Slashdot Mirror
Do Next-Gen Games Have to be 3D?
sudnshok asks: "Last week, an article was posted where an EA executive discussed the high cost involved with next-gen game development. While I agree that sports games do benefit from a high-resolution 3D environment, do all games have to be developed that way? Why can't game companies develop 2D games for these systems? I would assume the development cost would be much lower. As a gamer who grew up on the NES, I'd love to see a new 2D side-scrolling installment of Castlevania or Zelda. I'm curious if other gamers would buy 2D games for next-gen systems."
Cloning Clyde (in the XBox 360 Marketplace) is a blast, a great side scrolling platform game. I wouldn't call it 2-D in the Super Mario Brothers sense... its sort of 2.5D. You're definitely looking at narrow depth 3-D space, but you can only move in 2-D.
Its got good 2-player action, too!
I think the XBLA games are good proof that you can have a lot of fun HD next-gen gaming without 1st or 3rd person 3D photorealistic mega-rendering.
I'm still waiting for the promised 2D Metroid for NDS. Or better yet, 2.5D, as is the case of the New Super Mario Bros.
Of course there's still a market for sidescrollers. The New SMB proved that quite well with astounding sales. The problem is that most developers are completely stuck on 3D graphics still. You know, in some ways 3D graphics are a bit easier than 2D though. With 3D, you have to create models, animations, and textures. With 2D, you have to hand draw each and every frame. It seems like a bit more work to me.
But the programming side of a 2D game is MUCH MUCH less strenuous.
Most people won't pay $60 for a 2D game.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
While the PSP and the DS are not considered "next-gen" (anymore anyways) there have been great great 2D side scrollers for them. LocoRoco and new Super Mario Bros. anyone?
First, the only Zelda game I can remember with any side-scrolling elements was Zelda-2 for NES.
Now my opinion, one of my favorite game series of all time (Mega Man / X) was 2D. I would love to see another version in the future, though I doubt it would live up to some of the best games of the series (My fav being MMX2)
I do think 2D graphics are basically up to indie developers now though as there is basically too much hype behind 3D. The consumer market would probably almost immediately reject it just because of the fact. Though I can think of one amazing recent game, Super Smash Brothers: Melee that is 2D...
After the sega saturn no one is going to release a system that is designed to do 2d games better than 3d games (they added a second processor to the saturn as so it could do 3d games well but it was much harder to program for.) Sony has spent so much money marketing 3d games as being better that I am afraid that 2d games may never be as popular again. If you want a good 2d game get a used saturn (with the 4 meg ram cart) or dreamcast and go nuts with imported games. If you buy popular games from Sony, Nintendo, or MS then I am afraid you may find yourself stuck with 3d games.
...yes.
Boo.
There's of course nothing stating that next-gen games have to be 3D. But its kind of within the idea of next-gen systems; you upgrade the technology to allow for more complexity in your graphics/sound/interface/control scheme/etc. Of course, you'd also want video game companies to still deliver with excellent storylines and interesting characters, innovative concepts as much as possible. Typically however, the market is driven by old franchises being continued by sequels and massive upgrades in graphics.
That's not to say however that they all have to follow that line. A good example of a good 2d-ish game from what was previously a next-gen console was Paper Mario for the GameCube. Its certainly not a strict necessity that games by 3D for next-gen, but you'd figure almost all would be.
If I'm not mistaken Metal Slug Anthology for Nintendo Wii is a 2D side scroller. I was able to find some screenshots at http://media.wii.ign.com/media/825/825884/imgs_1.h tml
buy a DS. 'Nuff said.
Monstar L
Why 2d for the next gen consoles?
Pretty much everything could do a 2d game today, but gamers don't want them.
Go to yahoo games and see the large amount of simple 2d games available. I don't see people paying big money for them, although I did enjoy Zuma.
The handheld market is still chock-full of 2D games, including the new installments of Castlevania and the like that you seem to be after. It's a helluva lot cheaper and doesn't waste the 3 gigahertz processors and state of the art GPUs the home consoles are built with nowadays. Buy a Nintendo DS and you are guaranteed access to a couple hundred good 2D games (counting that the machine plays GBA games as well). Looking at handheld console sales, it's a golden age right now for these machines - the DS is selling better than just about everything else, and even the underdog PSP has sold more machines than the original Xbox by now. Bottom line: there's just no point in spending $250-600 on a new system to make games with graphics the same as a $40 SNES.
That's not to say that there aren't those games such as the Xbox Live Arcade hits that aren't in 2D, but for the most part that's just a bonus feature, and not the reason the system is selling. Chances are if it's a retail game and it's 2D it's going to be handheld. And that's okay.
As I learned in this discussion, apparently it's cheaper to do a game with 3d models than to actually do it in 2d with decent animation and artwork (at least for a graphic adventure.. but I guess It'd be the same for a platform game).
