Author Topic: 2D vs 3D (Read 9443 times)

Pt_Peach · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2007, 02:51:44 PM »

In my opinion, it's not the graphics that matter in the game: It's the gameplay itself.

But personally, I like 2D games when they have a better plot. I don't mind platforming games that have 2D.

3D games are cool, too, but if the gameplay and the plot in the game sucks, I'm much better off with a 2D game. Some people are so stuck on graphics, but to me, it's the game's plot and the fun meter. If it's fun, the dimensions don't matter.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2007, 02:59:39 PM »

In my opinion, a game's perspective doesn't really matter. There are good 2-D games and there are good 3-D games. The genre also, doesn't really decide what perspective the game should be in. 1-D and 0-D games are also pretty neat.

The Chef · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2007, 03:29:03 PM »

What constitutes a 1-D or 0-D game?

SolidShroom · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2007, 03:43:08 PM »

Well, technically, there aren't any 1-D o 0-D games, but Pong could be counted as a 1-D game, since it's made up of lines and points, along with a few other '70s games. In fact,a couple Odyssey games could be called 0-D, since they consist of points only.

Lizard Dude · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2007, 04:16:49 PM »

That's mostly wrong. The number of dimensions refers to how many numbers you need to describe the location of something in that space or, to put it differently, along how many different axes you can move.

In Pong, you only move in 1D, but the gameworld is in 2D since the other paddle isn't in line with you and the ball moves all over the place. It's what donotcare would call 2D-1D.

A 0D game would be one in which you could not move. A 0D-0D would just look like a point that never changed. Maybe it could change color.

Glorb · « **Reply #20 on:** February 09, 2007, 06:28:02 PM »

0D would be some sort of completely blank screen with only sound. In fact, that would make for an interesting game.

Eclipsed Moon · « **Reply #21 on:** February 09, 2007, 06:41:16 PM »

In that case, what about a text adventure? That's like the silent version of a completely blank screen with only sound.

WarpRattler · « **Reply #22 on:** February 09, 2007, 09:01:45 PM »

I don't think you can consider text adventures normally in the whole "dimensional" argument, seeing as you can't actually see what dimension they take place in. Judging from the directional commands, however, I'd say something with up and down commands like the strange leaflet in Kingdom of Loathing is 3D-2D (since, to the best of my knowledge, text counts as 2D), while something without up and down commands would be 2D-2D.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #23 on:** February 09, 2007, 10:27:09 PM »

Text adventure games tell you which direction you're going. But since they don't actually have moving graphics (or in most cases graphics at all), I think the point is moot.

In other news, Virtual Boy is indeed 3D. But only Red Alarm really takes advantage of actual 3D polygonal gameplay, and it isn't exactly quality.
I'm debating whether ViewMaster-style 3D sprite-based games qualify as being in 3D. I guess they do give depth perception, so that's something.

Fwirt · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2007, 03:00:12 PM »

Quote from: Chupperson Weird on February 09, 2007, 10:27:09 PM

Text adventure games tell you which direction you're going. But since they don't actually have moving graphics (or in most cases graphics at all), I think the point is moot.

What do you mean no moving graphics (or no graphics)?! I've seen several text adventures and all of them had graphics. Famicom Detective Club II actually had quite good graphics (the SNES one, that is.) That game owns. Also, Radical Dreamers had graphics, and so did FDC I and that other Nintendo text adventure that I can't think of the name of... I think text adventures should be considered 2D

Quote from: Chupperson Weird on February 09, 2007, 10:27:09 PM

In other news, Virtual Boy is indeed 3D. But only Red Alarm really takes advantage of actual 3D polygonal gameplay, and it isn't exactly quality.
I'm debating whether ViewMaster-style 3D sprite-based games qualify as being in 3D. I guess they do give depth perception, so that's something.

I guess it depends on your idea of quality, but I don't think they're all that bad. They get the point across. The rest of the VB games are still 3D, but they're more of a "flat" 3D.

Eclipsed Moon · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2007, 06:13:04 PM »

Quote from: Fwirt on February 18, 2007, 03:00:12 PM

What do you mean no moving graphics (or no graphics)?! I've seen several text adventures and all of them had graphics. Famicom Detective Club II actually had quite good graphics (the SNES one, that is.) That game owns. Also, Radical Dreamers had graphics, and so did FDC I and that other Nintendo text adventure that I can't think of the name of... I think text adventures should be considered 2D

No, I mean real text adventures, with text and nothing else. Just you and a monochromatic screen, with "look" as your only friend.

Luigison · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2007, 06:22:20 PM »

My fav real text adventure was Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for PC. My fav graphical text adventure was Shadowgate NES.

MaxVance · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2007, 06:34:04 PM »

Quote from: Luigison on February 18, 2007, 06:22:20 PM

My fav real text adventure was Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for PC.

Oh, how I love that one. Though I have yet to beat it...

Eclipsed Moon · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2007, 11:22:18 PM »

That was the main one I had in mind, and thought about using as an example, and when I saw that there were more replies I fully expected people to mention it. How right was I!! !?! ??? ?!?! ?!?

Markio · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2007, 08:57:22 PM »

My favorite 0D game is called Mood Ring. It may remain in the same spot, but it can determine my mood through the use of pretty colors! A fun and useful game for the emotionally unsure.