2D or 3D?

[spadgy]

Ikaruga is as much 2D as Doom is. In both games you only move on a 2D plane, but the presentation is 3D.

Am I missing something here? There's movement through a 3D space in DOOM right? Or do people think that because there's no looking up and down it's not 3D? I'm confused!

I chose 3D because 3D very and the best

3D ain't 3D unless you got the glasses (or a 3DS).

It's still only the illusion of 3D rather than the real thing though. To all intents and purposes it's no more 3D than a 3D game on a flat, traditional screen...

2D IS GOOOOOOOOOOLD

ALWAYS BELIEVE IN YOUR SOUL!
YOU'VE GOT THE POWER TO KNOW!
YOU'RE INDESTRUCTIBLE!

Yeah - I choose 2D. One less plane of movement = one hell of a lot more purity of gameplay experience.

[MathU]

Doom is 3D with 2D sprites.

[raigon50]

I've actually always thought 2.5D was like you'd see in Zaxxon or Viewpoint; Looking at the game play from an angle?
Also, the use of 3D can be whatever. Saying that something isn't 3D because it doesn't create the illusion of depth isn't really accurate. What you're saying is that it's not 3D because it's not a First-Person Shooter, where you are looking through another person's eyes, creating the illusion of depth. 3D is the use of computer generated models that can be viewed from 3 or more positions and not be flat.
Whoa... It's not often I debate about things... o.O

[Taylor]

That's isometric.

I've never heard anyone say Doom is 2.5D before. There's no overlapping geometry and you can say some parts of it are like a top-down 2D game rendered in 3D... but you still have perspective, geometry height and run 'jumps.'

[sunburstbasser]

2D sprite and tile based for me. Ray Force is a great example of a 2D game that has a feeling of depth greater than that in some polygon-rendered games.

[spadgy]

I've never heard anyone say Doom is 2.5D before. There's no overlapping geometry and you can say some parts of it are like a top-down 2D game rendered in 3D... but you still have perspective, geometry height and run 'jumps.'

Exactly my thoughts. It's still played in a 3D space.

In fact the 2D sprites in a 3D space make it quite the opposite of what people commonly refer to as 2.5D (which in most cases still counts as 2D in my book).

[HamidoOs]

"3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension."

- Roger Ebert

[TrevHead (TVR)]

3D can look good in a game, most of the time it doesnt have the character of 2D art. Just imagine all the 2D shmups thats been made over the past 20 years with all their different graphical charms, now imagine that 2D never existed and all these shooters were 3D making all these games look even more allike with hundreds of simalary looking silver spaceships. Thats not to say that I dont like 3D art far from it but it cant hold a candle to good high def 2D art.

Its a travisty that many gamers see 2D art as been ugly and instead are only bothered by how realistic a game looks.

[spadgy]

"3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension."

- Roger Ebert

Amazing stuff!

[evil_ash_xero]

Doom is 3D. It's sprites, but it's 3D.

And yes, it's shame most gamers are only interested in realism. I wish I could see a bunch of shmups with graphics like BlazBlue. Hey, at least we'll be getting a run n' gun that does.

[captpain]

I've heard plenty of people call Doom-type engines 2.5D because they're not "true" 3D engines (Quake, for instance). It is confusing and kind of arbitrary, though. It's probably not a useful distinction, but you'll find it all over the internet.

[E. Randy Dupre]

I think 2.5D sums Doom up pretty well, technically, as the height is entirely an an illusion. Enemy stood in front of you, on a platform that you're not looking at? Doesn't matter - fire the gun at the floor and you'll still do some damage. Apart from maybe the running onto raised platforms thing - which is still a clever illusion - you could recreate Doom's gameplay entirely as a top-down 2D shooter, a la Chaos Engine.

As far as the use of the term 2.5D goes, I do recall it being used to describe both Doom and games like Pandemonium in sections of the UK press at the time of release. Well, Pandemonium, anyway. The term started being applied to Doom around the same time as the 32bit consoles were gaining in popularity, I think.

[captpain]

I think 2.5D sums Doom up pretty well, technically, as the height is entirely an an illusion. Enemy stood in front of you, on a platform that you're not looking at? Doesn't matter - fire the gun at the floor and you'll still do some damage. Apart from maybe the running onto raised platforms thing - which is still a clever illusion - you could recreate Doom's gameplay entirely as a top-down 2D shooter, a la Chaos Engine.

As far as the use of the term 2.5D goes, I do recall it being used to describe both Doom and games like Pandemonium in sections of the UK press at the time of release. Well, Pandemonium, anyway. The term started being applied to Doom around the same time as the 32bit consoles were gaining in popularity, I think.

