Support NeoGAF

[Prospero]

Down to Two Dimensions--Greg Kasavin

My problem with 3D graphics in games--and it's always been my problem with 3D graphics in games--is that they're unedited. You can often view the action from any angle, and frames of animation are typically never skipped. In a way, then, 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.

When you watch a movie, you don't question the fact that the movie is a series of carefully contrived camera shots. You typically don't find yourself wishing you could see the action from another perspective. You don't dream of rotating the scene to your desired angle or anything like that. Or if you do find yourself wishing these things, it's hopefully because that's exactly what the movie director wants you to be feeling, such as during a claustrophobic scene in a horror movie. I equate 2D game graphics to this sort of model. They are purely intentional. Every little detail that's put into 2D art is meant to be seen, whereas with 3D graphics, some of the angles, perspectives, animations, and effects may be incidental or accidental.

I still think 2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do, on average. And having good collision detection is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of just about any game. Likewise, I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do.

Maybe "lifelike" isn't the best choice of a word. 3D graphics can certainly look more lifelike than 2D graphics can. Motion-capture technology allows for animation that looks flat-out human. But when I play games, I don't necessarily want to see anything mundane. I prefer exaggerated or otherwise imaginative looks to my games, so I don't think it's coincidental that some of the most memorable-looking, best-looking games I've ever played feature 2D artwork. I'm also glad to have realized lately that, much as I suspected a decade ago, 2D graphics will never completely go out of style.

 

[DopeyFish]

*sigh*

 

[mashoutposse]

My problem with 3D graphics in games--and it's always been my problem with 3D graphics in games--is that they're unedited. You can often view the action from any angle, and frames of animation are typically never skipped. In a way, then, 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.

When you watch a movie, you don't question the fact that the movie is a series of carefully contrived camera shots. You typically don't find yourself wishing you could see the action from another perspective. You don't dream of rotating the scene to your desired angle or anything like that. Or if you do find yourself wishing these things, it's hopefully because that's exactly what the movie director wants you to be feeling, such as during a claustrophobic scene in a horror movie. I equate 2D game graphics to this sort of model. They are purely intentional. Every little detail that's put into 2D art is meant to be seen, whereas with 3D graphics, some of the angles, perspectives, animations, and effects may be incidental or accidental.

Video games are designed to be interactive -- more control > less control, whether you're talking about number of views or movement itself.

I mean really, "3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control...;" he says it like it's a bad thing.

I'm not willing to sacrifice control for some force-fed design.

 

[belgurdo]

2D probably should have died a while ago, since 3D can accomplish what that graphical style did and more

 

[dog$]

*begins countdown to GBA asskissing*

 

[cybamerc]

2d forever!

 

[belgurdo]

*begins countdown to GBA and SNES asskissing*

fixed

 

[Prospero]

Now that I've thought about it a bit, I think he goes a little far when he talks about the "problem" with 3D gaming, but he does have a point when he talks about how 2D gaming gives the game's "director" more control over how the game looks. There's a reason why Paper Mario looks so great that has nothing to do with nostalgia--maybe it's because the somewhat 2D nature of the characters always shows you their best possible perspectives.

I think the real problem he has with 3D gaming has nothing to do with the technology, so much as the fascination with "realism" that came with the movement to 3D from 2D. Videogames still don't do realism well, in 2D or 3D.

 

[Ar_]

The sweet time I took playing with the camera in ICO, enjoying the world from every avaliable angle, begs to disagree with the quoted article.

3d doesnt prevent from ofering a predefined perspective either. See Devil May Cry, or even better Fatal Frame.
Exactly like in the movies he mentions, the camera is programmed to show predetermined dramatical angles.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

2D probably should have died a while ago, since 3D can accomplish what that graphical style did and more

For some genres it can; for many others it cannot.

Most of my favorite genres (shmups, fighters, action, platform) have not made the translation well to 3D at all, IMO.

 

[Ar_]

There's a reason why Paper Mario looks so great that has nothing to do with nostalgia--maybe it's because the somewhat 2D nature of the characters always shows you their best possible perspectives.

3d doesnt look all that inferior, to me =)

 

[ravingloon]

I was playing Yoshi's Island again yesterday and it really hit home how much easier games have gotten (My skills have eroded so much that even the 1st worlds resulted in some surprising deaths). Yoshi's Island and component output = My favorite visual game ever (Ignoring the amazing gameplay). Really wish 2D had continued evolving, because some genres aren't better in 3D (Some are MUCH better, but some not).

