Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Classic Games (Games)

Why Haven't 3D Graphics Surpassed 2D Game Art? 109

Posted by simoniker from the or-not dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' article discussing the longtime game player's "soft spot" for 2D games, and why, in the author's view, "3D polygonal graphics still haven't entirely surpassed 2D game art." He explains: "In a way... I think the cinematic power of gaming almost took a step back with the transition from 2D to 3D. 2D game characters are displayed precisely how the artist chooses to display them to you. There is no extraneous frame of animation to be found. 3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control, so you may rotate them and view them from whichever unflattering angle you like." It's also argued: "2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do... [and] I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Haven't 3D Graphics Surpassed 2D Game Art? More

Why Haven't 3D Graphics Surpassed 2D Game Art?

Comments Filter:

  • Difficulty of 3D Games (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aggrazel ( 13616 ) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Monday July 26, 2004 @07:51AM (#9799952) Journal
    Here's something else I've noticed, with rare exception, 3D games to me seem easier than their 2D counterparts.

    Maybe its me, but games like Metroid Prime aren't nearly as difficult as the original Metroid. It just seems to me that 2d games are easier to balance and whatnot, easier to see where the player is going to be and to "force" people into using a certain strategy.

    As far as art, well, thats subjective. Creating an immersive 3d world is much more challenging than creating a painting. Screenshots don't often do games justice, you have to experience them, see how they move, in order to appreciate the art and work that went into them.
    • I would argue that the fact that 2d games can force you into using a certain strategy is a bug, not a feature. Assuming that you're right about this, I would say that the freedom afforded by 3d is a good thing. It empowers the player and lets them be creative.

      I would guess that the real reasons that you find 3d games easier for you than 2d games are:

      1) If you had played a lot of 2d games before getting to 3d games then you are probably a pretty experienced gamer. When you were just getting started you wer
      • Freedom isn't always the goal in games. Not every game tries to give the player a choice, most games are so strictly linear that any bit of freedom is caused by bugs, even (or especally) in the 3d age.

    • Re:Difficulty of 3D Games (Score:4, Insightful)

      by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:48AM (#9800332) Homepage Journal
      The concept of the 'pixel perfect jump' disappears to a great extent in the 3D space. Sonic, Mario etc... in 2D could be a brilliant balance of flat out random jumping and running with slower, reactive pixel perfect leaps.

      The visuals for these could be hugely tightly controlled, as the developers knew exactly where the gamer would spend most time, and need the most accurate visual queues. The big snail slowly wandering left to right could be jumped in one if you stood on THAT pixel and jumped when the snail was just about to turn... THERE!

      In 3D you have wandering camera angles, zoom factors, cards giving differing qualities of representation. Everything is NOT precicely as the developer intended.

      To enjoy computer games is to enjoy precision. If you cant represent a world precisely enough youd better make success a bit easier to avoid pissing people off. Your Metroid example is spot on. The visuals are far from whooly, but they lack the crispness of the original.

      As for collossion detection! Theres a corner in TOCA Race Driver 2 where I keep catching the barrier - even though I can see clear air between my car and the barrier as I hit it! BASTARD thing! They better fix that in the next patch!
    • I think there's been a slow move towards games becoming a sort of narrative that is designed to be completed. Compare to old arcade games like Pac Man that didn't even have an ending designed into them.

      Tim

    • Re:Difficulty of 3D Games (Score:4, Informative)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:24AM (#9801815)
      In a 2d game there's less space. If there's a monster in front of you, it blocks the entire path and you'd have to jump over it. In a 3d game there'd also be the option of running around the monster. To prevent that the monster could be made larger and the path narrower, but that would be problematic. How would you make a goomba in a 3d Mario game block a path? You'd have to make a very narrow path that's easy to fall off.
      Since it's easier to see what's going on in a 2d game since there's nothing obstructing the view you could also demand higher precision. One-hit-kill 3d games are pretty rare and 3d platformers often suffer because judging distances and such isn't easy in 3d.

      Besides, the original Metroid was damn hard/frustrating even compared to Super Metroid.
      • This is very true. As the Half-Life speed run and many other 3D games show us, it's very difficult to obstruct the player's path in 3D, especially if the game aims to have realistic environments. Enemies usually have to move in order to attack, and you can only lock so many doors. ;)

  • It's the level of abstraction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:04AM (#9800024)
    kind of like the difference between animation and live action movies/television. There are certain things you can do in animation by not making the characters concrete. A live action family guy would probably be disturbing, much as the live-action tick is. The charm in those shows was that you were dealing with somewhat abstract beings. The same thing goes for games, for certain games, I just want an abstraction of what is going on, ie 2d, I don't want something that is nitty gritty realism. For others(doom 3!) that works out really well. I think it largely depends on the game itself and what the authors are going for.
    • Yeah, but you can have 3D 'abstract beings' much more easily than 3D photo-realistic beings. See: Zelda Windwaker.

