Slashdot Mirror
Why Haven't 3D Graphics Surpassed 2D Game Art?
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' article discussing the longtime game player's "soft spot" for 2D games, and why, in the author's view, "3D polygonal graphics still haven't entirely surpassed 2D game art." He explains: "In a way... I think the cinematic power of gaming almost took a step back with the transition from 2D to 3D. 2D game characters are displayed precisely how the artist chooses to display them to you. There is no extraneous frame of animation to be found. 3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control, so you may rotate them and view them from whichever unflattering angle you like." It's also argued: "2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do... [and] I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do."
Here's something else I've noticed, with rare exception, 3D games to me seem easier than their 2D counterparts.
Maybe its me, but games like Metroid Prime aren't nearly as difficult as the original Metroid. It just seems to me that 2d games are easier to balance and whatnot, easier to see where the player is going to be and to "force" people into using a certain strategy.
As far as art, well, thats subjective. Creating an immersive 3d world is much more challenging than creating a painting. Screenshots don't often do games justice, you have to experience them, see how they move, in order to appreciate the art and work that went into them.
kind of like the difference between animation and live action movies/television. There are certain things you can do in animation by not making the characters concrete. A live action family guy would probably be disturbing, much as the live-action tick is. The charm in those shows was that you were dealing with somewhat abstract beings. The same thing goes for games, for certain games, I just want an abstraction of what is going on, ie 2d, I don't want something that is nitty gritty realism. For others(doom 3!) that works out really well. I think it largely depends on the game itself and what the authors are going for.
you can use 3d badly, yes.
you can use 2d very badly too.
both can be used well too.
personally do you want to go back into having 2d graphics on a 3d game? candelabras that look the same to every direction kinda suck.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
There's some truth to the statement that graphics took a step backwards with the transition from 2d to 3d. The best example of this comes from the Monkey Island games. Curse of Monkey Island looked superb... graphically it was pretty much on a par with any cartoon you'd see on TV. Escape from Monkey Island looked awful, like a 3rd rate fps from a budget development studio.
However, I think 3d has come on a long way, particularly over the last year or so. Farcry and UT2k4 are stunning to look at and I'm sure that Doom 3 is going to take things even further forward. 3d games have to contend with the fact that the bar is set quite significantly higher for them. It's harder to do photorealism than it is to do a cartoon and it's taken 3d gaming a while to catch up, although it's finally geting there.
My particular dislike is this nasty half-and-half measure we've been seeing more of recetly, with cell-shaded games. I'm thinking of Zelda: Wind Walker, Mario Kart 64, Auto Modellista etc. The screenshots on the box look great, but I find that the games look pretty hideous most of the time while you're playing, except from a few select angles.
Something that is overly dynamic (such as an FPS, RPGs, etc), it's not easy to represent an enviroment with static 2D images, whereas other game genres that don't require dynamic graphics like visual novels/hgames where things are always some sorta restrictions to the storyline, I have to agree that (good) 2D images far surpass 3D.
Having tried both forms of H-Games (IPVR and
That said, it's possible to combine both 2D and 3D together. In a not-so-recent example, Ragnarok Online combines 2D sprites with a 3D enviroment to bring the best of the two types together, although apparently there were some 3D monster models in the data paks that they were testing, but it's mostly 2D sprites.
Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
I prefer 2D games. I can't be alone! Take out the cinematics, and graphically talking, I almost prefer FF6 to FF7. Ok, maybe not quite, because FF6's graphics are quite outdated, but still... Let's say that I prefer "Tales of destiny" (PS1 2D RPG) graphics.
I played both UO and SWG (Koster follower). I know that a lot of people say that UO's graphics are awful (I'm talking about the 2D version here, not the 3D), but I still prefer them to SWG's graphics.
And here come the hypothetical examples. 3D Starcraft? Please don't! The graphics are cute enough as they are. 3D Civ? Would be awful!
A good test to make would be that everybody list their all-time favourite games, and see if they are 2D or 3D. How many FF4/6, chrono trigger, startcraft/warcraft would there be in that list? Of course we could use the recent Title Fight gamespot made, but the divisions were very badly made, because all the old games were in the same division, and UO was in the same division than all other ultimas...
perception is reality
Two dimensional pictures have been the mainstream since there were cave paintings. Sure, there has been sculpture too, but never in the sheer volume of traditional two dimensional art. It's no wonder the quality of three dimensional art in video games isn't at the level we would like it to be.
