Which do you prefer and why?

Would you buy a game for the graphics alone?

I for one love 2d games for their animation (sprites are fucking beautiful) and overall environment that it gives me. And I wonder why many games that could of used 2d have gone into 3d (starcraft 2 included, although they fucked up in more ways than just dimensions in regard to graphics imo)

Many game developers put an emphasis on creating astounding graphics, as obviously better graphics sell more copies. However I feel that many put too much work on graphics and too little on gameplay and content.

I'd prefer 3D. I have bought games just for graphics, and yes they are awesome.

I've seen this argument countless times and it really has no back at all. A game can have both graphics and emphasis on gameplay, not one or the other. And many games do have both, as well as content. And I see what new graphics can offer to gameplay, why don't you? 2D is so limited, of what it can do is so puny against what 3D can do.

Actually, they've done a superb job as of recently, many who thought graphics of early version sucked decided the newer graphics Blizz came up with is just pure visual fap.

Lets get over with the past and move forward. 3D is the way of tommorow and theres no going back.

And you've just made your point that it is never going back.

2D games may be classic, but the society of this age doesn't like that. We like flashy stuff.
Even games that were brilliant, like Civilization and Sim City were 2D, but they tried to move on to a somewhat 3D perspective. 2.5D as some called it. Use of isometric tiles to make things look 3D.

Honestly, if the game plays well enough, I couldn't care less how they chose to present it.

Graphics are irrelevant.

Dwarf Fortress > Crysis (excluding mancatcher)

I prefer 2D, because I'm oldschool.

My friend and I were having a conversation about Nintendo games the other day. The original Metroid Games/Zelda games were amazing, and loved by many. But what are the new games Nintendo's releasing?
Link on a train, and Metroid "Other M".
In Metroid: Other M, they're trying to emulate the original feel of the game (or so it seems) but they won't be able to do it with the 3D graphics. With 2D, they could focus more on gameplay and not just how flashy the game looks.

2D graphics age more gracefully than 3D.

Look at old cRPG's like Baldur's Gate (2). Hand-painted, beautiful locations.
They can still take my breath away.

Ocarina of Time felt exactly like the old Zelda games.

Depends what kind of game it is. The old RTSs in 2D (SC and Age of Empires to mention a few) was a lot better than the new ones that's in 3D. RPG is the genre that requires the best graphic imo, though it doesn't nesecarily have to be 3D. Sport games and FPS have to be 3D (obviously), but I don't mind poor graphics as long as the gameplay is good (Whiplash/Fatal Racing is still my favorite racing game and Half Life is pure win).

Also don't forget that a 2d game can still be high resolution. It doesn't have to be a low resolution game just because it is 2d. For example, there are various downloadable games on the Xbox 360 that either don't use 3d graphics or only use them minimally and still look great.

Personally, I prefer 2d games in large part because I prefer the game mechanics associated with them. I think, in large part, because 3D rtses and the like often feel 'clunky', like nothing fits together well and everything I do is imprecise; and camera control is a notorious plague of difficulty in many 3d games. Gogo action/adventure/rpg platformers, top-downers, and whatever interesting other thing someone may come up with.
Oh. And screw "2.5D" games. Except when used for things like that one game where the world is viewed orthographically, but one's camera can be tumbled half a circle laterally at any time.

What's been done is so limited, of what we've done is so puny against what we could do.
There's an immense gameplayspace out there which is entirely or mostly unexplored, and which would work as well or better in 2d as/than in 3d.

I still don't understand what everyone has against SC's graphics. Although there are some issues ( like inconsistant shadows... ) , the unit sprites themselves are good, and, per pixel/given the screen resolution, show far more detail than is found in about any 3d games I can think of.
I've gotta love Diablo II, also. It's just too bad that so much of the scenery is reused, so that despite the numerous side dungeons/caves, there's really not a lot...
What I care about mostly, though, is animation quality, and SC/D2 just have most other games in general beat.

Sport games? They did exist on the SNES, y'know. ;P

There's also nothing wrong with having a 3d game with a 2d graphics type of perspective on it. The 3d graphics still look just as good from the side or top view typical of 2d games. Besides, there are some games that are better without the extra complication that the 3d perspective can add to the gameplay. I've seen multiple games that do this and it works out just fine.

I always thought Mischief Makers on the Nintendo 64 was kind of funny because the front box-art suggests the game is 3D, but, really, the game is 2D platform/puzzle game.

In some parts of the game, it almost feels like it is 3D because the background will change perspective during so much damage in boss battles.

Why would you want to downgrade? 3D games can look more realistic, can allow variable perspectives for the player and have more possibilities, period. Don't blame 3D for games with good graphics and bad gameplay; blame the company that made the game. Don't blame 3D for bad aging; the 3D was done wrong. Just like not all 2D ages well, not all 3D will age well. You can create a good background for a 2D environment; you can make one that's more realistic by changing the distance of certain parts of said background and implementing a simple 3D engine.

That's true. But we're still getting "Link on a train"

Anyone played the new Street fighter? I was disappointed.

Realism isn't everything.

Perfect Example. But no, I haven't.

EDIT: Another example? Marvel vs. DC. Wow.

Well put.
And I hate to correct you bedazed, but the standard argument is irrefutable. Naturally, if less time is spent on graphics, there is more time for important things.
To put things into perspective, if the same amount of man power is provided for 2 separate games, one with 2d and one with 3d. The 2d will have better storyline and character development hands down because the 3d is going to eat up man power.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 5 2009, 9:32 pm by Jello-Jigglers.

And what does 2D bring that 3D can't, except familiarity and pleasant associations (and it'll be able to bring those once you get used, too! )?
Incorrect. The same time is spent on 'more important things'. The time not spent on 3D graphics will rather not be spent at all, leading to shorter production times. There comes a time when a company just runs out of ideas.