      And you can certainly have photo-realistic 2D graphics.

      So I don't think your distinction is particularly valid, insofar as the photorealism/abstraction continuum is independent of 2D/3D.

  • quite full of bull (Score:4, Informative)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:07AM (#9800051) Homepage Journal
    you can use 3d badly, yes.
    you can use 2d very badly too.

    both can be used well too.

    personally do you want to go back into having 2d graphics on a 3d game? candelabras that look the same to every direction kinda suck.
    • I wouldn't say the author is trying to say that. I think the point is more that the art is lacking. The candelabra doesn't have to look the same in every direction, but it doesn't have to look drab, either.

      Although, I think 2D in a 3D game is great as cel-shading in proper instances. Wind Waker was appropriate because of the cartooniness they added to Link. I couldn't stop laughing when he was launched out of the canon into the wall of one of the first fortresses. Tales of Symphonia, eagerly awaiting to be

      • I wouldn't discount the parent too much though. He has a point. Take Warcraft 3, for instance. It's 3D, but the level of detail is quite good, and the artwork rivals that of any 2D game in my opinion. This shouldn't be surprising, though as Blizzard is known for putting a lot of effort into their games.

        Now contrast that with something like SOE's Plantside. The environments feel very empty and "unlived". The same textures are used everywhere. So once you've fought inside one base, you've virtually f

      • but if it looks different to different directions it is '3d'.

        if the author wanted to make a point that 'graphics were better looking when i was young' it would have even less insight(and be ~5 years late and choose to ignore the fact that there were dozens of games with shitty graphics before 3d was possible). come to think of it he seems to be making the claim that for example wing commanders were better looking when they used pre-rendered graphics - they weren't, the first few of the series were better g
    • you can use 2d very badly too.

      Preach it! I can't count the number of times I've had to make a blind leap of faith in a bad 2D platformer.
    • candelabras that look the same to every direction kinda suck.

      then you must hate real world candelabras as well, arent they symmetrical anyway? :)

      if they arent, then ignore me. im just a gaming nerd, ie an uncultured swine. all i care about with candelabras is if they have a cool glass smashing effect when i shoot them :)

  • 3d vs 2d (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There's some truth to the statement that graphics took a step backwards with the transition from 2d to 3d. The best example of this comes from the Monkey Island games. Curse of Monkey Island looked superb... graphically it was pretty much on a par with any cartoon you'd see on TV. Escape from Monkey Island looked awful, like a 3rd rate fps from a budget development studio.

    However, I think 3d has come on a long way, particularly over the last year or so. Farcry and UT2k4 are stunning to look at and I'm sure

    • Re:3d vs 2d (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ureshii_akuma ( 745410 )

      My particular dislike is this nasty half-and-half measure we've been seeing more of recetly, with cell-shaded games. I'm thinking of Zelda: Wind Walker, Mario Kart 64, Auto Modellista etc. The screenshots on the box look great, but I find that the games look pretty hideous most of the time while you're playing, except from a few select angles.

      And here we get to the subjectiveness of what art is "better." See, I would use a game like Wind Waker as an example of how 3D is getting better, and capturing a lo

  • Something that is overly dynamic (such as an FPS, RPGs, etc), it's not easy to represent an enviroment with static 2D images, whereas other game genres that don't require dynamic graphics like visual novels/hgames where things are always some sorta restrictions to the storyline, I have to agree that (good) 2D images far surpass 3D.

    Having tried both forms of H-Games (IPVR and
    That said, it's possible to combine both 2D and 3D together. In a not-so-recent example, Ragnarok Online [ragnarokonline.com] combines 2D sprites with
    • There's a number of excellent strategy RPGs that do the same thing, as far as combining 2D sprites with 3D environments-- including Final Fantasy Tactics, La Pucelle, and Disgaea. Because the characters are typically small and superdeformed, perhaps something would be lost by making them 3D...
      • The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life and Grandia II are games with polygonal SD characters that I could think of off the top of my head. I think the SRPGs using sprites is either caused by the developer not embracing polygons yet or simply the unfeasability of using polygonal characters in these numbers (FFT with polygonal characters might be feasible on the current generation of consoles, but not on the PS1). Though I'm not sure, does the Fi

      • Re:Depends on what it is (Score:2, Informative)

        by BexGu ( 677212 )
        You can have it another way around, i.e. having 3D environments and characters but you view everything in a 2D plane. The best, and I think really the one true example of this is Viewful Joe for the gamecube. Using this system allows you have the best of both worlds: 3D environments that allows for a lot of creativity/expression, and has the precision and control of 2D gaming.