The comparison between 2D classic graphics and modern 3D graphics could be seen as synonymous with the change to impressionistic art after photography came around.
...which is one of the reasons Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is still one of my favorite games. When all the 32-bit consoles were trying to get the most cutting-edge picture possible, games like SOTN were taking the artistic/gameplay route. Without worrying about things like model animation, the developers were free to work on other aspects, such as the soundtrack, physics, color balance, etc.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
1. The biggest technical problem with 3D games is that they all have a quiality of origamai. The objects mostly look like they are made of 2D paper folded and joined edge to edge clumsily. How many times have you noticed the seams between facets? 2. Too much striving for realism. As people have pointed out, detailed attempts at human-like faces seem like corpses. Blizzard is going in a better direction with the less realistic but more fun graphics in World of Warcraft. For more info about why comic book style graphics tend to be more compelling read Understanding Comics.
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
The F'ing CAMERA! Do you know how hard it is to land on a platform that you can't see because the camera decided to get a nice face shot? Or having to fire at a boss that's only visible if you stop and point right at him as if admiting defeat?
Graphics wise, 3D games are coming back around. During the PS1 era, 3D games were generally visual crap. We went right back to "that blurry squiggly dot is a save point". Don't believe me? Try playing Twisted Metal. I never could figure out what was going on in multiplayer.
The thing that developers (including you Sony) need to realize is that you don't NEED 3D to make a good game. There's no reason to make Guilty Gear, Metal Slug, or Street Fighter into 3D. They're excellent as 2D. Besides, does milk coming out of your nose when you get stabbed in the chest look as amusing when done in 3D?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
I think a large factor in the continuing popularity of side scroller-type or top-down games is that they're usually a lot simpler to play than 3D (not to mention less resource-intensive.)
Case in point: I can fire up MAME and Ghosts & Ghouls on my laptop, goof around a bit, there are about 7 controls for me to "master" (back, forth, jump, duck, up, down, fire) and my machine never grinds to halt because I don't have the latest super-duper 3D drivers installed.
This sort of goes into the whole difference between "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer"--it is the same reason I enjoy Angband on the train, before a meeting, before going to sleep, whatever--the controls are more difficult and involved, but I can quickly start it up, futz around a bit, and close it when I don't feel like getting too mentally involved.
Whereas, when I start up Call of Duty or something similar, I sit down with a coke and my headphones for a few hours and really get into it, as I would with a movie. I wouldn't be able to sleep or concentrate on work after 5 minutes (good luck anyway keeping it that short) of playing the car chase missions in CoD.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
People wonder why folks still play Atari, old NES games, MAME with ROMS from back in the day. That's because games back then had quality game play. I'd bet if you sat a 10-12 year old down with one of those plug-n-play "retro" games they would have a blast.
----
Spam subject of the moment: Offshore account secrets -nashville disrupt
Because static art is easier than dynamic. As simple as that
I was a huge fan of the 2-D platform games. While I do think that there were planty of bad 2-D platformers, but I really think that they had a much larger percentage of good games than most genres. When the 3-D platform games came out, it's like all game companies just abandoned the 2-D platform. The gaming companies saw 3-D platforms as an upgrade instead of seeing 3-D platforms for what they are, a different gaming style. Soon Mario, Zelda, and Sonic all left the 2-D arena (except for a couple of subpar 2-D games like Yoshi's Island and some Sonic compilations of older games). Then everyone else followed. 3-D platform games should never have been seen as a REPLACEMENT for 2-D platform games, and that makes me resent most 2-D to 3-D conversions somewhat (ESPECIALLY the 3-D bastardization of Bomberman on N64). That doesn't mean that there aren't 3-D platform games that I like (ex. Sonic Adventure series). It just means that I've got this unintentional bias towards the 3-D platform games that I can't always seem to get past.
Well Duh! .. of course taking into account only 2 dimensional collision detection is easier than doing it for something thats 3 dimensional. You've got 1 full exponential value more of coordinants to worry about.
Who makes you Sig?
I find that the only perspective that works well in a true 3D world is first person. Anything else and controlling your character is quirky. Semi 3D games like tekken are ok, since no one side steps that much. I have a harder time in 3D games trying to control the character and camera than actually playing the games.
