Slashdot Log In
Do Next-Gen Games Have to be 3D?
Posted by
Cliff
on Thu Dec 14, 2006 07:25 AM
from the good-game-play-does-not-need-a-z-axis dept.
from the good-game-play-does-not-need-a-z-axis dept.
sudnshok asks: "Last week, an article was posted where an EA executive discussed the high cost involved with next-gen game development. While I agree that sports games do benefit from a high-resolution 3D environment, do all games have to be developed that way? Why can't game companies develop 2D games for these systems? I would assume the development cost would be much lower. As a gamer who grew up on the NES, I'd love to see a new 2D side-scrolling installment of Castlevania or Zelda. I'm curious if other gamers would buy 2D games for next-gen systems."
Related Stories
[+]
Games: Cost of Game Development is 'Crazy' Says EA 321 comments
GamesIndustry.biz has the word from Alan Tascan, general manager of EA's Montreal studio, who has gone on record saying that development costs are 'crazy' in this next-gen world. From the article: "When asked whether he'd agree that it's larger companies like EA which are driving bigger game budgets, Tascan replied, 'I think a lot of [other companies] are spending even more money. It's people who want that, it's not EA per se ... I said to some of the guys here, "The gamer is not buying lines of code; you have to promise him enough entertainment for him to put his hand in his pocket and buy the game." It's a lot of money, so you need to give him a show, and we're just here to deliver the show.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Cloning Clyde (Score:3, Insightful)
Its got good 2-player action, too!
I think the XBLA games are good proof that you can have a lot of fun HD next-gen gaming without 1st or 3rd person 3D photorealistic mega-rendering.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Metroid (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there's still a market for sidescrollers. The New SMB proved that quite well with astounding sales. The problem is that most developers are completely stuck on 3D graphics still. You know, in some ways 3D graphics are a bit easier than 2D though. With 3D, you have to create models, animations, and textures. With 2D, you have to hand draw each and every frame. It seems like a bit more work to me.
But the programming side of a 2D game is MUCH MUCH less strenuous.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, in the past they did, and that's why games like DKC didn't do real-time 3D rendering, choosing instead to leave that work to a cluster of SGIs back in Rare's server room before you even bought the game, and taking as long as was needed to render each frame of animation.
The consoles of today are capable of doing complex, if not quite "Toy Story" quality 3D re
Simple (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Missing the OPs point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It also begs the question of whether they would feel cheated if they were playing 2D after spending $600 for their game console.
I really like Loco Roco on my PSP, even though it's not using all the capabilities of the machine. It's fresh, and that's not easy to do these days. But if the majority of games I played were 2D, I'd feel like it was a waste to buy the PSP. I think the guys buying Xbox 360s and PS3s might really enjoy a small number of 2D games, but they'd
Viewtiful Joe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe. But Viewtiful Joe came out for $40 and sold pretty well on the Gamecube. (Awsome game BTW)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Development costs would be much cheaper and the game wouldn't have to be $60.
That said, I'm not sure you have any reason to make such a bold statement. If the game play was really good than people would buy the game...
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
One game genre that I genuinely miss having in 2D is the fighting game. Most of them have moved to 3D and IMO most of them were better left in 2D. I miss cool fighters like the older Mortal Kombats, Killer Instinct, Primal Rage, etc. Capcom and SNK still make some in 2D but I've never been that big of a fan of their fighting franchises.
I believe it's foolish to think that all games have to be in 3D today, I definitely think that certain game types lend themselves to being either 2D or 3D, some of the worst games IMO are those that are better suited to 2D but were squeezed into a 3D framework... just because. Worms, Lemmings, Frogger, Mortal Kombat, Sonic, etc. Some games handled the transition well (like Mario) other's didn't (like Worms). Not everything needs to be bigger and better, some things can do well just being fun and I think they would still sell well on that premise rather then one based on 3D graphics.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
* There are costs involved with creating new content tools. Most studios develop new features for their tools to match the new hardware capabilities, but creating good 2D tools that allow creation with real-time preview is harder than you'd imagine. 3D space lends itself to intuitive controls and an abundance of places to put control points.
* Dinding developers and especially artists who want and/or understand how to fin
Hmm? (Score:2)
Now my opinion, one of my favorite game series of all time (Mega Man / X) was 2D. I would love to see another version in the future, though I doubt it would live up to some of the best games of the series (My fav being MMX2)
I do think 2D graphics are basically up to indie developers now though as there is basically too much hype behind 3D. The consumer market would probably almost immediately reject it just becaus
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You want 2d games? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm holing out for a true sequel to Symphony of the Night, fully hand painted, in 2d. 3D effects, sure. Maybe even 3D medusa heads and bats.
