Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Upsides and Downsides to 2D and 3D


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
24 replies to this topic

#1 Magic Card   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 April 2000 - 12:37 PM

2D - Easier to program - Doesn''t sell as well these days - More addictive and easier than 3D games - Not as much space to put items, weapons, etc. - Characters are less human looking - You can see a whole lot more infront and above you than in 3D games. 3D - Harder to program - Harder to maneuver characters - Fuzzy controls - Characters more humanish. - More facial expression. - More area to put weapons and items. - Takes up more space than 3D games. Do you agree? Disagree? Want to add something else? REPLY ALREADY! Top quality games don''t kick ass as well as these. http://danavision.homestead.com Prepare to be blown away! ------------------------- Magic Card

Sponsor:

#2 nicba   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 April 2000 - 01:22 PM

quote:
Original post by Magic Card

2D
- Easier to program
- Doesn''t sell as well these days
- More addictive and easier than 3D games




More addictve and easier than 3D games is a very subjective statement and depends very much on the game in question. A 2D game can be very boring and also very challenging.

quote:


- Not as much space to put items, weapons, etc.




What do you mean by that? There''s plenty of place for weapons and so on in in Baldurs Gate and Diablo (which is both 2D games as far as im concerned). Even platform games can have plenty of rooms for such things. It''s all a mather of (level) design.

quote:


- Characters are less human looking




Not necersarily. The old ''Prince Of Persia'' had an exellent animated main character which looked and moved very ''human like''.

quote:


- You can see a whole lot more infront and above you than in 3D games.




I agree with this one. Top-down, isometric and platform views lets the player get a better overview of the world which makes it easier to use strategic or tactical approaces. This is especially an advantage if the user must control more than one character/unit as once. But this is not always what you want. 3D could be said to be more ''realistic'' and help the player get the felling of ''being inside the game''.

quote:


3D
- Harder to program
- Harder to maneuver characters




Harder to maneuver? I find it quite easy to maneuver in quake. And 3th person 3D games as Tomb Raider does it quite easy to make more complex maneuvers such as climbing and so on.

quote:


- Fuzzy controls
- Characters more humanish .
- More facial expression.
- More area to put weapons and items.
- Takes up more space than 3D games.




What do you mean by ''Takes up more space''? I guess you are saying that 3D games take up more space than 2D games? What kind of space do you mean? Baldurs Gate have a large game world and comes on 5 CD''s.

quote:


Do you agree? Disagree? Want to add something else? REPLY ALREADY!

Top quality games don''t kick ass as well as these.

http://danavision.homestead.com

Prepare to be blown away!
-------------------------

Magic Card


Well I hope I wasn''t too hard on you. But I think that putting up a list of pros/contras for 2D and 3D games is a very difficult thing. Especially 2D games spans a very broad spectre from platform games to RPGs to Real-Time-Strategy.

Whetever you should use 2D or 3D depends entirely on the kind of game you wants to create and the ''feel'' that you want your players to experience. And then of course on the skills of the people developing the game.

Regards

nicba

#3 cliffski   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 April 2000 - 11:38 PM

I would say that 2D games take up more space.3D let you texture an object then view it from all angles, 2D means different sprites for maybe 16 directions for every single animation. The amount of art in Age Of Empires II is staggering.
I also dispute that ''2D dosent sell as well these days''. Personally I would much rather play AOE II than ANY of the 3D zoomy rotatey RTS games, even though my monster video card can play any of em. Also be aware that a whole bunch of peole bought their PCs 3 years ago, they have pentium 200s with 4 or 8MB video cards, and they are confined to playing the older 2D games. Try telling the guys who did SimCity, AOE II or Rollercoaster tycoon that 2D games dont sell. They sell very very well......

http://www.positech.co.uk

#4 Magic Card   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 April 2000 - 05:10 AM

When I said SPACE I meant more MEMORY on a computer. Take for example, Legacy Of Kain: Soul Reaver. That game takes up about 750 megabytes. Wheras a game like Commander Keen takes up maybe 20-30 megabytes.

When I said more SPACE I meant more AREA. In Diablo, you''re looking down and you can''t jump to get something or dig to get something. In a 3D environment you have a whole world to put things, and even trees to climb to get to them (if you''ve ever seen this tell me!).

Top quality games don''t kick ass as well as these.

http://danavision.homestead.com

Prepare to be blown away!
-------------------------

Magic Card

#5 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 April 2000 - 05:53 AM

I think this thread is an indication of the feeling that 3D is getting kinda "old" - it seems that perfectly good game concepts are completely RUINED because they had to do it in 3D. I''m talking the latest ultima here, for example.

The general idea is: 2D isn''t better or worse than 3D. It''s different. They both have their applicable areas, strong points and weak points.



