The Conduit
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i still find myself playing ALOT of older 2D games. heck. i just finished playing The Gradius games up to number 3 (if there were any more after it, i forget) and i love them. simplistic, graphics aren't the worst, fun, not too repetitive, and just plain fun.
"And no-one's yet found a way to make two 3D models interact realistically. You ever see game characters trying to kiss each other? I find myself listening for the clonk of wood on wood."
I think the Sims manage to interact realistically... That's based on relationships and having a life, so if it can't pull off how it interacts with other models, then the game would probably be shit.
I think the Sims manage to interact realistically... That's based on relationships and having a life, so if it can't pull off how it interacts with other models, then the game would probably be shit.
From earlier into the 3-D era and on, I really couldn't enjoy the games I was playing because the graphics literally made me headsick. Spinning around the world of polygons made me outright motion sick, so much so that Twisted Metal 2, I believe, actually made me vomit after about a half hour of play-time.
But in the 360 era, I find that there are a lot of games I can play without the ill effects.
But in the 360 era, I find that there are a lot of games I can play without the ill effects.
Real quick: From an animation point of view. No, they don't. Not even in the big blockbuster movies by Pixar. Realistic motion seems harder to pull than honest to goodness regular 2-d animation. Theres always something off about the perspective and the movement lacks in the organic department, that its very hard to pull it away from that "Uncanny Valley" feeling.Ninja-Claws-Benji said:
I agree, Yahtzee. When the Wii was first announced, I was so excited to have a platform that focused on gameplay and innovation and didn't focus on graphics, that I was one of the first to buy it. And for the most part, I wasn't disappointed -- at first. Nintendo has made several good titles for it. But all the other companies have treated it like a gimmick and a toy. Either they insist on casual games, or they cram the Wiimote into the game where it doesn't belong, or they pretend like it's an XBOX and trash it. Is it really that hard for them to come up with something original and enjoyable?
Well, actually, yes it is.
Well, actually, yes it is.
I never really understood people who are motion sick when seeing 3D (whereas I'm instantly sick in nearly any vehicule), maybe the sensibility of the mouse is too strong ?CumfartFacepuke said:
Motion sickness comes (afaik) when you don't control the movement, whereas in games you're the one controlling the camera (well, except things like Prince of Persia 2 [of the modern serie] which gave me nightmares because of its camera movements).
But I'm a [crazy] programmer, that's probably why I feel fine in 3D spaces (except infinite black skyboxes, I have an irrational phobia of them: for example, noclip outside an Unreal 1 map if you want to terrify me whereas I have no problem with empty spaces or pitch black places in real life).
I don't really agree with Yahtzee, graphics literally mean nothing at all to me, like AT ALL. For example my favorite game of all time is Final Fantasy 7, which had amazing graphics in its day, the thing is that the first time I ever played it was in 2008 on my PSP. Point being that even though this game is 12 years old I still enjoyed it even though I only started playing games when the Ps2 came out.
Films are different... In games, in the 2-D Realm, things were a lot more simple, therefore arranging a blur of pixels to do something, when you only have a small range of colours, would be very easy. Whereas in the 3-D World, things can be a lot more complex, so if things could be remotely close to real life, they at least deserve some praise.CumfartFacepuke said:
That so doesn't sound like what I'm used to hearing when it comes to Zero Punctuation and the Wii :S
But isn't this the direction we're sort of going in. With simplistic DLC and/or indie games becoming more popular parallel to the HD graphic blockbusters.
Was the first time I saw gameplay with Little Big Planet...that looks farking awersome. And at the risk of sounding like a fanboy, yes I agree with Yahtzee, there is too much emphasis on upstaging graphics quality. Either level the stage for a while, or step back a few...it wont kill sales. Might even boost them.
By what I have read, it seems that Yahtzee's point is more about Pixels compared to Polygons than 3D VS 2D.
If there were a way to put pixels interacting with 3D environment, making it like a TRULY interactive cartoon (not like laser disc games of yore), than the best of both worlds would be combined. A dream still, but a exciting one nonetheless.
Anyway, pixel games rarely age badly graphics-wise as 3D ones do, because they are images generated from minute ares of color, pure and simple. It was uncommon for people to complain how fugly NES-era games used to be when compared to the them new SNES-era ones back here.
Of course most back then prefered the new and advanced graphics, that's natural. But rarely did I heard somebody flat out criticize 8-bit graphics after the 16-bit ones showed up.
The same cannot be said at all for polygon games. Ever since the 32-bit era came along, it's been one crazy race towards the creation of the ever-new and ostracism of the constantly-aging yesterday graphics.
It's gonna be like the ancient greeks with their sculptures. They've got to the point where more realism could only entail freezing an actual human being. So they've just let it go and went for creative styles. That's when their statues began to truly shine.
I can't wait for the day when this silly western videogame industry realizes this. History usually repeats itself.
