2D graphics in next gen games.

[Twuk]

Over the years, games that contain 2D graphics seem to be less common (or at least less acknowledged). What with Blu Ray and HD 3D graphics and uncanny realism in graphics, many people aren't too concerned about cartoony little sprites jumping around the screen anymore it seems. I for one am one of those people who believes sometimes 2D works better than 3D. Games like Ar tonelico, Atelier Iris, Cross Edge, Guilty Gear, Street Fighter, and many other titles use 2D graphics even now, and it seems to work wonderfully.

Now, I'm not talking about why games are better because they are 2D. I'm just curious as to why 3D is more favored (or at least why that seems to be the case). I believe gameplay and replay value are more important than graphics, and I always look forward to playing through a game in 2D these days because usually they are more content-rich since most of the disc space isn't consumed by graphics and animations. I also believe that 2D can sometimes capture more of the essence of the games atmosphere, especially in anime styled games.

Am I the only one that feels 2D games get a little brushed aside as opposed to their 3D counterparts?

 

[danintexas]

No you are not. I love games that are 2d with a 3d flair - See games like Sonic 4 and Super Mario on the Wii.

I wish there were more games like those - but sadly kids these days like the Call of Duty 234 and the Halo 234 Super Ultimate Reach edition - NOW WITH MORE FLOOD!

Even on the hand held systems - PSP/DS - it seems to all be going 3d. Give me a new Metroid that is a 2d side scroller with today's tech.

 

[Twuk]

No you are not. I love games that are 2d with a 3d flair - See games like Sonic 4 and Super Mario on the Wii.

I wish there were more games like those - but sadly kids these days like the Call of Duty 234 and the Halo 234 Super Ultimate Reach edition - NOW WITH MORE FLOOD!

Even on the hand held systems - PSP/DS - it seems to all be going 3d. Give me a new Metroid that is a 2d side scroller with today's tech.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, most kids will brush anything that even remotely smells like 2D aside because "the graphix SUCKS!!one11".

Also, on PSPs and DSs, I find a lot of their 2D games much more enjoyable than the 3D ones. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like a lot of 3D games on handhelds are rather jittery with shark toothy graphics. It's not like that fact will ruin a game for me, but to me sharp, crisp 2D sprites at a solid 60 FPS win.

 

[oplinger]

2D is actually severely limiting. ...Oddly lacking a whole dimension can get rid of a lot of gameplay in some genres.

It's not that kids are like "ZOMG GRAPHICS BAD LOL" it's more that people love nostalgia. Older games that were designed in 2D also don't really make a good 3D transition. Like sonic.

Also, 2D is gobs more annoying than making 3D. ..well unless you use flash, but..ew. Using old school sprites is actually pretty frustrating.

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

I don't mind if it's 2D or 3D, good gameplay is what matters to me

 

[jamesworkshop]

2D gets brushed aside because its not easy to make, having to draw every frame of animation is a pain compared to simply rigging a 3D model.
Plus the 2D eight-way scroller is ancient in that it's potential has been tapped out.

I'm sorry but you are also being very arrogant and dismissive 3D is a hell of a lot older than Halo/CoD is for Kiddies lol, not particulaly damming but it is when it leads you to draw inaccurate conclusions.

Remember this, totaly not possible in 2D

 

[Thaluikhain]

2D looks old fashioned, which puts people off. 3D looks more new fangled and high tech, at least currently. How many times has, say, Windows been updated with a new shiny interface that's less useful than the last one?

Or, for that matter, bad colour TV was favoured over good B&W.

 

[Outright Villainy]

2D games being less popular has absolutely nothing to do with how they look (for the most part.)

It's because 2D games are far more limiting than their 3D counterparts, and can never be as immersive. I do love 2D games too though, and there's some great work being done with 2D in the indie scene (see: vvvvvv)

 

[Criquefreak]

Good game play should be a more important goal for game designers than graphics, but it's hard to fault a still-growing industry from exploring new possibilities, even when it comes to failed attempts at games.