You need a GBA, if you don't already have one. (and I suspect you do, if you're that addicted to the 2D platformers) It's the last vestige of 2D gaming, and more than a few of the games are truly great. If you don't like playing on a tiny screen, get a cheap-o used gamecube (I think they're like $70) and a gameboy player, which plugs into the bottom of it. Then you can enjoy a steady stream of new 2D content, at least until the "scourge of 3D" moves into handheld territory in the next generation. Which, of course, will push you into cell-phone gaming-- but that's still at least a year or two away.
3d games can't convey facial features like 2D (yet). At the moment, half the 3D models around look like undead, unnatural zombies. Surely that has an effect on the game experience (or should that be theatrical experience, as graphics have little to do with gameplay mechanics)
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
It's the old battle of graphics over gameplay my friends. 3D came about and everyone just assumed, 3D is better ergo 2D is crap. They abandoned a time honored format for buggy collision, low framrate and lets be honest jaddedy games.
Early 3D looked terrible. Just think. Street Fighter II(any of them) or Tekken One. Which looked better. Crash Bandicoot or Super Mario World. FF6, FF7. OK FF7 looed better, but only because of its pre rendered backgrounds.
Game companies figured that people would say, "2D graphics. That's lame!"
And guess what. They DID!!
The new wave of casual gamers snubs 2D like the plauge. They must have the latest and flashiest, regardless of the gameplay. Essentially games companies now sell the game's image. Not the game itself. Case in point. Need for Speed Underground. Ick. Lovely cars, but awful game.
The sad thing is, this will continue forever. Just look at the movie industry. Only the flashiest survive, regardless of actual merit.
May the Maths Be with you!
"2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do"
Doom 3 features pixel - by - pixel collision detection, so your bullets can go over the zombies' shoulders or between their legs, rather than the entire enemy being treated as a solid rectangular prism. So boo yah to 2D crappy games
Carnage Blender
"2D game characters are displayed precisely how the artist chooses to display them to you."
Yes, this is true. It was easier to fill up those pixels when you had low resolution images to fill. Kind of like how it's easier to fill up a lite brite than it is to make a full color painting that will stand close up scrutinizing.
"There is no extraneous frame of animation to be found. "
None of those extraneous weird things like rotating cameras to worry about, etc.
"3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control, so you may rotate them and view them from whichever unflattering angle you like"
I'm not sure if he's pointing out that there's only so many polygons you can put in something, or that something doesn't look 'cool' from every angle. If it's the latter, the answer falls neatly under 'duh'. It is VERY hard to design something that looks cool from just about any angle. A lot of times, you just can't reasonably do it. It's not like living in the wonderful very limited world of 2D where you nudge the proportions around until each frame looks decent.
"It's also argued: "2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do..."
Right... that would be because of the limitations of 2D, makes it MUCH simpler to detect what part of the sprite is touching what part of another sprite.
My responses are a little half assed here, so I'll put it together in a nice little summary: 2D graphics make the world simple enough that these challenges are much easier to overcome. 3D graphics need a LOT more work to accomplish the points this person brought up. Why haven't they done it yet? For the simple reason that in some cases you need more talented artists working on it (more in this context means both quantity and higher level of talent. Not a bash against 2D, but a lot more has to be considered...) and you also need hardware capable of it. It's like comparing a comic book to a live action movie.
"[and] I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do."
This is plainly untrue. Play Mario 64 or Wind Waker, then find a 2D game that's just as expressive. I'll concede that 2D games in a lot of cases had more character, but this is strictly a 'talent of the team' sort of thing.
"Derp de derp."
If there are breasts involved, it should be 3D
Man, 30 *pounds* per game? Ouch. The whole "same price, different currency" thing that goes on in England is criminal. The expensive ones run $35 here.
Of course, it's hard to beat "free," but remember-- if you don't buy the games you like, they will quit making the games you like. Remember that the GBA has no region-lock, and try buying grey-market from somewhere where the pricing is less awful.
In this summary statement, the author himself states that he is comparing basic graphics to art. Nobody cares that bout this - what needs to be done is either a comparision between 2d graphics and 3D graphics, *OR* a comparison between 2D Art and 3D Art.
The only advantage of 2D movies is the fact that you can draw fancy art to as high as a detail as you want. 3D sequences, while not looking as fancy, do not require as much space as their 2D counterparts (by reusing models, textures and so on), and can be consistantly modified without having to redo many frames of work. Also, I am finding that modern games have cinametics comparable to how it should look like - it's a big jump from Dark Forces (an old Dos game that used simple cinamatics) or Jedi Ourcast (3D cinamatics don't look ultra-fancy, but get the job done.)