 

[belgurdo]

I was playing Yoshi's Island again yesterday and it really hit home how much easier games have gotten (My skills have eroded so much that even the 1st worlds resulted in some surprising deaths). Yoshi's Island and component output = My favorite visual game ever (Ignoring the amazing gameplay). Really wish 2D had continued evolving, because some genres aren't better in 3D (Some are MUCH better, but some not).

Yoshi's Island was pretty easy itself, unless you were doing something like perfect runs...

 

[dog$]

^^ 7 posts.

I was playing Yoshi's Island again yesterday and it really hit home how much easier games have gotten

I don't understand this, either, and I'm hearing statements like this more often.

Anyone that's played a few of the shooters or other arcade games from this gen. (among other games; I can't offer testimony about Ninja Gaiden for example but appearently it isn't easy) has had more than enough challenge from these titles, I think.

 

[nubbe]

3d doesnt look all that inferior, to me =)

Those games mimic the 2D atmosphere which future proves 2D supremacy

 

[Ar_]

And 2d games mimic the 3d real world, which further proves the superiority of 3d! There!

Eidt: Seriously, 2d atmosphere? What in Heavens is it? This is also what you call "2d atmosphere"?

Carton style has never been a 2d exclusive.
The fact that you saw first on 2d games, is due to nothing else than 2d games being made first, not a superiority of the medium for that specific style - as cel shading proved.

 

[XS+]

2D art can go away (not that I want it to, but the artwork isn't the priority), but 2D gaming offers a different enough playing experience from 3D (not better or worse, just different) that justifies its existence. But looking at those sales charts in another thread, there's about zero demand for anything 2-dimensional, so the masses clearly don't agree/care. Damned shame.

 

[ge-man]

I can see what Greg is trying to say, but I wouldn't conclude that 2D is better. There is a lot more that can be achieved with 3D--and if developers really want to they can emulate the 2D style (the pictures posted above have some nice examples).

I think Prospero is right on the money, is more of a question of how 3D is generally executed.

 

[kaching]

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.

Bollocks, Greg. How 'bout if I take my 2 platformer character, run him up against a wall and proceed to jump up and down repeatedly as if I'm trying to hump it - would that be how the artist precisely chose to display this character to me? No extraneous frames in that sequence?

 

[Ar_]

From the Gradius V thread:

Would the game improve removing the rotating lasers and bosses? Even in a 2d plane of action, 3d technology helps adding variety.

Some nice, real 3d shooters:

A subgenre that died even before the 2d ones =|

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Yoshi's Island

Yoshi's Island was super easy. In fact, it's like the only game I've completed in like a long ass time.

 

[ge-man]

Yoshi's Island is an interesting case. Actually getting from point A to B is fairly easy. The diffculty doesn't start kicking in until you try finding everything. SMW was the same way--the real challenge was out the basic game.

 

[djtiesto]

It all depends on the genre... 2D gaming is best for pure skill-based games (platformer, action, shooters), since you don't have to worry about a crap camera screwing everything up, or depth perception and realistic physics. 3D works real well for RPGs, flight sims, adventure games and racing games... Maybe sports games, too, I wouldn't know since I won't touch one of them with a 10 foot pole. Game companies have all but eschewed 2D, but the fact remains (as evident from the sales of the NES classics and the Mario Advance games) - not everyone wants to play a super complex 3D world where they need to use every button* and deal with a finicky camera. I also think that many 3D games try to hard to make extremely realistic worlds, thus losing any sort of interesting style... Chronicles of Riddick, sure it looks nice and has a high poly count, but it's a pretty dull world, too realistic looking. Of course there are games like TOS, ICO, DW8, and Rez, with 3D graphics presented in an atmospheric format, but companies are basically forced to create highly stylized 2D graphics (except for that whole "ACM rendering technology" popular post-DKC... man, that shit was ugly!). Maybe I'm just biased since I know how tough it is to get everything pixel perfect with tile-based graphics, and I'm still impressed with what some artists did with the medium (CV:SOTN, Tales of Phantasia PSX, Star Ocean, Seiken Densetsu 3).

