Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What do u prefer ?

This topic is 4992 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I wanna make a survey bout ya ppl.The question is what kinda games do u like most and the reason u like em.What kinda graphics do u like the games 2 be ? What kinda story ? Just a few things about the games u enjoy most.Mmmm one more thing...do u think 2d games will reappear as best games like those once were ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
i like rpg''s,adventure games, and sports games. most are games you can play over and over. i like realistic 3d games that have amazing effect and the game look. i like nonlinear stories like in ffx2. i dont think 2d games will reapear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I played this one 2.Good one.

Anyway im askin what would ya prefer in a game.A 3d 1024x768 resolution and a boring cliche''ed story or a 320x240 with an amazing story and gameplay ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets face it.In almost every game there is something that has 2 be stupid or re-made over and over.Nothing new except the graphics.So...Does the graphics contribute to the game ? In what manner ? How can a bad game with good graphics become a good game ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would prefer, a 320x240, with fair graphics, an amazing storyline, excellent music, and voice instead of text

think 'Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis'

also, while different,

Monkey Island 3 was great,

but Monkey Island 4 sucked, 3D ruined it.

I would also like to see games like, KQ5 to KQ7 come back.

KQ8 stomped on the whole serries =/ again because it was 3D,

totaly messed up the genre.

Raymond Jacobs,

www.EDIGames.com

www.EtherealDarkness.com



[edited by - EDI on April 6, 2004 4:09:41 PM]

[edited by - EDI on April 6, 2004 4:11:32 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Andrew S
I played this one 2.Good one.

Anyway im askin what would ya prefer in a game.A 3d 1024x768 resolution and a boring cliche''ed story or a 320x240 with an amazing story and gameplay ?


Why does it have to be one or the other? I''d prefer the 3D hi-res with a good story and gameplay. They''re not mutually exclusive, you know.

I enjoy a good story as much as the next guy, but I would tend to be put off by a game in this day and age that is stuck at 320x240--and so would many other people, I''d imagine. If the developer is too lazy (or too limited) to exceed that archaic limitation, what is to make me think the story and/or gameplay will be any better?


Golem
Blender--The Gimp--Python--Lua--SDL
Nethack--Crawl--ADOM--Angband--Dungeondweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
quote:
Original post by Andrew S
do u think 2d games will reappear as best games like those once were ?
No. Never. Get over it.


I disagree, there are still some really creative things you can do with 2D... I just don''t think the industry giants are going to make big leaps of faith...

but that doesn''t mean independent game companies can''t pioneer some new kind of genre that might make 2D king again.

An example might be cell phone games.
As far as I can tell, 2D is king on Cell Phones.

Also, flash games are some of the most popular games in the world, and they''re pretty much all 2D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No story, your just droped in a sweet car in a sweet town with a sweet chick for no reason next to you. The view is locked inside the car any the resolution is (a multiple of) 2x1. You just drive around n smash things. Thats the kinda game i wanna play.

edit: and no, unless the above game was in 2d somehow.

[edited by - honayboyz on April 6, 2004 5:11:32 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok maybe is rite that "3d rules" but this is an abuse.Even a man that scratches his ... has to be 3d.And by the way 3d is just graphics.As i said i don think graphics contribute in a big manner to the story.Why make a 3d game ? Why r the advantages of 3d in front of 2d Why make ur character move in 1000 ways when it doesnt have a brain or has to do what others say ? My oppinion is that this is what makes the good games.The story.I expect more oppinions about this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t care much about the story, the only games that I think should have a good story is RPGs, because it''s nothing but that. The gameplay is what matters, it has to be fun and long, at least 20 hours with a lot of replay value and difficult or if it''s a arcade type game, it has to be harder and take me a while to beat. I don''t care much about the graphics, 2D or 3D. Although if it''s a 2D game I would think they could spend more time on the game than on the graphics, but that''s just an assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by mbrown211
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
quote:
Original post by Andrew S
do u think 2d games will reappear as best games like those once were ?
No. Never. Get over it.
I disagree, there are still some really creative things you can do with 2D...
That''s a long way from "reappearing as the best games." Be careful what you "disagree" with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is, why accept artificial limitations that, in light of the increasing power and detail of 3D capabilities, are becoming more and more out-dated? Yes, 3D alone does not a good game make. But neither does some misguided devotion to a 2D format that appears increasingly old-fashioned to new generations of gamers? Why limit the field to older players, who speak of some sort of cultist devotion to 2D games, but then go out and by the latest Tribes or Quake nonetheless?