When I play games, I play to escape reality...not look at something that tries to mimick it. If I want reality I can go outside. I'd really l
You need an idea (Score:2)
Pretty much everything could do a 2d game today, but gamers don't want them.
Go to yahoo games and see the large amount of simple 2d games available. I don't see people paying big money for them, although I did enjoy Zuma.
Re:You need an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Geometary Wars and the massively superb Assault Force for example.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That is a huge load of crap, 3D was forced on gamers from the PS1 era. Many 2D games survived on the PS1 platform (i.e. fighting games, Streetfighter 2 comes to mind).
If gamers don't want 2D games then you have to blame the developers that shoved 3D games down our throats, after all they are paradoxically in control of what games get released. I don't think 'the market' can be blamed, it was more a problem with game dev's and pu
Look no further.. (Score:4, Informative)
That's not to say that there aren't those games such as the Xbox Live Arcade hits that aren't in 2D, but for the most part that's just a bonus feature, and not the reason the system is selling. Chances are if it's a retail game and it's 2D it's going to be handheld. And that's okay.
2D more expensive? (Score:3, Interesting)
A Shame, really. When Street Fighter 3 came out I was really happy to see it wasn't some 3d-shit like virtua fighter (which I dislike.. a lot), and the animations clearly take advantage of the updated hardware.
Can any game developers confirm this?
Re: (Score:2)
I think New SMB showed that there is a lot that can be done with 2D gameplay using the power of the new systems (of course, NSMB is for the DS, but the DS is quite a bit more powerful than the SNES was) and it also enable companies to take advantage of the ease of working with 3D.
I agree that well animated 2D games can be absolutely beautiful (along with the a
Re:2D more expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could not say if 2D games are more expensive to produce than 3D games but once you take all the costs into consideration then there probably would not be much of a difference.
Like it or not the current trend of gaming is 3D and that is were the money is. It is no good saying "Microsoft or Nintendo or Sony prefers/forces the developer to design 3D games" these companies are not saying this to to be domineering they are saying this so the developer will make a game that will sell on their console and a game that sells means more revenue for said console supplier.
I still have nostalgia for some 2D games going back to the NES days but those days are over although it may be possible that some interesting 2D games can come from home-brew developers but ask yourself "would you pay for them?" and there in lies the dilemma.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Opinion (Score:2)
I beg to differ. I miss my jet pack [fileplanet.com].
Better question... (Score:4, Interesting)
The geek in me wants next-gen, 3D HDMI-enabled toys. However, yesterday the misses and I pulled out Super Mario 3 for an evening of retro-gaming, and it was a blast. Great graphics, 3D gaming on a HDTV are great to impress your friends, but this dinosaur craves for the simple fun games you can play together for a few hours and be done with them.
Now get off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, I prefer 2D games, more thought and care seems to go into them, and they tend to be more niche games, which I enjoy.
And as a developer, I can assure you there *is* a market for 2D games, despite what the marketing droids and l33t k1dd
Re:Better question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course games don't have to be next-gen to be fun.
My two favourite games of all time, both first time through and for replay value, are still the Baldurs Gate series and Total Annihilation. In the several years since these were released, I've encountered no RPG with better plot/characters, and no RTS that was better for all-out action combined with genuine strategy.
My other half is a big fan of puzzle games. She has spent many hours enjoying the games from PopCap [popcap.com], and spent more money buying the full versions of her favourites from them than on any trendy 3D FPS.
Sure, funky 3D graphics and a rocking soundtrack can make some games more atmospheric. It's not like there's much comparison between Gears of War and Wolfenstein 3D (or perhaps more fairly, Quake) in the presentation department. But much as I have enjoyed many FPS games over the years, the gameplay is still pretty close to the original Wolf3D/Doom/Quake model that popularised the genre all those years ago, even if I can now use different weapon types, lob grenades with my other hand, and drive vehicles.
Where I personally find the gaming experience lacking is on-line competition/collaboration. Many games I've played are no doubt much more satisfying against real people, but IME pretty much all of the on-line services suck if you're not in the US (lag issues) or not willing to spend silly amounts of time waiting around for an opponent. The only games I've ever played on-line for long and truly enjoyed were Quake and Quake II in my university days, when there was an active student population and getting a good deathmatch game going was easy. For TA, it was too hard to find an opponent of a similar skill level and to set aside an hour or two for a good game. For Neverwinter Nights, I never even worked out what on-line facilities were available, as I'd lost interest because of poor single-player. Lots of people seem to enjoy things like World of Warcraft (and I notice they've been running ads for it on TV here in the UK in the run up to Christmas), but I also hear a lot about powergamers who can arbitrarily spoil it, which puts me off trying it given the cost involved.