A Shame, really. When Street Fighter 3 came out I was really happy to see it wasn't some 3d-shit like virtua fighter (which I dislike.. a lot), and the animations clearly take advantage of the updated hardware.
Can any game developers confirm this?
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
The best case for 2D over 3D is the Fire Emblem games. The GC version graphically is worse than the GBA's.
Point 1 is that a 3D view of a 2D battlefield is far less useful than a 2D view of a 2D battlefield. What is the use of the 3D when the player is just going to use the highest possible camera angle? False perspective is flat out superior to staring at the helmets of every enemy unit and trying to distinguish them based on that.
Point 2 are the battle animations. The 2D sprites are fluid and snappy. The 3D animations are clunky and very slow. Take for example the pegasus knight and wyvern attacks in both games. With the GBA versions you are treated to your character swooping across the screen hitting the enemy as they go by. The GC animation on the other hand looks like you put the wyvern on a swing or pendulum and the "attack" consists of your unit bumping into the enemy with no arm swing what so ever.
I beg to differ. I miss my jet pack.
__________________________________
Free your mind - Flush your toilet
Use 3D models and environments, but limit movement to 2D.
You get the smoothness of animating 3D characters rather than frame-by-frame 2D animations, and free depth of field and scrolling effects. Don't forget proper lighting, animated features like water via pixel/vertex shaders and the like.
Something like Viewtiful Joe, that was a left to right beat-em-up but in full 3D.
And yes, there's a large market for something like this.
Do games have to be 'next-gen' to be fun?
The geek in me wants next-gen, 3D HDMI-enabled toys. However, yesterday the misses and I pulled out Super Mario 3 for an evening of retro-gaming, and it was a blast. Great graphics, 3D gaming on a HDTV are great to impress your friends, but this dinosaur craves for the simple fun games you can play together for a few hours and be done with them.
Now get off my lawn!
This sig is intentionally left blank
On the wii I'm going to get soon, I'm going to buy the NES super mario bros. for $5 (in the form of 500 wii points) on the virtual console.
On the 64, gamecube, and wii, the super smash brothers games are 2.5D (3D characters that only move left/right/up/down). But good luck finding a Wii, 360, or PS3 game that costs the standard amount and is only 2D!
So to answer your question, yes and no. Yes because nobody would want to pay $50/$60 for a next-gen game that is only 2D, and no because people don't mind paying $5 for the old ones or $50/$60 for a new, fun, 2.5D game.
IMHO.
do {print "Mini-Geek Rules!\n";}
until ($TheEndOfTheWorld);
There must be a market for 2D games if you consider the constant mentioning of "retro" gaming especially within Slashdot. Companies are regurgitating old game models and making money with them particularly with Mobile games. the problem here is that they are well within the sub $10 a pop range so no one is going to get rich form a small volume of games. Having said this we have already seen that big name Game companies are complaining about the large upfront costs associated with new 3D games. Maybe lower budget games will come through as a viable undercurrent .. making money but not been the latest technology. Hopefully this will mean that games creators will think more about game play rather than pretty pictures.
...most people do expect it though. I would say that it is highly possible to make great 2D games, or more old-style games with some 3D elements. Take Ikiruga (I might have spelt that wrong), a great game with primarily a 2D action mode, or Paper Mario (if you can get hold of that I'd recomend it). These are "last gen" of course, but they do show well that even in a situation where people expect 3D you can still give 2 and have people happy.
If they make it, and make it well, people will buy it. Sure some ass-hats might not buy it because they think "it doesn't look good so it can't be fun" - but sod 'em.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
good gameplay is what counts in a game, for me at least.
something like civilization with GOOD AI opponents and simple 2D graphics would be much better than flashy graphics and weak gameplay.
even something like nethack with ASCII graphics is still very playable.
Personally I loved Zelda II, but most people didn't. And even I would be loath to play another game like it. It was so utterly evil. Even many years later, playing through the Water Temple in Ocarina, it affected me badly. Shadow Link. Oh God. The memories are coming back! I was slashed to pieces repeatedly because I was simply too terrified to make a fight of it. Ended up tanking up on green potions and setting off Din's Fire whenever the bastard came anywhere near.
Twilight Princess suits me down to the ground. It's so easy. I've only been killed twice so far, and that was while working out the deal with those kill-all-three-at-once beasties right at the start.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The whole point of this was the question whether it wouldn't be *cheaper* to develop 2D games (I'd like an Aleste/Zanex/R-type kind of game), thus actually reducing costs, thus actually making it cost *less* than $60.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
... but 2D games don't sell next-gen consoles.
http://outcampaign.org/
A pox on your graphical tomfoolery I say! I'd rather stick to my text based gaming for true quality. While I may dabble in 2D or even 3D entertainment on occaision with my console systems I still return more often to Discworld MUD than any other game. It's totally free, has no graphics at all and has a level of detail and depth that would make the average game developer blush and make excuses. Graphics maketh not the game! Gameplay is not measured by frame rate or polygon count and you can ram your vertex shaded gouroud lightsourcing where nothing but the lightsourcing shines.