#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**


#6 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 22 April 2000 - 06:14 AM

no in terms of memory it is undisputable, 3d takes far less. Comparing recent games to commander keen is not logical at all. Blizzard outright admitted that warcraft III is going to be 3d mainly for memory considerations (they probably would have gone 3d anyway though). In a game like myth each unit has over 400 individual sprites! As you can see 3d takes almost 0 memory conpared to 2d. They might end up taking the same amount but that''s because they''ll put more into the 3d game because they have so much room. Baldur''s gate is a great example. You don''t see many 3d games taking that, and if they do that''s because of cutscenes which again, are 2d.

personally I think in the future top down 3d will become pretty popular. For some games I really hate any attempt to move the view to the player, except for games where it is appropriate.

#7 AtypicalAlex   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 April 2000 - 01:48 PM

I think you''re a little confused, Magic Card...

First of all, Soul Reaver came out last year and Commander Keen came out in the 80''s. Take a game like Baldur''s Gate or Diablo 2 ... BIG BIG games but in 2D.

Second, the reason that you can''t jump over rivers and dig and stuff in Diablo is because they didn''t program that in, not because 2D doesn''t let them.

And just because it''s 3D doesn''t mean you can do things like climb and dig, etc. This all has to be programmed in.

But back to the original question: I love 2D and at the moment think that 3D is in its infancy. Once programmers master it and do away with clipping errors and other major problems we can start making some REALLY kickass 3D games. Until then, I''m sticking with 2D (i''m making an isometric one right now).

Alex
Atypical Interactive
www.atypical-interactive.com

#8 Blah!   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 April 2000 - 02:09 PM

Apparently Magic Card has not yet seen any sort of games except PC games lately! Take a look at the SNES(I know its kinda old now): lots of tile based 2D games on it wich allows you to jump, dig ect. Just look at Zelda3! Also contrary to popular beliefs, Doom and Duke3D are 2D games. See any polygons? Nope. There all sprites, and I know ''cuz I made so many Doom WADs my hardrive is running out of space (on my P133 anyway). So it all depends on what you do with your program and how you implement things in it.


#9 Nazrix   Members   -  Reputation: 307

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 April 2000 - 02:41 PM

I really think 2d,3d,first person, and third person does depend upon the game and the genre. Daggerfall, for instance, suffered from being first person IMHO. First person worked well for the times in the towns, but in the dungeons it didn't work well. It did not allow much ranged combat. There's was way too much hack-and-slash. At least in my opinion...



Edited by - Nazrix on 4/22/00 8:44:33 PM

#10 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 April 2000 - 11:44 PM

To the deluded person that thinks there''s something inherent about 2D that causes it to use more memory:

2D - 2 Dimensions.
3D - 3 Dimensions
Logic: 3D = 2D + 1D.
I.e. 3D is more!

What you are talking about is sprite-representations against polygonal representations. That has nothing to do with 2D vs 3D, it''s a choice. Sprite-representation in 3D boils down to either using voxels or going image-based.

The poster talking about Duke3D and Doom - you are right, to a point. The maps in those games are 2D, and so are the characters, however the engines allow more degrees of freedom of movement than a typical 2D representation, and hence they were called "3D" games ( probably because of the perspective projection ).
The same goes for the over-hyped top-down polygon games (I think Total Annihilation? ).
I had a HUGE argument about this game with a colleague because he claimed it was 3D, and I asked him where the 3rd dimension went . T.A. is a good example of using polygonal data with limited degrees of freedom - it is pretty much a 2D game.
The Quake series are 3D games - overpasses, tunnels, up-down movement and looking, even some rolling. I think they work really well, but not much better than Doom or Duke3D ( I actually bought Duke3D after finishing it completely in a ripped version, because I wanted to support 3Drealms ).
I think Duke3D is a good example of how you can use "older" technology to achieve pretty nice effects at much lower cost. That''s why I''m looking forward to DNF.


#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**


#11 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 23 April 2000 - 04:54 AM

ok I guess you could say in theory that 3d and 2d when using the exact same style of graphics 3d takes more. But that never happens. 2d almost always uses sprites, 3d almost always uses models. In fact I''d almost say that using models is part of the definition of 3d. Animated sprites always (perhaps with an exception or two) take more memory. With a model you only need to hold the vertices, the animation, and the textures. With sprites you need every frame. Voxels aren''t sprites either, since you can rotate a voxel object and you can''t rotate a sprite.

If you had 2d using 2d models and animated them that way yes then it would be two thirds of 3d. However most people are unwilling to settle for animated 2d polygons. Sprites just look nicer. You could in a sense do "sprites" by making a model for every frame instead of animating a single model, but again there is no point.

