2d shmups Vs. 3d shmups...which do you prefer?

[sjewkestheloon]

for me looks are a lot. if a game looks good it leaves a better imression and urges me to continue playing. it bothers me not how it is done, but if a shmup is done well everything should be sharp and clear and easy to define. if you look at me favourite shmups though, they all tend to be great looking. for example i adore ddp, vasara, gynoug, mars matrix, and many more. all of these have interesting and to me pleasing art designs.

i don't agree at all when people say that looks don't matter. i don't want fantastic graphics that are at the cutting edge of technology, and graphics are no replacement for gameplay, but if a game looks good you can appreciate it more. and btw i define a good looking game to personal taste and within the bounds of the platform, meaning i love the graphical presentation of super metriod, and astro boy, as well as gradius v, etc.

[Edge]

I don't find esp rade that bad in that regard, but it's true 3D modelling has been used better in guwange or ketsui. the one that looks the worst is DOJ (still a great game though, in fact it's rapidly climbing my favourite cave shmups ladder).

Yeah, ESP Ra.De is really not that bad, just the first game that came into my mind cause I reccently played it. The worst example for me is Mars Matrix. I find this game awful ugly, sorry sjewkestheloon.

But I'd like to see the art directos of shmups to try out more different things to increase the visual appearance of their games. Maybe this would make these games a little bit more appealing to non shmuppers.

[ROBOTRON]

Viewpoint was completely 2D art drawn to look 3D.

I still feel that there should have been some kind of special achievement award given to the artwork in Viewpoint, it just has never been matched in the annals of video gaming.

If thats the case whats a 3D shmup?

Star Soldier N64? Zaxxon?

[sjewkestheloon]

i suppose in a kind of see why people would consider mars matrix ugly, but i think that its look works well. the presentation suits the action and as long as you get rid of the shimmer or play it on mame i think it looks pretty damn sweet

[dessgeega]

is there maybe some way we can distinguish between games which actually play in 2D or 3D and games which use sprites or polygons for graphics?

gradius V, ikaruga and radiant silvergun are 2D games with polygonal graphics.

space harrier and galaxy force II are 3D games with sprite graphics.

rez and star fox are 3D games with polygonal graphics.

[kemical]

guess i will have to check out rez

I'd say using the term 'realtime 3d' would work.. even if a game uses 3d pre-rendered sprites, i consider that 2d..



still though, part of the problem of me not liking the realtime 3d shooters as much as 2d is maybe just how 3d graphics go on PC's and stuff..

shooters, even the latest in the arcades always seem to be pretty toned down in terms of polygons and texture resolution... the amount of detail and interest that could be there just isn't there. And then if it was to use orthographic perspective, then why even bother with it being realtime 3d ?...

The hand drawn/painted backgrounds in the latest Cave games are way more interesting and artistically greater than what you see in current realtime 3d shooters like Raiden 3.

I don't think that will ever change much either, because why bother with putting the time and effort in to fully model and detail props and stuff for 3d shooters when you will mostly be just seeing everything from a top down view...



2d art works wonders, because you're able to trick the eye and mind into seeing detail that isn't there, just look at traditional painting techniques, backgrounds can be incredibly lush and curious to look at, while 3d shooters are generally sterile feeling for me because there isn't enough depth and actual subtle shifts in perspective going on... (and what there is, isnt enough becaues it just shows that the world your playing in is flat and lifeless )

Until more realtime 3d shooters are able to smartly mix 2d techniques with 3d stuff then I will probably stay feeling the same way about it..

They can look better. but it requires attention to detail, and realtime 3d shooters lack that quite a bit. (imo at least..)


examples:
http://www.tanomi.com/raiden3/images/raiden3r1_05.jpg looks like ASS, where is the light source? there is no depth at all. Where is the art direction? This city could be hazy (cities are)..
This city level could have looked absolutely amazing, just by adding in some fundamental ideas that are naturally added to 2d artwork..

and they could have added simple 5 poly cars that look highly detailed due to good 2d artwork, they could have added simple signs and clothes hanging across alleys etc etc.. simple particle effects of people moving in the streets even, etc. This would have helped tons, because it's realtime 3d and that all helps give it real depth and everything.

http://www.tanomi.com/raiden3/images/raiden3r2_03.jpg looks a bit better, there is a tiny bit of depth, but its only due to the cloud layer, everything is still flat, just a tiling texture, with 3d structures just intersecting it, there is no relation or interaction between anything. the trees arent even lit with regards to the level.

they could have added a polygon at the base of the structure with dirt and then the edge of the treeline around it, fading in alpha to blend with the tiling texture.. are there even 1 poly flocks of birds that go flying over from the trees from player interaction ? probably not. They have particle systems, yet they choose to go the lazy additive blending fuzzy blob route...

the trees are a tiliing texture.. they could have simply added groupings of 1 poly flat individual/clumped trees all over, to add depth to everything, you would see these individual clumps shifting since its realtime 3d (Gee!) ..but they didnt.

it's little things like that which make the difference.
---

and before anyone says stuff about gameplay over graphics, what is the point of going 3d if it doesn't add anything to your gameplay etc.. the point of this post was about graphics anyway.

[Dartagnan1083]

A proper Shmup will always have primarily 2D gameplay.
The camera is barely relevant, as is the use of 3D. . .

unless of course the use of pollys makes it awkward (*cough* Star Soldier: VE *cough* Einhander *cough*)

Execution is what matters most.

[superhitachi4]

when it comes to shmups as long as the gameplay is good the presentation style isn't a big deal for me.

Thirded.

Yep, I agree. It all comes down to how it's done. However, there are ofcourse more of the 2D kind, so I'd vote that if I had to.

Roger that.

