[Someone Else]

They both have their ups, they both have their downs, but at the end of the day everyone likes one of them more than the other. If this is the case, which do you prefer? :)

------

Now, I've always considered myself to be one of those "indifferent" people; not really preferring one over the other.

3D, when done right, can make a very intriguing game. A good graphically designed 3-dimensional game owns above others, and you know it. In RPGs, 3D games really give you the feel that you're traveling across a real living world. Think about it, if TLA was remade for a console and had good 3D implemented, it'd own out loud.

There are some bad things about 3D too. If it's not done right, lacks polygons, and ends up looking blocky/spiky because of the lack anti-aliasing, it makes you want to puke. And of course, if it's a PC game, advanced 3D technology can require some pretty steep Specs.

Now onto 2D. Ah yes, 2D just has a charm that you can't get from 3D. You can do some pretty neat things in 2D. The GS games were all 2D and had *great* graphics. It looked like 3D almost, and the summons and the magic were all masterfully done. The best you could get from 2D. :P

Of course, GS showed the bad side of 2D in my opinion too. The battle sprites were poorly animated, they only had 3 forking screens for crying out loud. The only bad thing about 2D in my opinion is that the animation can look pretty awkward. A well animated 2D game has the best charm. Look at Mario and Luigi: Super Star Saga. This is a well animated 2D RPG. The animations were very fluid, and just looked great.

Now if you didn't want to read all that I'll just get the Pros and Cons from each dimension:

3D:

+ If the graphics are done well enough it makes a great looking-game.
+ The animations are practically always going to be fluid.
- Can require some pretty steep specs.
- Looks awful without numerous polygons, or anti-aliasing

2D:
+ Like 3D, if it's done right it looks great. 2D special effects look wonderful.
+ Has it's own private charm. :)
- If it's poorly animated it looks like a piece of crap.

WD's Personal Preference:

Like I said, I've always considered myself to be indifferent. But "at the end of the day" I guess I go with 3D. :) Like I've said, if it's done right you just can't beat it. Unfortunately, I don't own as many 3D games as I'd like, but I'm happy with 2D too. It'll be a sad day when 3D replaces 2D entirely.

-----

So any comments, any opinions? Which do you prefer? :)

(On another note, I didn't search to see if this topic were already done. I think I remember one like it, but it's probably really outdated and we owe it to our new members to be able to vote in a new topic. People don't look at really old topics when they're bumped/revived. EDIT: And on another you can't search on: 2D vs. 3D because of the character-per-word limit. Search on it and you'll see what I mean. :smile: )

[Golden Djinn13]

I would play a 2D, but the game would have to be really good ( with a good storyline) for me to actually play the whole thing, so i'm gonna go with 3D games.

[Andross]

You forgot INDIFFERENT.

Seriously, could you imagine Half-Life in 2D? No.
Could you imagine Contra in 3D? No.

EDIT: And I don't mean imagine in the sense imagine how the game would look - I mean how the game would play.

[Someone Else]

I didn't put indifferent because I want what you prefer over all. I imagine that most of the population of the members would vote indifferent if I put it in, and that'd make a pretty boring poll.

[Andross]

3D reigns superior in dynamics.
2D reigns superior in nostalgia.

Final say: Indifferent.

[Someone Else]

*shrug* We'll see how many members want indifferent. If alot of them do I'll ask Agatio/n1p/Izar (who is away) to add indifferent in.

[Neo]

I can't actually imagina how I would have fun on a 2D computer game for more then two hours. 3D games however, can make worlds, equipments, items and living things so beautiful, so different in numerous places, that I can wonder trough 3D games forever. Even if the game isn't that beautiful, there are way more possibilities then with a 2D game. In the 3D world -- it doesn't matter how beautiful or how ugly it is -- you just have to walk to the south for a new grassland. While walking there you can see a shiny lake to your left. On your right there are sheeps in a deep green forest. You come to a fork, and you deside to take the left path, going up the mountain. Or will you take the right path, leading down into a beautiful grassy valley, with waterfalls and small lakes. In 2D games, you can't do that. And if you have a view from above, you cannot see differences in the height of the grounds. You cannot see waterfalls and such.

I think I made my choice quite clear.

[Luna]

2D all the way :3.

I agree with WeeDee's pros and cons (for both 3D and 2D) except for the crappy animations in 2D. I really don't care if they're crappy. I just love the little pixels <3. It's like my obsessive love for cartoons.