        Another example of 3D environment with 2D play style that I think really works is the battle system in Tales of Symphonia. Everythi

  • I prefer 2D games. I can't be alone! Take out the cinematics, and graphically talking, I almost prefer FF6 to FF7. Ok, maybe not quite, because FF6's graphics are quite outdated, but still... Let's say that I prefer "Tales of destiny" (PS1 2D RPG) graphics.

    I played both UO and SWG (Koster follower). I know that a lot of people say that UO's graphics are awful (I'm talking about the 2D version here, not the 3D), but I still prefer them to SWG's graphics.

    And here come the hypothetical examples. 3D Starcraft
    • And here come the hypothetical examples. 3D Starcraft? Please don't! The graphics are cute enough as they are. 3D Civ? Would be awful!

      As for a not-hypothetical example, how about Age Of Empires and Age Of Mythology? The graphics in AoM are much better, and give a whole bunch more flexibility and animation the AoE just doesn't have.

      I'm all for a 3D version of Starcraft and Civ (Although I can't see any real benefit for the latter.)

  • It's a matter of time. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by riverLINE ( 797677 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:39AM (#9800272) Homepage
    Two dimensional pictures have been the mainstream since there were cave paintings. Sure, there has been sculpture too, but never in the sheer volume of traditional two dimensional art. It's no wonder the quality of three dimensional art in video games isn't at the level we would like it to be.
    • Sure, there has been sculpture too, but never in the sheer volume of traditional two dimensional art.

      To start with, full disclosure, IIAS (i am a sculptor).

      Uh, I call bullshit. The earliest examples of art we have are not cave paintings, but small carved figures. Lots of them. There is no way on god's green earth you can make a blanket-statement like "2D is more common than 3D". Show me an ethnographic study of the world's cultures (historical, too) that proves that paintings or drawings are more common

      • Y'all have very selective memories and are the modern equivalent of those people in the 80s who refused to acknowledge that video games were better than pinball games.

        Video games aren't better than pinball games.

        Video games are different than pinball games, and you've unwittingly proven the point of all the people who like 2D games better than 3D games. (My favorite pinballs? Addam's Family and Haunted House, most of the time those get my quarters when they have them in an arcade.)

  • 2D Games and Art (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zorilla ( 791636 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:42AM (#9800289)
    The comparison between 2D classic graphics and modern 3D graphics could be seen as synonymous with the change to impressionistic art after photography came around.

    ...which is one of the reasons Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is still one of my favorite games. When all the 32-bit consoles were trying to get the most cutting-edge picture possible, games like SOTN were taking the artistic/gameplay route. Without worrying about things like model animation, the developers were free to work on other aspects, such as the soundtrack, physics, color balance, etc.

  • Two things 3D games need (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frenchgates ( 531731 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:49AM (#9800345)
    1. The biggest technical problem with 3D games is that they all have a quiality of origamai. The objects mostly look like they are made of 2D paper folded and joined edge to edge clumsily. How many times have you noticed the seams between facets? 2. Too much striving for realism. As people have pointed out, detailed attempts at human-like faces seem like corpses. Blizzard is going in a better direction with the less realistic but more fun graphics in World of Warcraft. For more info about why comic book style graphics tend to be more compelling read Understanding Comics.
    • Striving for realism is the key. You can't complain when a 2D picture looks realistic. It isn't trying to, and the game immerses you through other means. When a game gets more realistic, it starts to use those flashier graphics as immersion tools. Then every graphical imperfection can actually lead to less enjoyment of gameplay.

      You can do remarkable strange things in 2D that would just look stupid in 3D. I can't really think of any stand-out examples right now, but I'm sure you all understand what I mean.

  • Biggest problem with 3D games: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Demon-Xanth ( 100910 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:54AM (#9800387)
    The F'ing CAMERA! Do you know how hard it is to land on a platform that you can't see because the camera decided to get a nice face shot? Or having to fire at a boss that's only visible if you stop and point right at him as if admiting defeat?