If there were a way to put pixels interacting with 3D environment, making it like a TRULY interactive cartoon (not like laser disc games of yore), than the best of both worlds would be combined. A dream still, but a exciting one nonetheless.
Anyway, pixel games rarely age badly graphics-wise as 3D ones do, because they are images generated from minute ares of color, pure and simple. It was uncommon for people to complain how fugly NES-era games used to be when compared to the them new SNES-era ones back here.
Of course most back then prefered the new and advanced graphics, that's natural. But rarely did I heard somebody flat out criticize 8-bit graphics after the 16-bit ones showed up.
The same cannot be said at all for polygon games. Ever since the 32-bit era came along, it's been one crazy race towards the creation of the ever-new and ostracism of the constantly-aging yesterday graphics.
It's gonna be like the ancient greeks with their sculptures. They've got to the point where more realism could only entail freezing an actual human being. So they've just let it go and went for creative styles. That's when their statues began to truly shine.
I can't wait for the day when this silly western videogame industry realizes this. History usually repeats itself.
Good gods almighty - Finally someone people listen to came out and said it. I've been stuck in this place for years now, trying to explain to people that a well drawn and sprited 2D game looks better and will continue to look better than your amazingly astounding 3D cutting edge graphics...that will be cutting edge for about a month at best. I hate people who snort and go "you're kidding right?" when I talk about 2D games today.
I agree wholeheartedly, I see games from my PS1 nostalgia era and they look like knives to my eyes, on the other hand, I can still look at the old SNES and have a smile of glee on me.
Right now, the biggest offender in all od this is the TMNT Reshelled thing, it looks horrible in 3D, horrible, horrible, horrible. It lacks the charm and bright colouring of old (say what you want, but bright colours look horrible in textures) and in every sense is a step back for the port. So it basically kills itself in one single move by looking meh and alienating the nostalgic crowd and failing to garner the interest as a brawler in today's world of gaming.
Right now, the biggest offender in all od this is the TMNT Reshelled thing, it looks horrible in 3D, horrible, horrible, horrible. It lacks the charm and bright colouring of old (say what you want, but bright colours look horrible in textures) and in every sense is a step back for the port. So it basically kills itself in one single move by looking meh and alienating the nostalgic crowd and failing to garner the interest as a brawler in today's world of gaming.
Old 3d graphics don't bother me much (nor do the old 2d graphics), but I don't think you should use Grand Theft Auto 4 as a "looking back on the previous generations graphics" example. It's far from the best looking game. I'm actually confused on how they'll make graphics look better than they do now. You know, without your computer forming a black hole due to it's density. The only way they can look better that I can think of is ALL lights being per pixel lights, and having the ability to cast penumbra shadows. One of the primary reasons games look so good now is the lighting. I suppose even more polygons on models and even higher resolution textures would help, but lighting is almost everything. A block is 12 triangles, there's no changing that (pretty much), so why doesn't it always look realistic? Lighting!
And there you have it. 2d games don't really rely on lighting. Sure you can make a shadow and lighting engine, but it really comes down to the sprites. That's why 2d games have looked so good, even really old ones now. The makers just had really good spriters. Now I'll have to spend 10 million dollars to compete with mainstream games.
And there you have it. 2d games don't really rely on lighting. Sure you can make a shadow and lighting engine, but it really comes down to the sprites. That's why 2d games have looked so good, even really old ones now. The makers just had really good spriters. Now I'll have to spend 10 million dollars to compete with mainstream games.
I know I sound like a ridiculous suck-up to say it, but I have to say that Yahtzee and I see eye-to-eye about a lot of things, and it's because we've one mutual tangent: we're oldschool gamers.
So, this whole "I'm beginning to wonder if 3D was a mistake" thing? Totally a thought that occurred to me before.
3D is a good dressing - you can do some pretty impressive things with 3D - but if the core game mechanic takes second chair to showcasing what you can do in Maya, then the only people you're really making the game for are those who hoot and clap at flashing lights. Those of us who are real gamers can only be confused that they're trying to serve us tinfoil when we asked for a banquet.
There's a lot of would-be game developers out there who should probably experiment with developing 2D Nintendo DS, cell phone/iPhone, or Indy PC titles until they actually know enough about game design to really make good use of 3D. I mean that in the best possible way.
So, this whole "I'm beginning to wonder if 3D was a mistake" thing? Totally a thought that occurred to me before.
3D is a good dressing - you can do some pretty impressive things with 3D - but if the core game mechanic takes second chair to showcasing what you can do in Maya, then the only people you're really making the game for are those who hoot and clap at flashing lights. Those of us who are real gamers can only be confused that they're trying to serve us tinfoil when we asked for a banquet.
There's a lot of would-be game developers out there who should probably experiment with developing 2D Nintendo DS, cell phone/iPhone, or Indy PC titles until they actually know enough about game design to really make good use of 3D. I mean that in the best possible way.