Why do most developers insist on creating games in 3D when it's not necessary for the game?  Do they think it's nicer to have ugly polygon graphics compared to hand-drawn art?  Or maybe they feel kids are too stupid to want Rembrandt over modern "art."

Compare:

Of course, this is even comparing a game from 2009 (Tokyo Beat Down) versus one from..1989.  Before you say "the 2009 game is on a portable!" remember that the DS has more power than the Final Fight arcade machine.

Let's try something more modern:

These are both Wii games and both are set for 2009 I think.

I'm not saying that every game should be 2D, only that it looks better when the option is there.  There are tons of easy comparisons for DS at this point in time that bear this out.  Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia is better-looking than any 3D DS game I've seen, for example.

So my question remains: why?

I say it depends. For a new IP, they should go with the obvious choice when developing for a certain console. Example: I don't want to say that the Wii is a 2D machine, but 2D games on Wii work better than on 360 and PS3, right? Otherwise, we'd see those kind of games on XBLA or PSN. Muramasa would only be successful that way, you see.

If it's an old IP in need of evolution, and that the idea they have is to not "really" change the concept that made the old games successful, then I say going to 3D should be primordial. Just look at this example:

Gradius III

Gradius V

Obviously, Gradius V looks "awesomer." =P

^^ much more "awesomer" ;)

I just feel 3D is shoehorned into nearly every game, regardless of whether it's the better choice or not.

Hahaha, great screens of Tokyo Beta Down and Final Fight, so we can compare that golden "thwack!" effect on the domes of the unfortunate.

What is that bottom Wii game? That looks gorgeous.

I think that many developers think that 2D gameplay is too old and busted, so that giving us 3D graphics in a 2D game somehow "makes up for it." That's just my wacky theory though. 3D models in 2D gameplay can be really amazing, like in Donkey Kong Country, and more recently in Brawl.

But why they choose butt-ugly 3D when beautiful 2D is another option that would be less taxing on the hardware (so they could invest more effort elsewhere in the game)... I don't know. I think they think we think 2D is dumb or something.

I find this to be an invalid comparison.

Your argument runs

If a dev puts effort into making a 2d game look good, then it will look better than a 3d game with no effort put it.

A valid comparison would be to see which looks better out of

A shit 2d game and a shit 3d game

as well as a good 2d game and a good 3d game.

3d will win in both cases

alot of kids would hate a game if its on 2-D which is sad even if the game had awesome animations, and also another fact that 3-D graphics take less time than 2-D full animated graphics.

Yeah i thought it was bizarre that the new 360 R-type has 2.5d levels in it. Its a shoot em up

Aww, you don't really believe that, do you?

I'm pretty sure all the ugliest games in the world are 3D.  3D has a much lower rock bottom of ugliness than 2D does.  When 2D goes wrong, it's just ugly shapes and sprites.  When 3D goes wrong, it's a whole world of ugliness that makes me want to puke.

The art and level design of those 2D games looks much better than those 3D games.

I still think this is one of the most beautiful looking games ever:





Now if only the game itself wasn't ass.