Of course, my system is a little long in the tooth now -- it's about time to build a new ueber-PC but I haven't got around to it yet -- so I'm not running much from within the last year or two. Do the latest "next gen" games have good player-matching for on-line competition as well as the snazzy graphics? If they do, then maybe next gen games are the future after all. :-)
Parent
they don't have to be... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they make it, and make it well, people will buy it. Sure some ass-hats might not buy it because they think "it doesn't look good so it can't be fun" - but sod 'em.
gameplay more important than graphics (Score:5, Insightful)
something like civilization with GOOD AI opponents and simple 2D graphics would be much better than flashy graphics and weak gameplay.
even something like nethack with ASCII graphics is still very playable.
Re: (Score:2)
WHY?
its a 2D game design. Don't be so ashamed of that. Adding a 3D animated 'virtual sid' put me off buying the latest one. Pure techy willy-waving, and a map that was actually HARDER to use.
A 2-D side-scrolling Zelda? (Score:2)
Personally I loved Zelda II, but most people didn't. And even I would be loath to play another game like it. It was so utterly evil. Even many years later, playing through the Water Temple in Ocarina, it affected me badly. Shadow Link. Oh God. The memories are coming back! I was slashed to pieces repeatedly because I was simply too terrified to make a fight of it. Ended up tanking up on
Next-gen games don't need to be 3D... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. (Score:2)
(This should have been a poll as well.)
3D games like first person shooters and strategy games have their place, but I have a place in my heart for 2D puzzle games, like Marble Drop or Lemmings. I'd like to see more of them, and more sophisticated ones. (Of course, I prefer Quake 2 to anything newer because the shinier graphics in the newer ones--especially Quake 3--are actually distracting.)
Examples can't get much worse than Zelda (Score:2)
What is the question here? (Score:2)
Yes, an Xbox 360 or PS3 won't PREVENT you from writing a 3D game.
Is it feasible in a business sense?
No, nobody's going to buy the damned thing. The last 2D game I saw on a home (non-portable) console was Metal Slug 3. I don't know how well it sold, but I only saw it in stores for a couple of months... and of course it was like 80% a port from another platform anyway. Writing a 2D game from scratch is not feasible from a business perspective.
The engine has to be 3D, but the gameplay doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
In the first case I'd say yes, next-gen games should always be built in a 3D engine, there's simply no reason to do otherwise, you can offer far more animations, a near infinite amount if you include rag-doll physics in your game than you ever could draw each object frame by frame.
In the second case, what this means is whilst your game is 3D, your gameplay doesn't have to be. Anyone who's ever played Cloning Clyde or Assault Heroes on the 360 knows what I mean - these games play from a side scrolling or above scrolling perspective like the games of old however they are entirely 3D.
To answer the question, there's little point not building a game in a 3D engine, it really offers little benefit not to in 99% of games however there's still plenty of room for 2D gameplay in a 3D world.
Five words: (Score:2)
Hands tied behind backs (Score:2)
Naaah - look at Settlers II (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the follow-ups (Settlers III and IV) simply flopped, they now re-created Settlers II. In 3D.
Sure the graphics look nice - but suddenly, you don't have the overview anymore. 3D means that you *don't* see everything, that this path there is hidden by the nicely detailed 3D trees, that you keep having to rotate around... nice being able to zoom in, but WHAT FOR?
Bah.
Some game concepts work well in 3D. Others simply work better in 2D.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At one point, 2D 'animation's consisted of 2 frames. Now they can consist of dozens to make it 'fluid'. Those 3D animations were poorly done, and in low resolution, so they look choppy and cheap. If they had been done well, they would look as good or better than the 2D animations.
What's the difference if you are looking at a 2D helmet o
Re: (Score:2)
Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
the line between what i'd call a 2d and a 3d game is not as clear cut aw sprites vs polygons. let's start with the classics: Doom, a 2d game made to play like a 3d game by the use of FPS and clever use of height and Goldenaxe, a 2d sidescroller but with depth, you can move in and out of the field of play, occasionally yielding different routes. Whilst Doom fits a 3d ga
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is cultural, the suits think that all games have to be 3D, but if you look back in time many of the most popular games before the advent of 3D systems were 2D and it in no way hampered their fun or saleability.
Re: (Score:2)
2D graphics have their advantages, but they are limited to an extent. I'm not even saying I don't enjoy 2D games myself. But at this stage in the game, there's little cost to stick a 3D chip into a system. Sure, the best chips cost a lot but 'decent' ones don't these days.
Anyway, I'm not sure why a lot of people here seem to be (at least somewhat) opposed to using 3D graphics
Re: (Score:2)
Which ones weren't?