#29661 - wombatman - Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:44 pm
or is it just that 2D games aren't evolving. The truth is most development on 2d games today have shorter development cycles then many of the more high profile 3d titles and maybe because of such or because of developers love of classic 2d games thess games often lack innovation and aim to be a megaman2d or zelda2d clone. I know this is somewhat offtopic but I feel it really applies in a generation where even our portables are going 3D. I just want to say as well that I love 3D and don't believe the only way to make a game is 2D. I just think some games have become 3D just to fit the times. The reality is that people don't buy as many new 2D titles today (new ones not classic franchises) because they haven't added much new in 7 or so years.
AI anyone?
pls excuse my horrible grammar bah
#29665 - NoMis - Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:01 pm
I think it often is a marketing issue. They want to advertise their great 3D graphics, but I think that most of the gamers don't bother to much about graphics. The game just has to be fun to play.
I do look on graphics and I like cool looking, amazing 3D graphics but story and gameplay are much more important for me.
Some 2D games are great in 3D. Metroid Prime is really great game in 3D. But some games just don't fit into 3D. Let's take Monkey Island for Example. What was the point of making the 4th Monkey Island in 3D.
NoMis
#29672 - wombatman - Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:34 pm
I don't really think metroid prime is metroid in 3d. I love the morphball portion of the game but it lacks the fluid jumping and other exciting elements of metroid for me. I do think metroid could be done well as a 3rd person 3d title but this fpa is not all it could be. I blame Miyamoto. He is one of the greatest developers/designers in the world but his views on 3d shooting is that it can only be done in first person but thats only because so many developers waste time on making the game pretty rather then concentrating on more important aspects that gamers really need. An example of such would be a camera system that gives you the view you want the whole way through a game. The technology keeps getting better each release of a new console and yet it seems to be the best camera systems still mimic sm64. The point to all of this is in order for metroid 3d to really blow me away I have to be able to use the same fluid jumping and technique that I used in the 2D incarnation of old not just morphball. I hear the new metroid prime has a spin jump though I dont quite understand how that'd work but it sounds like a step towards the 3rd person title I crave. I, of course, only crave it if done well.
#29674 - ScottLininger - Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:50 pm
Sweet... I'm gonna rant for a second.
I agree that awful camera intelligence is the biggest problem with 3D.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but it's very difficult for me to control a character who can run in any direction when the camera angle keeps changing. And it seems like every game uses their own, slightly different method for interpreting how to translate the user control into onscreen action. I'll play one 3D game for long enough to finally feel comfortable with it, only to switch to another game and have to learn all over again. Yarg!
But with that being said, I do think that the days of the hardware sprites and flipping your video page are commercially dead. The DS will be the LAST console to embrace this way of thinking. With the never-ending, exponential growth of processing power and the approaching reality of global, high-speed wireless, the days of custom hardware to achieve performance gains are numbered.
This means 3D will become the standard for displaying graphics. Even if a game is played in 2D, the engine will be 3D. Why? It's ultimately less expensive to develop and reuse 3D assets and animation than 2D equivalents. As the tools and standards continue to mature, programming 3D won't even be any more difficult than 2D.
Just think how many THOUSANDS of hours have been spent by artists over the years just re-drawing frames of Mario? From here on out, Nintendo can just publish a canonical Mario nurbs model and be done with it. The artists will focus their time on tweaks, textures, filters, and new character designs.
I know, I know. 3D lacks the artist's touch of hand drawn sprites, but soon even THAT will be alleviated by new, better filters to make things look handdrawn. I predict that we'll even see filters that specifically reduce the output to look like old NES platformers and such. There's an amazing opportunity out there for bitheads like us who can both program a filter and have an eye for unique aesthetics.
Instead of bemoaning the death of pixel art we should get over it and figure out ways to FIX the parts of all these 3D games that we don't like.
-Scott
#29676 - dagamer34 - Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:58 pm
Hand-drawn art will still be around however we are going to see more particle effects since systems now have the sprite-processing power to do so. A good example of what I expect to see would be The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures for the GCN. It is a 2D world with 3D special effects.
