Most disappointing game you've ever owned?

[Chark]

fordy said:

Chark said:

@fordy

There are good things about 2D and 3D. Yes, it is easier to produce better artwork using 2D images rather than 3D, but 2D is very limiting to gameplay aspects. 3D can provide gameplay 2D can not and in reality 3D graphics are 2D graphics rendered with depth and through perspective movement. You show the two dragons but that fails to display the movement of the 3D graphic which provides a far greater level of effect than 2D can. For instance, a 3D dragon can do a far better job actually going up to your character, grabbing on to them, and biting their face. This can be viewed at different angles, allowing for a sweeping camera view. In 2D this action would be done by having the sprites come in contact from a static camera angle and the result in comparison would be lacking. 3D has come a long way and is surpassing/surpassed 2D art quality, we are now starting to develop 3D graphics that look as good as someone could paint a picture.

Early 3D graphics don't compare to the art and detail of 2D graphics from static angles because they were developed at a time where hardware limited its abilities. 3D graphics are akin to developing 2D graphics as rotational from every fraction of every angled degree in unison from object to environment. Gaming techniques have vastly improved and hardware capabilities have allowed the 3D graphic median to start producing very detailed work. From photo-realistic to stylized art. 2D has also seen vast improvements but the limitations of its structure view will always be there, because if it wasn't to have them it would become 3D graphics. 3D graphics are just more advanced 2D graphics and the early games sacrificed the quality of art to provide the superior world 3D graphics create. Note that doesn't mean all 3D graphic games are better than 2D, far from it. People make bad games for both and really great games from both. Early 3D had a lot of problems because they didn't quite understand the new limitations it created or the means to provide good experiences from them. But by a large, people chose 3 dimensional worlds over astetic graphical quality. (wierd right?)

I know why people can be upset about the 3D game movement, it kind of stole the spotlight and became the major concentration, but 2D gaming is still around and looking better than ever. I like both, and I like 2D on 3D graphics games a lot as well.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying all 3D is terrible. Developers have gone to greater lengths at developing techniques to get a better outcome of 3D on a 2D screen. however, the original post of mine was talking about disappointment of some 1st generation 3D games compared to their predecessors, and justly so. 3D was still incredibly primitive back at the time, but it WAS seen as the future in graphics, so I generally refer to it as "The stepback we had to have", or else the gaming industry would have stagnated on the 2D platform without proper R&D put towards 3D.

In a way, motions controls of this gen are like the 3D of the N64/PSX era. They both draw a larger audience to the gaming industry. They're both a necessary step in order to advance the gaming industry. They both required an initial step back in terms of their functionality compared to their predecessor (1st gen 3D vs 16bit 2D and Motion controls vs the controller), and in order to make those initial steps, certain parts in games had to be made easier to cater for it (3D had Mario able to hang from cliff edges, Zelda series got Z targeting, Sonic got the homing attack, etc. For motion controls, we simply need to look at Twilight Princess vs Skyward Sword. The enemies in SS are a lot more....tolerant of the player standing in front of them and trying to get the movement right. But once again, theyre both necessary steps, despite the initial drawback. 3D has definitely gotten better since it started, not only in terms of detail in the graphics, but also programming techniques to help. However, there is STILL work to be done. As I mentioned before, there are still games that have you struggling with the camera, and things like that are what destroys the player immersion. 2D in a way is different. You can't say "Oh, I fell down that cliff because of the camera angle", no, one falls down cliffs in 2D worlds because they're a dumbass, there's no way to sugarcoat it.

I was thinking all day about how I should have added in a comparison to motion controls. The only thing I would add is 2D to 3D is much more important than analog to motion. Anyway, some early 3D were atrocious, but I still love the PS1 Final Fantasy games and other 3D and 2D mixed RPGs/games. Someone shoud make a few more of those instead of the mostly 2D or 3D only titles out now. FF7's battle was so much better than thier 2D older brother, but I loved the use of 2D backgrounds using a 3D charcter to allow you to travel in mapped depth. Way better than what 2D only could pull off at the time. Remember Wild Arms 3D battle graphics? Now talk about bad, they should have stuck with 2D for that one for sure. Thankfully that was still a great game.

I dont know what games with camera controls you are referring to. Most have free controls now adays. Also why do I keep seeing people use psx for ps1. PSX was a japanese only DVR version of the PS2.