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.
There's plenty of 2d doing very well on XBLA.
Geometary Wars and the massively superb Assault Force for example.
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.
Yes, there's plenty of 2D games on the DS, but I sympathize with the original point. You could do some drop dead gorgeous hand painted games in 1080i. There's so much more detail that could be squeezed into games.
Personally, I'm holing out for a true sequel to Symphony of the Night, fully hand painted, in 2d. 3D effects, sure. Maybe even 3D medusa heads and bats.
When I play games, I play to escape reality...not look at something that tries to mimick it. If I want reality I can go outside. I'd really love to see more abstract 2D games out on the market for consoles. I guess we have the new Paper Mario game on the Wii to look forward too....
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
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/
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...
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.
The costs associated with developing a game are getting more expensive because most modern games are getting to the stage were they require a Hollywood style budget. I think gone are the days when you could get a few programmers together and churn out a simple innovative game that would sell well. Now you have to think storyline, concept artists, modelers (both physical and digital), testers, managers, continuity, level designers, actors (voice and motion capture), ..... the list goes on. If gaming houses don't adopt the above strategy then the game will most likely be bad or mediocre at best resulting in poor sales and this affects the company.
I could not say if 2D games are more expensive to produce than 3D games but once you take all the costs into consideration then there probably would not be much of a difference.
Like it or not the current trend of gaming is 3D and that is were the money is. It is no good saying "Microsoft or Nintendo or Sony prefers/forces the developer to design 3D games" these companies are not saying this to to be domineering they are saying this so the developer will make a game that will sell on their console and a game that sells means more revenue for said console supplier.
I still have nostalgia for some 2D games going back to the NES days but those days are over although it may be possible that some interesting 2D games can come from home-brew developers but ask yourself "would you pay for them?" and there in lies the dilemma.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
You really missed the point here.
Development costs would be much cheaper and the game wouldn't have to be $60.
That said, I'm not sure you have any reason to make such a bold statement. If the game play was really good than people would buy the game...
Do you think any fewer people would have bought Guitar Hero or the latest Dance Dance Revolution if they had the occasional 2D dancing character in the background instead of the occasional 3D dancing character in the background? GH probably has the fret markers come at you in 3D but they could have done it in 2D just as well. I doubt it would have taken anything away from the game.
One game genre that I genuinely miss having in 2D is the fighting game. Most of them have moved to 3D and IMO most of them were better left in 2D. I miss cool fighters like the older Mortal Kombats, Killer Instinct, Primal Rage, etc. Capcom and SNK still make some in 2D but I've never been that big of a fan of their fighting franchises.
I believe it's foolish to think that all games have to be in 3D today, I definitely think that certain game types lend themselves to being either 2D or 3D, some of the worst games IMO are those that are better suited to 2D but were squeezed into a 3D framework... just because. Worms, Lemmings, Frogger, Mortal Kombat, Sonic, etc. Some games handled the transition well (like Mario) other's didn't (like Worms). Not everything needs to be bigger and better, some things can do well just being fun and I think they would still sell well on that premise rather then one based on 3D graphics.
Collector's Edition
Hell, no. Games don't have to be 3D. The Castlevania games on the DS are pure gaming nirvana and Symphony of the Night (PSX) is considered one of the best games of the PSX era. I would LOVE to see similar games in full HD glory on a modern system and would gladly hand over my cash for them. Sadly, it seems like the DS has become that last bastion of 2D gaming and that SUCKS (not that the DS sucks, I love that system... just that it's a shame that 2D games are shunned on the modern systems).
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/