[Elliott]

2D

Nothing beats NES/SNES/GBA games like A link to the Past, Golden Sun, Mario, Contra, Kirby etc. etc. They are the games that made gaming what it is today. Sure, 3D games can be great, but you can't go past the classics.

[Nemphtis]

Some games are better in 2D, and some in 3D. End of the day 3D has more advantages than 2D but that doesn't make 3D the best choice on all games.

[Izar]

3d looks better, but most 3d games out kinda stink at storylines. For instance, Command and Conquer generals had good graphics, but it had no real story.

Do you mean the look of 3d or 2d? Games in 3d surpass, I mean, who wants a 2d First Person Shooter? By stories, most of the classic 2d seems to win.

[Demon Adept]

I'm definitely 2D. For some reason all my favourite games are 2D and they just seem to have better storylines like Izar said.

[Elliott]

To say one looks better than the other is a matter of opinion.

To be honest, I have yet to see a mindbogglingly good looking 3D game. The technology just isn't that good yet in my opinion. Wheras 2D, and 16/32 bit games more specifically, are only bounded graphic wise by the limits of pixel art. And any frequenter on deviantART knows just how detailed and cool pixel art can look.

That's why I voted 2D, for the classic SNES games, as well as the newer GBA games.

[Izar]

Have you seen Doom 3? lol, nice graphics when put all the way up. But yeah, some are really crappy, like the the PS1.

I dunno what he means by the poll though. Does he want us to rate on looks or by the games that are 2d or 3d? lol. Confused and tired, I know.

[Elliott]

I own Doom 3, and yes, it popped into my mind when writing that. But there are still flaws, and it will be a long time before 3D games reach the level of graphics that blows peoples mind. Sure they can look good, but there are always problems, errors, and the majority look cheap in my opinion. I'm in no way saying that 2D games look better than 3D, but there are less limits for the style, and they just bring back memories of the old classics for me.

[Someone Else]

The topic description says what do you prefer. It's just your opinion on what you like overall. *shrug* But if you want you could say what looks best to you.

As for mindboggling 3D graphics, you should see Myst Uru. That game looks just downright beautiful in parts when you play it... (note the while you play it part)

[Izar]

Yeah. Well, all in all, I prefer 3d games. More action and realism. For story, 2d's own. I've yet to find a 3d game (besides the ff genre) that beats a 2d game in story.

[pHantOm]

Andross, on Jul 19 2005, 12:34 PM, said:

Seriously, could you imagine Half-Life in 2D? No.

Ahem...

Code Name Gordon? LOL

http://games.tiscali.cz/images/news/codegord1.jpg

http://1.im.cz/n/photo/02/99/16oyiik-original.jpg

I know...it hurts.

[Blink]

I say 3d. 2d has the charm of giving everyone the ability to make an amazing looking and fun, long, easy to develop game, but 3d adds so much (litteraly)depth to the gameplay, more exploration, though it requires much more skill. I think there should be a chart showing how the difficulty of game making has increased as the quality of games you can make has.

[Izar]

Lol, phantom, where the heck did you find that? I'd never think that that would happen, lol.

Well, I think though, some 2d games wont ever be beaten by 3d games, in addiction, gameplay, or anything.

[Neo]

Agatio, on Jul 25 2005, 12:32 AM, said:

To say one looks better than the other is a matter of opinion.

To be honest, I have yet to see a mindbogglingly good looking 3D game. The technology just isn't that good yet in my opinion. Wheras 2D, and 16/32 bit games more specifically, are only bounded graphic wise by the limits of pixel art. And any frequenter on deviantART knows just how detailed and cool pixel art can look.

That's why I voted 2D, for the classic SNES games, as well as the newer GBA games.

Dude, have you ever watched trailers from games like Gears of War, Gothic III, Chronicles of Rid**** or the latest FF games?... those graphics are sweet. Just plain perfect. Ok, Ok... FFX-2 has a crappy story, but X doesn't. I don't know if GoW has a good storyline, but I know that Gothic III will have an awesome storyline. I played both GI and GII, and they had marvalous stories, so I expect GIII to have at least a storyline jsut as good.

[TheEnglishman]

They are both good it is just annoying when a game that is 2D tries to go 3D and ends up worse than the original. ( Like the Sonic games. :) )

[Andross]

Izar, on Jul 27 2005, 08:28 PM, said:

Lol, phantom, where the heck did you find that? I'd never think that that would happen, lol.

Well, I think though, some 2d games wont ever be beaten by 3d games, in addiction, gameplay, or anything.

It's a mod for HL2. I said the actual concept and experience though, not how it would look :)