These developer chappies should damn well consider gameplay first and consider presentation later. It is an add-on; window dressing and nothing more. If a game would be poor without its graphics then it is a poor game that has been disguised in a deceitful mantle of polygonal lies!
*fumes*
(This should have been a poll as well.)
3D games like first person shooters and strategy games have their place, but I have a place in my heart for 2D puzzle games, like Marble Drop or Lemmings. I'd like to see more of them, and more sophisticated ones. (Of course, I prefer Quake 2 to anything newer because the shinier graphics in the newer ones--especially Quake 3--are actually distracting.)
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
2-D Animation is more expensive (if you want it to look even passably good). There's a lot more work that goes into drawing and clean-up for all of that in-between animation versus moving a few 3D points.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with making 3-D graphics more simple to cut down costs. Let me tell you about a little game called Katamari Damacy...
If you are desperate for modern 2D Zelda titles, get a handheld console. However, for living room consoles, "Ocarina of Time" has shown that, if there is such a thing as a perfect Zelda game it probably has to be 3D. There are games that are just meant to be 2D, but Zelda is not among them.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
several of the posts around here are suggesting that 2d games require much more effort because they require drawing sprites and such. Er. no.
the line between what i'd call a 2d and a 3d game is not as clear cut aw sprites vs polygons. let's start with the classics: Doom, a 2d game made to play like a 3d game by the use of FPS and clever use of height and Goldenaxe, a 2d sidescroller but with depth, you can move in and out of the field of play, occasionally yielding different routes. Whilst Doom fits a 3d game into a 2d setting Goldenaxe does the reverse.
Taking goldenaxe, there's no reason that the same gameworld view and approach couldnt be taken today with NG arcitecture, but instead of sprites and clever z-axis trickery it would just be a long, thin, but "true" 3d gameworld with a fixed aspect camera.
Next, what about a top-down game? such as the suikoden series or zelda on the gameboy, again height, set pieces and seperate-insides-of-buildings-to-the-outsides play a role here but the same gameplay feel can be replicated again using a camera mounted up high with perspective turned off.
Next, FPS, i've already mentioned doom, but Dungeon Master was most definately 3d, but used 2d tools to create each view, sprites of varying sizes to create the illusion of depth.
What I'm getting at here, and what i suspect the poster is getting at is that what we call 3d is not always what is actually 3d, when we say 3d we probably should say FPS or chasecam and when we say 2d we should probably say platform or top-down.
As a final thought, you can play GTA3 in "classic" mode, with a top-down view, i wander how fps's might fare with a top-down view, you'd need vertical autoaim and sniping would be troublesome but it's not the giant leap you might think it is.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Is it technically feasible?
Yes, an Xbox 360 or PS3 won't PREVENT you from writing a 3D game.
Is it feasible in a business sense?
No, nobody's going to buy the damned thing. The last 2D game I saw on a home (non-portable) console was Metal Slug 3. I don't know how well it sold, but I only saw it in stores for a couple of months... and of course it was like 80% a port from another platform anyway. Writing a 2D game from scratch is not feasible from a business perspective.
Comment of the year
Sonic is one of the games I would like to see go back to 2D as all the 3d Sonic's suck.
Maybe. But Viewtiful Joe came out for $40 and sold pretty well on the Gamecube. (Awsome game BTW)
You have to draw a distinction between what you mean by "Do next-gen games have to be 3D?", do you mean "Do next-gen games have to use a 3D engine?" or do you mean "Do next-gen games have to play in 3D".
In the first case I'd say yes, next-gen games should always be built in a 3D engine, there's simply no reason to do otherwise, you can offer far more animations, a near infinite amount if you include rag-doll physics in your game than you ever could draw each object frame by frame.
In the second case, what this means is whilst your game is 3D, your gameplay doesn't have to be. Anyone who's ever played Cloning Clyde or Assault Heroes on the 360 knows what I mean - these games play from a side scrolling or above scrolling perspective like the games of old however they are entirely 3D.
To answer the question, there's little point not building a game in a 3D engine, it really offers little benefit not to in 99% of games however there's still plenty of room for 2D gameplay in a 3D world.
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Back in the early days of 3D, everyone predicted the end of 2D side-scrollers. Who knew the best game for the PS1 would be a 2D side-scroller? And it's being released in HD on the XBOX 360.
Just the games I buy do. Shouldn't this be a poll, not a story?
Why stop at 3D? I think next gen games should be played on line printers using the postal system for turn based gaming.