Ever tried to make a quality isometric 2D game? Ever tried to overcome the limitations of sprite-based games, using a series of hacks and awkward contortions, necessary because the 2D format is a limited and inflexible method of representing a rich and fluid game world?

The question isn''t "Why make ur character move in 1000 ways when it doesnt have a brain or has to do what others say ?", but rather "Why, not?" If we stick strictly with what has gone before, we should still be playing Q-bert, hopping up and down the sides of a stacked-cube pyramid. There is nothing holy or sacred about out-dated 2D graphics. And the assumption that graphics add nothing to a game is wholly false, the thinking of a man who is desperately trying to convince himself that he can forego the effort of trying to make the game presentable, and that hordes of people are going to play it anyway on the basis that it has a good story.

Wrong. A game isn''t just story. A game is gameplay, power, flexibility, visual appeal. A game is control. A game is mood and feel and atmosphere. A game is immersion in a world wherein a gamer can suspend himself, forget for a time the troubles and problems of the real world. Story is the seasoning on top of all these things that make it palatable, but it is not the sum and total of a game. Anything that enhances the feel and atmosphere of the game, that enhances the control and power over the game world, is to be sought after and utilized to its fullest potential.

Just as movie-goers will no longer accept blue-screen puppets and spray-painted tennis shoes hung on barely invisible strings for their cinematic special effects, gamers will no longer accept 6-frames of bitmapped 2D animation per character for their games. There are some few platforms where this is not so--mobile devices and phones--but on mainstream consoles or PCs, there is less and less reason for the serious developer to not leverage 3D in some way to enhance the power and fluidity of the simulation.

Now, for the hobbyist, this isn''t necessarily so, but a question such as "do u think 2d games will reappear as best games like those once were?" is not a question aimed at the hobbyist, but rather at the professional. And the answer, as Oluseyi so eloquently put it, is a resounding "no". Because people don''t want to play Q-bert anymore. Because people don''t cough up $500 for the latest graphics card, only to play a hacked-up sprite simulation. Because people want to be able to do things besides run, jump and shoot. They want to duck around corners, hide in crawlspaces and ambush enemies with grenades or laser rifles. They want to level forests with fireballs, blow houses off their foundations, ride dragons through the skies, and race Jeeps through the streets. Anything that enhances the feel and immersion of such a simulation should be used, and not discarded on some fallacious pretext that "story is good enough", and visual appeal does not matter. The bank accounts of studios such as Blizzard and id say otherwise.

Having devoted a lot of time to such an aforementioned 2D isometric, as well as numerous other sprite-based games ranging from rogue-likes to asteroids to Zelda rip-offs, I personally do not understand why some people are not more eager to embrace 3D and the power it gives you to realize the vision. Nearly anything you can do in 2D you can do in 3D, with more elegance and fluidity. In light of that fact, and the fact of the many things that you can do in 3D that you can not do in 2D, I can say with firm confidence that 2D will not rise up to overthrow 3D, and that 2D is as much a thing of the past as spray-painted tennis shoe spaceships.


Golem
Blender--The Gimp--Python--Lua--SDL
Nethack--Crawl--ADOM--Angband--Dungeondweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There''s a number of things which 3D ruines. Frankly, for me, it ruined everything game-wise. It killed the RPG genre, the puzzler genre, the platformer genre, heck the only thing it didn''t kill are the genres it created (FPS and flight sims or the likes) and a select few which are only sorta-3D anyways (RTS..)

Not everyone enjoys 3D. I think it''s utter shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
quote:
Original post by mbrown211
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
quote:
Original post by Andrew S
do u think 2d games will reappear as best games like those once were ?
No. Never. Get over it.
I disagree, there are still some really creative things you can do with 2D...
That''s a long way from "reappearing as the best games." Be careful what you "disagree" with.


So you''re saying that "reappearing as the best games" will not come from really creative things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by RuneLancer
There''s a number of things which 3D ruines. Frankly, for me, it ruined everything game-wise. It killed the RPG genre, the puzzler genre, the platformer genre, heck the only thing it didn''t kill are the genres it created (FPS and flight sims or the likes) and a select few which are only sorta-3D anyways (RTS..)