    Graphics wise, 3D games are coming back around. During the PS1 era, 3D games were generally visual crap. We went right back to "that blurry squiggly dot is a save point". Don't believe me? Try playing Twisted Metal. I never could figure out what was going on in multiplayer.

    The thing that developers (including you Sony) need to realize is that you don't NEED 3D to make a good game. There's no reason to make Guilty Gear, Metal Slug, or Street Fighter into 3D. They're excellent as 2D. Besides, does milk coming out of your nose when you get stabbed in the chest look as amusing when done in 3D?

    • Perhaps the best argument made so far, although this usually applies more to 3rd person than 1st person styles.

      A good example would be Sonic Adventure. All Sonic games are classic jump & run format. With a third person camera angle, precision jumping becomes extremely difficult! In this particular game, the problems are made worse by how the controls are handled: You press "up" to run forward, then the camera sweeps around dramatically and you veer off course because "up" now means something else. It t

  • Ease of Play? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:55AM (#9800392) Homepage Journal
    I think a large factor in the continuing popularity of side scroller-type or top-down games is that they're usually a lot simpler to play than 3D (not to mention less resource-intensive.)

    Case in point: I can fire up MAME and Ghosts & Ghouls on my laptop, goof around a bit, there are about 7 controls for me to "master" (back, forth, jump, duck, up, down, fire) and my machine never grinds to halt because I don't have the latest super-duper 3D drivers installed.

    This sort of goes into the whole difference between "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer"--it is the same reason I enjoy Angband on the train, before a meeting, before going to sleep, whatever--the controls are more difficult and involved, but I can quickly start it up, futz around a bit, and close it when I don't feel like getting too mentally involved.

    Whereas, when I start up Call of Duty or something similar, I sit down with a coke and my headphones for a few hours and really get into it, as I would with a movie. I wouldn't be able to sleep or concentrate on work after 5 minutes (good luck anyway keeping it that short) of playing the car chase missions in CoD.
  • People wonder why folks still play Atari, old NES games, MAME with ROMS from back in the day. That's because games back then had quality game play. I'd bet if you sat a 10-12 year old down with one of those plug-n-play "retro" games they would have a blast.
    • I believe GamePro tried it and the kids hated it. But what do they know? That's why they're still kids, because they're stupid!

      Then again, they did make them play ET, Pong, and Pitfall, games before the video game crash and Nintendo's uprising.
    • I'd bet if you sat a 10-12 year old down with one of those plug-n-play "retro" games they would have a blast.
      I'll take you up on that. Find and run a copy of the game "Bazooka Bill", released on the C64.

      This game alone is proof that just because it's old does not mean it's good. Not only that, but it also disproves the (inverse) correlation between graphics and quality.
      • Wow! You've just proven conclusively that all old games are bad!

        Or maybe not... Yes, there was an unholy load of crap out there on the old 8-bit systems. There were also some true gems - I'd guess in about the same ratio as we see today.

        What's bad here is that some entire game genres have disappeared from the face of the earth: 2D platform, 2D shooter, etc. Badly balanced, usually painfully ugly amateur efforts are appreciated, but it just isn't the same...

    • Sure grandpa, now have another pill...

      Seriously guys, its statements like this that make "retro" look like a fad for future retirement home troublemakers, is just as stupid to label all 3d games as pieces of art as it is to label all 2d games as unsurpassed quality gameplay.
      I've played raiders of the ark lost and ET and believe me I had have more fun running monitor video tests than those two. Actually I think ET had a note in the manual that read: "if the ET image appears after inserting the cartridge
    • I think I have to extent my reply a bit so...
      (Continued from previous post...)
      I think each one has its share, there are a number of great 2d games (arkanoid, pacman, digdug, super mario, street fighter etc) and theres also a good lot of 3d games (doom, mario64, zelda, half life, tribes 2, silent hill, etc) each needed the features of its genere to succeed.
      No medium is better than the other, is like cartoons and movies, they didnt destroyed or occluded each other, they evolved, sometimes even borrowing

  • "2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do..."

