When we reach the current donation goal all software on Retro Uprising will be replaced with a new superior method for playing games online that will support all browsers, play many more games and consoles and fix errors in existing games. This will be a massive site upgrade. The largest in our history. Please help us reach our goal as soon as possible.
Retro Uprising relies on donations from users like you!List of Donors
Register to enable more features such as high score recording.
The '90s were a harrowing time for our favorite 8-bit heroes. One after another, we saw them dragged prematurely forth by the forceps of a changing market into the cold, frightening new world of 3D graphics. Some of them, like Mario and Solid Snake, flourished in their new environment. Others, like the protagonists of Hydlide, Earthworm Jim, and Contra, found themselves trapped in an unrelenting hell of awful controls, coked-up cameras, and smeary polygons.
The problem with 3D was that all of the sudden everyone figures all new games have to have three different dimensions to move around in. Sidescrollers become almost non-existent, which begs the question, why not make a 2D game with modern capabilities?
The problem with 3D was that all of the sudden everyone figures all new games have to have three different dimensions to move around in. Sidescrollers become almost non-existent, which begs the question, why not make a 2D game with modern capabilities?
Well it's hard to go back once you've moved ahead. Yes I know some of you guys think 8bit side scrollers are the best that have been or ever will be made but it's true. 3-D environments are far more engrossing than a 2-D world and they offer countless possibilities. It's literally a step backwards to make a new game in 2-D. Besides all that I think the main reason we don't see more 2-D games is risk. Companies know that an old school style game will not sell as well. Why make a game in an old format when you know a huge demographic likes the newer way of doing things?
It's like a black and white movie, we don't really see those anymore besides stuff like Schindlers list. To me it's the same thing, we still get new 2-D games but they are few and far between, some are even awesome.
3-D environments are far more engrossing than a 2-D world and they offer countless possibilities. It's literally a step backwards to make a new game in 2-D.
So a 3-D environment doesn't have more possibilities?
Why do some of you guys hate on 3-D so much? I love both but 3-D is a big improvement, this seems plainly obvious to me.
That doesn't mean 2-D is bad at all, like I said they still make good games in 2-D.
I like hte extra depth you can find in 3d games. I mean as funa s the 2d sonic the hedgehog levels are, the 3d element added in the Adventure games, made thigns alot more fun. I also like being able to just Run around and look at things. Thats my main joy when playing gmaes like CV lament of innocence and curse of darkness now..
Heck yu can use super smash bros brawl as a 2,5D game example.. back groudns and figures in 3d, while hte game at its core is only in two dimensions.. (you can only go left right, up and down still)
My definitions
2d: paper thin, no 3d models or back groudn interaction for mhe most part. Characters sem flat.
2.5D: There are two versions, one fits games such as Clock tower for the snes... Flat characters but you have extra directions and Back ground interaction (you can explore roms to pick up items, or walk to the wall to open a door.
the other is the Smash bros definition. Back grounds and Areas are all 3d, with back ground interaction, but core game is still only Left to right platforming.
3d: exploration in all three dimensions., forward back ward, left right.. Examples include Doom and sonic adventure. You have the (for the most part) freedom and ability to explore and interact with all forms of your environment, and are even encouraged to do so.
So a 3-D environment doesn't have more possibilities?
Why do some of you guys hate on 3-D so much? I love both but 3-D is a big improvement, this seems plainly obvious to me.
That doesn't mean 2-D is bad at all, like I said they still make good games in 2-D.
A 3D environment being far more engrossing and a 2D environment being a step backwards are both opinions.
I don't hate on 3D, I like it just as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belmontzar
I like hte extra depth you can find in 3d games. I mean as funa s the 2d sonic the hedgehog levels are, the 3d element added in the Adventure games, made thigns alot more fun. I also like being able to just Run around and look at things. Thats my main joy when playing gmaes like CV lament of innocence and curse of darkness now..
Heck yu can use super smash bros brawl as a 2,5D game example.. back groudns and figures in 3d, while hte game at its core is only in two dimensions.. (you can only go left right, up and down still)
My definitions
2d: paper thin, no 3d models or back groudn interaction for mhe most part. Characters sem flat.
2.5D: There are two versions, one fits games such as Clock tower for the snes... Flat characters but you have extra directions and Back ground interaction (you can explore roms to pick up items, or walk to the wall to open a door.
the other is the Smash bros definition. Back grounds and Areas are all 3d, with back ground interaction, but core game is still only Left to right platforming.
3d: exploration in all three dimensions., forward back ward, left right.. Examples include Doom and sonic adventure. You have the (for the most part) freedom and ability to explore and interact with all forms of your environment, and are even encouraged to do so.
Don't post anything of this low quality again. Using a spell checker or at least proof reading is in the forum FAQ.
It's like a black and white movie, we don't really see those anymore
They have been able to make 3D movies for decades now. But we don't see very many of those.
They sell 3D chess sets like they use in Star Trek and there are rules for 3D Tic Tac Toe but nearly everyone plays the good old fashion plain 2D versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudebro
So a 3-D environment doesn't have more possibilities?
There are different possibilities, not more.
FPS need to be 3D even if it is just fake 3D like they did on 8bit systems. And modern 3D is by far much better than old 3D.
But most other genres do not need 3D. Think of all the old RPGs. They wee usually isometric 2.5D. Did this limit your exploring in anyway?
Quote:
Why do some of you guys hate on 3-D so much?