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#29686 - keldon - Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:48 pm
Sometimes people ask "how can 3d make this game better", or "how can this be better in 3d" when they should ask "how on earth can this be better" and find the answer to that. Maybe 3d would come into it, but I for sure turn 3d off on my monopoly and cluedo game.
I think that's just wasted time there but it was useful in scrabble because the engine allowed you to view the board in a perspective you prefered.
#29689 - sajiimori - Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:00 pm
| Quote: |
| ...the days of custom hardware to achieve performance gains are numbered. |
What do you think 3D chips are?
#29691 - ScottLininger - Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:30 pm
| sajiimori wrote: |
| Quote: | | ...the days of custom hardware to achieve performance gains are numbered. |
What do you think 3D chips are? |
I didn't say the days of custom hardware are GONE, I just said they are numbered. It might be ten years off, but it's coming fast.
Once your PC (or gameboy, or toaster) is powerful enough to do everything in software, why would a company ever invest in hardware? The world will be reduced to a few giants like Intel pumping out super-fast, super-powerful, super-generic processors, and the optimization efforts will switch almost completely to the software world.
Ask any one of the thousands of circuit designers who have been laid off in the past four years. They've been living this reality.
And then go a step further to the day when ultra-fast wireless is available anywhere in the world. If your computer doesn't have the flops it needs to display a given frame of super-real 3D content, it will simply borrow it from the massively-parallel supercomputer that everyone has instant access to (aka the Internet)
Frankly, it's going to be cool. ;)
-Scott
#29694 - DiscoStew - Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:12 am
| ScottLininger wrote: |
| The world will be reduced to a few giants like Intel pumping out super-fast, super-powerful, super-generic processors, and the optimization efforts will switch almost completely to the software world. |
The problem is that there will come a time where the transistors in the processors will become so small that it will reach a limit where it can't get any smaller. I feel that unless computer hardware evolves from it's current state instead of just expanding on current principles, computers will reach a limit. I don't know when, only that it will happen sometime in the future.
_________________
DS - It's all about DiscoStew
#29696 - Krakken - Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:01 am
| DiscoStew wrote: |
The problem is that there will come a time where the transistors in the processors will become so small that it will reach a limit where it can't get any smaller. I feel that unless computer hardware evolves from it's current state instead of just expanding on current principles, computers will reach a limit. I don't know when, only that it will happen sometime in the future. |
Until they figure out a way to do it without transistors that is.
#29700 - keldon - Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:16 am
| Krakken wrote: |
| DiscoStew wrote: |
The problem is that there will come a time where the transistors in the processors will become so small that it will reach a limit where it can't get any smaller. I feel that unless computer hardware evolves from it's current state instead of just expanding on current principles, computers will reach a limit. I don't know when, only that it will happen sometime in the future. |
Until they figure out a way to do it without transistors that is. |
You guys are so behind the times, check out the date on this article.
http://www.hp.ca/portal/education/sep_16_2002.htm?device=printable
There's also biological processors that use DNA to carry out processes. They are fast but take a long time to interpret.
I'm not sure if it says it in that article but sub atomic processors are so incredibly fast that comparing it to todays processors is pretty much like comparing a a pentium 4 to a guy on an abacus. Okay maybe not tha fast, the only problem is that they have no way to interpret its output other than a process that takes over 2 weeks.
Also because the sub-atomic particles - which conveniently operate in binary - can duplicate itself, it can duplicate to produce processors that carry out the processing in parallel.
#29704 - tepples - Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:53 am
| ScottLininger wrote: |
| And then go a step further to the day when ultra-fast wireless is available anywhere in the world. If your computer doesn't have the flops it needs to display a given frame of super-real 3D content, it will simply borrow it from the massively-parallel supercomputer that everyone has instant access to (aka the Internet) |
Sending geometry and receiving a framebuffer adds latency. Remember that the speed of light is constant.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#29706 - wbochar - Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:53 am
3D is in its teen phase, very unstable and pain to deal with. Everyone wants it, but do not know how to deal with its success that well. 2D art is at a mature state -- look at how things like flash have become so pervasive in a supposed 3D ruled world. 3D like many things will mature and become easier and more transperant to use. an important thing to keep in mind... in the end, it is always 2D.
wbochar
#29719 - dagamer34 - Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:54 am
3D is not being used everywhere because of one great evil: A BAD 3RD PERSON CAMERA!
