Don't most teams have separate graphics and scripting teams? So it shouldn't matter how much time is put into it.

However, a lot of companies use their good graphics as an excuse to put out a half assed game, like Crysis...the AI when the NPC's haven't spotted you is atrocious (watch what they do after they get out of a Helicopter). Crysis would have been my absolute favorite single player game every if it wasn't for the horrible AI, BUT, OMFG, IT HAS GOOD GRAPHICS!

Also: Should have been a 'Depends on the genre' option. For me, 3d can often break games made to play like a classic game.

I don't know, it's not the graphics that lead me to love Crysis, it's the intractability. Few games let you interact with the environment like Crysis does.

do people still think 'real' gamers don't care graphics? in reality, people aren't attached to gameplay or graphics; they're attached to NEW things, whether its newer and better graphics and or original gameplay.

the fact of the matter is, pretty much all(keyword: pretty much) original gameplay has been created already(using 2d graphics). therefore, the primary successful(keyword:successful) game promotion is centered around graphics. hence why graphics hold such a high precedence among gamers(even if you don't care, you're being a dirty liar if you claim most people that buy/play games don't).

I voted for 3D. It is true that there is only a few 3D games that I would play indefinately (Like RE:4, this game rocks) and a lot of 2D games addict me (Super mario, just to give one)

I think that the fact a game is 2D will make the men working on it focus more on gameplay/storyline/fun, therefore there is more addicting 2D games.

But don't get me wrong, I am just saying I still like 2d, but my favorite is 3D, because of that immersive feeling. The only game I play theese months is Gears of War 2. The graphics and the camera behind-the-guy makes it so immersive I can't stop playing. This is my opinion, but for me its the immersion that makes the main diffrence.

Edit: Yes I said behind-the-guy because the camera in gears is right behind like in Resident evil 4 and 5, its not quite your average third person shooter, its more like another style of camera.

Scribblenauts has shown me that nothing will ever beat 2D.

Enough Self-talk.

2d offers a more organic and fluid motion of animation compared to the often robotic and shiny renderings that 3d animation offers. This is most apparent in the mmorpg category where effects are often just flashy colors and misty blood.

This is true however they both are under the same budget.

To make an example its basically like anime/cartoons vs 3d movies. I personally would choose to watch a 2d show, as it is hand drawn and gives a much more pleasant viewing experience than anything that 3d can offer.

Maybe for you, not necessarily for the others.

(Which is also why I hate seeing absolutes in something that has no ground at all. Opinions are bound to change, and since you don't know how 3D will evolve- you won't know how your opinion will change.)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 6 2009, 10:39 am by BeDazed.

It's not like there's nothing left to do with 2d graphics. There can still be more innovation in that, too.

You really need to be a bit more specific here. How do I argue with 'organic and fluid motion'? Bring to mind an example and state why it's 100% impossible to achieve the same effect with 3D.

Specifically, I feel that 3D sucks balls when applied to RTS games, it adds more confusion to the game as you change angles to try to look at a unit that's managed to hide behind some 3D building, and then your angle is different so you get somewhat thrown off on your battlefield view..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNsYhQVAAuo

MMOs are such a bad example to put as 3D. Not that I am defending 3D but the way the "flashy" things are done are nothing but 2D. So bashing MMOs for their flashy things is bashing 2D graphics.

There's obviously some flaws in 3D like for one technology not being fully developed to have everything 3D which is why game makers often use 2D sprites for environments in other things.
2D has the advantage that, like SF said, you can't pretty much go anyway further with 2D graphics so it pretty much allows developers to focus on other tasks. There are also ways in 2D to give a depth and environmental feel so the idea of 3D being better because it allows you to see what reality is like is plain dumb.

Asking which is better is also a pretty dumb thing to ask, I mean, they are both REALLY different in their concept, some things can never be done the way they'd be done in 2D and some things will actually require 3D. It's like trying to compare oranges to tomatoes. They're both different things that are meant for a very specific type of cooking.


Getting back on topic and not on the 2d vs 3d debate, I prefer 3D.

Actually, I think I can prove that 3D is better than 2D: Everything that is 3D is always in 2D as well, but not everything in 2D is in 3D. Thus, 3D has a broader scope. Discuss.

...And why is 3D better than 2D, again?

Uh, he just said. Everything in 3D is in 2D also, but not everything in 2D is in 3D.

The fact of the matter is that the question was your own opinion or preference as to which is you like more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo8VPFhSbs4
That's just 16 bit and in b/w

... You're saying that since 3D uses 2D images that I am bashing 2D? This makes a paradox.

Again I am not asking which is better but your preference, do you like oranges or tomatoes better.

I know that, I can read. But I still don't think that "proves" 3D > 2D. If anything wouldn't that make 3D actually suck seeing the obvious inability it has to create a full 3D world and having to return to use 2D?

Centreri just owned himself, lovely.

...?
I did post which one of both I prefered, mind actually reading my post?

Also, lol at the random truck. Seems like a fun game.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 6 2009, 11:20 pm by Corbo.

It was rhetorical

I'm discussing the possibilities of 3D, not the implementation. 3D is inherently better because it includes 2D. And has more. Just because it has to include 2D doesn't make it worse; it does it to appease people like you. For the record, I don't own myself, I own other people. /flex /wink /buynewsunglasses

... yeah, I think that would look much better in 3D, and better yet if it didn't exist. I mean, it's well animated, but it could be better in 3D... and it'll be bad, subject-wise, either way. I don't know what you see in that video that you think 3D can't do. I think you're just accustomed to 2D.