Maybe the 2.5D term works better for Doom because it is in a lot of ways a 2D game with the illusion of being a 3D game, where a game like Pandemonium or Ikaruga is in a full 3D engine but simply chooses to have 2D-style gameplay. Does this make any sense?

[TrevHead (TVR)]

Imo 2.5D only describes 2D games that use 3D graphics so that the game can move the camera in the 3rd dimention, Nights, Pandemonium and Klanoa plus many other ps1 era platformers and run'n gun games.

EG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7HRXaW ... re=related btw i really need to try this game out.

I certainly dont consider sprite based 3D games like DOOM as 2D since the player can move around in 3 dimentions just like in real life. For example if you eat some sort of wierd mushroom that made your vision look like Doom it still would be 3D

I still wonder about 2D games that have 3D graphics but dont move the camera away from the standard 2D setting like many 3D shmups do. Are they 2.5D? If not what about Raystorm and the lock- on since that is in a psudo 3D

[MathU]

Maybe the 2.5D term works better for Doom because it is in a lot of ways a 2D game with the illusion of being a 3D game, where a game like Pandemonium or Ikaruga is in a full 3D engine but simply chooses to have 2D-style gameplay. Does this make any sense?

No, it doesn't. Despite characters clearly being infinitely tall, they can occupy different heights in the game. This results in projectiles being able to come from above and below, and the avatar can also move freely to different heights, by elevators and even falling onto platforms. The game is clearly 3D. Your argument would work better for Wolfenstein 3D.

Enemy stood in front of you, on a platform that you're not looking at? Doesn't matter - fire the gun at the floor and you'll still do some damage.

Not true at all. That only works will melee attacks like your fists and chainsaw. You need to be able to see the enemy for the auto-aiming mechanism to work. Actors are infinitely tall in some aspects, but projectiles and hitscan weapons clearly have height coordinates and associated hitboxes.

[Dale]

1D or 4D

[captpain]

No, it doesn't. Despite characters clearly being infinitely tall, they can occupy different heights in the game. This results in projectiles being able to come from above and below, and the avatar can also move freely to different heights, by elevators and even falling onto platforms. The game is clearly 3D. Your argument would work better for Wolfenstein 3D.

Yeah, that makes sense.

1D or 4D

3.5D

[nZero]

1D or 4D

3.5D

Braid?

[MommysBestGames]

I voted 2D as I love pixel art and the precision of 2D gameplay.
And a quote from MBG's sister site seemed appropriate, but I'll preface this with a...

Warning
Shamless-Though-Relevant Site Pimpage Approaching Fast
http://www.8bithorse.com/2009/10/why-2d-is-god.html
" A wise but anonymous man once said:
The problem with 2D is its lack of a third dimension;
The problem with 3D is… everything else. "

[pooch]

2D or not 2D? That is the question.

[Jockel]

1D or 4D

3.5D

Braid?

Good call, actually

[raigon50]

3.5D

All the epic angles of 3D, plus ones mankind has never experienced before!

[ShmupSamurai]

I always liked the combination of sprites and polygons.

[moozooh]

Voting 3D. It has the potential of looking exactly like 2D, but with all the added benefits of an additional dimension. A modern game like Mushihimesama Futari has most of its stuff aside from the stage backgrounds and the simplest sprites done first as a 3D model then rendered to a 2D image sequence (which at such level of detail is far easier to do compared to drawing each frame pixel-by-pixel), meaning it could have been rendered entirely in realtime at an amazing resolution, had the hardware of choice been powerful enough to begin with.

Whether the developers take advantage of any of that or use it to full potential is a different story altogether.

[dan76]

A modern game like Mushihimesama Futari has most of its stuff aside from the stage backgrounds and the simplest sprites done first as a 3D model then rendered to a 2D image sequence (which at such level of detail is far easier to do compared to drawing each frame pixel-by-pixel), meaning it could have been rendered entirely in realtime at an amazing resolution, had the hardware of choice been powerful enough to begin with.

Wouldn't look as good though would it. I don't think there is enough detail in those 3D models. Look at DS2 - cold and ugly graphics hinder a good game. It's a personal preference, it's very rare that 3D has the charm of a 2D sprite - either hand drawn or a rendered 2D image sequence.

2D or 3D - in terms of gameplay or image or both - 2D all the way.

[moozooh]

Wouldn't look as good though would it. I don't think there is enough detail in those 3D models.