    I haven't really noticed this; in some cases games use a larger transparent brush instead of the actual model, because otherwise games like FPS would become too difficult. I've never noticed a problem in any reasonable recent driving game, and in other circumstances it just doesn't apply. If I look at something like Tony Hawk's 3-onwards on the PS2, I see a wonderful example of some of the

    • Re:I'd have to disagree about collision detection (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's not so much a problem for moving-around collisions any more. Sometimes you run into situations where you can't fit through something you should be able to, because it's got diagonal edges (like a crack in a wall) and your player collision model doesn't (it's square). And very occasionally the reverse will happen. In FPSes especially, game designers "cheat" and make crouching bounding boxes smaller, even smaller than the player's visible model, so they can avoid being trapped on the scenery. This is
    • One of the reasons 2D games have accurate collision detection is that most of 'em make a two color bitmap (booleans, sometimes called black and white where white is a hit and black is not) of collision-able areas called a mask and does a simple bitwise AND check if the attack contacts the mask. If programmed right, this is actually faster and more accurate than bounding cubes (because the exact shape is taken into account), but takes up more memory by a factor of 1/depth (1/8 for 8 bit color, for instance)
    • There were plenty of 2d games with lousy collision detection. For instance there are many games in which the entire sprite area is matched for collision detection, but the graphic does not fill up the entire sprite area.

  • I'm a bit resentful of the 3-D platform. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @09:14AM (#9800528)
    I was a huge fan of the 2-D platform games. While I do think that there were planty of bad 2-D platformers, but I really think that they had a much larger percentage of good games than most genres. When the 3-D platform games came out, it's like all game companies just abandoned the 2-D platform. The gaming companies saw 3-D platforms as an upgrade instead of seeing 3-D platforms for what they are, a different gaming style. Soon Mario, Zelda, and Sonic all left the 2-D arena (except for a couple of subpar 2-D games like Yoshi's Island and some Sonic compilations of older games). Then everyone else followed. 3-D platform games should never have been seen as a REPLACEMENT for 2-D platform games, and that makes me resent most 2-D to 3-D conversions somewhat (ESPECIALLY the 3-D bastardization of Bomberman on N64). That doesn't mean that there aren't 3-D platform games that I like (ex. Sonic Adventure series). It just means that I've got this unintentional bias towards the 3-D platform games that I can't always seem to get past.

    • You need a GBA. (Score:4, Informative)

      by raygundan ( 16760 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:15AM (#9801080) Homepage
      You need a GBA, if you don't already have one. (and I suspect you do, if you're that addicted to the 2D platformers) It's the last vestige of 2D gaming, and more than a few of the games are truly great. If you don't like playing on a tiny screen, get a cheap-o used gamecube (I think they're like $70) and a gameboy player, which plugs into the bottom of it. Then you can enjoy a steady stream of new 2D content, at least until the "scourge of 3D" moves into handheld territory in the next generation. Which, of course, will push you into cell-phone gaming-- but that's still at least a year or two away.
      • Either that or just download a GBA emulator and loads of ROMs from BT/ed2k and play them on your PC.

        I too love the old-style 2d games that put a heavy emphasis on gameplay, but £30-40 a game is a bit much IMO.
        • Man, 30 *pounds* per game? Ouch. The whole "same price, different currency" thing that goes on in England is criminal. The expensive ones run $35 here.

          Of course, it's hard to beat "free," but remember-- if you don't buy the games you like, they will quit making the games you like. Remember that the GBA has no region-lock, and try buying grey-market from somewhere where the pricing is less awful.
          • Yeah, it's a bitch.

            I have bought a few grey market games (though mainly ones that weren't released over here like Tactics Ogre). The very favourable £1 to $1.75 exchange rate makes that very enticing, (what's with your economy?!?) but often not as enticing as downloading them.

            If it's a game I do particularly like I will buy it anyway so that I can play it on the train, play multiplayer, etc. Then it's well worth it.

            Incidently, you never seem to see very cheap GBA games over here. You often get b
            • If it helps, continental Europeans, Australians, Canadians and Japanese seem to pay pretty much the same. Okay, a bit less, but still, the equivalent of 50 USD. Home console games go for 70 USD outside of the US. The prices are pretty consistent in most territories, I think the UK and US have different prices because their currencies changed a lot after the prices were set and customers expected games to be priced X amount of currency.
      • I've looked at the GBA, but I don't own one. It does look like there are some nice 2D platformers on it, but it just doesn't interest me like it would have five or six years ago when I was actively searching for 2D platform games.
  • Well Duh! .. of course taking into account only 2 dimensional collision detection is easier than doing it for something thats 3 dimensional. You've got 1 full exponential value more of coordinants to worry about.
  • I find that the only perspective that works well in a true 3D world is first person. Anything else and controlling your character is quirky. Semi 3D games like tekken are ok, since no one side steps that much. I have a harder time in 3D games trying to control the character and camera than actually playing the games.
    • When you get into the world or racing games, third person rules nearly absolute. Why? Because you have no peripheral vision in first person. You can't rotate your head to look to the inside.

