Main Menu

2D Vs. 3D.

Started by Sir Perceval of Daventry, October 10, 2011, 03:27:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sir Perceval of Daventry

Well?
Personally I prefer 2D in both games and animated films. Will get to why later when my migraine subsides.

Big C from Cauney island

I'm fine with 2D.  3D is cool to watch, but not necessary.  Nothing can save a bad movie or bad game.  I don't know how much farther technology can be pushed anyways. Really, whats next?

Bludshot

Wait what 3D are we talking about? That terms gets thrown around all the time.  In fact I'm pretty sure the original King's Quest was marketed as a 3D game.
Deep Thoughts with Connor Mac Lyrr
"Alack! The heads do not die!"

Blackthorne

Games that are produced with 3D models, and such.  KQ was marketed as a "3D animated adventure game", but it had static backgrounds.


Bt


(Posted on: October 11, 2011, 07:51:06 AM)


Double post, but I got thinking of what turns me off about 3D.

I like some 3D games - some look just beautiful, sure.  And they can be fun to play.

But often, I look at the images, and all I see are blocks - models, lines that are wrapped in textures.

It often, even at it's best, has a sterile look - it always looks like a computer designed it, because often it was.  Sure the line models were made by people, and the textures were created artists - but the way it's assembled and constructed is done by algorithm - by computer.

With 2D, I can often see the brush strokes - the actual art created by a person.  I like that.  It adds a warmth that 3D has not been able to do thus far - for me.



Bt
"You've got to keep one eye looking over your shoulder
you know it's going to get harder and harder as you
get older - but in the end you'll pack up, fly down south, hide your head in the sand.  Just another sad old man, all alone and dying of cancer." - Dogs, Pink Floyd.