This was probably discussed around here, but let us reopen this interesting subject again. This will be a long rant, but hopefully some of you will bare with me.
In the last couple of years I don't remember any successful 2D titles on PC and if there were any, they were few. Adventures, RPGs, strategies, etc... everything is being done in 3D today. I have searched the internet for possible explanations for this atrocity and to be completely honest, most explanations seem like a bunch of bollocks. For example, some people say 2D games are harder to make, but even if this was true, it is hardly an excuse not to make 2D games anymore. Another question that arises when someone claims 3D is easier to make, is why are then the expenses for making a game today so high? If something is easier to make, one would come to a logical conclusion that it will shorten the development time and with that the cost of making a game would also be smaller. Yet, we are all aware it is not so and the numbers speak for themselves. For me the problem lies in the gaming industry itself. We are all aware the gaming industry makes a lot of money otherwise no one would be making games anymore. Yet I believe 80% of all sales are restricted just to the top twenty, meaning there's a lot of games out there that aren't getting bought.
To me, this indicates that people are buying the big names, sequels, and sure bets because, well let us be honest, who wants to waste $50 or $60 on something you might not like. Whereas you may buy a DVD on a whim since it is not only a lot cheaper, but you are most of the times buying something you have already seen either in cinema or somewhere else and therefore know what you are buying. A game at the current pricing is much more of an investment and people just can't afford to buy something that might turn out to be shit. This stimulates people to either not buy too many games, or stimulates other ways of acquiring games (piracy). I believe a change in the way publishers approach the customers would make a long way in reducing these problems. For example, if you were allowed to return the game you didn't like after 2 weeks, less lying in the media, less bribes for getting the big scores, better gaming journalism, lower prices, etc... These things would solve many problems and people would not only spend more money on games, but they would also be more willing to try something else except the sure bets...
However I understand why publishers do these things. They feel they have no choice. They have to be in that "top 20" to make any money. They wouldn't have to if they would finally realize that they're they the ones that caused these problems. But as it is, most money will go for advertisment and graphic department.
Anyway, let me return to my topic. 2D vs 3D. Let us say that the premise of 2D games being harder to make is true. I am unfortunately not qualified to give my own opinion on this matter, however I have noticed a few things that make me believe this cannot be completely true.
1. (This does not apply for some games) As technology progressed, the characters also started to look a lot more realistic and as the characters started to look more realistic, the lack of certain details became more and more apparent. For example, in most 2D games the camera is hovering very far from the characters, so even if you cannot see their eyes and lips it does not bother you so much, but in 3D games most of the time camera tries to force you as close to the action as possible. Now you can see the eyes, the nose, the mouth and all those nice features. But if there is no voice, if there is no movement, if there is no lip synchronization the character looks less alive instead of more alive. Many 3D games use the same character models for different characters and while this was not a problem in 2D games where the camera is hovering 50 m above ground it sure is a problem in 3D games which try to put you in the action.
Solution: Making more 3D models, giving voices to the characters
Result: Higher production cost, more annoying for the gamer than standard 2D
Bottom line: Is 2D really harder to make? Is it more expensive, since 3D is forcing you to spend your money on other things you could easily avoid in 2D?
2. Since 3D became the standard, the quality and depth of games has rapidly declined. Now, not all will agree with me on this, but I believe all the invention in gaming was done in the 90's. Does this have to do anything with 3D or not, I cannot say with certianty, but I find it very intriguing that a lot of games have not survived their transformation from 2D into 3D very well. Party based 3D RPGs like NWN2 and MotB cannot compare in their gameplay with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. Broken Sword when it jumped into 3D, it lost a lot of it's charm and gameplay. While you could play Broken Sword 1 and 2 with just one hand using 2 mouse buttons, in Broken Sword 3D you had to use both hands and 10 different buttons to do the same things you could do in the previous installments with just one hand and 2 buttons. Discworld 1,2 featured beautiful graphics and animations with intuitive mouse controls. Discworld Noir 3D kept the mouse control, but unfortunately the graphic animations were a horror. Heroes of Might and Magic 5 transformation into 3D made the gameplay worse, since in the previous installments you had a much better view on the map than you had in this new 3D version. Since some genres just don't work so well in 3D as they work in 2D there has been a less and less variation in games, and some genres have almost disappeared.
Bottom line: Whether or not 3D gaming is to blame for the decline of the games, 2D is still needed for the sake of diversity and some games just work better in 2D, so why change EVERYTHING to 3D?
3. I definitely think games can be better with more limitations on graphics. The developers are then forced to make the game fun instead of relying on the allure of fancy graphics. It's certainly possible to maintain artistry within a more realistic 3D setting, but it certainly occurs more rarely since very often the developers just use copy/paste method in creating their world.
Bottom line: The comparrison of some 10 year old 2D games with some new 3D screenshots also proves how 2D does not mean the graphic has to suffer. If only the technology did not neglect 2D completely, I wonder what would 2D games look like today and if they would still be harder to make like some people claim?
4. Even if 3D was completely superior to 2D I believe we still need 2D games nevertheless. Does anyone here miss old hand drawn Tom&Jerry cartoons? I sure do, because they have a charm of their own. I love some new 3D cartoons like The Incredibles, but why can't we have both? The same goes for 2D games. I love some 3D games like Deus Ex, The Withcer, even NWN2 and MotB, despite using them as an example how their gameplay cannot be compared with the gameplay of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.