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#29723 - keldon - Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:17 am
Some games just don't requre it. If you play zelda and compare it to the snes version you can blatently notice you're playing the same game in 3d.
Or consider metal gear; it's the most 2d 3d game to date. Smash brothers is really a 2d game with 3d graphics.
There are still a number of 3d games where your gameplay is 2d, and 3d is used only to add the ability to see things you can't from a single viewpoint.
#29754 - ScottLininger - Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:10 pm
| wbochar wrote: |
| 3D is in its teen phase, very unstable and pain to deal with. Everyone wants it, but do not know how to deal with its success that well. 2D art is at a mature state -- look at how things like flash have become so pervasive in a supposed 3D ruled world. 3D like many things will mature and become easier and more transperant to use. |
Amen.
But the success of Flash has nothing to do with 2D. Flash is popular because of it's highly-accessible user interface. It's an easy, WYSIWYG platform that allows you to see results very quickly. Plus, it's ideal for web deployment, which means you have an instant audience. If it were a 3D tool with these same properties, it would be popular too.
But you hit the nail on the head, I think. 3D tools and standards will mature.
| Quote: |
| an important thing to keep in mind... in the end, it is always 2D. |
Not for long. :)
-Scott
#29757 - dagamer34 - Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:24 pm
| ScottLininger wrote: |
| wbochar wrote: | | 3D is in its teen phase, very unstable and pain to deal with. Everyone wants it, but do not know how to deal with its success that well. 2D art is at a mature state -- look at how things like flash have become so pervasive in a supposed 3D ruled world. 3D like many things will mature and become easier and more transperant to use. |
Amen.
But the success of Flash has nothing to do with 2D. Flash is popular because of it's highly-accessible user interface. It's an easy, WYSIWYG platform that allows you to see results very quickly. Plus, it's ideal for web deployment, which means you have an instant audience. If it were a 3D tool with these same properties, it would be popular too.
But you hit the nail on the head, I think. 3D tools and standards will mature.
| Quote: | | an important thing to keep in mind... in the end, it is always 2D. |
Not for long. :)
-Scott |
Maybe if we all win the lottery...
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#29758 - sajiimori - Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:25 pm
It's 2D when it hits your retina. ;)
#29769 - FluBBa - Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:42 pm
| sajiimori wrote: |
| It's 2D when it hits your retina. ;) |
If you only have one eye that is. :P
_________________
I probably suck, my not is a programmer.
#29788 - sgeos - Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:59 am
| FluBBa wrote: |
| If you only have one eye that is. :P |
Having only one eye hinders depth perception. (understatement) You tell how deep away the TV is. With two eyes you can discern the location of the TV in real 3D space, but the image is still 2D.
-Brendan
#29789 - ravuya - Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:00 am
I don't think 2D is going away, particularly. It's still the easiest for indie developers like the guys on this site to get into, and it can make beautiful and complex games while not having to worry about 3D stupidities like polygon clipping and camera crap.
_________________
Rav (Win/Mac/Linux games for free)
#29792 - Marill - Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:54 am
I don't think 2D is dead. It is still the best mapping of the controller interface with the 2D screen.
Controlling a character moving on the 2D plane on the 2D screen is still the most intuitive with the current controllers.
I think 3D will start to take off when we've found a better controller scheme/device for movement in 3D environments.
Until then, 2D has still got lots to go for it.
#29812 - Corbin - Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:15 am
From looking at how it appears to operate, I would assume the holodeck is controlled by an artificially intelligent opto-electronic device that uses a lasing mechanism that behaves much like a hologram to scatter groups of photons into the coordinates of a constrained area to simulate the appearance of matter in space. That is how 2d will die. As for the computer required for the automation, the ANN required to handle the sensory input/output in such a system wouldn't really need to be anything but circuitry embedded in an electron device, no matter how massive it is. Electrons are fairly good for doing logical operations on, as I am sure most of you engineers
realize. As for the laser device, or the holographic media... maybe more understanding of quantum physics is needed.
This is only what I think, I might be wrong.
