sc94597 said:
blaydcor said:
sc94597 said:
blaydcor said:
AND because 3d =/= better gameplay. If a game designer has specific vision for a game that involves 2D gameplay, they're going to make it 3d.
I think any long-time gamer would agree with me; 2D and 3D both have their advantages, but neither, on its own, instantly qualifies a game as superior.
Symphony of the Night, Super Metroid, Pokemon, Patapon, just to name a random few. Would 3d make any of these games better? No, in fact, they would probably lose a lot of their personality, and most likely end up not being as good a game anyway. |
My opinion is 3d graphics are better, but the 2d perspective is = to a 3d perspective mattering on the game. So their should be some more 2.5d games on the ds instead of 2d games. |
2.5d, imo, is the worst of both worlds. Liniearity of 2D, but the uncharming, non-artistic look/feel of 3d. Another big reason you saw SO many 3d games back on the N64/PS1 is because, for consoles, it was a relatively young technology, so of course it had a lot more novelty factor, resulting in most developers going the 3D path so they'd seem more cutting edge.
|
Yeah good point. So I guess only major games with large budgets and that usually tend to hardcore gamers come with 3d while casual games that have small budgets go 2d. I would love to see a sidescrolling metriod though. Metroid was at it's best in 2d. I still like the prime series though.
|
How do you manage to keep missing the point people are making?
The point, spelled out very simply:
3D is not the be all and end all of gaming. People LIKE 2D games. Since people LIKE 2D games, they will BUY 2D games. Because people will BUY 2D games, developers will MAKE 2D games. Good quality 2D graphics can be just as nice if not better than good quality 3D graphics. 3D is not inherently better than 2D, it's a style issue. Just because you think 3D graphics are automatically better than 2D does not mean everyone else thinks that way.