You are mistaken if you think the models gain details by being flattened. If they are originally 3D, they have at least as much details as a 2D derivative would have. Which is actually the reason the HD-remastered Cave games look more detailed than the SD (arcade) versions: some details of the original models were lost to downscaling to satisfy the constraints of arcade hardware orders of magnitude less powerful than modern consoles, let alone high-end PCs. Whereas in a pure 3D environment scaling is absolutely flexible and is only constrained by the rendering hardware's performance. And way easier on hardware in most cases, because modern graphics cards eat polygons for breakfast.

it's very rare that 3D has the charm of a 2D sprite - either hand drawn or a rendered 2D image sequence

As long as the viewing angle and zoom are fixed, there is not even an observable difference between a 3D model and a 2D rendering of a 3D model. Let's be fair: the only reason for the passage quoted above is that you've never compared those in the same game. If only because you've never seen the same game rendered as a bunch of 3D objects as well as a bunch of pre-rendered sprites side by side. I haven't either, but I know from common sense and my knowledge of computer graphics that there should be no difference unless I think it up beforehand, which I don't do because I have no agenda to promote.

Look at DS2 - cold and ugly graphics hinder a good game

Not to burst your bubble, but DS2 looks ugly because it is ugly, i. e. badly designed. The lack of detail, artistic coherence, originality or style is not a fault of working in a 3D environment. But it's very true that the 3D environment did a lot to emphasize that aspect, much as a good pair of headphones emphasizes the faults of a badly mastered recording. I assure you, DS2 would've looked bad in 2D as well, but you wouldn't be able to fully appreciate how bad it was because the resolution would've been decreased (leading to thicker contours, denser packed gradients, and more freedom to imagination), many objects would've become flat (so you would only be able to appreciate lack of details on the front side of a model), and so on.

Games with 2D gameplay will continue their move away from hand-drawn graphics towards 3D because 3D is easier (read: cheaper and/or faster) to mass-produce, edit, and animate, so you won't see 100% pixel graphics masterpieces like Metal Slug anymore from a studio that relies on cash to exist to any significant extent. And going pure 3D instead of a pre-rendered 3D is really nothing but a more authentic experience of essentially the same thing.

[dan76]

Wow, you've convinced me - 3D all the way, how do I change my vote?!?

TBH I can't be bothered to go through and answer each point you feel you must make, but generally you don't take resolution and animation into account. Obviously a 3D object rendered in high enough resolution to 2D as a still image would look no different - but that doesn't happen does it. It's generally down scaled... and it moves.

An example of a ship moving left to right - three frames of 2D animation is mighty different to a 3D model gentle tilting left or right.

As I wrote before, but the only bit you didn't bother quoting - It's a personal preference.

[moozooh]

generally you don't take resolution and animation into account. Obviously a 3D object rendered in high enough resolution to 2D as a still image would look no different - but that doesn't happen does it. It's generally down scaled... and it moves.

An example of a ship moving left to right - three frames of 2D animation is mighty different to a 3D model gentle tilting left or right.

You can animate a 3D model at the same frame rate you would animate a 2D render. You can animate it at any frame rate you desire. In fact, the reverse process takes place when making a 2D game with pre-rendered sprites.

As I wrote before, but the only bit you didn't bother quoting - It's a personal preference.

Right, that must have been the reason you decided to respond to me by quoting my earlier post, attempting to somehow refute its content with your, let me quote it right now, personal preference. I have nothing against your preference per se, really, but if you bother supplementing it with arguments or examples, let alone use them to respond to someone else, at least make that look believable. So far none of the reasons you've listed as to why a 3D image must look worse are true or relevant at all… aside from that bit I didn't touch — your personal preference!

[dan76]

[Obiwanshinobi]

Voting 3D. It has the potential of looking exactly like 2D, but with all the added benefits of an additional dimension.

Voxel art? That would be interesting, but that's not what you're talking about, is it? If anything, real time 3D has the potential to look exactly like prerendered 2D, but not quite like hand-drawn 2D. Just look at the backgrounds in most recent anime shows. They don't reek of "computer graphics" anymore, but coming back to the old shows with painted backgrounds reveals the gaping breach between artistic qualities of new and old. Mind you, even cheaply (?) produced shows with crap animation (Spice and Wolf) have rather decent prerendered backdrops these days, but something seems lost in the process of cost cutting.
What I would like to see come true is the good old dotting coupled with vector graphics in some competely new way. No, not polygonal graphics pretending they are 2D (even though I adore Ōkami and like the looks of Love), but crafted 2D lo-res art animated as separate points rather than bitmaps. Say, the starlit sky inhabitated by living constellations. Just moving dots around should work well in a wide range of resolutions without losing the aesthetical punch of pixel art.