Not only that, but there are ways to convert 3D-graphics into pre-rendered 2D movies without problem. From there, it's quite easy to do the "editing" that the author seems to want. Not that it matters, since I have very rarely seen an issue with 3D graphics in the games I've played. The closest thing would be those "classy" screenshots posted on PlantUnreal, and those could be pulled off in a 2D game with the same complexity.
Besides, the author ignores the "rotating-corpse" issue that was visible in Doom where you could only see one side of the body after it was killed.
This is easily countered by using Wing Commander 1 compared to X-Wing. While X-Wing might not have looked fancy, you could easily tell when you were about commit suicide by ramming a Star Destroyer. In Wing Commander 1, the collision box was independant of the sprite, and you could thus accidently bump into a Ralari without knowing it (not only that, but the collision box was based around a static box rather than the visible model/sprite.)
Now the other problem with collision detection in 2D games - in the games where collision means death, you either have a per-pixel collision detection, or bounding box collision detection. In the former, you die as soon as one pixel nicks whatever you are supposed to avoid. In the latter, you can't tell if that tight squeeze is fatal or not, let alone know the tolerance for that squeeze.
Mabye this was true in the era of Quake 1, but not anymore. 3D games have evolved since then, and are much better - either through graphics or some other complaint based on the difference between 2D and 3D.
The reviewers whining about this sort of graphics is just superficial. The real quality of the game is not how it appears on screen, unless there are glearingly major problems that interfere with gameplay (either through obscuring critical information, showing information that should be hidden, or by being distracting).
I wouldn't say Need for speed series is an awful game, the best NFS have been Porsche unleashed, Hot pursuit (For its time remember, these were voodoo1 days), HP2 for the PC/PS2 and NFSU.
NFSU was more of the same yes, but the control was tight and the tracks were good and they did try to come up with new gameplay modes (drag, etc). Although I think Midnight club II is a game that is really pushing the gameplay department but it lacks atmosphere and different tracks (besides just going aroudn the same cities) and I think thats the sole reason why it can't compete in sales with NFS series is because the way the game looks is well sub-par compared to stuff like NFSU.
When you get into the world or racing games, third person rules nearly absolute. Why? Because you have no peripheral vision in first person. You can't rotate your head to look to the inside.
If there's any genre that's benefited from 3D the most, it has to be racing games. Collision detection has improved from where 2D games ever were, there's no sprite scaling issues, jumps are really jumps, and hills are really hills. And the cars look fantastic!
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
while i mostly agree with this notion. i think there are 3d games that have mastered collision detection, and cinematic style well. soul caliber would be the first on my list. even though you have a good deal of control over the character there are almost on unflattering poses. this statement applies only to the dreamcast version which i found far more fluid than soul caliber 2.
I have always wondered why 2D games are not called 3D games and 3D games are not called 4D games.
Without the passage of time (the extra D) 2D and 3D games are what we commonly call 'screenshots'.
Oh, and while I am moaning; as the 3rd dimension (depth) in 3D games is faked (meaning you can 'see' Lara Croft's curves but not 'feel' them) 3D games should be called 2.5D games (or 3.5D if you include the aforementioned dimension of time, possibly even 48DD if you count the Lara Croft dimensions).
Seriously though, comparing 2D and 3D games on visuals alone is missing the point.
It's like the difference between watching a rock concert on DVD with 'perfect' camera angles set by a director versus actually being there in the sweaty moshpit with a non-perfect view. It's a personal opinion as to which is better.
Also 2D games have a 20-year headstart on 3D games. Just imagine what 3D games will look like in 20 years when the technology tops-out as it has for 2D games. Having said that even photo-realistic 3D will not be as beautiful as 2D games. Without the designer-imposed restrictions possible in 2D games the player will always have the ability to find an ugly camera angle or composition.
Some 3D Games like 'X2-The Threat' manage to be gorgeous anyway (if you ignore the dodgy cut-scene characters).
~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
The answer is relatively simple and that is that 3D is more labor intensive than 2D, and thus to achieve the results you are looking for will take much longer. For example, a friend of mine's thesis for 3D, had a couple very nice looking backgrounds which he originally intended to do in 3D. However, the time it would have taken to add all the detail, textures, lighting and so on (backgrounds were rustic forest-like settings), he would have needed to spend several weeks upon just the backgrounds, and thats not including all the animation he needed to do with his character. Instead however, using photoshop in conjuction with a simple 3D render of a preliminary forest and some hi-res photos, he was able to create a much more detailed & realistic looking forest backgrounds within about 7 days. There was almost no way in hell he could have gotten the same results purely from 3D due to the number of factors & elements involved (try lighting in 3D, its not easy; theres people who dedicate their entire study to lighting in 3D).