      If there's any genre that's benefited from 3D the most, it has to be racing games. Collision detection has improved from where 2D games ever were, there's no sprite scaling issues, jumps are really jumps, and hills are really hills. And the cars look fantastic!
      • When you get into the world or racing games, third person rules nearly absolute. Why? Because you have no peripheral vision in first person. You can't rotate your head to look to the inside.

        In the world of flight sims (I play IL-2), the TrackIR [naturalpoint.com] is amazing. You move your head, the view moves. Very natural, and makes the first-person view the best. And SimBin's GTR [simbin.com] will support TrackIR.

      • I somehow have better results driving in first person. Since I use the camera orientation to determine my orientation, the delayed cameras used in many games cause me to turn too far and beelining until I find the correct orientation. In first person the camera=player equation works much better.
    • I find that the only perspective that works well in a true 3D world is first person.

      I disagree, strongly. I find 3rd person games work so much better, especially for platforms, not being able to see your feet really sucks for 1st person games.

      The only gripe (and it is a very valid one) for 3rd person is the camera. The problem is that too many games treat the camera like a real object. Meaning if you back up against a wall, the camera swings out to face you, which is retarded, it should either go th
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Facial expressions (Score:3, Informative)

      by Alkaiser ( 114022 )
      Look at Suikoden III. It does it fantastically. Instead of having super high poly count faces with textures that make them look like zombies, and eyes that stare off into space, all the people in the game have low poly count faces, and a 2D facial texture is mapped onto it, so they can quicky change the expressions on the face.

      It makes a huge difference. You can see characters looking at each other. NPCs look like they're actually engaged in conversation because they make eye contact with each other.
    • I 100% agree that non-verbal language took a Grand Canyon-sized fall when the transition was made.

      Look at Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VII. Sure, there were some huge technical leaps in the latter, but if you consider the facial expressions of VI, the physical reactions.. 3D games just don't tend to have it.

      The sad thing is that it isn't a technical issue. It is a matter of crafting. Often many studios do not take the time and money to craft the added emotion into the 3D animation that would bump
  • It's the old battle of graphics over gameplay my friends. 3D came about and everyone just assumed, 3D is better ergo 2D is crap. They abandoned a time honored format for buggy collision, low framrate and lets be honest jaddedy games.

    Early 3D looked terrible. Just think. Street Fighter II(any of them) or Tekken One. Which looked better. Crash Bandicoot or Super Mario World. FF6, FF7. OK FF7 looed better, but only because of its pre rendered backgrounds.

    Game companies figured that people would say, "2D graphics. That's lame!"
    And guess what. They DID!!
    The new wave of casual gamers snubs 2D like the plauge. They must have the latest and flashiest, regardless of the gameplay. Essentially games companies now sell the game's image. Not the game itself. Case in point. Need for Speed Underground. Ick. Lovely cars, but awful game.

    The sad thing is, this will continue forever. Just look at the movie industry. Only the flashiest survive, regardless of actual merit.
    • I wouldn't say Need for speed series is an awful game, the best NFS have been Porsche unleashed, Hot pursuit (For its time remember, these were voodoo1 days), HP2 for the PC/PS2 and NFSU.

      NFSU was more of the same yes, but the control was tight and the tracks were good and they did try to come up with new gameplay modes (drag, etc). Although I think Midnight club II is a game that is really pushing the gameplay department but it lacks atmosphere and different tracks (besides just going aroudn the same citi

  • Dumb questions, simple answers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:05AM (#9801622) Homepage Journal
    "2D game characters are displayed precisely how the artist chooses to display them to you."

    Yes, this is true. It was easier to fill up those pixels when you had low resolution images to fill. Kind of like how it's easier to fill up a lite brite than it is to make a full color painting that will stand close up scrutinizing.

    "There is no extraneous frame of animation to be found. "

    None of those extraneous weird things like rotating cameras to worry about, etc.

    "3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control, so you may rotate them and view them from whichever unflattering angle you like"

    I'm not sure if he's pointing out that there's only so many polygons you can put in something, or that something doesn't look 'cool' from every angle. If it's the latter, the answer falls neatly under 'duh'. It is VERY hard to design something that looks cool from just about any angle. A lot of times, you just can't reasonably do it. It's not like living in the wonderful very limited world of 2D where you nudge the proportions around until each frame looks decent.

    "It's also argued: "2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do..."

    Right... that would be because of the limitations of 2D, makes it MUCH simpler to detect what part of the sprite is touching what part of another sprite.

