracted from the simple fun they were aiming at.
Having played the game, I think they made a good decision. It's got the simplicity of a 2D platformer, but the extra depth provided by the multil
Case in point: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lemmings 3D
It depends on the developer. (Score:2)
I think the transition doesn't work because most of the time either the developer is trying to milk the popularity of an old game or they're trying to reproduce the gameplay of the original without properly taking into account the 3d medium. The former, of course, is almost always the case.
But there certainly have been exceptions. I think the Metroid Prime series is one. It might not have the charm of the 2D version, but it certainly is great in its own right.
I think the games that make the transition well
Often a waste of time and money (Score:2)
Well, 3D games require a heck of a lot more work, thus making the development more expensive.
For some reason, managers consider 3D to be the Latest And Greatest - why? Some games certainly require 3D (flight simulators come to mind, and I'm sure STALKER looks better in 3D than 2D), but on many others it's simply completely wasted. An commenter mentioned the great (2D) game 'Worms' - lovely and very funny in 2D, boring in 3D.
Many games (strategy) are simply easier to view, judge and control using 2D. And, in
Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Warcraft 3 (Score:3, Interesting)
I found Warcraft 2 (2D) a bit easier to play than Starcraft (isometric), but Starcraft looked a lot better. I didn't like the Warcraft 3 at all. Not only it looked worse than Starcraft because of jagged 3D graphics, but you also got to control the camera. And you know, I do want to control the strategic aspect of the game, not to fumble with the camera during the battle. It's just stupid micromanagement.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In all fairness, you can pretty easily ignore the camera component of War3 and get along just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
3D can nearly always be better. (Score:2)
I can think of few scenarios where 3D isn't going to be better but the issue is a lot of 3D games simply have bad implementations.
Whilst some games are far better in 3D as the summary suggests- FPS, RTS again as the summary mentions, some not so. For me platformers spring to mind here, a lot of platformers that went 3D absolutely suck- Sonic the hedgehog in 3D was never any good imo for example. There are however some that work well, there are those that went third person succesfully such as Mario 64 and fr
I for one (Score:2)
Would love to see more 2d games. I think it says something that the 2d art on the box of games often looks better than the 3d gameplay art.
For me the golden age of gaming ended when the playstation, with it's fairly crappy 3d art (remember cloud strife and his yellow triangle head?) replaced the SNES, which had pretty nice art considering the limited resolution and color palette.
Since then gaming has become a technological race, with not enough attention payed to gameplay and art, and too much payed to pixe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>Age of Empires and Age of Empires II is a great example of this. A great game that goes down the crapper in later versions trying to "go 3D."
You mean Age of Empires III, right? I and II were 2D.
And, yeah, I totally agree. Moving to 3D made the game worse.
Along the same lines, I'd say that Super Mario 3 was better than the Super Mario for the N64, but game companies always have to have the latest buzzwords or they think people won't buy it (and they may be right -- I bought Force Unleashed for the PS
Re: (Score:3)
While the main reason people do 3D instead of 2D sprite games these days is that 1) 3D scales (you don't have to have individual artwork for each resolution level)
You could do this way more easily with Vector Graphics
and 2) You don't have to animate each frame individually, you can do "2D" games that are actually 3D, but presented in such a way that the player doesn't need to worry about depth.
Again, Vector Graphics
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which also covers brand-new perspectives.
Consider a 2D game, say an RPG -- so you add all sorts of animations. Emotions, attacks, etc...
And you add different customization options. Clothing, various weapons and armor...
Now, what do you do when you add horses to that mix? Sure, vector is going to help a bit, but you're still probably going to be drawing fundamentally different pictures, at least for the pants (and maybe the weaponry), otherwise it's going to look stupid.
The question is whether this is going
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also like to submit fighting games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. If they want to do something about shitty graphics, they should have gone vector based or something but this 3D crap is... well, crap.
Then again, there is a distinction to be made. After all, Soul Calibur (and we don't talk about IV. It never happened and if it did, it was a spectacular pile of fail) can hardly be compared to Street Fighter. Mortal Kombat should never have tried to go 3D. It's a different sub-genre altogether.
Re:Age of Empires a great example (Score:4, Insightful)
Along the same lines, I'd say that Super Mario 3 was better than the Super Mario for the N64,
I disagree. Not because Mario64 is better, but because *both* are damn good. The thing to realize is simply that 2D isn't 3D and visa verse. You can't really do 3D gameplay in 2D and neiher can you do 2D gameplay in 3D (well, you can, but it will most often feel ugly and restrictive). None of them is better then the other, they are simply very different forms of gameplay, with 2D being much better for clearer graphics and straight forward gameplay, while 3D is better for more complicated exploration orientated stuff.
The annoying thing is that almost all developers see 3D a a 'must have', so you see close to zero 2D games on the big consoles, the DS still gets some, but even there 2D is slowly dieing out for no good reasons, on the PSP its already as good as dead. I just wish that there was more stuff like Braid or Wario Land: Shake It!.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do you mean? Being in 3d doesn't change the game mechanics any. It's still a top down RTS. If you never touch the camera, it might as well still be the same old isometric game it always was.