 |
| |
|
|
Adagio
|
|
What do you prefer in games graphics? 2D or 3D?
Of course it kinda depends on what type of game we're talking about, since an fps game in 2D would (for some unknown reason) not be the same if it was in 2D, but let's just talk about RTS, Tycoon or whatever game genre that works in both 3D and 2D
Personally I prefer 2D graphics. This is not because of the issues it causes for people to get used to the 3D engine (how to move camera and such), but because 2D graphics is easier to make compared to 3D, which means that they can spend more time to make gameplay better, while the graphics mostly looks better
To make a game in 3D is easier than to make it in 2D I've heard (Since the artists don't have to draw each single picture manually (or how they do it)... This only applies to the quick (and easy) 3D graphics which most 3D games (not FPS) uses.
Here's a few pictures (taken from Vovans posts in the Children of the Nile thread):
2D: (Pharao)
3D: (Children of the Nile)
With my estimation they spent just as much time creating the 3D graphics in Children of the Nile, than what they would have spent if they created simple 2D graphics (like most 2D games uses today)
Or just creating the graphics they used in Pharao would make it much faster done, and in my oppinion the graphics in Pharao looks better than in Children of the Nile. Just look at Vovans red circles around the nature part of the games, where the grass in Pharao does not look as a box in Children of the Nile.
Or course the graphics can be much better (Like in The Sims 2), but to make good 3D graphics requires more time (a.k.a. money)...
I've seen too many games that fails this... During the last few years a great number of tycoon games has been released, 80-90% of these used 3D graphics, but how many of these were successfull? And how many of them were praised because of their graphics? Until The Sims 2 was released, the answer to both questions is: None
IMHO if they didn't use the 3D graphics, they might have had better chances of success...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
The screenshots you show, the 3D one actually looks like its meant to be a hedge rather than the same grass. For comparison you'd circle the texture on the floor of the 3D one, still crap obviously.
3D apparently sells better nowadays, 3D screenshots get more space in magazines at least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
and there's not much to show if we just point to the flat ground in 3D games... |
It shows theres nothing there except a flat surface with a crappy stretched texture, as opposed to detailed 2D grass.
Roller Coaster Tycoon had hedges better than that and Theme Park.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I thought you liked 3D games updated from 2D ADG, you always seem to be posting about them. Then i post something like "3D, NO!!1 NO I SAy".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vovan
|
|
Firstly, I don't know which option to choose there.  I don't think it's all black and white - I can't really say one is better than the other - you have to look at cases.
Now, the problem I have with 3D is that people don't know how to do it well, and still do it, simply because it is the thing to do these days. Basically, I agree with what Kassi said. No need to point out the obvious again, though, so I will elaborate some.
I think 3D can make a strategy game a little better. Point in case: SMAC. (Yeah, after that one thread, I had to dig out the CD...) IMO the sort of pseudo-3Dish terrain is nice. It adds flavour, nothing more nothing less. It by no means makes this game what it is, but it is a nice kind of finishing touch. Would the game still be great without it? Hell yeah. It'd just be a wee bit less cool to the casual player is all I'm saying.
The 3D made the game better because they didn't go overboard with it. Not having a freely-controlled camera is just fine in a strategy game. In fact, some people don't care at all about graphics. I recall seeing a terrain graphics pack out there somewhere for Civ3, where they changed each terrain to be monochromatic tiles, had letters for resources, and symbols for units. (I looked around for that now, but can't seem to find it again.) Gah. Granted, I'd prefer nice graphics over that, but hey, just goes to show that there are people out there who definitely wouldn't give a rat's tail for graphics.
Now, take CotN. The guys wanted to churn out a game, and they wanted to concentrate on gameplay. So, they licensed an old 3D engine, ended up having to recode a bunch of it any way, and finally ended up with a game that doesn't look so hot. Now I sound like hypocrit, because I just said I don't care too much about nice graphics, but I sort of stand by my word - I still enjoy the game.
What disappoints me is that it seems like using the 3D engine in the first place was not that much justified. What does it add to the gameplay? The only good reason I've heard so far is that people wanted to be able to "walk" through the streets of the city they built as if in first person, and they got that ability with CotN, well sort of. That's nice because it adds a sort of role-playing aspect to the game, which they wanted to emphasize some. But man. Me, if I ever even had such a desire, it was gone with the wind when I saw the graphics. Honsetly, I don't want to zoom in close for that. I want to zoom in to something cool. I don't want to zoom in to see a big green blob, or a person that looks like he's been hit in the face with a frying pan a few too many times, or a kid with two bricks for ears.