    My responses are a little half assed here, so I'll put it together in a nice little summary: 2D graphics make the world simple enough that these challenges are much easier to overcome. 3D graphics need a LOT more work to accomplish the points this person brought up. Why haven't they done it yet? For the simple reason that in some cases you need more talented artists working on it (more in this context means both quantity and higher level of talent. Not a bash against 2D, but a lot more has to be considered...) and you also need hardware capable of it. It's like comparing a comic book to a live action movie.

    "[and] I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do."

    This is plainly untrue. Play Mario 64 or Wind Waker, then find a 2D game that's just as expressive. I'll concede that 2D games in a lot of cases had more character, but this is strictly a 'talent of the team' sort of thing.

  • 2D or not 2D (Score:2, Funny)

    by Taulin ( 569009 )
    If there are breasts involved, it should be 3D

  • Why this article? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sigma 7 ( 266129 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:20AM (#9801781)
    I'm not sure what the author is talking about, and as a result, I'm not sure why this article was selected. For example:

    , I was reminded that 3D polygonal graphics still haven't entirely surpassed 2D game art.
    In this summary statement, the author himself states that he is comparing basic graphics to art. Nobody cares that bout this - what needs to be done is either a comparision between 2d graphics and 3D graphics, *OR* a comparison between 2D Art and 3D Art.

    My problem with 3D graphics in games--and it's always been my problem with 3D graphics in games--is that they're unedited. You can often view the action from any angle, and frames of animation are typically never skipped. In a way, then, I think the cinematic power of gaming almost took a step back with the transition from 2D to 3D.
    The only advantage of 2D movies is the fact that you can draw fancy art to as high as a detail as you want. 3D sequences, while not looking as fancy, do not require as much space as their 2D counterparts (by reusing models, textures and so on), and can be consistantly modified without having to redo many frames of work. Also, I am finding that modern games have cinametics comparable to how it should look like - it's a big jump from Dark Forces (an old Dos game that used simple cinamatics) or Jedi Ourcast (3D cinamatics don't look ultra-fancy, but get the job done.)

    Not only that, but there are ways to convert 3D-graphics into pre-rendered 2D movies without problem. From there, it's quite easy to do the "editing" that the author seems to want. Not that it matters, since I have very rarely seen an issue with 3D graphics in the games I've played. The closest thing would be those "classy" screenshots posted on PlantUnreal, and those could be pulled off in a 2D game with the same complexity.

    Besides, the author ignores the "rotating-corpse" issue that was visible in Doom where you could only see one side of the body after it was killed.

    I still think 2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do, on average. And having good collision detection is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of just about any game. Likewise, I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do.
    This is easily countered by using Wing Commander 1 compared to X-Wing. While X-Wing might not have looked fancy, you could easily tell when you were about commit suicide by ramming a Star Destroyer. In Wing Commander 1, the collision box was independant of the sprite, and you could thus accidently bump into a Ralari without knowing it (not only that, but the collision box was based around a static box rather than the visible model/sprite.)

    Now the other problem with collision detection in 2D games - in the games where collision means death, you either have a per-pixel collision detection, or bounding box collision detection. In the former, you die as soon as one pixel nicks whatever you are supposed to avoid. In the latter, you can't tell if that tight squeeze is fatal or not, let alone know the tolerance for that squeeze.

    Mabye this was true in the era of Quake 1, but not anymore. 3D games have evolved since then, and are much better - either through graphics or some other complaint based on the difference between 2D and 3D.

    The reviewers whining about this sort of graphics is just superficial. The real quality of the game is not how it appears on screen, unless there are glearingly major problems that interfere with gameplay (either through obscuring critical information, showing information that should be hidden, or by being distracting).
  • while i mostly agree with this notion. i think there are 3d games that have mastered collision detection, and cinematic style well. soul caliber would be the first on my list. even though you have a good deal of control over the character there are almost on unflattering poses. this statement applies only to the dreamcast version which i found far more fluid than soul caliber 2.
  • I have always wondered why 2D games are not called 3D games and 3D games are not called 4D games.
    Without the passage of time (the extra D) 2D and 3D games are what we commonly call 'screenshots'.

    Oh, and while I am moaning; as the 3rd dimension (depth) in 3D games is faked (meaning you can 'see' Lara Croft's curves but not 'feel' them) 3D games should be called 2.5D games (or 3.5D if you include the aforementioned dimension of time, possibly even 48DD if you count the Lara Croft dimensions).

