And also at the same time trying to prove 2D beats 3D anyday? I don't think so.

Heres a good example. The game that this site is based upon...is 2D.

so if sc1 was originally made in 3d, it would have been a piece of crap?

No, but just because it's 2D doesn't make any less of a game.

Yes. Case in point - http://pc.ign.com/objects/003/003134.html

If it was using the 3d graphics technology of the time, then maybe as far as graphics.

I think that neither wins, Corbo is completely right that each is good for different things, just because 3D contains 2D does not make it better, just because Windows ME contains Windows 98 does not make it better, and the same concept goes for graphics.

Designing/programming aside, different types of games are better in either 2D or 3D, because it truly effects how you play the game, some games are going for simplicity, and adding a third dimension just adds that much more confusion to the game, when it could be simpler. And some games require 3D in order to perform all the functions and ideas that the creators want. In general, I would say 3D wins, however, it does not beat 2D games outright, each one has its own specialty.

3D contains 2D, so it inherits all the positive aspects of 2D. So, unless you're saying 3D has no positive aspects (as negative aspects can be ignored and not used, being optional), my logic is sound in that 3D is inherently better than 2D. Falk, I thought you were a programmer, you should know this! It's not being argued the way Sayoka wants this to be argued, but it's a valid and correct argument all the same. And this conversation/argument itself is pretty stupid; but, I've already said something about that.

thats probably the best statement i've seen on this subject, lol.

Because a game like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, for example, contains some 3d backgrounds in some locations, would you call it a 3d game? No, it is still called a 2d game because the graphics are primarily 2d.

Also, saying 3d is better because it also contains 2d and can do all the same things is going into implementation details, which are irrelevant to the discussion. Displaying 2d graphics using 3d graphics methods does not make it 3d graphics. For example, Windows Vista displays the desktop and windows using 3d graphics methods, but for the most part it isn't 3d. IIRC, it also emulates DirectDraw by using Direct3d to draw the graphics as a texture on a surface. Modern video player programs often use these kinds of 3d graphics methods to display the videos they play as well. None of these are considered 3d graphics even though they use 3d graphics to display the output.

Centreri, the same thing and more is not always better, hence the derogatory use of the term "bloatware". The main reason for using 2D in the past was computer limitations, although they are not as common today as they were, they are still there, which provides a reason to simplify. However, even if you are running on a supercomputer, there is always the limitations of the human mind, when you throw too much at someone at once, it ends up making a situation worse than if you had simplified and provided less "features".

I prefer 2d myself. Although, there are some great 3d games out there.
Even still, most 2d games I've played are, in general, more "in depth" with the characters and story than the 3d games. I suspect this is because most gaming companies are in the middle of a "graphics war", each trying to produce better than the others, and sometimes (not always) leaving out other aspects of the game.
For example, I looked at a game called Fracture recently. I saw nothing about the actual story-line while looking at the case. Everything visible was focused on the graphics and the new aspects of what you could do using the more powerful gaming systems.

Then, if you look back a past, more simpler games, you can find games that can last.
For instance, Paper Mario. I loved this game. I still do. You can't get any more 2d than paper characters on a paper back ground.

Hell yes

Besides, a computer monitor is 2d, so all of your "3d" is still being shown to you on a 2d monitor, its still just a light trick the same way its been all the time, it just has a rotating camera.

So that makes you wonder, Why do we call it 2D vs 3D, its No Camera or Camera.

There's a "camera", either way. You notice how you see stuff in 2d games, too?
The difference is that in a 3D game, you can't say "This object is at 235x637" (or atleast, you're not saying much if you do) ; you have to say "This object is at 235x637x529".
Or maybe, "This vertex is at 235x637x529", for games which use 3D graphics, but not 3D gameplay, which is relevant to how the game's rendered.
Or else the graphics were 3D renders exported as sprites, in which case the game derives its graphics from 3-dimensional objects.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 18 2009, 3:46 am by EzDay281.

If there was no "camera" in 2D games, you wouldn't be able to see the graphics at all. Isn't that common sense?

Ok I messed that up

Moveable camera vs Fixed Camera

Ignoring the fact that the camera in 2D games still "moves", I'm going to guess that you mean rotating/tumbling camera vs. non-rotating/tumbling camera.
In 2D games, the camera can't tumble/rotate. And if it can dolly, then even that's different, as 2D games cannot involve perspective.

Graphics are irrelevant.

Starcraft being a prime example.

Diablo 2

Diablo 2 is a 3D game

Edit: oh wait no, it's a very clever 2D game.