Corbin
_________________
www.dsausa.org
#29850 - Cyberman - Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:38 am
I believe the problem is everyone looks to new technology to save there failing project.
3d games are more difficult and require a lot more time to make, than 2d. It's not just a off the cuff statement. The fact is 3d on computing systems has been being worked on since the early 70's here we are almost 35 years later, and we have much better hardware. the problem is 3d is quite complicated. And the engine for the 3d game is the least of the problem. Creating 3d models is a difficult time consuming task, and creating 3d scenery is equally difficult. Very few people have the natural perception skill to think things through in 3d in there head, so it's no surprise it just takes a lot more work.
People tend to get hooked on the visual aspect 3d imagary and the fact that it looks cool thing. Quite frankly it's window dressing and has nothing to do with making the game. A game is a set of rules and strategies and has nothing to do with it's presentation. Bottom line 3d is merely a MEDIA faculty and it isn't the game at all, it's just a part of presentation. I still play Alundra (it's a 2d game), and a few others like it. I still play FF7 not because it has 3d in it, but because it's FUN.
There are lots of bad games out there or mediocre games. Most of these use 3d no? Shouldn't they be more exciting? The same goes with 2d games. You will have the same number of bad games put out every year (90% of them hehehe), weather they are 2d or 3d.
The important thing is NOT the technology you use for your game, it's how you use it to make your game more fun. The best 3d hardware doth not make the game, it is merely a tool.
So I don't worry about 2d versus 3d or be excited about it. None of that matters, what's important is can the user enjoy playing it :)
Cyb
_________________
If at first you don't succeed parachuting is NOT for you.
#29866 - tepples - Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:28 am
| Cyberman wrote: |
| So I don't worry about 2d versus 3d or be excited about it. None of that matters, what's important is can the user enjoy playing it :) |
The user can't enjoy playing the game if the console maker doesn't approve its production. Notably, Sony Computer Entertainment America has banned original 2D games on the PlayStation 2 at some points. Or are you expecting players to install modchips to play commercial homebrews?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#29911 - Cyberman - Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:20 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Cyberman wrote: | | So I don't worry about 2d versus 3d or be excited about it. None of that matters, what's important is can the user enjoy playing it :) |
The user can't enjoy playing the game if the console maker doesn't approve its production. Notably, Sony Computer Entertainment America has banned original 2D games on the PlayStation 2 at some points. Or are you expecting players to install modchips to play commercial homebrews? |
Well from what I understand recall about the PS2 this is likely the result of the PS2 being so difficult to program for. Sony likely made a marketing choice. I have nothing to verify that it's true so I will assume it is. Think of it this way 'People want 3d games!' executive board makes there decision by thumping there right fist (they've been practicing this all year have to have some way to make a nice looking decision) 'lets make sure everyone is making them for our new XYZ platform", the response the same.
Of course what a 3d game consists of is subject. For example it's just as fun to play tetris with 3d tiles in a scroll background as it is in 2d. (albeit mostly mindless hehehe).
Back to the DS, and GBA, obviously 2d isn't dead, it does however need to change to continue to improve the polished look. Unfortunately some people buy the 2 dollar shoe that lasts 1 day, the 20 dollar shoe still needs to compete with it (it lasts a year). They look the same but they sure do not last the same.
Cyb
_________________
If at first you don't succeed parachuting is NOT for you.
#29928 - sgeos - Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:21 pm
| Cyberman wrote: |
| Well from what I understand recall about the PS2 this is likely the result of the PS2 being so difficult to program for. Sony likely made a marketing choice. I have nothing to verify that it's true so I will assume it is. |
My opinion is that sony is evil. They put so much emphasis on a particular graphical aesthetic that, in some cases, gameplay has been sacrificed.
-Brendan
#30443 - wbochar - Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:46 am
Interfaces to a 3D environment, such a brilliant post. So many issues when all interfaces (except some art ones, see stelark or data chizel) are based on a planar seperate and dual planar model (two joysticks). When i think of when the first time I used a mouse on an Icon and said.. damn this thing is wierd. Now I can play counterstrike with a mouse in one hand and a keyboard in the other -- with crazy effeciency. I think a new interface for 3d maybe required -- or something to help adjust the current ones with some human learning. Some of that voxel 3d tied to physical force feedback is kool.