Not everyone enjoys 3D. I think it''s utter shit.


I agree wholeheartedly. And if you take into consideration what defines the "best games". To you, 2D STILL has all the best games.

While I do enjoy some 3D games, it doesn''t work for a lot of genre''s that i enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by VertexNormal
And the answer, as Oluseyi so eloquently put it, is a resounding "no". Because people don''t want to play Q-bert anymore. Because people don''t cough up $500 for the latest graphics card, only to play a hacked-up sprite simulation. Because people want to be able to do things besides run, jump and shoot. They want to duck around corners, hide in crawlspaces and ambush enemies with grenades or laser rifles. They want to level forests with fireballs, blow houses off their foundations, ride dragons through the skies, and race Jeeps through the streets. Anything that enhances the feel and immersion of such a simulation should be used, and not discarded on some fallacious pretext that "story is good enough", and visual appeal does not matter.


Yes, I agree with a lot of what you said, but who says that 3D is any closer to the feel and immersion of a particular game that I want to make?

People like movies, but if you didn''t notice, movies are a 2D interface. You can''t move around them in realtime. By enforcing a 2D interface you can much more carefully control the experience of the user, allowing for a much higher quality "feel" and "immersion" than you''re talking about.

Stop being so narrow-minded people.
quote:

Having devoted a lot of time to such an aforementioned 2D isometric, as well as numerous other sprite-based games ranging from rogue-likes to asteroids to Zelda rip-offs, I personally do not understand why some people are not more eager to embrace 3D and the power it gives you to realize the vision. Nearly anything you can do in 2D you can do in 3D, with more elegance and fluidity. In light of that fact, and the fact of the many things that you can do in 3D that you can not do in 2D, I can say with firm confidence that 2D will not rise up to overthrow 3D, and that 2D is as much a thing of the past as spray-painted tennis shoe spaceships.



Having gone from being a 3D engine builder to a 2D engine builder recently, I''m discovering that you''re not as limited as you''re thinking. Maybe if you were a bit more creative you''ld come up with better things than Zelda rpg remakes or side scrolling shooters.

Again, you''re comparing old 2D rehashed ideas with newer 3D ideas--it''s not a fair comparison.

Yes, you can do 2D in 3D, but then why call it 3D? I''d argue if you''re doing 2D in 3D, then that''s an argument for why 2D is a good medium, the fact that you HAVE 3D at your disposal, but you''re not using it... means that 2D is a better medium for your idea than 3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by mbrown211
Yes, I agree with a lot of what you said, but who says that 3D is any closer to the feel and immersion of a particular game that I want to make?



Obviously, I can''t make any particular judgements on any game you might be working on.

quote:

People like movies, but if you didn''t notice, movies are a 2D interface. You can''t move around them in realtime. By enforcing a 2D interface you can much more carefully control the experience of the user, allowing for a much higher quality "feel" and "immersion" than you''re talking about.

Stop being so narrow-minded people.



No, movies are not 2D. Or, if you want to put it that way, all games are 2D, since they are 2D projections onto a flat screen. Interactivity and 3D aren''t the same thing, so I''m not sure what your point is here or even if you really have one. Your statement that enforcing a 2D interface allows you to more carefully control the experience of the user is bogus. If by "control" you mean "limit, and remove detail and possibility", then maybe you''re right.

quote:

Having gone from being a 3D engine builder to a 2D engine builder recently, I''m discovering that you''re not as limited as you''re thinking. Maybe if you were a bit more creative you''ld come up with better things than Zelda rpg remakes or side scrolling shooters.



Personal insults have no place here, but yes, 2D damned well is as limited as I am thinking. How dare you presume to know what I am thinking? And how dare you presume to criticize my creativity, simply because my opinion does not neatly coincide with yours? Beware of statements like this, or somebody might somehow mistake you for a troll.

1) 2D, cel-based animation imposes memory limits that can be circumvented by 3D.

