Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

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

SA-Magic

Why have publishers made 2D extinct?

This topic is 5967 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

Grr! Why have publishers made 2D extinct? Don''t give me crap about publishers saying they''ll be able to publish 3D games. That factor has delayed Simon the Sorceror 3 (now STS 3D) The best technology will sell...though I suppose that answers my own question- they just want to make the most money? Design is only existing primarily in great developers like Ion Storm and a few others. Pfft! There are plenty of fans that would play 2D adventure games that retain the same atmosphere and ''feel'' their favourites did. Fan-made games like IndyProject (http://www.indyproject.de) are fairly popular. These games would sell to a degree, I''m sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
How many people still buy vinyl records? Audiophiles and DJs only. The common consumer buys CDs and (increasingly rarely) cassettes. How may people still buy Betamax tapes? Well, that''s easy - there are none to buy!

Okay, a more pertinent example: how many people buy Windows 3.x software? What? I can''t hear you; speak up! That''s right, none (except for some obscure corporate clients). And why is that?

It''s called evolution and commerce. There''s a huge novelty factor in the latest technology, but it also allows us to do things we previously couldn''t (compare DVD and VHS). In a few years, audio cassettes and VHS tapes will have gone the way of the 8-track - and DVDs and CDs after them.

Isn''t it therefore logical that if your consumer base demands a particular type of product that you, since your objective is to make a profit, would supply? 3D is in high demand now, and even developers prefer it because of the increased flexibility for effects and implementation (many "2D" games are actually written in 3D, employing those principles to make a better simulation). In fact, it seems that it''s always people who haven''t yet themselves learnt 3D programming who argue in favor of 2D the most.

I will grant you this concession: 2D gameplay still lives. Many games are 3D (or even employ a "2D" presentation) but have 2D gameplay. The majority of RTSes and RPGs instantly spring to mind. But would you rather have an RTS in which you can use the terrain topology to your advantage (because of the underlying 3D mechanics) or a flat-ground simulation where the only cover might be hiding behind a boulder?

The choice is yours.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly dislike 3D games. But luckily there are others like me still around, so there is still a market for 2D games. If they should ever be gone, I will simply make no games anymore. Simply as that.

But maybe we have a "real virtual experience" at that time. Where you can really smell, touch and feel things. That would be real cool then and definately better than 2D. On the other hand people will still play chess then, so 2D might never die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oluseyi, I agree it's evolution- but it's still terrible they're forcing us away from classics. 2D games were really fun, it just seems stupid that publishers will NOT take on a 2D adventure game, in the case of Simon the Sorceror, simply because of the style.

Edited by - SA-Magic on January 15, 2002 4:09:19 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah it sucks that publishers don''t make any more "2D" games whether they''re fake 2D or real 2D. I miss a lot of the 2D games of the past personally, and while there are some good 3D games made these days, most of them suck in my opinion. There was a time when a lot more good games came out, during the 2D era. Now it seems all the money in the budget goes to special effects and gameplay is left out in the cold.

Personally I''m making a 2D game using OpenGL (orthographic mode) because it allows me to do accelerated rotation (and scaling) and alpha blending. I didn''t however, spend a lot of time on the graphics engine. In fact the graphics engine is a very small part of my game. I don''t understand why people think that if they have a graphics engine they have a game, this is so not true. And everyone seems to be working on a 3D engine these days.. As if a 3D engine means you have a game. Anyway, sorry for getting off the topic but I had to get that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Torn Space
Many of the latest games are still 2D.

Civ 3, the Sims, SimGolf, Disciples II

All 2D.


The players in the sims are 3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is completely wrong to assume that because companies make 3D games it must be the case that this is what people want. A lot of people are in fact very attracted to good quality playable 2D games. Cossacks was a major hit last year and currently is my fave game, with an add on and a sequel currently in the works. People voted with their feet on that one and it sold bucketloads. The problem with publishers is that they are all a bunch of in secure fools in suits who dont actually play enough games to know gameplay from a hole in the head, but they DO see the difference between 2D and 3D. 3D card maufacturers and people selling graphics engines tell them 3D is better and they believe it. If it was up to marketing men, chess would be converted to a 3D game (funny how the multilevel chess from star trek never caught on dont you think...)
The problem with developers is they simply do not have the cash to make a game that might not get picked up by a publisher, so they churn out ''Generic 3D shooter IV'' in an effort to get signed. Developers that buck the trend with games like The Sims, Cossacks or Rollercoaster Tycoons often make huge profits, but strangely nobody seems to notice.
3D does NOT even always make a game look better, in fact it can make it worse. Empire earth is a good 3D RTS, but its graphics arent as nice as the hand drawn sprites of Age of Empires II.
There are a lot of companies that think they can make games because they understand 3D math and how to push polys around. This isnt true now and never will be. Companies like Ensemble and Maxis have learned how to make good games first, and worried about how to represent them later which is how it should be.
There are some games (esp strategy ones) that will probably never be true 3d, however easy it gets to code. We are land-bound animals who plan strategy in 2D. if we were birds we might have different strategys... but i digress.

There will always be demand for 2D games. If its filled by hobby coders doing indie games then all the better.


http://www.positech.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Supernova
There was a time when a lot more good games came out, during the 2D era. Now it seems all the money in the budget goes to special effects and gameplay is left out in the cold.

There was a time when a lot more good movies came out, during the 30s-60s era. Now it seems all the money in the budget goes to special effects (and nudity - Halle Berry was reportedly paid $1 Million specifically to bare her breasts in Swordfish, which bombed anyway) and story/drama/adventure/real entertainment is left out in the cold.

There was a time when a lot more good music came out, during the instrumental era. Now it seems all the money in the budget goes to making the artists/bands/videos more visually attractive/sensual (ie, special effects) and true artistry is left out in the cold.

See a trend here?

I fully agree with you, but when you have a world in which people are increasingly giving up their right to independent thought and allowing others to tell them what they should be watching/playing/listening to... well, we''re fucked.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
How many people still buy vinyl records? Audiophiles and DJs only. The common consumer buys CDs and (increasingly rarely) cassettes.


That''s a different thing. CDs and vinyl records are just different media. They both store the same information (music). 2D or 3D is a different matter. 2D games are not any better or worse than 3D games, they''re just different. Tetris is great in 2D, you could make a 3D version, but it wouldn''t be any better, it would just be different.

3D games are good in a lot of situations. 2D games are good in different situations.

John B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by JohnBSmall
That''s a different thing. CDs and vinyl records are just different media. They both store the same information (music). 2D or 3D is a different matter. 2D games are not any better or worse than 3D games, they''re just different. Tetris is great in 2D, you could make a 3D version, but it wouldn''t be any better, it would just be different.

That, sir, was why my next line was "A more pertinent example."

*shrugs*

It doesn''t defeat the argument anyway.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!