When I said everything eventually is 2D, there are so many other 'perspectives' on this. Yes 3d games become 2d through math, to physical flatscreen, to two eyes. Even at a physical eye thing; after 90 feet everything the human eye sees is flat. Stereographic vision stops after 90 feet.
Movies still focus on frame composition which is entirely a viewport to a 3d world.
With the talk about 3d and the industrial need to push more gear, faster cpu's and forced standards; this has been happening since the begining of time. Human nature is to push the envelope all the time. At the same point there are people that enjoy pushing envelopes in different ways -- why do a video codec for the c64 in the year 2004? Why do gameboy development when there are so many other newer systems out there (i got a ds too :))
On the PS2 debate releases -- 2d platform fighters had several releases this year. Capcom/SNK have been busy in this regard. So releases of 2d content are out there; but at a noticably lesser extent. As Sony making a call like that? Think. They are business. You run a game business and some people pitch games to you. You notice that some games do better than others, what do you do? Sometimes go against the grain -- but most of the time you do what makes money.
I think this is all 'Old style versus 'New Style. The world craves something new and anything that looks like it. Movies do this, music does this and why not video games. Look at games that used a cartoon renderer? 3d with a cartoony look -- when a few years ago ultra realistic was so 'in'. Look at computer based movies -- final fantasy -- beautiful looking but no real substance, then years later a buncha marionettes with the lowest common demoninator humour and production value totally slay it. 3D movie was new, now its not. People know what it is and are less likely to be wowed by it. 3D games have done the same thing.. ultra real 3d to cartoon rendered flat 3d, to cartoon rendered flat vector shapes..
And on the SF Corbin Holodeck idea.. bah! So 80's.. Jacking in directly to cortex.. 90's.. just be able to construct your own temporary universe inside your conciousness.. thats the end and start of 2D.
Did you know there were people who said that Atari 2600's were going to kill card and board games... Ever watch 10 year olds these days? yugioh and magic. 2D isnt going anywhere, your just going to be dumping it into texture mem and aligning its plane to 180 degrees to viewport :)
--wbochar
#30446 - mymateo - Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:57 am
After reading that, I heard Maximum PC's watchdog go "woof"... In other words (for those who don't quite understand my obscure references), "Well Put"
#30447 - kaeru23frog - Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:14 am
| tepples wrote: |
| Cyberman wrote: | | So I don't worry about 2d versus 3d or be excited about it. None of that matters, what's important is can the user enjoy playing it :) |
The user can't enjoy playing the game if the console maker doesn't approve its production. Notably, Sony Computer Entertainment America has banned original 2D games on the PlayStation 2 at some points. Or are you expecting players to install modchips to play commercial homebrews? |
I think we forget that the gamers on this board are an exception to the whole. People, in general, are very stupid. Many of them are more concerned with graphics than gameplay, because they like the pretty lights and colors. Sony is a marketing god that is very consious of the consumers' liking for pretty pictures.
I am surprised that no one has yet said the since we live in a 3 dimentional world (okay, 4 if you count time) it makes a more realistic game if it is in 3D. GTA did not blow up in popularity until it moved from the top down perspective (okay, crappy example, since it was kinda 3D before) to the perspective it has today.
This is a stupid argument anyway. They can and will co-exist. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world without either style of gaming.
#30448 - sgeos - Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:38 am
| kaeru23frog wrote: |
| I think we forget that the gamers on this board are an exception to the whole. People, in general, are very stupid. |
Solid game design is only a selling point if your audiance can understand how this makes things better. The mass market buys bad games.
| kaeru23frog wrote: |
| I am surprised that no one has yet said the since we live in a 3 dimentional world ... it makes a more realistic game if it is in 3D. |
I live in a 3D world. I play games to escape the real world. That last thing I want are games that are as realistic as real life. If/when games get to that point, I'll just play real life. (If only I could hex edit my bank account and not risk life in prison...)
-Brendan
#30461 - kaeru23frog - Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:47 pm
| sgeos wrote: |
| I live in a 3D world. I play games to escape the real world. That last thing I want are games that are as realistic as real life. |
Oh, I agree.