Prior generation 2d games did have an edge with focusing more on the game play than the graphics, the limitations of the graphics meant that there was little that could be done with it and that the game play and story more than the graphics had to do the job of immersing players.

An unfortunate factor in 3d games is that our minds are well-attuned to viewing a 3d world and a player either has to dismiss the limitations of a software created world (not to mention being presented to them on a 2d viewing plane) or the graphics will have to be obsessively focused on, often sacrificing other elements. This isn't even getting into how much work needs to go into animating a human face to be believable.

A number of games have found that they can be greatly enjoyable with less realistic graphical content, even in 3d, just so long as the game play is well-made. Look at the rising success of Minecraft for instance. On the other hand, there are games made with 3d environments and characters, even though the game play may as well be 2d.

But in closing, the graphical content of games being 2d or 3d, even when overdone or done poorly, is an element of immersion and game play. Just by picking one or the other they are influencing how a player should view the themes of the game and what level of dismissal of reality a player should expect.

 

[Hiikuro]

I really like 2D games myself, and they have very great gameplay possibilities. However, it also has some significant drawbacks. These drawbacks were the reason I decided to upgrade a game engine, that I've been developing for some time, to 3D. This, in turn, changed it from a 2D platformer semi-rpg, to a 3D RPG[footnote]This isn't an entirely accurate description, but it is close enough for now[/footnote].

I may try to explain my rationale here. Primarily, it was for storyline reasons. I would never be able to fit my vision on a 2D plane, and it would not depict the story the way I intend it. Secondly, I ended up struggling to come up with a good way to make good use of terrain for combat. As this is a game I envision to rely heavily on context-based combat strategies, I need a lot of flexibility in making "arenas". Another related problem is that movement in a platformer, with gravity, makes it difficult for precise movement to take place, and precise movement is something I imagine being a very important aspect in this game.

However, as I transitioned to 3D, I realized that the actual game mechanics would change significantly. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the actual gameplay was (and still is) not fleshed out. But I noticed I need to take a lot more care about certain aspects. Most importantly not overfeed the player with information.

The key idea for the game is to rely heavily on a lot of bullets, often moving quite slowly, this causes gameplay to be less point and shoot and instead focusing on optimal movement patterns or various combinations of "techniques" and weapons. This works very well in 2D, as it is easy for the player to orient herself and process everything. In 3D, this isn't as easy, as the addition of depth makes it very difficult for anyone to map out a strategy in the chaos.

My tentative solution is to focus primarily on a top-down perspective, while still allowing full camera freedom. The best way to think about it is how Dragon Age supports two different camera styles at once. In addition, I'd have to be careful how I design enemies and weapons, as to make sure they never end up causing information overload. This probably means fewer bullets, and bullet-clusters being far more concentrated, so that the player will manage to group bullet clusters together to form one mental unit.

So this rambling, which probably is quite difficult to comprehend (and an overly limited view) without context, might shed some light on the thought processes behind such a decision. I'm quite interested in discussing this further, as I've thought a bit about the advantages and disadvantages of 2D vs 3D. It wasn't a easy decision to make, and I wouldn't be able to explain it all here. Nevertheless, looking at it from above, I feel far more liberated working on the project in 3D than in 2D. It has removed significant barriers for me. And despite giving me a truckload of extra work, it has significantly simplified a lot of decisions I have to make.

 

[Trolldor]

2D is a limited venue.

That third spacial dimension is a humongous leap forward in-terms of interactivity, story telling and potential of core mechanics.

The 'regress' in to 2D is not an exploration of an old format with new ideas, it's a resurrection of an old format with old ideas. But there are solid ideas there, ideas that work. Those ideas are being recycled because people know they will work, so they have more time to focus on story and character development. The indie scene isn't that creative mechanically.

 

[josemlopes]

It doesnt have anything to do with being 2D or 3D. The game has its mechanics, if it works better in 2D then it is in 2D (Super Meat Boy, Shadow Complex, Super Mario) but if it works better as a 3D game then it will be in 3D (Conker: Bad Fur Day, Banjo And Kazooie, Mirrors Edge (it could also be a 2D game and work but the game wants YOU to see from the runners perspective so it is a 3D FPS)).

Also, dont complain that there arent 2D games, that just isnt true. We now have more 3D games coming out a year then 2D since 2D gaming saturated and you have a HUGE catalog of 2D platforms on the web in Flash.

Still, you get Super Meat Boy, Shadow Complex, the Super Mario games, Matt Hazard for XBLA, Kirby´s Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong, Cortex Command and much more.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

3d in my opinion is just easier and looks neater. 2d works perfect in some games but otherwise OmG THe GRAPHicS SUx!!one11 i just prefer games where the graphics are neat so they can add little details like a little super dog here or The cake is a lie there

 

[Woodsey]

If you care more about gameplay, then surely you'd prefer 3D, since it provides more gameplay options?

 

[Xanadu84]

You say that content and gameplay are more important then being 3D, but that ignores the fact that being 3D doesn't make something have less content or worse gameplay. 3D is popular because it opens up countless options for gameplay. In addition to a different set of strategies and experiences (Which can usually recreate a lot of 2D experiences), 3D is more realistic and believable, because that is what our world exists in. Now, I love plenty of 2D games, and there are certainly games where worrying about one less dimension lets you focus on the more important 2, but generally, 3D just has more advantages. Also, I really don't see a lack of 2D games. Sure, most 2D games are animated in 3D, but that's just a matter of Aesthetics.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Sprites are limited in the in animation to an extent. For instance in SF4 Sagat's eye patch doesn't get flipped to the wrong side when he turns around unlike SF2.

HD spritea are also really expensive and time consuming to create.

 

[thephill]

i remember playing the 2d classic Abe's Oddysee on ps1
i dont know if it's just nostalgia but that game rocked, i'd happily play again.
and when sonic got his 3D licence he got shit so there is an argument to be made for 2D.

but on the whole i prefer my new 3D HD next-gen graphics.

 

[WhatHityou]

I think it's because 2D is just less immersive than most 3D games by comparison. It may also be that recently many of these 2D game have an anime art style in many cases not all but most are. Anime in games seems to be carrying a bad stigma recently while unfounded most of my friends at least quickly decide that most games with anime art styles are likely to be turn based and or average and throw away cookie cutter games.

But I would put more stock into the immersion part of it. There trying to sell you a game that means there trying to wow you. Nothing to most shareholders says wow like this looks so real and or this fits in the popular demographic. This tends to leave 2D high and dry and is also the reason many 2D games are made by made by newer studios with less or no shareholders to need to wow.

 

[DustyDrB]

You're limited greatly with what you can do in 2D. But, as a huge 3D platformer fan, I see way too many 2D platformers. I was excited about a new Donkey Kong...until I heard it was another 2D platformer. I want my Donkey Kong 64 spiritual successor.

 

[Twuk]

I see that many replies from posters have argued about the fact that 2D limitations have been tapped out and because of software capabilities, may offer a less immersing experience. It's also been noted that the restrictions of the viewing plane for games in 2D are inferior to their 3D counterparts.

While these are all interesting arguments, one game in particular allows me to challenge these views.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDJeaz3biLw[/youtube]

Odin Sphere, a 2D/3D (built off a 2D perspective and having certain objects otherwise in 3D) action RPG for the PS2, contradicts the age old rules of 2D. Instead of direction relying on up, down, left, and right, each map is in the shape of a circle and the player then walks around it numerous times. Different "circles" are linked together to form one whole area map. The depth of the overall map makes you feel like you're looking through a fish-eye lens to a certain point, thus compensating for the lack of a true 3rd dimension. This kind of game proves that the 2D formula can still be innovative while not necessarily sacrificing software capabilities.