    Seriously thoug
  • The answer is relatively simple and that is that 3D is more labor intensive than 2D, and thus to achieve the results you are looking for will take much longer. For example, a friend of mine's thesis for 3D, had a couple very nice looking backgrounds which he originally intended to do in 3D. However, the time it would have taken to add all the detail, textures, lighting and so on (backgrounds were rustic forest-like settings), he would have needed to spend several weeks upon just the backgrounds, and thats n

  • The artwork. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sludge ( 1234 ) <slashdot@NosPaM.tossed.org> on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:06PM (#9802954) Homepage
    The artwork on some of the old Nintendo games was amazing. The established art style in SNES Zelda is a perfect example of expressive simplicity.

    I love oldschool 2D games, and I think there is still a place for some of that in the indie scene. You need really good artists to make it worthwhile, though.

    In fact, if you know of one, contact me. I may be able to offer a job.

  • Worse Game Series Transition? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jmole ( 696805 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:12PM (#9803031)
    I seriously think the worse transition from 2D to 3D would have to be the Castlevania series. The last 2D Castlevania, which was SOTN on PSX, was seriously the best 2D game in the series. The new PS2 version does not even come close to its 2D counter parts. You could also say the same thing about the MegaMan and MegaManX series. Beautiful hand animation in all those games. Then they came out with the MegaMan legends games, which are horrible representations of the MegaMan series. So what do you guys think is the worst transition?

  • Yes, I agree (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:53PM (#9803571) Homepage Journal
    I feel the same way. However, I think that I finally do see the light at the end of the tunnel. An artist working in 320x200 VGA space can certainly make careful use of pixels to provide a much better visual result than one gets from the Quake I engine. But as resolutions increase, the difference becomes much smaller: an artist working at high resolution is essentially working with vectors rather than pixels (think of a painter or cartoonist), and so in some sense has already lost his "pixel perfect" advantage.

    It also seems that we are getting so much 3D power recently that it's no longer enough to simply have dazzling numbers of alpha-transparent triangles. 3D games are needing to resort to more interesting visual styles (cf Zelda: Wind Walker), and I think that may ultimately bring them to the same artistic levels that we see in modern "2D" games like the Capcom fighters or GBA side-scrollers.
  • My name is Mike, and I'm a Diablo II addict. Anyway, since before the game's release, people constantly insulted its graphics. While indeed, the graphics were 2D, calling them "pixelated" seriously undermines the excellent and detailed work the artists did.

    So, in an effort to appease the 3D obsessed masses, Blizzard included buggy, hacked, ugly 3D modes. Both Glide and Direct3D ran slower and, in many ways, actually looked worse than DirectDraw. In fact, acting as vigilante tech support, I would rec

    • "The lesson of this long story? The average game customer today simply refuses to accept 2D. The average customer doesn't care about gameplay or detailed art, but only flashy gee-wiz graphics, because the average customer doesn't play for hours on end. And it is the average customer that lines the wallets of companies, such as Blizzard."

      All 'gamers' are after flashy graphics. If you say graphics don't matter, then you are lying to yourself. If I remember correctly, Diablo's graphics are just pre-reneder

  • 2d is simpler than 3d. Therefore is easier to create 2d art than 3d.(we knew that) Also some effects are much more difficult to create in 3d than 2d.

    Per example creating a "tidal wave" in 2d simply means sketching a wave and then animate it as a fluid of sorts (of course it takes a lot of artistry to make it look natural) but in 2d it means creating a net mesh with a lot of vertices and then adding some kind of fluid equations to it (since it would be impossible to add bones) or lots of meshes with a ve
  • Nethack!!!!!
    • Indeed - more emotionally involving than Minesweeper, and which of the two has the simpler graphics? We're on to something here.
      • I'll bet it wouldn't take much effort to write a 1D shooter, assuming a pixel to be infinitely thin....hmmm I I think I'll do that tonight....
        • Been done; it's an easter egg in the original mainframe Hunt the Wumpus - it's hidden between the 23rd and 24th lines. You'll need 1D goggles, though.
  • Uncanny Valley [arclight.net]. It doesn't just apply to humans but art in general. As you approach photorealism the perceived 'goodness' of art can paradoxically go down before going up again.
  • It's simple why 3d isn't as visually appealing...

    The screens we view it on are 2d. The Virtual Boy had appealing graphics, and maybe thse Sharp and NEC laptops, but a TV is 2d. The movies we watch are filmed in a 3d worrld, but presented in 2d.
  • 2D should never die. Like a painting in a museum, sculptures should never be able to outdo paintings.

    -Funkmastaeric

    _______
    "I love Metal Slug... ...I Hate Metal Slug"

    -The Metal Slug paradox

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close