With this I end this long post and I hope for some Codexian wisdom on this matter.
In the last couple of years I don't remember any successful 2D titles on PC and if there were any, they were few. Adventures, RPGs, strategies, etc... everything is being done in 3D today. I have searched the internet for possible explanations for this atrocity and to be completely honest, most explanations seem like a bunch of bollocks. For example, some people say 2D games are harder to make, but even if this was true, it is hardly an excuse not to make 2D games anymore. Another question that arises when someone claims 3D is easier to make, is why are then the expenses for making a game today so high? If something is easier to make, one would come to a logical conclusion that it will shorten the development time and with that the cost of making a game would also be smaller. Yet, we are all aware it is not so and the numbers speak for themselves. For me the problem lies in the gaming industry itself. We are all aware the gaming industry makes a lot of money otherwise no one would be making games anymore. Yet I believe 80% of all sales are restricted just to the top twenty, meaning there's a lot of games out there that aren't getting bought.
To me, this indicates that people are buying the big names, sequels, and sure bets because, well let us be honest, who wants to waste $50 or $60 on something you might not like. Whereas you may buy a DVD on a whim since it is not only a lot cheaper, but you are most of the times buying something you have already seen either in cinema or somewhere else and therefore know what you are buying. A game at the current pricing is much more of an investment and people just can't afford to buy something that might turn out to be shit. This stimulates people to either not buy too many games, or stimulates other ways of acquiring games (piracy). I believe a change in the way publishers approach the customers would make a long way in reducing these problems. For example, if you were allowed to return the game you didn't like after 2 weeks, less lying in the media, less bribes for getting the big scores, better gaming journalism, lower prices, etc... These things would solve many problems and people would not only spend more money on games, but they would also be more willing to try something else except the sure bets...
However I understand why publishers do these things. They feel they have no choice. They have to be in that "top 20" to make any money. They wouldn't have to if they would finally realize that they're they the ones that caused these problems. But as it is, most money will go for advertisment and graphic department.
Anyway, let me return to my topic. 2D vs 3D. Let us say that the premise of 2D games being harder to make is true. I am unfortunately not qualified to give my own opinion on this matter, however I have noticed a few things that make me believe this cannot be completely true.
1. (This does not apply for some games) As technology progressed, the characters also started to look a lot more realistic and as the characters started to look more realistic, the lack of certain details became more and more apparent. For example, in most 2D games the camera is hovering very far from the characters, so even if you cannot see their eyes and lips it does not bother you so much, but in 3D games most of the time camera tries to force you as close to the action as possible. Now you can see the eyes, the nose, the mouth and all those nice features. But if there is no voice, if there is no movement, if there is no lip synchronization the character looks less alive instead of more alive. Many 3D games use the same character models for different characters and while this was not a problem in 2D games where the camera is hovering 50 m above ground it sure is a problem in 3D games which try to put you in the action.
Solution: Making more 3D models, giving voices to the characters
Result: Higher production cost, more annoying for the gamer than standard 2D
Bottom line: Is 2D really harder to make? Is it more expensive, since 3D is forcing you to spend your money on other things you could easily avoid in 2D?
2. Since 3D became the standard, the quality and depth of games has rapidly declined. Now, not all will agree with me on this, but I believe all the invention in gaming was done in the 90's. Does this have to do anything with 3D or not, I cannot say with certianty, but I find it very intriguing that a lot of games have not survived their transformation from 2D into 3D very well. Party based 3D RPGs like NWN2 and MotB cannot compare in their gameplay with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. Broken Sword when it jumped into 3D, it lost a lot of it's charm and gameplay. While you could play Broken Sword 1 and 2 with just one hand using 2 mouse buttons, in Broken Sword 3D you had to use both hands and 10 different buttons to do the same things you could do in the previous installments with just one hand and 2 buttons. Discworld 1,2 featured beautiful graphics and animations with intuitive mouse controls. Discworld Noir 3D kept the mouse control, but unfortunately the graphic animations were a horror. Heroes of Might and Magic 5 transformation into 3D made the gameplay worse, since in the previous installments you had a much better view on the map than you had in this new 3D version. Since some genres just don't work so well in 3D as they work in 2D there has been a less and less variation in games, and some genres have almost disappeared.
Bottom line: Whether or not 3D gaming is to blame for the decline of the games, 2D is still needed for the sake of diversity and some games just work better in 2D, so why change EVERYTHING to 3D?
3. I definitely think games can be better with more limitations on graphics. The developers are then forced to make the game fun instead of relying on the allure of fancy graphics. It's certainly possible to maintain artistry within a more realistic 3D setting, but it certainly occurs more rarely since very often the developers just use copy/paste method in creating their world.
Bottom line: The comparrison of some 10 year old 2D games with some new 3D screenshots also proves how 2D does not mean the graphic has to suffer. If only the technology did not neglect 2D completely, I wonder what would 2D games look like today and if they would still be harder to make like some people claim?
4. Even if 3D was completely superior to 2D I believe we still need 2D games nevertheless. Does anyone here miss old hand drawn Tom&Jerry cartoons? I sure do, because they have a charm of their own. I love some new 3D cartoons like The Incredibles, but why can't we have both? The same goes for 2D games. I love some 3D games like Deus Ex, The Withcer, even NWN2 and MotB, despite using them as an example how their gameplay cannot be compared with the gameplay of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.
With this I end this long post and I hope for some Codexian wisdom on this matter.