[ResOGlas]

I tend to like hand-drawn stuff better than computer-rendered stuff in general, but when it comes to shmups as long as the gameplay is good the presentation style isn't a big deal for me.

Sixeth'ed

[SFKhoa]

2D forever for me... Although I can love 3D when it's pulled off good enough, like Gradius V and Ikaruga [hehe, Treasure]

Er...who was the one that had that sig that went "Sprites go to heaven, polys go to hell." ?

[kingmobster]

I really like 3D when it´s done well (ie the animations are good and the lighting is balanced). The first boss in Ikaruga looks fabulous and so does the spider boss in Psyvariar 2. When done badly, 3D graphics really stink (GWG, most enemies in Psyvariar 1, what I´ve seen from Trizeal).

I can´t stand the pseudo-3D gameplay of Ray Crisis though. As long as the gameplay is 2D I´m happy.

[Damocles]

2d art works wonders, because you're able to trick the eye and mind into seeing detail that isn't there, just look at traditional painting techniques, backgrounds can be incredibly lush and curious to look at, while 3d shooters are generally sterile feeling for me because there isn't enough depth and actual subtle shifts in perspective going on... (and what there is, isnt enough becaues it just shows that the world your playing in is flat and lifeless )

Agreed. Many, if not all, of the poly shooters I've played felt empty. I suppose the proper wording would be "soulless".

[chtimi-CLA]

2d art works wonders, because you're able to trick the eye and mind into seeing detail that isn't there, just look at traditional painting techniques, backgrounds can be incredibly lush and curious to look at, while 3d shooters are generally sterile feeling for me because there isn't enough depth and actual subtle shifts in perspective going on... (and what there is, isnt enough becaues it just shows that the world your playing in is flat and lifeless )

great comparison with pointillism, there is definitely something like this at work in pixel art.

[Palmer Eldritch]

one major problem i've had with 3-D shmups is that sometimes you can't tell what's in the background and what's in the foreground. i've gotten killed by such an incident in the following games:

G-Darius
Thunder Force V
RayStorm
Trizeal

however, with the exception of Trizeal, those games were on the PSX, the late morning/ early afternoon of 3-D console gaming, so that's somewhat excusable. ^^;

Trizeal´s considered 3D?

[Palmer Eldritch]

I prefer good games, 2D as well as 3D.

In fact, some 3D shooters rank up there with my all-time favourites:

Star Wars (Arcade, 1983)
Starfox 64 (N64)
Stellar Assault SS (Sega Saturn)
Tempest 2000 (Jag)

--Michael

[mice]

Star Wars (Arcade, 1983)
Starfox 64 (N64)
Stellar Assault SS (Sega Saturn)
Tempest 2000 (Jag)

These aren't really shmups, are they?

The first boss in Ikaruga looks fabulous...

All of the bosses looks fab in Ikaruga.

Personaly, I think that when 3D is done like in Ikaruga and Grad V it actually beats 2D (but these two games are the only ones that does...)

((mice

[Palmer Eldritch]

Star Wars (Arcade, 1983)
Starfox 64 (N64)
Stellar Assault SS (Sega Saturn)
Tempest 2000 (Jag)

These aren't really shmups, are they?
((mice

Of course they are. They´re 3D (sort of) and you do nothing but shoot all the time in order to proceed to the next level. What else would they be?

[ROBOTRON]

3D Tempest rules...and yes its definately a shmup.

[dessgeega]

3D Tempest rules...and yes its definately a shmup.

tempest 2000 might be my favorite shmup of all.

space harrier is also 3D and and i consider it to be one of the definitive arcade shmups.

[Accutron]

Star Wars (Arcade, 1983)
Starfox 64 (N64)
Stellar Assault SS (Sega Saturn)
Tempest 2000 (Jag)

These aren't really shmups, are they?
((mice

Of course they are. They´re 3D (sort of) and you do nothing but shoot all the time in order to proceed to the next level. What else would they be?

No, they're not. 'Shmup' is not a simple shortening of shoot 'em up; it has a specific gameplay definition. Tempest is the closest, as it's a sort of non-Euclidean protoshmup, if you can overlook the large increments in movement. The other three are rail shooters. Space Harrier is also a rail shooter.

Rail shooters aren't shmups. You're moving on two axes, and the forced scrolling is on a third axis--not a shmup.

There is no such thing as a 3D shmup. Some have sprite graphics, some have polys and some have a mix, but none have 3D gameplay.

[Palmer Eldritch]

'Shmup' is not a simple shortening of shoot 'em up; it has a specific gameplay definition.

Defined where exactly and by whom?

The other three are rail shooters. Space Harrier is also a rail shooter.

Stellar Assault SS has got nothing in common with Rail Shooters.

Rail shooters aren't shmups.

So you say, but in my book they most certainly are.

[Accutron]

Er...defined by this site, the place that invented the widespread use of the term 'shmup'.

Oops, yeah SASS is a free-flying 3D shooter isn't it. It's even further removed from what makes a shmup a shmup.

[mice]

This is getting off-topic...
Sorry, that was not my intention.

The definition was in the old shmup-faqs of the old site.
Malc, planning on setting that up again?

[Ghegs]

It's that time of the year again, I suppose.

Accutron's right, for the purposes of this forum rail-shooters, run 'n guns and other borderliners are not considered shmups and discussions about them is to take place in Off Topic. Everybody has their own view on what a shmup is and for some reason no two persons' views are ever the same, so consider this a compromise of sorts. We (the forum) need to have some guidelines on what can be discussed in Shmups Chat. This is that guideline. That's all there is to it.

[Palmer Eldritch]

This is getting off-topic...
Sorry, that was not my intention.

No, I´ll take the blame for that.
Sorry about that. This thread will now return to the topic at hand.