This question, about trading off a lot of extra work to implement a 3D environment instead of putting that work into gameplay in a 2D game, has been sitting in the back of my mind (and the minds of many others') for quite a while. The cry that comes up about 2D seems to be this idea that all "those 2D games" have already been made, get an emulator, etc etc. I for one can see one area where a great improvement can be made to the world of 2D games, and I think that a lot of people will start realizing it. Online multiplayer. If Sony and Nintendo want to really make all their retro games kick some new-gen ass, they should start finding ways to make online multiplayer additions. I even worked at a company that focused on making lobbies for online games, it really should not be that hard. I will see a lot of people stop complaining about "paying for the same game again" when they can play SNES Mario Kart or Street Fighter 2 Turbo against their friends online. Here's hoping that this idea is viable and gets picked up!
I'd love to see a new 2D side-scrolling installment of Castlevania or Zelda
Well, if you consider the DS to be the next gen of portable gaming (the PSP being the portable's space Jaguar), then you will find your 2D Zeldas and Castlevanias in there, looking better than ever.
I for one miss the old school 2d scrollers.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
To answer the question: No. In the end, it comes down to having fun, which is mainly influenced by the gameplay. Of course, an ugly graphics is bad for gameplay, but even simple 2D-Interfaces can look good. Example: DEFCON (http://www.everybody-dies.com/)
A lot of developers somehow feel compelled to make games 3D even if they don't work in 3D, for example Castlevania. A clip from this review of 3D Castlevania says a lot about the problem:
The real problem with Castlevania: Curse of Darkness is that Konami tried to do too much, too soon: they pushed for another 3D game before they figured out how to it right. Everything that made Castlevania a popular franchise--the platforming in the older games combined with the intricate detail and endless exploration of the castleroids--was completely lost when the transition was made to 3D. The cost of filling up that empty space may have been too high for the CoD budget, but that's no excuse. If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing right. Either make 3D work or go back to what you know you can do.
Twinstiq, game news
Keep in mind, Metal Slug Anthology is being released for the Wii shortly, which contains 6-7 different 2D Metal Slug games.
So there's some 2D still coming out...
clay animation rocks. Of course it is easier to render in 3d...
With Donkey Kong Country style 2D using prerendered 3D cels, you have to create comparatively low-detail models with low-detail textures, as they won't be seen close.
But the programming side of a 2D game is MUCH MUCH less strenuous.Unless the programming department blocks on the marketing department's negotiations with the console maker's approval department when the console maker wants to focus on games using real-time perspective projection of 3D models (as has been the case for Sony since the original PlayStation).
Remember the game "Settlers II"? Glorious 2D, great fun.
Since the follow-ups (Settlers III and IV) simply flopped, they now re-created Settlers II. In 3D.
Sure the graphics look nice - but suddenly, you don't have the overview anymore. 3D means that you *don't* see everything, that this path there is hidden by the nicely detailed 3D trees, that you keep having to rotate around... nice being able to zoom in, but WHAT FOR?
Bah.
Some game concepts work well in 3D. Others simply work better in 2D.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
The cost of developing next-gen titles is mostly due to the game industry's inefficient development model. Every game company I have ever worked at has re-invented the wheel over and over and over and over and over again for every project. Even if you use middleware for some things which most companies do now, you have to keep re-writing AI and gameplay systems and keep re-creating art assets from scratch. There is very little re-use from my experience. Even multiple divisions within the same company will rarely share code between them. Game companies need to learn how to develop reusable systems with good APIs, and scalable art assets, so that lateral and future products can both leverage them to keep costs down. Good games don't NEED the fastest bestest most-shaderific kickass modern graphics and physics engines to be good. A good filmmaker can take 50 year old equipment and create a masterpiece. In fact, film as a medium hasn't changed much over the years. It's all about content and direction.
What you buy a thing for and what you use it for are two different animals.
Computer games are used by gamers to achieve flow: a timeless state of mind some use drugs or a multi-year course of hard core religious mysticism to achieve. It seems to me that for this purpose graphical refinement are neither here nor there; they may help a bit they may hurt a bit, but theyu aren't even necessary.
However, it's quite possible to buy a game because it looks really cool, or owning a console with amazing 3D capabilities and playing 2D games feels silly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The DirectDraw API? Those were the days...the days when 2D programming was actually easier than 3D. Heck, if it weren't for SDL there might not *be* a decent 2D api.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Developing a nice-looking, hi-res raster 2D game isn't likely to be any cheaper than 3D. There's still a tremendous amount of content that has to be drawn and tweaked, frame by frame. At HD resolutions, it needs a hell of a lot more detail to look good--maybe not so much for kids games, but adults likely won't be happy with a bland, flat 2D game--than it ever did at 320x240, which adds up to a lot of time spent detailing sprites.