*when I first played GTA3 and the prostitute told me to press the L3 button to activate my horn, I was ready to take the game and throw it away... We're going overboard with the number of buttons/button combos necessary to play a game.

 

[bishoptl]

Now THAT'S sexy.

 

[djtiesto]

Now THAT'S sexy.

Though it hasn't been confirmed yet for a US release

I like the style, looks almost watercolor-ish... This is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about interesting 3D graphic design...

 

[MoxManiac]

Only genre i think is better in 2D is fighters.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I think the editorial has a point yet misses a greater, overall point, like many 2D vs 3D debates and essays do. It's all just pixels on a 2D (flat) screen. The 2D generation had "3D" games as well - games that made heavy use of scaling and rotation. It's a red herring to ridgidly separate "2D" and "3D" into different, alien worlds based just on sprites vs polygons. Which is what most people who argue it seem to do.

As shown in the thread here, there are "3D" games that pay attention to what the editorial bemoans as a negative - the "unedited" nature of a lot of 3D games. Also, the comment about Ico is signifigant because the key in Ico was stunning art direction (entirely apart from technical quality). Ico looks good from any angle because of the quality of art direction. What's really been missing from 3D games in large part, is highly sophisticated art direction. I feel this is largely (but not entirely) due to 3D technology being more complex to grapple with and taking time to catch up to 2D technology in terms of its ability to provide artistic flexibility. We're only just seeing "3D gaming" begin to pay attention to artistic and direction values in the way that the best 2D games did.

Truth be told, if developers continue to experiment with fusions of 2D and 3D ideas and continue to push artistic boundaries, I suspect in the next generation or two of hardware we may see the 2D vs 3D debate die to a signifigant degree. When 3D technology is capable of rendering full artistic visions as well as you see in state of the art 2D technology (such as Guilty Gear X2), I think there will be a re-fusion of things. Stuff like Paper Mario GC is already pretty far in that direction.

 

[Gattsu25]

My problem with 3D graphics in games--and it's always been my problem with 3D graphics in games--is that they're unedited. You can often view the action from any angle, and frames of animation are typically never skipped. In a way, then, 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.

When you watch a movie, you don't question the fact that the movie is a series of carefully contrived camera shots. You typically don't find yourself wishing you could see the action from another perspective. You don't dream of rotating the scene to your desired angle or anything like that. Or if you do find yourself wishing these things, it's hopefully because that's exactly what the movie director wants you to be feeling, such as during a claustrophobic scene in a horror movie. I equate 2D game graphics to this sort of model. They are purely intentional. Every little detail that's put into 2D art is meant to be seen, whereas with 3D graphics, some of the angles, perspectives, animations, and effects may be incidental or accidental.

But in 2D games you would, as they rarely switched camera angles to show action...when I think of someone getting stabbed in a 2D game's story sequence, I think of 2 Sprites from an static camera angle and one moving quickly toward the other...a quick and shitty sound playing, and the other character quickly moving back before a text baloon pops up saying "..Ugh." - - - Now this same scene can be done is so many more ways had the game been 3D...and while it could have been done otherwise in 2D games, it generally wasn't...because 2D games in general weren't the artists' vision of what a scene was but their way of showing that scene through the severe limitations that 2D puts on them

3D holding back cinematic gameplay because it gave developers yet another reason to slack off on story, dialog, and music is a much more realistic debate, in my opinion

 

[kasavin]

when I think of someone getting stabbed in a 2D game's story sequence, I think of 2 Sprites from an static camera angle and one moving quickly toward the other...a quick and shitty sound playing, and the other character quickly moving back before a text baloon pops up saying "..Ugh."

Have you seen people get stabbed in Final Fantasy Tactics? Those are some of the most intense stabbing sequences in just about any game, and they're 2D and done with cute little babydoll-looking characters.

 

[Ristamar]

I'm assuming this editorial interpretation of 2D includes pseudo-3D games like Viewtiful Joe...

 

[mashoutposse]

The move towards 3D is influenced by the demand for increased interactivity and full-fledged cinematic experiences (as opposed to simple, entertaining diversions).

I find it quite difficult to justify spending $50 or so on most 2D games as they generally lack a certain depth inherent in most of today's 3D titles...

