What's coolest? 3D only or 3d and 2d or only 2d

This is the topic which I *thought* that other topic was going to be about.

Which do you prefer, which do you develop for, which do you like playing the best, and which is the best - in your opinion, and why.

3D?
3D+2D?
2D?

2.5D :O)

3D.

Really, just how many 2d shmups and 2d platformers do we really need?

3D is the best - I don't do 2D.

Plus, I like doing 2D stuff in 3D.

I like 2D, personally. From what I've seen, there's much more innovation in 2D games, because the math involved is easier, and it's much easier to have smooth 2D graphics than smooth 3D graphics.

I mainly program 2D games/apps, although eventually I plan to try out some 3D.

Neither. It's like trying to chose the best flavor ice cream. Some games work well in 3D (First Person Shooters come to mind) some in both (Yoshi's Story, Warcraft 3), some in 2D (top-down games like sports, and spreadsheet simulators like Championship Manager and fighting games like Samurai Showdown and Mortal Kombat).

Agree with flameduck. Certain games NEED the 3d aspect. Other games simply don't need it, but have it anyway.

Nah-uh - 3d all the way. The reason?

'spreadsheet simulators like Championship Manager'

I rest my case.

Develop: 3D

Personally, I find it easier locating, creating and/or generating graphics content for 3D games and applications.

Play: 3D, 2D

I have no preferred perspective for the games I play.

It depends... on many factors, some of them are compatibility, artistic aim, overview.

In my case, I want to use 3D for all the calculations because of the space I need, but I think that I personally would prefer the 2d representation. The nicer the 3d the more power you need and not everyone has or would like to buy, see crysis, making even my new DUO Core 6600/8800gts640mb/4GbRam the minimum requirement for my must have 1680x1050 resolution on my 22'' tft.

I've read that many casual players even have win98!!

3D, 3D, 3D, and 3D


2D was great when it was state-of-the-art, but now it's getting a little old. There's a limit to what you can achieve and how much you can "innovate" when you have only two dimensions. Maybe it's true that there are more "innovative" 2D games than 3D games, but I haven't seen any - at least, not any that I'd actually enjoy playing for any length of time.

With 3 dimensions, you basically have the capability to do anything game-wise - even if you want to make a top-down 2D-style shooter, the possibilities are far greater with a 3D engine than 2D-only.

For example, find any (fun) 2D game, and it's almost guaranteed that something at least similar in "feel" to it has been done before many times. With 3D, there's an enormously broader range of possible gameplay themes (even though the market seems to be obsessed with FPS'es unfortunately).

I think I still prefer 2D games, or 2D games which use 3D features but are still a flat `plane` of gameplay ie you don't move into the screen. But that said 3D is certainly very interesting.

I like both. I really do like isometric point and click style RTS games. Which can be 2D or 3D both, I really like them to be 2D.

Has there been any recent games that make use of both dimensional playing fields?

Only one I can think of is Super Mario Galaxy, and it's handled brilliantly.
(aside from the fact the game is still bloody easy)

3D+2D=5D

For the most part, I prefer 2D over 3D.

The 2D window typically gives more straight-forward gameplay, and also don't give me motion sickness like most 3D FPS games tend to do. (The odd one out there is the Descent trilogy, those never bothered me -- but doom, quake, and all the later FPSes make me feel sick)

I do like the 2D-in-3D where you get the fancier graphics (blending, zooming, rotating, particle effects, etc.)

I also don't mind 3D games that give you a somewhat static viewpoint, like Warcraft 3 does -- technically it's 3D, but unless you actively pan the viewport around, it could just as easily have been a 2D game.

In the past I would have said 2d (arguing that 3d can't come close to producing the warmth and beauty of the best 2d art - for example the background art in Curse of Monkey Island) but I now think that technology has reached the point where real-time 3d can match the quality of 2d art whilst providing a remarkably enhanced experienced due to its 3d nature.