Another thing people need to understand is that in movies where theres pure 3D, such as Toy Story, theres not a single frame of that movie that hasnt been retouched in some manner or fashion, so thus you end up with very nice results combined with good 3D work and a lot of post-editing work. Games do not have the advantage of post-editing, so all that work must be done in the 3D stages, which is often very difficult; where you thought 2 lights was ok, you now need 2 negative lights to eliminate some lighting errors, etc etc. I find generally speaking, theres almost ALWAYS something that can be fixed/improved in ANY 3D scene/game/whatever. The medium is extremely complex so thus to yield those results takes a shitload of time.
As a side note, games are now including post-render effects, which is the first step in what this article is talking about, but we still have a long ways to go.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Mark of Kri, Viewtiful Joe, and Wind Waker would utterly suck in first person. Many games are much better suited to third person.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
When 2D graphics first appeared they were little more than white squares on a black background because that's all the computer could do. In another 20 years or so when we have the power of todays massive rendering farms on our desktops 3D games will look more like 3D movies. It's just not possible with today's technology to get that level of quality. I can move a 2D object around in any program in realtime, but when I'm working with 3D models it can take over an hour just to render 10 seconds of animation. With a big 3D project I can't even move a wireframe around in real time.
The artwork on some of the old Nintendo games was amazing. The established art style in SNES Zelda is a perfect example of expressive simplicity.
I love oldschool 2D games, and I think there is still a place for some of that in the indie scene. You need really good artists to make it worthwhile, though.
In fact, if you know of one, contact me. I may be able to offer a job.
I seriously think the worse transition from 2D to 3D would have to be the Castlevania series. The last 2D Castlevania, which was SOTN on PSX, was seriously the best 2D game in the series. The new PS2 version does not even come close to its 2D counter parts. You could also say the same thing about the MegaMan and MegaManX series. Beautiful hand animation in all those games. Then they came out with the MegaMan legends games, which are horrible representations of the MegaMan series. So what do you guys think is the worst transition?
I feel the same way. However, I think that I finally do see the light at the end of the tunnel. An artist working in 320x200 VGA space can certainly make careful use of pixels to provide a much better visual result than one gets from the Quake I engine. But as resolutions increase, the difference becomes much smaller: an artist working at high resolution is essentially working with vectors rather than pixels (think of a painter or cartoonist), and so in some sense has already lost his "pixel perfect" advantage.
It also seems that we are getting so much 3D power recently that it's no longer enough to simply have dazzling numbers of alpha-transparent triangles. 3D games are needing to resort to more interesting visual styles (cf Zelda: Wind Walker), and I think that may ultimately bring them to the same artistic levels that we see in modern "2D" games like the Capcom fighters or GBA side-scrollers.
So, in an effort to appease the 3D obsessed masses, Blizzard included buggy, hacked, ugly 3D modes. Both Glide and Direct3D ran slower and, in many ways, actually looked worse than DirectDraw. In fact, acting as vigilante tech support, I would recommend fellow battle.net-ers to switch to DirectDraw. Many of them couldn't believe the difference in performance and the lack of graphical glitches.
The lesson of this long story? The average game customer today simply refuses to accept 2D. The average customer doesn't care about gameplay or detailed art, but only flashy gee-wiz graphics, because the average customer doesn't play for hours on end. And it is the average customer that lines the wallets of companies, such as Blizzard.
And that, fellow gamers, is why 3D graphics have not surpassed 2D art.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
2d is simpler than 3d. Therefore is easier to create 2d art than 3d.(we knew that) Also some effects are much more difficult to create in 3d than 2d.
Per example creating a "tidal wave" in 2d simply means sketching a wave and then animate it as a fluid of sorts (of course it takes a lot of artistry to make it look natural) but in 2d it means creating a net mesh with a lot of vertices and then adding some kind of fluid equations to it (since it would be impossible to add bones) or lots of meshes with a vertex animation to it (which is GPU expensive). The only other way will be to add a particle system and then adding some physics collision to each particle so it behaves like a wave but it will look pretty unrealistic. Either way the work is more extensive and the results are more prone to look unnatural.