A vector based 2D game could be done at a lower cost than traditional sprites, giving a look similar to most of the cartoons on Adult Swim, but to make it run well it would probably just end up being a 3D game with a lot of textures slapped onto planes.
In some cases I'd argue 2D games are superior than 3D games. Excluding truly old games, 2D in general ages much better than 3D. NES games, and especially anything produced since then generally still looks good today whereas PS1 and even many PS2-era games look severely outdated. I suppose it's a consequence of how much 3D has evolved but I also think it's that there is a general lack of style to 3D.
In 2D creativity is required to properly depict a character or environment. And because it's closer to a cartoon or comic book in how the art is produced that enables the artist to be more faithful to the original concept. I can't help but notice that in 3D games the concept art is consistently more impressive than the three-dimensional end result. Part of it is a technological limitation, but I think a more significant problem is production limitation. Designers just don't have the time to invest in producing artwork that's detailed to the level of the original concept. I do think, however, that cartoony 3D games are more faithful to the source because that complexity isn't there.
It does bring me to another problem which is developer's current obsession with recreating reality in game art. It seems that there's this consensus that the only way to impress people with graphics is by making them as realistic as possible. Unfortunately, it also sucks the personality out of the game. Let's take Oblivion. Technically, it's impressive. But from an artistic and stylistic sense it's terrible. The game looks like a tech demo where they tried to recreate photos of forests and castles. The characters don't look like battle-hardened, magically-infused inhabitants of a fantasy world. They look like actors, like they pulled some guy off the street and had him wear a suit of armor.
Certainly, there are exceptions. Japanese RPGs, for example, tend to use a more creative art style but then they're also being more faithful to 2D art to begin with. Even recent Final Fantasy games which tend to look more realistic are infused with plenty of style and fantasy.
However, even then there is yet another problem. The amount of production required for many current 3D games is mind-boggling. It often feels like the developer has put more effort into the art than they have into the gameplay. A developer isn't limited by being forced to reproduce a fairly realistic physics model, for example. It doesn't matter that Mario can jump 10 meters, it doesnt matter whether he looks convincing when he falls. There are no concerns about the camera. 2D games are all about gameplay. The emphasis isn't put on whether something looks and feels convincing but rather if it plays as desired. It doesn't matter if an environment doesn't look like a realistic location if the sequence is entertaining.
It's not to say that 2D games are easy to create. It still requires a lot of work to make a 2D game look good. And excluding perhaps shooters and puzzle games, it demands an immense amount of illustration. Imagine trying to create all the artwork for a game like Street Figther 3. It's so daunting a task that it does make 3D very attractive. 3D can simplify production immensely.
Ultimately, the problem isn't 3D in and of itself but the fact that developers today overdo everything. It's entirely possible, if they kept things simple, that a 3D game could require less production than some of the more complex 2D games. Either way, in the end it does all come down to gameplay more than it does the number of dimensions.
Personally, I don't think so. Look at the success of Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate for how well done and engrossing a 2d game can be.
HOWEVER...I think that you have to separate the tech from the game.
The constant drive to improve render speeds, add polygons, always pushing for ever-faster, ever more expensive hardware? That's little more than phallus-comparison-by proxy, since current 3d games are plenty realistic enough to convey just about any experience visually. Would games get MORE realistic with dynamic shadows, glare, and higher poly counts? Sure. But do they NEED to? Probably not.
It should be noted though, that with the new tools coming out making it ever easier to work in 3d, it's in many cases EASIER to build a world for acting in 3d than 2d - we're monkeys, after all, we THINK in 3d. So to take a game like Planescape, for example, I believe it was rather convoluted to make sure that the character could path to each NPC, reach every clickable on-screen item, etc, etc. "Ah, the character can't walk back there, because then we can't see him."
In a 3d world, that's intuitive and there are (optimally) no 'blind spots'.
-Styopa
They could make interesting 3d games with a lower level of graphics and better game play. For example Wii Sports, I've had so much fun in the last month playing Wii Tennis and Wii Bowling that I don't even want a new game any time soon. The joy and excitement of playing those games hasn't faded in the least bit yet.
What most 3d games are doing however is pushing the graphics to the max, making sweat drip down the characters (fight night), having a dynamic environment where even towns people interact with you based on your actions (assassins creed), making the environment more life like with shadows and lighting effects (god of war). These things among others add a lot to the cost of the game. Some times, as in the past, this has made companies give in to a little worse game play.
For me next-gen means they're bringing me something new and exciting. In that case it could be new/better game play, graphics, or physics. I guess I'd rather have all of them, but from playing the Wii I've realized the game play is what most if I had to pick between them all.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
I would love to see more 2D platformers. In fact, I think HD has alot more to offer 2D, hand-drawn games than it does 3D games. In a hand-drawn world, the pixel-per-pixel rendering can be used to make a fantastically beautiful scene, whereas in 3D the constant motion of the world detracts from the artistic aspects.
