Slashdot Mirror
GarageGames Announces Torque 2D Support of Tiger
GarageGames writes "GarageGames, creators of the popular indie-focused Torque Game Engine, announced at MacWorld 2005 that their new Torque Game Engine will support Apple's OS X platform, Tiger. Torque 2D is all about rapid development for games. It takes care of the technology, and the developer can focus on gameplay and art. By extending the current Torque Game Engine platform, indie developers will have a powerful tool to compete in the exciting and growing arena of 2D gaming. In addition to Torque 2D's support of the upcoming Tiger OSX, other GarageGames products like the Torque Game Engine 1.4, Dark Horizons: Lore Gold, Torque ShowTool Pro, Zap! and many more will also be supporting Tiger."
Ease of Use
Well, for the most part, 2D is a lot easier to play. You have an entire dimension that you don't need to worry about.
In 2D, you've got decisions that you make based on: X +/-. Y +/-. At any one point, you're adjusting in one of four different directions.*
Once you enter "true" 3D into the equation, it just gets more complicated. Now you need to think about X, Y, and Z. Things are now automatically twice as hard.**
This creates a couple of problems: Games requiring a higher learning curve, especially the first time you play a 3D anything. Control needs to be more precise - bad controls make it impossibly frustrating (think Tomb Raider or being in a firefight in GTA3). To some people, these problems outweight the benefits that 3D brings along.
That's why a most RTS games are still 2D (Warcraft III is ~2D, it is just presented as a 3D world). An exception is Homeworld, which, as far as I know, never got really popular.
In my opinion, fighting games are still better in 2D. I'd rather play any Capcom fighting game as opposed to Tekken. DOA is an exception, but DOA has boobs.
FPS, however, are really a whole different animal. FPSs, I would argue, are not really 3D For the most part they are what I would call "2.5D". The interface by which you interact is 2D. You move your cross hair in an X-Y set of planes. Sure, your character moves on all three dimensions, but your trigger isn't moving forward or backward. You are.
Movement is handled in 3D, but most movement in FPSs is very easy. Running and jumping is about it. There's no elaborate hold-on-to-the-railing, spin off the pole kind of moves. At most you have elaborate hopping, like in the first Half-Life or any of the new Halo 2 multiplayer maps.
What's harder? Hopping across a trainyard while shooting foes in an FPS or doing the same in an over the shoulder shooter? The FPS wins. It breaks shooting/aiming into a 2D process (X,Y), moving into a 2D process (X,Z) with occasional use of Y (jumping). In effect, the FPS is two different 2D interfaces that form a 3D game. That's why PC gamers LOVE the keyboard and mouse. It breaks down the tasks very easily.
Nostalgia
Another answer for their popularity is nostalgia. This can be its own mega-essay so I won't dwell on it for too long. But consider these points:
The jury is still out on whether people will be nostalgic for Jet Moto, Battle Arena Toshinden, and Mario 64 in 5 year's time.
Art
I'm going to go right out and say it: I think most 3D games look exactly the same. For the most part, you're emulating a "real" 3D world. If you were playing Half-Life and suddenly a bad guy from Unreal showed up and Lara Croft ran in from the side, it would only be jarring considering the characters and who they represent.
To contract, imagine playing Ninja Gaiden (original) and seeing Yoshi pop out, followed by Pac-Man and a Demon from UO. That's jarri
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
since vector/geometry based imaging wasn't really feasible in the 70's and 80's.
Uh... what? Red Baron, Battlezone, Tempest... Need I go on?
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!