However! as technology advances such effects could become easier for artists, in a next next generation engine a fluid generator could already exist in a GDK (the next id engine will feature fliud and fur rendering). motion capture will eventually become cheaper and much more complex. home use laser scanners (instead of hand modelling) would be used to scan real clay models or actors. Also we have only scratched the surface of non realistic rendering in the future actual realtime simulations of hand drawing could be used for rendering an anime 3d character (these methods already exists but are too slow to be used in real time).
We are still behind in the technology, but eventually the day will come that a game exactly like guilty gear x2 or metal slug could be rendered in realtime from 3d models instead of painstakingly drawn frame by frame animation
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Very wrong there. Collision detection was one of those things that was so difficult to balance in 2D games (especially 2D games that didn't have enough processing power). With 3D games, you get mathematically precise collision detection, unless of coursem you cop out and rely on a big old bounding box even if your object is a really irregular shape...
Anyways, the point is, how many side scrollers do you know of, where you'd see your character touch a power-up, yet didn't pick it up? How many times did you see that you did NOT touch an enemy, or enemy bullet, yet you got hit/died? I saw that happen ALOT in 2D games, especially those programmed in the US. Collision detection was one of those things that was just difficult to program.
I hate articles like these. The author picks a subject and writes as if it's fact, while it's all just contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
Nethack!!!!!
I think I have to extent my reply a bit so...
,however they dont prefer them over "kung fu chaos" ,"soulcalibur2" or any other last generation game.
(Continued from previous post...)
I think each one has its share, there are a number of great 2d games (arkanoid, pacman, digdug, super mario, street fighter etc) and theres also a good lot of 3d games (doom, mario64, zelda, half life, tribes 2, silent hill, etc) each needed the features of its genere to succeed.
No medium is better than the other, is like cartoons and movies, they didnt destroyed or occluded each other, they evolved, sometimes even borrowing elements from the another (The matrix using anime effects, spiderman2 comic like battles?)
About your bet:
I'd bet if you sat a 10-12 year old down with one of those plug-n-play "retro" games they would have a blast.
Yeah right. you'd lose your money pal. I have tried to sit down my 5 year old and my nephew to play an Atari and NES games (good ones!) and they both said "this one's ugly, put the another one!" they do play SNES games and have a blast with them
Is not because they are "stupid" as many are implying is because they got familiar with the medium at another technological level and therefore consider everything at a previous level antiquate and unattractive. Is like I offered you a copy of a previously unknown Charles Chapplin mute film in one hand and "Lord of the rings 4: Saaruman's revenge" in the other, which one will you choose? honest?
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
S.O.U.L.C.A.L.I.B.U.R. Soulcalibur! (like excalibur with a soul get it?) great example though!
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Uncanny Valley. It doesn't just apply to humans but art in general. As you approach photorealism the perceived 'goodness' of art can paradoxically go down before going up again.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
It's simple why 3d isn't as visually appealing...
The screens we view it on are 2d. The Virtual Boy had appealing graphics, and maybe thse Sharp and NEC laptops, but a TV is 2d. The movies we watch are filmed in a 3d worrld, but presented in 2d.
2D should never die. Like a painting in a museum, sculptures should never be able to outdo paintings.
...I Hate Metal Slug"
-Funkmastaeric
_______
"I love Metal Slug...
-The Metal Slug paradox
Alright, I never reply to slashdot articles... but this one hit a nerve. Here's a list of games that are prime examples of great 3d graphics:
- eve online
- imperium galactica 2 and 3 (even though it wasn't released)
- real myst (kicked the snot out of the original)
- rainbow six: rs
- the list goes on...
Yes still play joust, 1942, elevator action... and all the rest, but that's just because I like nostalgia. But before you say 3d sucks... you should get a nice 16ns 20" LCD, hook that up to a middle of the road P4... a somewhat recent video card, and crank up those textures, LOD settings, textures and see what you're missing. At 1600x1200 you'll see crisp detail with beautiful animation (like the ragdoll physics of the unreal warfare engine). And before I part... I'd recommend, blade runner, the longest journey, and the siberia games... all 3d, all excellent and most important (to me) all eyecandy.
In particular, see Balzac...
As for today's games, that's about money, not the limitations of a particular dimensional medium. Terrible games were rampant just before the big crash in the 80s... too much demand for the artists to meet well.