But ultimately, as many people have pointed out, some games work best in 2d and others in 3d. Saying that one is unequivocally better than the other is a rather silly gross generalisation.

I'd like to see an indie games site that focuses exclusively on 3d indie games and goes out of its way to promote them (and obviously I have a vested interest here) ;-)

'Cause it seems to me that too many indie sites are focused too much on frankly, pissy little 2d platformers and shmups...

I'm not sure if many indies have the resources to make 3d games to a decent standard. It'd either be an empty site or one filled primarily with junk.

or it might be the start of something grand...

Ok - so that's being flippant but my sneaking suspicion is that this focus on 2d over 3d also has something to do with the idea that the guys who run many of these indie sites are into 'retro' in a medium to big way. And that's because it reminds them of their earlier days and so they look on 2d more favourably then 3d(?) I do get the feeling sometimes like 'if it's 3d then it's not really indie'?

I like developing games that I can manage to make content for - so that usually means 2d often involving 3d renders for sprites and backgrounds. I don't care what I play but nothing newer than say Doom3 will run well on my system, plus I'm paranoid about my dev machine being destroyed by loading something with starforce or other malware in it so don't play many modern games and given most modern games are 3d I don't play much 3d.

I agree that today a decent 3d game looks better than what a decent 2d game could look like if we are trying for things like 'believably realistic looking characters' - comparing something like the Witcher or Oblivion to Baldur's Gate or Diablo2 in terms of graphical beauty but cannot comment on the gameplay as haven't played or seen played either of those two modern games.

If it's a 3d or a 2d game is due to many points:

o It's down to what game concept you would like to have. What's the best representation for it in terms of getting the job done and that people can enjoy it.

o What kind of knowledge do you have as a developer? For most of the people 2d is easier to grasp than 3d.

o Technically and performance wise you're easier running into problems with 3d unless you're limiting yourself right from the start. This is due to that the 3d driver world is more crude and almost everything which is looking nice also costs you a little bit more, thinking of pixel precise lightning on older cards for instance. So how do the minimum specs look like and what can you do with them?

o What kind of tools do exist for making a 2d or a 3d game and how affordable are they? What about the other tools in the toolchain? Gfx wise, are you fine with just a 2d paint program or can you also handle a modeller or team up with others who know how to do it?

o If you're able to understand the 3d world than it isn't about resources anymore as it's a fairytale that a 2d game is so much easier done than a 3d game, not if you're using a proper tool. Most of the time you are hearing this from those who either don't know how to handle 3d or are using a bad tool. Some things are harder to do in 3d and some in 2d. Providing a proper orientation in 3d space might be harder than doing this in 2d. On the other side rotating an object without the need to draw or render out an animation is obviously easier done in 3d. And so on...

o Game concept wise both representations offer enough possibilities for indy game concepts and as i've joked around before 2.5d is always a nice way to give a 2d game concept something special and more interesting.

o In my opinion 3d indy games often suck as those who make it are shooting for the moon then and either are lacking the art skills or are choosing insane game concepts which are just way too big for them. For instance why don't you develop and polish a small and nicely working game concept instead of implementing your own island simulation or epic fps?

o I do like both, the whole range from 2d to 3d otherwise i would have left this forum quite some time ago as there stilll isn't the once promised 3d solution. 2d is more seductive when it comes to simplicity in your game design but as i've written before you can often put a gameplay into 3d space and it will still work the same but it could look and feel a lot better.

o Retro is it's own kind of world but also here no one stops you doing a Berzerk with a 3d effect, raising some walls and with a camera on the top. Once setup it's the same logic as in 2d space.

In the end both are nice and what obviously counts more is the enjoyment you get out of the game.

I'd argue that the advent of modern NPR rendering techniques now allow 3d to compete with 2d on a non-realistic stylistic level too. Ratchet and Clank on the PS3 is an example of this. Anyway it's not about shaders and polygon counts, pixel art or scanned paintings, it's all about style, which has always been the case. In other words, it's not the tools that matter, it's what you do can with them. Do painters argue about their brushes?