I'm just saying. You know, it seems like this whole zoom in thing was done in the first place so you could enjoy the view, and be like, hey, look at me, I built this beautiful city, and now I'm walking around. But then that very purpose was defeated by bad textures, bad models, and stuff. I mean, I play zoomed out usually any way, so I might as well have had it in 2D, so it would acutally not slow down on my machine when I see 100 people on screen at once.
So there. That's what I think about 3D vs 2D, complete with a long rant, and a kind of a case study.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adagio
|
|
Oh, I forgot to mention that I see games like SMAC and The Settlers 3+4 as 2D games, since that's how the game engine works. Even though all characters/buildings in Settlers 3+4 were created in 3D, they were all pre-rendered, which makes it possible to add more detail to them, without slowing down the system.
Games like The Sims (1) is considered a 3D game, because it's rendered while playing...
I hope this makes it clear how I see what is a 3D game and what is not
And yes, I know it's not just black and white, but I'm mostly looking for the answers on what is mostly prefered. As I said earlier, 2D games is defently my favorite, but in few cases (The Sims 2) the 3D can add much detail to the game, that 2D couldn't do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:18
|
|
Usually games like SMAC are called 2.5D or simialler.
I'm inclined to think that Roller Coaster Tycoon wouldn't be nearly as fun in 3D, but I really should reserve judgement until trying RCT3.
With good artists I think that 2D graphics are easier to make look very good, but with poor artists I think 3D graphics can actually be easier, because a lot of the effort is put into modelling.
My opinion is that certain simulation/city builder games (Sim City, Caesar, Tycoon, Settlers Series) are better in 2D, while RTS games are better in 3D, I really can't honestly say that Total Annhilation, Warcraft 3 or C&C Generals would have been better in 2D, the 3D graphics really can add a lot, especially with terrain and making the units move and act smoothly. But in a simulation game you need to do a lot of precise placement of buildings, paths etc, and here the 2.5D isometric is a big boon.
So in short, building games = 2D, fighting games = 3D.
Something about The Sims 2 is that all the game mechanics are still the same as the old 2.5D isometric, you can just move the camera around - but highly detailed 3D models and textures were required. The Sims 2 was probably only possible because of the mind bogglingly massive budget it no doubt got. Any 2.5D probably could be adapted to 3D in much the same way - that is - with a large enough budget.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vovan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adagio
Oh, I forgot to mention that I see games like SMAC and The Settlers 3+4 as 2D games, since that's how the game engine works. Even though all characters/buildings in Settlers 3+4 were created in 3D, they were all pre-rendered, which makes it possible to add more detail to them, without slowing down the system. |
I wasn't talking about units. I was talking about the terrain. Units are obviously pre-rendered 2D sprites. However, in SMAC, the terrain is sort of 3Dish because they overlaid the tiled isometric map on top of a heightmap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Depends of the style of the game.
2D is excellent for fast paced games with an "old" perspective (bird view, isometric view) like bird-view racing games, or diablo-likes. In these games, there is little to no need for graphical variety, AND the perspective (camera angle) doesn't change.
In many games, however, 3D is a sound idea. All games that require a camera-change (First Person or Third Person games) require it absolutely. As do games that need a great graphical variety, that could only be matched with a humongous amount of sprites.
For example, I support the idea that Civ4 should be 3D, because it would allow for a far greater graphical variety: you could see at first glance whether your city has a granary, mosque or Pyramids. You could see at first glance the stregth and the composition of an army. A 3D-engine would even allow a unit workshop, like it did in SMAC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
2D is generally better for city builders, TBS, etc. SMAC is also 2D, it's just faking 3D looks. Personally only a few games really need 3D like FPS's, or racing games, new 3D platformers, etc. Usually in computer games 3D is a turn off more often than not because they seem to run so horribly even if I am above minimum specs by a fair bit. I'd rather have crappier graphics and have the game running 3x(or more faster) and at lower resolutions if I want than having it be 3D.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2004 22:27
[/edit]
|