Fungi Forums
Video Games => Video Game Chat => Topic started by: Toad on February 07, 2007, 05:43:57 PM
-
I have to write a short comparison/contrast paper, c/c'ing 2D gaming and 3D gaming, and I would like some input from the FF.
What do you think about 3D games? .. 2D games? Do you have a favorite one of each genre? Do you play games that are strictly 2D or 3D, or do you play games that are versatile?
I have to finish up this paper before midnight tonight, so any info you can give me before then would be great. :)
-
I, personally, love playing games like R-Type Final, which has 3D graphics and environments, but gameplay is confined to the second dimension (ie. there are corners, but they are automatically traveled on; you do not have to turn manually). Then there are games with 2D graphics and 3D environments, which allow for movement in 3 dimensions thanks to the ability to jump (many action RPGs for the GBA are like this, including M&L:SS). Then there are games with 2D graphics that are confined to 2D (such as Super Mario Bros.). Finally, we have games like those you'd find on a current- or next-gen system, which have 3D graphics and take place in the third dimension.
I hope that helped you.
-
Yes, that does help some. I didn't even think about the Mario & Luigi games.
Silly me.. (-_-;)
-
Oh, and on the subject of favorite game:
2D-2D: Super Mario World 2
2D-3D: Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories
3D-2D: R-Type Final
3D-3D: Kingdom Hearts II
-
I personally prefer 2-D games over 3-D games. Don't get me wrong 3-D games aren't bad, but many times it feels like the development team spends too much time trying to create the next Ocarina of Time instead of making the game fun and challenging. I'm also not saying all 2-D games are godly, since a lot of them are terrible. It just seems like 2-D games have more replay value, and they feel more challenging since your movement are limited and depends more on skill than strength.
-
Surprise your teacher with a follow up paper after you play Super Paper Mario.
-
Skill is the only factor in 2D or 3D. It's just how many dimensions you can navigate at once.
-
Surprise your teacher with a follow up paper after you play Super Paper Mario.
Heh.. good idea. Maybe I could use that next term, since my term is over March 11, four days after my birthday.
SPM comes out in April, doesn't it?
.. and anyway, I like both 2D and 3D a lot. I cut my gaming teeth on 2D (Super Mario Bros was my first game) and my first 3D experience was Super Mario 64 (ok, technically, Super Mario RPG was the first 3D Mario I played..)
But whatever I've played, it's all been in the name of fun.
-
Skill is the only factor in 2D or 3D. It's just how many dimensions you can navigate at once.
That said, one gripe I have with 3D, and nobody can really be blamed for this at the moment, is that you don't get depth perception. Obviously, this usually isn't a problem, but sometimes being able to see just how far something is from you would be nice.
2D or 3D isn't exactly a preference for me, btw. I like both, though I play 2D a lot more for a variety of reasons.
-
Generally, the only 2D games I play nowadays are puzzle games and platformers (and sometimes scrolling shooters), because those are really the only good 2D genres left. Other than that, I have little preference; the old, 2D GTAs are just as good as San Andreas, and SMW is just as good as SM64. Well, the exception is Sonic; those games should be strictly 2D. Scrictly. With the utmost strictifigance.
-
Yes, Sonic games should stay in two dimensions, except for bonus stages.
-
I like 2D games better, mostly because I grew up playing them. Many of my favorite games are 2D. Yoshi's Island, Super Mario Bros. 3, Kirby's Adventure, and others.
-
Okay, this is probably one of the few chances I get to make a good name for the Virtual Boy. THAT is quality 3D gaming. Other than that, I think both 2D and 3D have their ups and downs, although I'd probably take a good 2D game over a bad 3D one..... It all just depends on what the game is whether 2D or 3D is better.
-
Whoa, that post made me feel like I was doing something for the 20 seconds I spent reading it. And still it came out feeling like 0.
-
What exactly does that mean, "I'd take a good 2D game over a bad 3D one"? Generally, I like good games more than bad games, too.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What constitutes a 1-D or 0-D game?
-
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.
-
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.
-
0D would be some sort of completely blank screen with only sound. In fact, that would make for an interesting game.
-
In that case, what about a text adventure? That's like the silent version of a completely blank screen with only sound.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
My fav real text adventure was Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for PC. My fav graphical text adventure was Shadowgate NES.
-
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...
-
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!! !?! ??? ?!?! ?!?
-
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.
-
I ussually like 3D RPGs but my favorite one is a 2D one.
Try comparing Runescape to Maplestory =/
-
This gets me thinking: I wonder what the first true-3D (i.e., 3D environment, models, etc.) game was? I'm fairly sure it was Quake, but I'm always wrong on these things because I always pick Quake ("What was the first silent movie?" "Quake!").
-
Did Rise of the Triad come before Quake?
-
Ha! Glorb managed to squeeze an audible laugh out of me for the first time in ages.
More on topic, I would have to say that I do like 3D more, for most cases. I don't care too much about how crazy-nice the graphics are, but 3D always seems more immersing to me, even though it's not always more fun.
EDIT: When I said ages, I mean the first audible laugh generated by a FF member in ages.
-
This gets me thinking: I wonder what the first true-3D (i.e., 3D environment, models, etc.) game was? I'm fairly sure it was Quake, but I'm always wrong on these things because I always pick Quake ("What was the first silent movie?" "Quake!").
This seems to be a bit hard to research (aka: I couldn't find a good answer after 20 seconds of searching the interweb), but I doubt the answer is Quake.
Just to clarify, you're ruling out stuff like Wolfenstein 3D that used 2D sprites for characters and such, right?
My head is swimming with images of old 3D PC games, but my current lack of sleep is causing me to doubt everything. Was the model of player-characters in DOOM multiplayer a 2D sprite or 3D model? Arghghghg Hmm, it had to be a sprite.
And wait, were Quake enemies even 3D models? asdfasdfasdf
-
Wolfenstein 3D and Doom were "2.5D"; that is, the environments were 3D, but the enemies and player models were 2D sprites. That's why enemy corpses are the same view and always face you no matter where you turn.
-
I know, that's why I asked if you were ruling them out.
-
Oh yeah... I completely forgot about Doom... >.<
But don't some of the sprites sort of turn, but are still 2D? I don't know how to explain it.
-
Yes, there's a different sprite for facing each direction.
-
So the answer is: no, Virginia, Doom wasn't true 3D. Now that I think of it, BattleZone (1984, if I can recall the Wikipedia article) was probably the first 3D game, because it used wireframe models.
-
I became moderately good at Battlezone, but I became tired of it eventually. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the first 3D game, as it sure looked like it.
-
My Grandpa's computer came with games like Battlezone, Tempest, and Asteroids, which were wire frame. Tempest was sort of 3D but Asteroids wasn't.
-
If Battlezone were made in 1984, then the Star Wars Arcade Game would predate it. But Battlezone was put out in 1980.