For immersive gameplay 3D. For fun, 2D.

3D only. 2D was yesterday. Come on folks, we are not in the 80's anymore...

Grey Alien, in what way is 2d inherently more fun than 3d, or 3d inherently more immersive than 2d? I can say that game A is more fun or immersive than game B, but I'd find it really difficult to say the same about 2d/3d art.

I like both. I think the PC could do with more high quality 2D games, whereas there's tons of 3D available.

4D is the future:

JustLuke: In order to really get into a game world, I find 3D helps me. The only exception being 2D RPGs. Many 2D games you can just pick up and play quickly, like shoot em ups, bat n ball games, platformers etc I like those sort of games for quick "fun" rather than for a more "immersive" experience which 3D gives me. These are just my own feelings of course.

Lol you could argue the same about FPS and 3rd PP action-adventure games :P

I would like to think it depends purely on the type and style of game and graphics. 2D can look more polished and 'crisp' graphically than 3d, but lacks the fluidity of movement, depth and realism of 3d. Also 2D has the advantage of running on almost any machine, is easier to manage and requires less 'direction'.

Don't mind when it comes to playing games although 3D now seems to mean FPS to some degree and they bore me now.
When I do write any games they're always 2D possibly because I understand the maths and Blitz command set a bit better BUT mainly because I can hack 2D graphics together as it is akin to drawing but can't model anything in 3D (on computer or real-life for that matter). I could learn but it seems fiddly and time-consuming to my uneducated eye.

Nobody's saying that one is unequivocally better than another, you're right that that's clearly impossible. But you can say that one is better than another in certain areas (fun, development time, style, etc.)


3D is definitely more immersive than 2D (since our minds are naturally accustomed to working in 3D), but as JustLuke says, 2D is not inherently more fun than 3D (anything you can do in 2D can be done in 3D, and then some).


That is often true, unfortunately. Using a 3D game engine gives you so much creative power as opposed to 2D, it's far too easy to "shoot for the moon" and miss.

I'm glad someone mentioned being nauseous from motion sickness playing a 3d game because I thought I was the only weirdo to experience that. I bought a Nintendo 64 some years back with Mario64 on it - fun game but the motion sickness was crazy. That's a huge put-off for me, but I don't think it applies to all 3d games, it depends on the motion and perhaps the field of view.

I like the stylistic/artistic atmosphere of a 2D game more than 3d. 3D is catching up graphically but it's taken a long time to make 3D look decent and so many games are really poor approximations of how they should look.

I agree that platform games and shootemups have been done to the death in 2D, I mean, there were just huge numbers of 2D games back when 2D was the ONLY viable solution, that just about every avenue of 2D has been seemingly explored already, except for the cutting edge now where people are starting to bring in advanced features like physics and stuff.

I still like the simplicity of a 2d control system. Give me up-down left-right anyday over moving in and out of a virtual world and trying to get oriented and not being able to see the whole local area at once. I find 2d games to be more fun, and some of them are pretty `immersive` too when the art is done well and it has a decent atmosphere.

I think what I'm aiming for in future is a mostly `flat` game world ie it scrolls in the X and Y directions only, but some elements of the graphics might be 3d like a background or 3d objects etc. The whole moving in and out of the screen thing can be just too complex.

I also might add: Developing 3d stuff is more exciting due to that you always get surprised at how things look like in the end. This way there's a little bit more magic involved. With 2d you mostly know what you get, with 3d it's always kind of a surprise beeing involved, which i love.

I like 2D+3D and 3D.

I am!

How about a 2d game from person x is much cooler than a 3d game from person y? :O)

I'd like to play a 1D game - I should be able master it ;)

3D is better by far. 2D is what girls program in. It's a brain thing - the male brain hungers for 3D - the female brain is restricted to 2D. Only a real man can possibly like 3D. I read this in 'New Scientist' magazine.

So, the question really should be - do you have a male or a female programming brain.

Right, glad I sorted that one out.