#12 Painless   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 23 April 2000 - 05:33 AM

Excuse MEEE, if a 3D game uses ENOUGH textures to look any good, the textures alone will take a lot more space than any sprites (AND NO, you can''t represent a model with a sprite, and furthermore I don''t think sprites look "prettier). My take on the original post is that the ONLY POINT of 2D with current computers is that it''s easier to understand for the end user, and for many easier to maneuver (and "but I can play Quake just fine" d00dz, don''t go there..).

#13 SHilbert   Members   -  Reputation: 647

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 23 April 2000 - 06:02 AM

Although 2D can give you a better view immediately around you, 3D lets you see far into the distance and is almost necessary to create a game where seeing over long distances is necessary.

lntakitopi@aol.com
http://geocities.com/guanajam/

#14 Painless   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 23 April 2000 - 06:16 AM

Letting the player see further in 2D is only a matter of taking distance away from the player and perspective. Many 2D strategy games have really long distances on a single screen, so distance isn''t really a point for either 2D or 3D. Depth, however, is - visualizing distances between objects or height in 2D is hard.

#15 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 23 April 2000 - 06:40 AM

ok look at it this way. You have a 3d model with lots of textures. I don''t know how many you would use, but I think you''d use under 100. An animated unit takes hundreds of sprites to do well, that''s just in a strategy game, RPG probably takes even more. Each frame of animation is basically the same as a texture. So the sprite based thing would take more. Plus you can probably use many of the textures in more than one place, you can''t ever do that with sprites.

#16 Magic Card   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 23 April 2000 - 09:07 AM

To Everyone:

I wasn't looking for a war against me. I was looking for OPINIONATED ANSWERS! Maybe Commander Keen wasn't a good example. True, the Blizzard 2D is awsome. I've played Starcraft and Warcraft. And true, they didn't program the water to be swimmable (or boatable for that matter). And yes, in the Blizzard games there are who fields to put power-ups. However, in my OPINION, 3D games take more effort; hell, I'm working on one right now. Not musicwise by artwise. Making good 2D characters about an hour, wheras making good 3D characters takes DAYS! I have about 40 designs of my hero character right now, and they're STILL not perfect! When I said 2D, I meant side scroller, like Mega Man X4 or Jazz Jackrabbit 2 (new games with awesomelly cool 2D graphics). I don't want people to be insulting me just because of my list. Yes, I agree that DOOM was basically a 2D game. Yes, you could move in and out, but the enemies were just large sprites that changed size as they came toward you. Wheras in a game like Half-Life as the enemies move toward you more detail comes into view. You can look up, down, climb ladders (something I had never seen before), build missile turrets... yes, Half-Life was completely 3D.

I think what we're all getting at here is the fact that 2D games these days include some 3D. It's just the rage! Have any of you played Mega Man 8? There are some levels with swinging hammers that are completely 3D. They actually look smaller as they go back; they don't just change size. Same thing for the 3D Spike Bolls in Jazz Jackrabbit 2. So if you think I'm wrong, JUST SAY SO! Don't insult me !


Top quality games don't kick ass as well as these.

http://danavision.homestead.com

Prepare to be blown away!
-------------------------

Magic Card

Edited by - Magic Card on 4/23/00 3:08:46 PM

#17 AtypicalAlex   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 24 April 2000 - 09:37 AM

A lot of you guys have been saying that 2D is only good for this and that, and soon we will be able to move only to 3D. I don''t see it like that. They are both totally different STYLES, regardless of space they take up, etc. 2D will ALWAYS be good for some things, and 3D the same. Hopefully neither of them will ever fade out of existence.

Alex
Atypical Interactive
www.atypical-interactive.com

#18 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 24 April 2000 - 10:14 AM

The difference between making 2d characters and 3d characters is that 3d content is front-loaded.

This means that more time is spent setting up the mesh, putting a skeleton in the mesh, linking the skeleton and mesh, texturing the mesh and animating the mesh.

That having been done, making changes is easier in 3d files than 2d files.

Imagine two scenarios:
1 - hand drawn sprites, 8 bit pallete, 300 frames of animation

2 - 3d modeled mesh, 8 bit texture map, 300 frames of animation

You get handed a note from the AD that says you put the eyepatch on the wrong eye and the pauldrons need to be reduced 40%, the overall height increased 10% and the chevron on the tabbard replaced with a dragon, rampant.

Which scenario would you rather be in?

$0.02

#19 dog135   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 April 2000 - 11:04 AM

As a developer, I''d rather be in #1.

"Yo, art department, I need new sprites!"

Hehehe

E:cb woof!

#20 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 27 April 2000 - 11:47 AM

Does the word ''milestone'' mean anything to you?




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS