Poll: Does 3D mean Better Game?

[RexoftheFord]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I've been thinking about it lately. It seems like these new 3D Games that've been coming out don't maintain my interest as much as some of those simpler 2D Games, with a few exceptions. I thought that many of the 2D games had a great gameplay mechanic that made up for the lack of graphics. I also thought that many of the old 2D Games looked much prettier than a lot of modern 3D games. So I'll just throw out the question.

Do you think that a 3D game is better than a 2D game by default? Or do you believe that 2D games can have an enjoyment factor that can outshoot most 3D games? Really this is just an open discussion between the strengths and shortcomings of both 3D and 2D games.

 

[chuckman1]

"OF COURSE" not.
I consider them equal it depends on the game.

 

[PrinceoN]

It really depends on the game. If a game can pull of 3D well, ill take it. For example, i honestly couldnt think of a 2D bioshock. Or a 2D painkiller. 2D portal wouldn't be nearly as fun.

However, 2D can make for more fun times in certain mediums. 2.5D is also a good contender. For example...Sonic 3 and Knuckles. Megaman. As posted before, Alien Hominid.

 

[grimsprice]

3D games have a much higher potential, but the amount of work you have to put into them to reach that potential is so much that we haven't really reached it yet.

2D games on the other hand, are easy to make and reach their potential real fast, but they have a lower ceiling of potential...

If you get what i mean yay, if not 'oh bother'.....

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

The majority of the best games of all time are 2D.

 

[Kajin]

It depends on the skill of the person making the game. A 2d game can be just as good as a 3d game, it all depends on what game mechanics go along with the graphics.

 

[RexoftheFord]

3D games have a much higher potential, but the amount of work you have to put into them to reach that potential is so much that we haven't really reached it yet.

2D games on the other hand, are easy to make and reach their potential real fast, but they have a lower ceiling of potential...

If you get what i mean yay, if not 'oh bother'.....

3D games tend to have a higher potential for realistic representations of real objects and events, however I believe 2D games have a higher potential for invoking player imaginations. But then again, that's just me.

But I do get what you mean.

 

[Clyde]

I think 2D is better

 

[Citrus]

No. Quality determines a good game. Besides, some games are better suited for 2D. For example, Worms, LittleBigPlanet, and Sonic.

 

[mad benji89]

not all the time because sonic looked alot better 2d and played better too, also mario is good 3d but i have always prefered the 2d ones

 

[Flying-Emu]

Metal Slug II.

I have nothing more to say.

 

[DazZ.]

Depends on the game... 3d is better for atmosphere defiantly though.

 

[Robert632]

most platformers(sonic) should stay 2-D. mario galaxy was pretty good, but that was a fluke that defies nature. other then that , 2-D generally has better quality, as it is esiaer to make, but 3-D is better when well done.