Cue a rush of post editing.

*lol*

Wow, now i'm really glad i did a little funcoding during my break today (great amiga song by ukulele by the way)... ;O)

-> http://spielwiese.marune.de/_uni/dezvac/dezvac.html

I just prefer 3D by a considerable margin. It's more fun to create art for, the games are more immersive and cool (if thats your thing). After playing 2D games from the 70's through to the late 90's I feel I'm done with 2D. Not a lot interests me or grabs my attention.

Just about every genre can be done in a more interesting way in 3D even if the game is essentialy 2D gameplay wise.

My vote goes for 3D games where the game control either works in a plane or is very intuitive and simple (marble blast, burnout revenge)

the only thing I really like to play in 3D are strategy and business simulations where it does not make such a difference.
shooter are nice but mainly for people prefering graphics over content and therefor only to compensate frustration with some clean straight headshots.

Which is a shame because we could really use a new Virus or Elite, or even a Hunter or Midwinter game instead of yet another boring repetitious but with flasher shadows than the last one mindless, unrealistic blaster.

you can't deny the new techniques. use them or not. come on, you are driving a newer car too, not a ford t-model....

I think Virus never was even close a good game. Something running good on the Archimedes but the controls and all the gameplay was just completely wrong. It was sort of fun watching others playing it but never enjoyed playing it on my own.

OT: I remade Virus a long time ago ...

http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=38995#434062

Well not if they worked anyway.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is that my issue isn't really that Ford make newer cars. The more correct analogy would be that we're still driving around in Model-T Fords (except roads are now all one way roads, with no turns or intersections, so you really just have to go where they take you) except now you can get them in another colour than black, and the scenery is prettier. So instead of having just one boring repetitive formulaic First Person Shooter, we have 25 boring repetitive formulaic First Person Shooters, who between the lot of them don't have nearly as much much charm, atmosphere or depth as a 23 year old game for some of the first microcomputers commercially available.

Excellent. I should probably read the Showcase forum more often!

everything repeats in life.... i don't get why you stick to the old ones.... but ok, you like the old ones, me the newer ones ;)

3D, because 2D is boring to work in.

I agree with Puki.

2d certainly has its place, but 3d rox, check out my first b3d game:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/diecastcars/endzone/endzone.htm

3ds best coz you can do the impossible....

2D is the new 3D. But technically 2D is 3D. And so weither you write a game primarily in 3D with 2D elements, or 2D with a fancy swirly 3D mesh or 2 to show you do actually know how to code some 3D - it's all 3D. Or you could just code what appears to be a full 2D game and add all sorts of fancy 3D-like effects to make it look all 3D - and therefore cool. ;-)

This is such an incomplete question. Because really, 3D alone doesn't define how a game looks or plays, there is always the chance for 1st person view or 3rd person. The 2D could be a HUD, or some overlay for scores and various messages and statistics.

I don't prefer 2D or 3D, both are pretty equal to me, they should both play an important role in the future of gaming. But really am not interested in 2D for the simple reason of making money on a puzzle game. That is gamesploitation!

Actually there is a difference between 3D and 2D. In OpenGL for example 2D is typically done with an orthographic projection which has no perspective quality to it at all, so you can't really say it's 3D if there is no perspective. Rotating a 2D orthographic object around the Y axis would just look silly. But it is possible to do the same 2D with a perspective projection and then such rotations are possible and you can really say it is 2D represented by a 3D shape, like billboarding. Max2D for example is an orthographic projection, so although OpenGL is a potentially 3D library, if you don't specify or change Z coordinates and you don't rotate around X or Y then it's really not doing 3D.
2D is a special case of 3D, unless the system ignores the 3rd dimension.

Ok, so I'm splitting hairs. 2D hairs.

I think 3D and 2D are kind of blending. Both types are taking on aspects of each other - 2D games are receiving the partially 3D makeover and vice versa. I don't think 3D or 2D have any relation to your gender or manliness, either ;-)