If someone were to come out with an excellent 2D platformer with a huge world or great replayability (Symphony of the Night comes to mind), I would certainly be willing to drop $60 for it.
Oh well, not likely to happen from a major publisher who could really pull it off well.
Real, "classic" 2D games require way too much time because of the sprites animation. Let's not forget that these games can be incredibly impressive (most SNK games), but there's always the "Donkey Kong Country" way (3D renders turned into sprites for a 2D game) and the 2.5D way, where you move in a 3D world but only in two directions at once. Think Einhänder on the PS1, New Super Mario Bros on the Nintendo DS, etc.
Being that all dev kits are now probably aimed at making 3D games, I guess 2.5D games are the new 2D.
A 2D game would sell for $20 and give as much profits as an expensive 3D game, because it would cost hundreds instead of millions to develop.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
The problem with the original post/article is that it asks the wrong question.
3D games, in and of themselves, are not inherently more expensive to produce than 2D games. The reason modern 3D games are getting so expensive is that they're doing their best to be *realistic*, in terms of photographic quality, physics, and (usually) story. *That* is where the time and money is spent.
I've played some damn good "cartoony" 3D games in my day that cost a hell of a lot less to make than today's photorealistic Doom clones, and offered better gameplay while they were at it. Games like Mario 64, Warcraft 3, Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, the new Pirates!, or Civilization 4. (JUST. ONE. MORE. TURN!!!!)
So, the original post is correct, in my opinion, that modern games focus too much on certain aspects and end up costing a lot more to make, but it's not 3D that's the problem.
It's priorities.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Civ 4 is the *wrong* example of how going 3d is bad. It's heads and shoulders above any previous version of Civ, and I've owned them all (even that non-Sid version that had future tech). The map takes a little getting used to, but not that much, and in the end is actually *more* useful, IMO, than Civ 3's map. Especially when you zoom out and use the strategic layers.
No, Civ 4 *oozes* gameplay. Sure, 3d virtual Sid is painful to watch (and listen to), but he's only in the tutorial.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Current gen games are 3D. Last gen games were 2D. It's obvious where the future is heading.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Why not ask this about current gen?
Longer answer: A game doesn't have to be glitzy to be fun, but frankly fun isn't the only thing that sells video games. Hype and eye candy do that. How many of us have at some point in our lives bought a game based on a screenshot on the back of a box and ended up being totally robbed by the experience?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think that if a game becomes improved due to 3d then by all means make it 3d. One fine example is the transition from Metal Gear to Metal Gear Solid. That transition from 2d to 3d really improved the gameplay. And if you really want some 2d games check out the handhelds. I cannot say much about the psp since I do not own one but the ds has alot of good 2d games. The best example is the two Castlevanias for it. While I did play the two Castlevanias for the ps2, which I think were decent games, still they just do not match up to the 2d Castlevanias. The day Castlevania goes 3d for good is the day the series dies for me.
I recently purchased an Xbox 360. Why? Well... the only *real* reason I bought it was to play Gears of War. And let me tell you, holy crap!
I have a high-defition projector with a 106" screen, and playing Gears of War when the lights are all off and the game is giving you every ambient noise from a 7.1 surround sound system... The first time I encountered wretches, I about wet my pants. I saw them coming at me on the ceiling, and then all of a sudden I heard the screeching noise they make, but it was from behind me. REALLY behind me- behind my couch from the back wall to be precise. *shudder*
Anyway, basically, that type of immersion would have never been possible (for me at least) on a system that didn't look or sound as absolutely stunning as Gears of War. I think that "next gen" can't really be defined without there being some form of 3D in the game. After all, after playing a game like Gears of War, plugging in an NES and playing Mario at 480i on the same projector would just look like ass.
If you want to play new 2d Castlevania games, pick up a Nintendo DS. Portal of Ruin is great. It even has a cool co-op over internet mode.
Dawn of Sorrow was good too. You'll also be able to play the GBA Castlevania games (I think there was 3, with Aria of Sorrow being my favorite).
There's also Zelda games available like Minish Cap and 4 swords - as well as a port of Link to the Past. 2d gaming is alive and well on handhelds.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
For those of you who wonder how a FPS might play in top down, the one that springs immediately to mind is the awesome Alien Swarm mod for UT2k4. This was a team-based top-down FPS shooter, Marines Vs Aliens style. Of course, there is now a chase-cam-style third-person sequel in the works although the News page appears to be a little quiet.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I dunno, SSB could have been done in 2D. It might be a huge pain to animate and make pretty, but it would still be an awesome game. The 3D aspects just make it much more aesthetically pleasing. SSB selling consoles? It's gonna sell me a Wii!
Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin was released a couple weeks ago on the DS and is a fantastic 2d game, plays just like Symphony of the Night on the playstation 1 and is worth every penny ($35).
Also note that within a week or two Metal Slug Anthology will be released on the Nintendo Wii. While not next-gen it certainly is fun, and will feature something like six different control schemes utilizing the Wiimote.
By the way, assuming by 2D you mean 2D control, not 2D graphics only, I like to point at Smash Brothers. The game is technically 3D but plays as a 2D beat em up game. So while it doesn't suffer from terrible visuals it is easy to grasp the basics and have some fun. Games like Viewtiful Joe and such have been very successful by using new visual styles on the old 2d formula.
Sadly, the reality is they don't care about filling niche desires. Capcom closed down Clover(makers of viewtiful joe) shortly after they released God-Hand and Okami(A game of the year contender). It's hard not to be cynical about creative gaming in the face of such actions.
I long for the days of a 3D engine, but 2D gameplay Metroid.
I love MP. I loved Metroid: Zero Mission more.
The current list of best-rated Wii games puts a pure 2D game at #3, just behind the latest Zelda and Madden offerings. While it's just a remake of the DS game, the stylus-to-wiimote conversion works surprisingly well - in fact, it's the best use of the Wii's motion sensing capabilities I've tried yet. In short, no. I think it's been long enough that there's no reason a game that only needs two-dimensional graphics should be forced to add a useless third one.
Viewtiful Joe was 2.5D... So no, not 3D, but not 2D either.
Viewtiful Joe was 2.5D... So no, not 3D, but not 2D either.
(Copy-paste of earlier posts)
"As a gamer who grew up on the NES, I'd love to see a new 2D side-scrolling installment of Castlevania or Zelda."
Has this guy not heard of the DS?
/* No Comment */
To create a marketable (as in a full-length disc-based game, not a download) "2D" title on a next gen console, you'd have to at least keep the game assets themselves 3D and simply the camera itself so it can only pan horizontally/vertcally and track/zoom only on the axis perpendicular to the user's display (think Super Smash Brothers). This would at least allow you access to most of the effects and capabilities of the system in question... something a user who just shelled out $60 for a game is going to expect at the very minimum.
Otherwise, all of that expensve hardware, development tools and other production elements are just plain overkill for a title that could be ran on a previous generation console and for much cheaper. For example, a game like Alien Homonid just wouldn't have any market on the next gen consoles, except as a cheap download.
8==8 Bones 8==8
No need to get back in time, or wait for new games. If you like the old ones, they are still out there. Go ahead and buy them.
New games need to look good. (Remember, Just as many of the old games suffered from poor gameplay too!)
You would not have wanted text based games on your nintendo.
3d is plain better than 2d.
Personally though, I like the old games, and I buy them still. I don't think that there are enough people out there like me to justify a game shop betting the company on a 2d scroller though.
Yes, this is very possible. Moreso the bigger the game gets.
I play Nexus TK, which is a 2D MMO. There are some things that it's got to be easier for them to get to look good in 2D, of course -- it's easy to just sketch a character and be done with it.
Trouble is, the characters can do a lot. There are 16 different emotes, for instance -- 5 of which actually require the character's body to move as well as their face, and 2 of those which look different depending on which direction the character is facing (of 4 possible directions). And then there's the emote players do when they're casting spells, which also looks different from each of those four directions. Players can also attack in those four directions, and the attack animation is either a swinging motion (club, sword, or punch) or a stabbing motion (staff).
The game is isometric-ish, so you can't dupe stuff for the 4 directions -- for one thing, facing down is facing towards the camera, and up is away from the camera -- and most things look different from the back than they do from the front.
So, that's 5 emotes + 1 sort-of emote (casting spells) + 2 different attacks that I know of, + walking + riding a horse + standing still. That's 10 different animations -- for each direction, so 40 animations of 3 frames each, as well as 4 frames just standing still (or sitting on a horse) -- plus probably 2 more for when someone's holding a weapon or a shield. That means if they want to introduce a new outfit, say, they need to draw roughly 130 frames of animation.
Per item of clothing.
Now, a 3D game with skeletal animation (or morph targets) might take longer to get those animations initially, but you could just create a model for the clothing and attach it to the character. So, if you can create such a model faster than you can create 130 frames of animation, 3D will eventually be cheaper than 2D.
Same with everything else, by the way. Weapons have a drop graphic (what it looks like on the ground), as graphic for being held in each of those 4 directions, a swing animation in each of the 4 directions, and possibly a walking animation.
Technically, you can do skeletal animation for 2D, but only if you want your game to look like Ragdoll Kung-Fu.