 

[kasavin]

I think the editorial has a point yet misses a greater, overall point, like many 2D vs 3D debates and essays do. It's all just pixels on a 2D (flat) screen.

I thought about mentioning that point in the article, but frankly (and no offense), I don't think it's a very interesting or "greater" point, because all it seems to do is dictate that there's no difference between 2D and "3D" graphics--when clearly there is, in terms of how we perceive what's happening on an obviously flat screen.

We all know that "true 3D" was tried with the whole virtual reality thing (and the Virtual Boy and way back with the LCD 3D glasses thing), and none of it took off. I guess I'm all in favor of a revolution in the way we actually view or perceive games (give me a huge, dish-shaped monitor that I can dip my head into, for example), but then again, I'm perfectly happy with 21" monitors and 60" widescreen HDTVs.

 

[Gattsu25]

Have you seen people get stabbed in Final Fantasy Tactics? Those are some of the most intense stabbing sequences in just about any game, and they're 2D and done with cute little babydoll-looking characters.

The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with the quality of the stabbing...that was just an example I used (and I consider FFT to be an exception rather than the rule in that case, anyway [plus, that game is technically more 3D than Duke3D :b]) It was that 2D, in my opinion, was holding developers back in what they could achieve in their games in a much larger way than 3D does. It's also important to consider that not all games use 'characters'...the genres and games that emphasis vehicles have greatly benefitted from the shift to 3D. While some great 2D car games like spyhunter have yet to be done right in 3D, great games like GT, Wave Race, and Burnout could not be done, as they are now, in 2D.

2D and 3D games in any specific genre usually don't play the same...so one's prefernce to one over the other might also be based solely on what type of gameplay experience they prefer...but I believe it has more to do with nastolgia...they remember the fun they had in the days of 2D and (while 3D does have it's limitations) blame 3D on their lack of fun instead of themselves for becoming jaded.

I do agree with the article about the animation...3D games seldom have the feeling of immediate control that 2D platformers (for example) had...while in a 2D game hitting a button generally cased that action to occur immediately, you often have to wait for an animation to end/begin now.




hope my points come accross

 

[radios shipping overview]

2D and 3D games in any specific genre usually don't play the same...so one's prefernce to one over the other might also be based solely on what type of gameplay experience they prefer...but I believe it has more to do with nastolgia...they remember the fun they had in the days of 2D and (while 3D does have it's limitations) blame 3D on their lack of fun instead of themselves for becoming jaded.

I do agree with the article about the animation...3D games seldom have the feeling of immediate control that 2D platformers (for example) had...while in a 2D game hitting a button generally cased that action to occur immediately, you often have to wait for an animation to end/begin now.

Your first and last points are correct. While new styles of play and levels of realism not possible in 2D have been introduced with 3D games, 2D (or 2.5D) games offer a style of play that simply does not exist in games with 3D control schemes. It's a style of play that I'd rather not give up, and it's why I'll always keep my older systems around, no matter how cinematic and realistic modern games get.

 

[DDayton]

The problem I have with these debates is that people always seen to lump graphics and gameplay together. 2D graphics and 2D gameplay are completely different things.

Super Mario Bros. = 2D graphics/gameplay
Super Mario 64 = 3D graphics/gameplay
Super Smash Bros. = 3D graphics & 2D gameplay
Paper Mario = 2D graphics & 3D gameplay

You can't say "2D is dead" and be referring to gameplay -- 2D games are alive and well (Viewtiful Joe, the Smash Bros. series, Gradius V, and others).

People always seem to mix 2D graphics and gameplay... if it's the gameplay you care about, it will still be around (although, perhaps, less frequently), and it provides a much different experience.

As far as looks goes, we'll still have 2D games (like Paper Mario, for example), even though the gameplay tends to be in three dimensions now.

Side note: an all 2D game should be coming to consoles sometime soon... that Alien Homined game.

 

[The Promised One]

Though I think the article is stupid, there is one thing 2D has over 3D. Style. Yes, I know that there are a handful of games out there that have done a fairly good job at having a 2D "feel" to them artistically, but as of now, the beauty of hand-drawn graphics hasn't been matched by 3D artistically. Certainly, games like Gradius 5 look awesome, and are fun to play, but ultimately, they don't look hand-drawn. Not even Celda looked hand drawn, it was just cell shaded really really well. VJ, and that new white dog game by Capcom are the closest that 3D has come to matching the artistic beauty of 2D, but it still doesn't match.

When playing through games like SotN, and Metal Slug, you get a feel that you just wouldn't get if the games were just 3D renders on a 2D plane.

And Paper Mario is hand-drawn graphics put into the 3D plane, so it doesn't count.

 

[Panajev2001a]

When playing through games like SotN, and Metal Slug, you get a feel that you just wouldn't get if the games were just 3D renders on a 2D plane.

They are though .

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

I love games that have a lot of 'trial-and error'-based gameplay. Games that rely more on pure memorizational skills and quick reflexes. You know - old platformers, shoot-em-ups, certain puzzle games, and old-style fighters. It's not that these kinds of games can't be done in 3D, it's that the developers choose not to make them like that.

For example.What style of game do you prefer?
A) A long, diverse, Super Mario 64-ish style game, where you run about gigantic worlds accomplishing 'missions' and the object is to collect a number of items or objects? The game relys much on exploration and many puzzle-solving elements, and is frequently halted by small(sometimes long) periods of story and cinematics.

B) A Super Mario Bros.-style game(done in 3D) where the levels aren't as diverse, there is little to no exploration involved, the stages are far more linear, but there's a greater emphasis on challenge. However the object is not to collect star-shines or whatever, but to simply get to the end of the level(jump through the ring, jump on the flagpole, whatever). The game would not take nearly as long to complete but it would be a heck of a lot harder.

I'm pretty sure the majority opinion would choose 'A', though I'd take 'B' in a heartbeat.

 

[djtiesto]

I love games that have a lot of 'trial-and error'-based gameplay. Games that rely more on pure memorizational skills and quick reflexes. You know - old platformers, shoot-em-ups, certain puzzle games, and old-style fighters. It's not that these kinds of games can't be done in 3D, it's that the developers choose not to make them like that.

For example.What style of game do you prefer?
A) A long, diverse, Super Mario 64-ish style game, where you run about gigantic worlds accomplishing 'missions' and the object is to collect a number of items or objects? The game relys much on exploration and many puzzle-solving elements, and is frequently halted by small(sometimes long) periods of story and cinematics.

B) A Super Mario Bros.-style game(done in 3D) where the levels aren't as diverse, there is little to no exploration involved, the stages are far more linear, but there's a greater emphasis on challenge. However the object is not to collect star-shines or whatever, but to simply get to the end of the level(jump through the ring, jump on the flagpole, whatever). The game would not take nearly as long to complete but it would be a heck of a lot harder.

I'm pretty sure the majority opinion would choose 'A', though I'd take 'B' in a heartbeat.

I'd definitely take B... that's what I grew up on, and I'd prefer things to stay that way... that's probably why I like the ball-busting challenging "secret" stages in Sunshine so much... It's gonna take a while for people to see that "open ended gameplay" doesn't necessarily mean "fun".

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

2D probably should have died a while ago, since 3D can accomplish what that graphical style did and more

Can it really? How about reasonable development budgets?

 

[DaveH]

Video games are designed to be interactive -- more control > less control, whether you're talking about number of views or movement itself.

I mean really, "3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control...;" he says it like it's a bad thing.

I'm not willing to sacrifice control for some force-fed design.

If that's the case, why play games at all? You have more control over every nuance of your own life than you do in ANY videogame. Design is a MAJOR part of gaming, if not its entirety for some genres. It's the constraints that a director puts in his film or the game designer puts in his game that enables him to take you to other places- fantastic or realistic. Design and choices are not mutually exclusive, but- especially when it comes to graphics/animation (and the direction of said graphics and animation)- it becomes "either or". There are certain stylized graphics, poses, and animations that look right only in 2D and in some cases, it's a pity to lose them.

 

[Gattsu25]

If that's the case, why play games at all? You have more control over every nuance of your own life than you do in ANY videogame.

Oh god...I despise that argument....

sure you have more control over your life...but could you easily become an air pilot in real life? how about being a pirate? or or or an AIR PIRATE? what about being a cute cartoon character that jumps around colourful environments to save the lady in distress? sure that's a popular real-life profession

and who can forget becoming a pro race driver AND a mercinary in your spare time!

"if you want control play real life" is an argument that makes zero sense...yet it keeps cropping up