Has moving from 2D gaming to 3D gaming improved games as a whole?
Posted by bedroomcoder on Jul 28, 2010 14:34 (42 days ago)
The third D.
3D. Three-dee.
Nothing particularly special about it these days, but back in the early 90's it was a big deal. Particularly on the PC, with Doom being regarded (wrongly) as the pinnacle of gaming of the time for its fluid 3D graphics engine as much as its gore-soaked atmosphere.
It must be noted (before the pedants point it out) that 3D was not new by the 90s, with 3D consoles being sold in the 70s and 80s. See the Vectrex below:
3D was the defining line that separated the 16-bits from the 32-bits, and the gaming magazines of the time went CRAZY over it. Some great games were sadly overlooked during this period, such as Castlevania Symphony of the Night on the PS1 because they didn't have polygon graphics.
Nowadays though, 3D is the standard and 2D is relegated to small independent games, shovelware and the mobile phone market.
But what has 3D given us? It gave us an extra dimension to travel into, into and out of the screen as well as up and down. It gave us rounded characters we could view from any angle. It added to the options game designers could play with.
But it also managed to alienate a whole bunch of people, with the advent of dual analogue-stick control meaning the death of gaming for those with fumble-fingers. 2D games only required gamers to move along 2 planes, throw an extra one in and you lose people. If you've ever tried to get your dad to play Halo 3, you'll sympathise.
It's also spoilt a whole generation of youth, who now refuse to play older games because "the graphics suck." There is a cure for this - lock them in a cupboard with a Gameboy, bread, water and a bucket and don't let them out for a few weeks.
But just because it's simpler to get to grips with does not mean 2D games are any easier. And anyone who says so should go and play I Want To Be The Guy, and then go and meditate on their wrongness. There are as many classics in 2D as there are in 3D, and I would argue that some genres are more comfortable in 2D, such as platformers, scolling shooters and beat-em-ups.
In conclusion (yes, this rambling has a point) - 3D's fine. I'm not bashing 3D. But I think 2D deserves a more prominent place next to it in gaming. 3D has allowed for more varied gameplay and different kinds of games. 2D is however more accessible for some players and 2D games can be just as good as their counterparts with the extra 'D.' I would argue that 3D for 3D's sake is not always best for the game, and I'd love to see more mainstream 2D releases. Companies wouldn't have to spend so much money on rendering graphics then, and maybe they might make a bit more money!
3D seemed very refreshing at the time as loads of new stuff started to happen and 2d was just the same old stuff with better graphics each generation. It is probably hard for people to see today how exciting Tomb Raider was when it came out. Shoot 'em ups probably suffered the most through the introduction of 3D while driving games have gained tremendously from moving to 3D.
Jul 29, 2010 20:21:21 (
41 days ago
)