Now, I'm not a game developer, but I can definitely say that there are cases where at least doing 3D artwork is cheaper now. However, what's often missed is that games don't have to be "next gen" to be good. Recently, I've been playing a lot of lugaru -- definitely worth the $20. The graphics and artwork is actually very old-looking -- will be much better in Lugaru 2, apparently -- but they focus on detail where it counts. Throw a knife at someone, and you'll have to retrieve it if you want to throw more knives. If it doesn't kill them, it'll be sticking out of their chest -- they can then grab it and use it against you, dripping blood all over the place...
In many ways, it actually looks much better than most "modern" or "next-gen" fighting games -- and they're going to make a sequel!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
2D games are still being made and played, they just moved from the forefront to handhelds, cell phones, internet, and arcade services.
:)
In all truthfulness, that's where they belong. After all, who wants to spend $600 on a PS3 and $1000 on a 1080i TV to play a 2D side scroller, even though it'll be more fun.
I have spent more time playing Koules than Doom or the various Quakes and other similar games.
On consoles, Frequency, Amplitude, DDR, and Guitar Hero take my time, none of them 3D.
Of course, they have a common thread, music and rhythm, which I find compelling.
The games I tend to enjoy to are entertaining without having a visual WOW factor.
This is a train-driving simulation game featuring HD recorded front view and overhead view, realtime switchable. (so it almost sucked an entire BD disc just for that ...)
And from an blog post from the producer, roughly translates:
Look at the success of Trauma Center: Second Opinion on the Wii - there's clearly room for first-class, full-price 2D console titles with innovative gameplay.
Now, will Yet Another 2D Platformer do so well at $50? Probably not, unless it's got Mario in the name.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
IMHO 3D or 2D doesnt matter, the thing thats valuable is FUN... http://agtp.romhack.net/doukutsu.html A very old school freeware platformer, but fun nevertheless...
I would absolutely love to see ultra high res 2D games that only modern systems would have the capability to handle. And I'm talking about 2D graphics here not gameplay, as there are already a few games with 2D gameplay using polygon graphics
Many of the games on Xbox Live arcade may be rendered in 3D, but have gameplay similar to older 2D games. I think the 3D capabilities can be use to add visual flair while still retaining the gameplay of popular 2D gametypes.
A good example of what will be easier to write in the next generation of interactive fiction is Galatea, and some of the worked examples that come with inform 7 really showcase its power. I defy you to read through the manual and not come up with an idea for at least one story to implement.
One great article I read that actually made me stop, reread the paragraph, and put down my pilot (I read it in plucker) and think about the implications was in SPAG issue 44. Another couple good articles are in http://brasslantern.org/writers/howto/i7intro.html and
http://brasslantern.org/writers/iftheory/i7observa tions.html . Without
spoiling the latter article, I'll mention that one of the paragraphs under
the 'relations' section blew my mind.
A good example of what will be easier to write in the next generation of interactive fiction is Galatea, and some of the worked examples that come with inform 7 really showcase its power. I defy you to read through the manual and not come up with an idea for at least one story to implement.
One great article I read that actually made me stop, reread the paragraph, and put down my pilot (I read it in plucker) and think about the implications was in SPAG issue 44. Another couple good articles are in http://brasslantern.org/writers/howto/i7intro.html and
http://brasslantern.org/writers/iftheory/i7observa tions.html . Without
spoiling the latter article, I'll mention that one of the paragraphs under
the 'relations' section blew my mind.
Game tastes are kind of a demographic sandwich.
Gamers from 5-12 years old really don't care that much about cutting edge 3D graphics - they care about gameplay. Graphics aren't a big deal because this is their first experiences with a computer anyways.
Gamers from 13-27 years old are the ones buying (or asking their parents to buy) expensive graphics powerhouses because they need every pixel shader working to its fullest on the latest, cutting edge games. This is the largest game playing demographic.
Finally, gamers from 28 and up are the ones who remember games from the pre-Doom/Quake days (I'm talking around like Hard Hat Mack and M.U.L.E!) and appreciate gameplay over graphics. Thus, they (me included) share the same values as our kids (the 5-12 year olds).
In a way, it's a lot like the way parents and kids get along so poorly only during their adolescence. Maybe not a coincidence...
StarCraft -> Warcraft III
I don't think you'll find many people that will argue that War3 had a better game design than StarCraft and the addition of 3D graphics in War3, while pretty, didn't make up for the downgrade in gameplay.
Game developers: please learn from Blizzard's mistake.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Get off my lawn!
"Using linux is like a game, if you're able to make it run better than Windows, you're winning" - Unknown slashdotter.
The 3D version of Railroad Tycoon was worse than the original with its primitive graphics. The 3D bits added to this game were not required and just didn't fit.
There has been too much emphasis on "lets make a 3D version of this" during whatever time frame rather than deciding what works well for a game and pursuing that.