What constitutes a 3D game or viewpoint depends entirely on your frame of reference. Strictly speaking, very few mediums allow for a "true" 3D representation as the display pane is usually flat, even if steroscopic images are involved.

Holograms are about the closest implementation I''m aware of (those created by moving lasers in 3D space, not the cleverly mirrored flat surfaces).

However, a reasonably believable representation can be achieved, as the transmitted light ends up striking the relatively flat plane of our eyes anyway.

I suggest that with currently available technology, the main difference between "2D" and "3D" as far as games are concerned should be thought of as being based on the internal representation system used. i.e. whether each point is defined using 2 or 3 coordinates.


As for the debate about whether 2D or 3D games are better, there really is no way to come up with a definitive answer as so many factors are involved.

If Solitaire (the Windows card game) was completely rewritten using a 3D coordinate system, I think most people would be unlikely to consider it better than the original, if that was the only change.

3D representations are only really useful if the objects involved have a reasonable amount of depth to them and/or move in all 3 planes.

the Donkey Kong Country series was the best ever in my opinion...

long live monkeys!

I vote 3D

If a game can be done in 3D without removing a freature, I can find no situation in witch this would happen, Then it Should be.

I had a longer more explanitive post about a screen long, but it did not post Under my Handle ( showed up as annoyminus) and I somehow deleted it try to get my Hanle displayed.

2D and 3D are just expressive mediums. A new "Bard''s Tale" game is going to come out in a year or so. It''s 2D. It is told from an isometric perspective similar to Baldur''s Gate. Could it have been made 3D? yes. But the game designer felt it would express his interpretation of the game world. This isn''t an argument for 2D though. The game COULD have been 3D, and would have had the exact same effect, but the designer wanted 2D because he could express himself that way. Silent Storm (brilliant game) is a sort of Jagged Alliance clone, done in 3D. Could JA have been 3D? yes. could S^2 have been 2D? yes. The designer felt that it would be important to the game however. The point I''m trying to make is that the dominance of one medium over another is the common game designer''s choice. IMO the reason 3D is popular is because of the FPS genre (amoung others), that could simply not be done in an isometric perspective, It has reached the point to where the choice is expressive.

The true general first seeks victory, then seeks battle
- Sun Tzu