I've answered before.
Makes me motion sick. Granted that is my issue and many gamers don't suffer from it but I have talked to many casual gamers that have the same issue. It keeps them from getting into games. 3D makes a new hurdle for some non-gamers to jump to get in. I think it would be interesting to have a survey of non-gamers and find out if 3D games make them sick. I think the survey would reveal high numbers that should tell developers they are pushing out a big market group.
It is way over done. I like Tetris clones but if 80% of all new games were Tetris clones I would be highly disappointed. Variety!
3D makes the controls problematic. To compensate the developers often make the game almost play itself so you are practically just watching a movie. I would rather watch a real movie.
Gameplay is all that is important. Is it fun? 3D and advanced graphics and cut scenes are crutches. Developers know if they throw in some cool cutting edge special effect people will play even if it isn't fun. Take away the crutches and games will be stronger because they have to be.
But most other genres do not need 3D. Think of all the old RPGs. They wee usually isometric 2.5D. Did this limit your exploring in anyway?
It does limit immersion so 2D is limiting in a way. For a lot of people immersion is an important part of a story. A game like Oblivion immerses you by literally letting you see through the player characters eyes. 3D may turn some people away but it also brings in a whole new crowd of people who would never play a 2D. Some people may call them noobs or graphics whores but they are not wrong for liking modern video games. First person rpgs are more cinematic but the good ones are also well crafted and on par with the great retro games, without a doubt. How can we fault people for preferring a more visual experience that let's them interact with it?
Before anyone says it not all first person rpgs are all flash and no substance. I dare anyone to find an rpg with more content than Oblivion(I'm sincerely curious if anyone will). I mean exploration and interactions and all the rest. The only other games I can think of with more content are all MMORPGs and they don't count in this discussion.
Quote:
Gameplay is all that is important. Is it fun? 3D and advanced graphics and cut scenes are crutches. Developers know if they throw in some cool cutting edge special effect people will play even if it isn't fun. Take away the crutches and games will be stronger because they have to be.
There's only so far you can go with graphics and features. The next gen gaming crowd is very fickle and they'll drop a game fast if it's terrible, even if it's beautiful. When a game is garbage you can easily tell by reading internet forums or watching how fast it's price drops. Only uninformed gamers get hosed. Game companies are catching on imo and it's getting a lot better.
On the flip side we have those franchise games that sell well regardless of how innovative they are. A good example is FFXIII(or w/e the new one is), it has multiple discs but no exploration(from what I hear). It's also being hyped for it's awesome graphics and awesome cutscenes. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing but it's more like what you guys seem to be talking about. Oblivion, Fallout3 and others are actually complex, immersive rpgs that any rpgfan should play eventually.
The Idea the a 3-d game is more immersive than a 2-d game is hog wash, the whole seeing the world through the eyes of your character thing is not necessarily a good thing. If anything its limiting your imagination. Take books for example they are no d, and they are far more immersive than any video game. (so I hear)
I can't say that 3D is bad. That is definitely not the point I'm trying to make with the paragraph below.
However, I think that there is an unhealthy obsession with 3D graphics in the video game industry. It's gotten to the point where fanboys fight and argue about tiny smudges on game screenshots and claim superiority of games solely on such. In motion nobody is going to see fine details like that. I think it's rediculous how people get excited over a few extra polygons on screen. It's also contributing to the crazy out of control cost of developing a game.
2D games can also immerse, its just that no one ever tries to make those anymore, because it will be a guaranteed failure.
Here's an example of what modern systems can do in 2D. This is a clip of Odin Sphere, a PS2 game.
It does limit immersion so 2D is limiting in a way.
Totally disagree.
Here is 3 ways to play chess. Which is the most immersive? 1. As real as you can get, human pieces.
2. Traditional. 3D, real objects you can touch.
3. 2D. You can't touch.
I find #3 to be the most enjoyable way to play the game because all that is there is the gameplay. Nothing standing in the way of playing the game, which is the important part and why we are there in the first place. If I wanted to watch a game then sure #1 looks more interesting but I want to play a game and I don't want anything getting in the way.
Last edited by Kong; 04-06-2010 at 01:50 PM..
Reason: added a missing question mark.
I find #3 to be the most enjoyable way to play the game because all that is there is the gameplay. Nothing standing in the way of playing the game, which is the important part and why we are there in the first place. If I wanted to watch a game then sure #1 looks more interesting but I want to play a game and I don't want anything getting in the way.
See I think #2 is more enjoyable because it's tangible. For me chess is a bad example because I'm so used to the type in #2 that anything else just feels weird.
Btw #1 is an example of too much immersion. It's like acting out an RPG with your friends.
I just prefer a living, breathing world(like Oblivion) over a 2D world. Sorry but I just can't go back. If a cool 2D game comes out I'll play it but it's always gonna feel limited to me. I am not wrong for feeling that way.
I just prefer a living, breathing world(like Oblivion) over a 2D world..
I believe that 3D and 2D are two different species of video games completely.
I think that while 3D is technically better, and it can be fascinating and immersing in games like Oblivion or Mirror's Edge
( Click to show/hide )
( Click to show/hide )
but I've always been attracted to the painting-like games of the late 2D era, and I'm disappointed that they haven't gone much further. I love the graphics and feel of games like Super Prince of Persia, Clock Tower, and S.O.S.
It's like acting out an RPG with your friends.
Linear Mode