This is one of the limitations of which I was thinking, and despite any desire to hold to 2D tradition, it is true. Consider an isometric. At worst, you would need 8 facing directions for each character or enemy, at best 16 or even 32. If it''s, for example, a roleplaying game then you will want to implement a number of different animations: walking, running, attacking (3 or 4 varieties, to break the monotony) spell-casting, reacting to a hit, etc... Since this is no longer the days of Zelda 1 or Q-bert, we''ll need fairly detailed animations. Say, 8 or 10 frames apiece. (Broad generalization, I know, but hey...) So at 8 frames per animation, maybe 10 animations per character, and 8 facing directions you''re looking at a ballpark of 640 frames per character. Double that for a game with 16 facing directions, quadruple it for 32. Some animations you can skimp on the framecount--reacting to a hit, for example. You can degrade the quality of the animations in general to further reduce it. So, say, 400 frames per character. At 32-bit color, a 64x128 bitmap is 32k (with alpha channel for masking). 32k at 400 frames is about 12.5 MB for 8 facing directions. Those sorts of numbers eat video memory alive. Compression tricks, limiting to indexed color, smaller sprites, lower detail, fewer frames, etc... can reduce this value, but then you are limiting all that precious detail or feel you claim that 2D adds over 3D.

This is a real problem, and one that I constantly struggle with in Golem. Do I sacrifice color depth? Do I shrink everything and either play the game at a smaller scale or sample them up, with all the blurring that sampling brings? Do I limit the number of frames of animation, thus degrading the smoothness of the animation?

In 3D, I can store one skeletally transformed model, one set of bones, and one texture (or a small handful of textures, depending on the model). Animation frames, then, consist of merely a set of keyframes scattered across the duration of the animation. I can mathematically interpolate intermediate frames between keyframes, thus enabling me to use fewer keyframes for 3D than for 2D, while still maintaining smoothness of movement far beyond what 2D at 8 frames per animation can achieve. Say a model has 2000 faces and maybe 700 vertices. That means storing an (x,y,z,u,v) for each vertex and a set of 3 unsigned ints for each face. Comes to a grand total of about 40k for the vertex data, and maybe 8k for the index data. A bone can consist of an (x,y,z) translation tuple and a (s,t,u,v,w) quaternion tuple for the base pose and for each animation keyframe. Say, 20 bones per model. The rest pose would be 640 bytes, and a set of 50 keyframes would be about 1.6k. No need for separate facing directions, thus removing that limitations. So we have a grand total of maybe 50k for animation data, add in another 256k for a 256x256x32 skin texture, and you''re still not anywhere even close to what the equivalent 2D model requires.

So with 3D we can use less memory, and have animation smoothness far smoother than 2D cel-based animation. With quaternion interpolation, an equivalent animation can be represented with fewer keyframes, and yet smooth framerate can be achieved at any rate without the skips and jumps that are unavoidable with 2D. We do not need to maintain 8 or 16 or 32 sets of animations for different facing directions; 3D inherently allows any number of facing directions, using the same data set. There is the problem of polygon-count and detail constraints in 3D, but with each generation of vidcard this becomes more of a non-issue.


2) 2D tile-based techniques are poor methods of representing a game world

If you have ever done an isometric, then you know the inconveniences of handling proper sprite drawing order and overlap. Just check the isometric games forum for any number of discussions on ideas and methods for circumventing a problem that, in 3D, is a non-issue.

A sprite is flat. That fact alone brings any number of troubles in an isometric, when it comes to making a sprite interact with its environment. Hacks can be piled on to simulate depth or volume in the sprite, but they are just that: hacks. I can not possibly estimate the time I have wasted in Golem, coming up with a hack to do something or make something seem less artificial, because of the limitations imposed by 2D.

It is troubles like this that prompted Blizzard at one point to state that they wouldn''t make any more 2D isometric games after Diablo 2. That is a statement I hear increasingly repeated, and a statement I can increasingly identify with, the further I go with Golem.

3) 2D limits the level of interactivity with the environment

In 2D, you are limited in the level of detail and in the variation of detail at which you can represent objects and environments in the world. Imagine, again, a 2D isometric game. Your character stumbles upon a throne. In the base of the throne is a secret compartment, trapped with a tiny needle and containing a box of gold. If you reach back into the very back of the compartment, there is a switch which will move the throne revealing a secret entrance behind. How do you represent something like this in your 2D simulation? In 3D?

In 2D, with the viewpoint constrained to an isometric or top-down view, you would be very limited in the visual expression of such a compartment. Describe it with text, perhaps, thus limiting the immersion in the game. In 3D, you could model the throne, the compartment, the box, the switch, the passage. The character can be seen physically interacting with the compartment and with the switch, actually reaching back into the hole to pull the lever.

A very contrived and artificial example, I know, but representative of a whole host of situations in which the capabilities of 3D can increase the immersiveness of a game, far beyond what 2D would be capable of.

quote:

Again, you''re comparing old 2D rehashed ideas with newer 3D ideas--it''s not a fair comparison.



No, I''m comparing more "modern" 2D as well. Look at Diablo 2. Given the detail and number of the animations required, they had to impose a 256 indexed color palette on the graphics. Granted, they did a fair job of making it look good anyway, but it''s still a limitation that, to me, seems artificial and out-dated.

The fact of the graphics in more "modern" games being a little larger, a little fancier, doesn''t remove the limitations inherent in 2D.

quote:

Yes, you can do 2D in 3D, but then why call it 3D? I''d argue if you''re doing 2D in 3D, then that''s an argument for why 2D is a good medium, the fact that you HAVE 3D at your disposal, but you''re not using it... means that 2D is a better medium for your idea than 3D.



Not entirely certain what you are trying to get at here. 2D in 3D? Do you mean, constraining the viewpoint of the game such that the appearance is similar to an equivalent 2D game (such as a side-scroller, where the environments and characters are 3D modelled)? In this case, though the view constraints are similar to 2D constraints, you still get the benefits of 3D such as the possibility of smoothly interpolated animation, lower memory usage, perspective-correct projection, etc...


From a purely commercial standpoint, any thought that 2D is going to undergo some sort of mystical resurgence and oust 3D is wishful thinking at best. There''s always going to be that small handful that prefers 2D over 3D. Newsflash: they are by far the minority. As Oluseyi said, get over it. I find all these "2D increases realism, 2D enhances immersion, 2D is God" arguments increasingly narrow-minded, increasingly whiny and desperate. All the more so, because I used to be the same way.


Golem
Blender--The Gimp--Python--Lua--SDL
Nethack--Crawl--ADOM--Angband--Dungeondweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both points are very true. There is nothing quite like entering a detailed 3D world done right.

As an example of the feeling I mean, the game Ultima VII: The Black Gate. When I first saw the movie, Pirates of the Caribbean, it made me feel like if Ultima VII were real, this is what it would look like. If the game looked as good as the movie, with its pirate islands and wonderful music, nothing else would be able to touch it.

However, as EDI adequately put, some things do not benefit from 3D. Imagine user interfaces in games like RPGs. While an RPG, like Ultima VII, would benefit greatly from an immersive 3D world, some of its parts would not. Would you rather use a flat menu to equip your characters, or some odd and unintuituve 3D rotating sphere?

Puzzle games are a good example. Pac-Man has gained nothing from going 3D, except for higher production costs, and consequently, a higher price. A while back I played a Breakout game done in 3D with particle effects and the like, and it wasn''t anything special. In fact, it was more of a headache to play it than the original.

So in closing, if it ain''t broke, don''t fix it. It is a fine line of not going 3D-crazy and not totally forsaking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by VertexNormal

quote:

People like movies, but if you didn't notice, movies are a 2D interface. You can't move around them in realtime. By enforcing a 2D interface you can much more carefully control the experience of the user, allowing for a much higher quality "feel" and "immersion" than you're talking about.

Stop being so narrow-minded people.



No, movies are not 2D. Or, if you want to put it that way, all games are 2D, since they are 2D projections onto a flat screen. Interactivity and 3D aren't the same thing, so I'm not sure what your point is here or even if you really have one. Your statement that enforcing a 2D interface allows you to more carefully control the experience of the user is bogus. If by "control" you mean "limit, and remove detail and possibility", then maybe you're right.


it's called an analogy. I was making a comparison between Movies and something like Omnimax. Omnimax is a 3D movie, while movies are only a 2D experience.

By your assertion, then, Nighttrap was a 3D game. OK....
quote:

1) 2D, cel-based animation imposes memory limits that can be circumvented by 3D.
2) 2D tile-based techniques are poor methods of representing a game world
3) 2D limits the level of interactivity with the environment


This is EXACTLY what I'm referring to when I say it's not as limited as you're making it. There are more things you can do besides 2D tile-based or cel-based animations.

PLUS, who says limiting the level of interactivity is BAD? there are a lot of games that limit the interactivity so as to make the games simpler and easier to interact with. Some of the most elegant games designs are brilliant simply becuase they're SIMPLE, not because they have unlimited interactivity.
quote:

quote:

Yes, you can do 2D in 3D, but then why call it 3D? I'd argue if you're doing 2D in 3D, then that's an argument for why 2D is a good medium, the fact that you HAVE 3D at your disposal, but you're not using it... means that 2D is a better medium for your idea than 3D.



Not entirely certain what you are trying to get at here. 2D in 3D? Do you mean, constraining the viewpoint of the game such that the appearance is similar to an equivalent 2D game (such as a side-scroller, where the environments and characters are 3D modelled)? In this case, though the view constraints are similar to 2D constraints, you still get the benefits of 3D such as the possibility of smoothly interpolated animation, lower memory usage, perspective-correct projection, etc...


if you scroll up a bit, I was quoting someone(was it you??) who said you could do everything in 3D that you can do it 2D. I was merely making the point that just because you're using a 3D framework doesn't make your game 3D.
quote:


From a purely commercial standpoint, any thought that 2D is going to undergo some sort of mystical resurgence and oust 3D is wishful thinking at best. There's always going to be that small handful that prefers 2D over 3D. Newsflash: they are by far the minority. As Oluseyi said, get over it. I find all these "2D increases realism, 2D enhances immersion, 2D is God" arguments increasingly narrow-minded, increasingly whiny and desperate. All the more so, because I used to be the same way.


I _never_ said it would happen, or even it was likely. I was disagreeing with your assertions that it was impossible.. I think the term was "no. never."

While I agree it probably won't happen, I am not silly enough to presume I can see the future and say it'll never happen.



[edited by - mbrown211 on April 7, 2004 4:56:26 PM]

[edited by - mbrown211 on April 7, 2004 4:57:08 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
quote:
Original post by Andrew S
do u think 2d games will reappear as best games like those once were ?
No. Never. Get over it.


Lineage ring a bell? Its a slightly successful MMO game. Gameplay is what really matters. We''re reaching a stage of diminishing returns in computer graphics. Even if you could give me photorealistic graphics I wouldn''t really care at this point.

As gameplay once again becomes the primary factor, I would not factor out a potential return of 2d games. There are alot of areas such as strategy games ( IE- Romance of the Three Kingdoms style or puzzle games ) that 2d makes alot more sense than 3d for.

Furthermore production costs are on a near exponential curve in games with ''realistic'' 3d graphics and spanning worlds. Put simply, its getting just too expensive to cover the cost of production. The second a single American publisher turns profit on a game with "legacy" graphics, there will be a plethora of developers and publishers that hop on the bandwagon.

Check out the Europa Universalis series for a contemporary example of 2d success. Always remember that closed mindedness creates nothing short of ignorance, regardless of how ''obvious'' something might seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by fishbulb52
However, as EDI adequately put, some things do not benefit from 3D. Imagine user interfaces in games like RPGs. While an RPG, like Ultima VII, would benefit greatly from an immersive 3D world, some of its parts would not. Would you rather use a flat menu to equip your characters, or some odd and unintuituve 3D rotating sphere?
Way to contrive issues in order to "score a point."

quote:
Original post by mbrown211
So you''re saying that "reappearing as the best games" will not come from really creative things?
So you''re saying you''re inept at English comprehension? Allow me to do a "scene study" for you, in linear (rather than nested) fashion:

Andrew S: Do you think 2D games will reapper as best games like those once where?

Oluseyi: No. Never. Get over it.

mbrown211: I disagree, there are still some really creative things you can do with 2D...

Oluseyi: That''s a long way from "reappearing as the best games." Be careful what you "disagree" with.

mbrown211: So you''re saying that "reappearing as the best games" will not come from really creative things?


It should be obvious to any reasonably astute reader that I''m saying that you are not disagreeing with my position (which is that 2D will never become the best games again), but rather making an orthogonal point. Despite the fact (which, incidentally, I agree with) that there are still some really creative things you can do with 2D, the form will never rise to meritocratic dominance again.

Hopefully I''ve both disambiguated issues for you and facilitated your studies of the English language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by haro
<Pointless drivel>
Why do you people keep trying to refute a point I didn''t make? I said that 2D will never reemerge as the best form. Period. I never said there won''t be great, spectacular, amazing, <insert superlative adjective here> 2D games.

Read, people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites