Read a short article about the 'Lost Art' of 2D gaming these days except with systems like the GBA. It was geared to consoles but it could apply to PC gaming also. So does anybody care? Do you think anythings been "lost" with the move to 3D? Or is it a good move with the push to all 3D and 2D should just go the way of the Dodo.
God, I hope 2D sticks around in some form. I still enjoy playing them on my GBA and even loading up some old SNES or Genesis games. the DC had some good 2D shooters, and 2D fighters, like MvC2 are still better in some ways than their 3D rivals. But I think 2D is slowly dying. 3D just seems so sexy to everyone nowadays. I think it is overrated in a lot of ways, but I am in the minority. 3D is fast becoming less of a buzzword and more of a necessity for a lot of gamers. It's sad.
In essence, no, I think that people were saying the same thing at about the time Castlevania 'Symphony of the Night' came out. That proceeded to shut everyone up and just proved how successful and fun those games can still be (though why they then went to GBA is beyond me). I'm still waiting for the sequel to Symphony of the Night for my PS2.
Konami, if you're reading this, come back to big consoles! I don't want to buy a GBA to play Harmony of Dissonance on such a dark screen!
I don't think 2D will disappear until 3D graphics have the resolution and detail to match a 2D artwork. As it is, processors aren't powerful enough to push enough polygons. Sure, you could prerender everything and get the detail that way, but then you're just looking at a 2D fixed perspective snapshot of a 3D model. Stylistically, it's also much easier to edit a 2D image to create the proper visual effect, rather than having to tweak a 3D model and textures or tinker with the renderer.
There are also the class of 2.5D games, side-scrollers with 3D elements and souped up graphics. Obviously there is a gameplay consideration involved in creating those titles. I mean, it's hard to rely on human depth perception when you have an essentially 2D display surface (monitor) to work with.
My beef is that games that could have been done elegantly in 2D have been hamstrung by being moved to 3D. 'Prince of Persia III' and 'Escape from Monkey Island' come to mind. Unless the 3D adds to the gameplay, I consider it largely extraneous.
- Alan
2d is already almost completely dead in PC Gaming. Consider the following genres:
- Action/First Person Shooter -- impossible to release a non-3D game since 1998;
- Flight Sim - impossible to release a non-3D game since 1996;
- Sports Games -- very quickly becoming, if not already, impossible to release a non-3D game;
- RPGs -- Of the "major" RPGs released or scheduled to be released this year (NWN, Morrowind, Dungeon Siege, Gothic 2) - all 3D except for Icewind Dale 2, which hasn't garnered anywhere near the buzz of the other titles, and there's exactly zero non-3D RPGs in the works from major publishers;
- Space Sims -- Been impossible to release a non-3D game since 1994;
- Online-only Massively multiplayer games -- in North America (i.e., excluding Lineage) the last non-3D game was released in 1997.
- Which leaves strategy and wargames -- wargames will probably be the last hold-out, although even they are moving to 3D (Panzer General 3D, Combat Mission). There's a few 2D strategy titles upcoming (and obviously Age of Kings proved 2D was still viable, at least as of very recently), but even companies that previously strongly supported 2D, like Westwood and Ensemble, are making their future games 3D.
Non-3D PC games are almost non-existent.
Good analysis Desslock. I think it breaks down only with the special subset of strategy gaming Civilization and 4x occupies. I really can't imagine them benefitting from 3D, mainly because it can be faked so easily and because keeping the interface, um, un-clunky, is important.
"Non-3D PC games are almost non-existent."
I don't think there are any 2D games releasd or planned for any of the 3 consoles either. Maybe someone knows of any.
2D and 3D end up carrying too much baggage with just those titles. When people talk about them, do they strictly mean the way objects are displayed or when they say 2D do they mean "It felt like a SNES sidescroller"?
As far as strictly comparing them as methods for showing the player the game world, I really don't have a preference. You can do some pretty stylish things with both these days.
Of course there are going to be some limitations to 2D when it comes to genres; as Desslock pointed out. You can do things with 3D that simply aren't possible (well, practical) with 2D so in that sense we are seeing 2D die out.
Now that I think about it, I don't really have a point for this post. :)
Let's not forget Duke Nukem: Manhatten Project. A PC 2D sidescroller (and a good one) done effectively with a 3D engine. So I guess even 2D sidescroll platforms are now 3D games.
Actually, the industry mostly moved to 3d-rendering all 2d graphics around 1996-7. Almost no 2d games have hand-painted elements anymore; certainly virtually every 2d animating figure in the last five years has been done in 3d then rendered out as frames of animation.Originally Posted by Alan Au
-Raph
If 2D is dead, can it please take jumping puzzles with it into eternity? Those work in 2D, but obviously not 3D. Are there any other gameplay elements that do not translate to 3D?
I suspect I may have been the only person who played POP3 long enough to get used to the goofy control scheme. As such, let me assure you it was a fun game. The gameplay was surprisingly true to its 2d progenitors. I was thrilled.
Ha! I have you beat... I wrote the Prima strategy guide. But you're wrong, it never reached the level of a "good" game and missed the point of the Mechner titles in everything save the ripped off princess = hostage storyline.
I got paid to play that thing, but I envy you for enjoying it. :)
I think 3D will dominate RPGs and flight/space sim games b/c it can be used to create greater immersion. 3D will also dominate action/shooter games both b/c of immersion and of the greater "wow" factor with special effects. The one area where 2D will hold out is large scale strategy games. For the 4Xs, economic games, and map based games, 2D makes sense. Adding 3D to a 4x, econ game or map game would not just be a waste of design resources but would actively interfere with having a clean, accessible interface. Oh, I'm sure that people will TRY to foist 3D on hardcore strategy games, but I sorta feel that will be like the days when every game, even those inappropriate for it, had to be touted as "multiplayer".
We'll probably see 95% of the PC titles being 3D - I just dont want to see it going to 100% as there are some genres appropriate to 2D.
Dan
2D's pretty much dead. Even for strategy games that don't really need it, 3D is in for marketing reasons if nothing else. We'll probably see a handful of 2D games over the next year or two, but I bet almost no new PC titles being started now are 2D.
"Oh, I'm sure that people will TRY to foist 3D on hardcore strategy games,"
Combat Mission is a great example of 3D actually working in a strategy/wargame. Not saying all wargames whould go that route but it seem like none of the wargaming devs noticed.
Combat Mission is a great example of 3D working in a tactical game. The silly 3D views of various operational-level Talonsoft games were great examples of 3D being pointless if the scale isn't tactical. Since most wargames aren't tactical in scale, there's no need to go 3D.
Anyway, there's a confusion of graphics technology and gameplay behind the terms "3D" and "2D" as Wholly Schmidt pointed out. You can use 3d graphics to make use of hardware graphics acceleration and cut down on bitmap size while still making a game that "feels" completely 2d, like Warcraft 3. For strategy games and top-down RPGs this makes sense since it's no fun having to juggle the camera viewpoint all the time, as in NWN. Having a free-roaming camera or going to a first-person viewpoint is just a specific application of 3d graphics technology, it's not a necessary consequence.
I rarely have to rotate the camera in NWN, but I've found that it's a feature that I wouldn't be eager to give up, at this point. Much like the zoom feature.
I think a very detailed 2d Diablo 3 could do very well. Plus being Diablo 3 wouldnt hurt! I still think 2d is here to stay btw.
etc
I'd be willing to bet that the next Diablo will be 3D, although maybe Blizzard has another expansion in the works.
Yeah, I should make the distinction. I consider pre-renders to be part of the 2D subset since they're essentially converted to sprites. 3D is much improved over what it was even two years ago. Faster hardware helps, but some 3D implementations still suffer from too few polygons and blocky appearance.Actually, the industry mostly moved to 3d-rendering all 2d graphics around 1996-7. Almost no 2d games have hand-painted elements anymore; certainly virtually every 2d animating figure in the last five years has been done in 3d then rendered out as frames of animation.
-Raph
- Alan
Evidently Raven didn't get the memo on that, because Jedi Knight II is chockablock with jumping puzzles. That's what I love about JK2. Sometimes it's a game, sometimes it's a hot poker right in the eye.If 2D is dead, can it please take jumping puzzles with it into eternity? Those work in 2D, but obviously not 3D. Are there any other gameplay elements that do not translate to 3D?
And the idea of Wumpus with a hot poker in his eye just makes me all warm and fuzzy. :)
(You deserved that, after that poll you posted!!)
Chockablock?
I like that garbage masher level. They sort of made the uber-crate room in that one, didn't they?
I consoled myself (resigned myself) to it by thinking they were just being ironic.
to go further ot... I thought JK2 was just ok. lgithsabre's ruined the game. It was too damn powerul the last third of the game (at least with force push!).
etc
Couldn't disagree more. The lightsaber combat was the best part of the game, by far. The only part of the game, in fact, that was arguably better than the classic Jedi Knight. And what a fantastic thing to get right. It almost makes the game worth playing, despite its many annoying faults.
I'm with Wumpus here. Lightsabers + forcepowers = allot of fun. I used a gun 2 maybe 3 times the last 3rd of the game and it was great.
I can't understand how anyone could not like Jedi Knight 2. Great game. Lightsabers rule.
The plot was horrible, the main character was a truck driver, and the game was way the hell too long.
It was fun, mind you, but some of those levels just went on and on.
I liked the plot, the main character didn't bother me (heck, it was the same guy from the original Jedi Knight!), and...well, okay, some of the levels were pretty lame. But some of them were pretty great, so I'll forgive that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote