2D Vs. 3D

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Which do you prefer, and why?

[Bludshot]

How do you feel about it?

[crayauchtin]

It depends on the game. Some do better with 3D. Some are better in 2D.

[MikPal]

I like both and all between. Never saw a reason why they have to be fighting with each other.

[Bludshot]

The only reason I can think for someone having a strong preference between the two is that period when 3D was still in its growing pains and a lot of beloved series made a jump to 3D that ruined the series. 

[GrahamRocks!]

I like both and all between. Never saw a reason why they have to be fighting with each other.

Agreed!

[wilco64256]

I've played good games in both 2D and 3D and really horrible games in both. I don't really have a preference for the dimension the game exists in, just for the quality of the gameplay.

[darthkiwi]

The only reason I can think for someone having a strong preference between the two is that period when 3D was still in its growing pains and a lot of beloved series made a jump to 3D that ruined the series. 

Agreed. The only instance I can think of where 2D vs. 3D can be an actual judgement of quality, rather than just a description, is when 3D games were possible but often not particularly pretty. People saw 3D as better than 2D because it was more immersive, so a load of games were made in 3D that would have been a lot better in 2D.

While I of course like both, I would like to point out that 2D has an advantage over 3D in one respect: you can use hand-drawn or hand-painted backgrounds in 2D directly, with almost no mediation. But given the amazing things 3D level designers can do - witness Psychonauts, Dishonored, BioShock - that's frankly only an advantage if you want to make a game and can paint/draw but not model.

I would like to see more games with hand-painted backgrounds, though. They can be so pretty!

[snabbott]

I don't have a strong preference, though I tend to not prefer 1st person perspective. I get disoriented too easily. I do think the Portal games did first person well, though.

[Neonivek]

The only time 2d vs. 3d was a valid avenue of discussion was in the early days of 3d where people would transfer their beautiful 2d games into really ugly looking 3d games (Like Gabriel Knight)

[stika]

what about 2.5D games?

[Neonivek]

what about 2.5D games?

2.5d isn't a graphical statement. It is about 3d on a 2d plane. (Like SF4)

Or sometimes it is about the ability to shift in the 3d plane and yet the game remains in 2d combat. (Like Tekken)

However is this topic about Graphics or about prefered gameplay in either 2d or 3d environments?

[stika]

I disagree, 2.5D graphics can look pretty distintic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6KMAm_228s

[Neonivek]

I disagree, 2.5D graphics can look pretty distintic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6KMAm_228s

Those 3d graphics sure are distinct.

[stika]

I disagree, 2.5D graphics can look pretty distintic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6KMAm_228s

Those 3d graphics sure are distinct.

this is 3d?

[KatieHal]

Hm. The stuff earlier on in the video is definitely 3D.

I think all the styles have their strengths and weaknesses. Early 3D was just...bad. No getting around it, it was, but it was a necessary stage for 3D to develop further.

Nowadays, you get some great games in all of these styles. Even 2D has come a long way, and 2.5D games are getting better at blending the two--Cognition is 2.5D, for example, and I think it does pretty well at blending the two. Not perfect and some scenes are definitely much better than others, but still.

And for 3D, we're getting amazing stuff like LA Noire and Heavy Rain that are just stunning to look at.

[stika]

Hm. The stuff earlier on in the video is definitely 3D.

I think all the styles have their strengths and weaknesses. Early 3D was just...bad. No getting around it, it was, but it was a necessary stage for 3D to develop further.

Nowadays, you get some great games in all of these styles. Even 2D has come a long way, and 2.5D games are getting better at blending the two--Cognition is 2.5D, for example, and I think it does pretty well at blending the two. Not perfect and some scenes are definitely much better than others, but still.

And for 3D, we're getting amazing stuff like LA Noire and Heavy Rain that are just stunning to look at.

I agree that they're all getting better, though my point is that 2.5D is it's own thing, I don't agree with the notion that it's '3D on a 2D plane'  as wikipedia puts it:

'2D graphical projections and similar techniques are used to cause a series of images (or scenes) to simulate the appearance of being three-dimensional (3D) when in fact they are not, or gameplay in an otherwise three-dimensional video game that is restricted to a two-dimensional plane.'

[Neonivek]

Here is why 2.5d is not its own thing when you are refering to graphical representation.

There is no such thing as half a plane.

As for your reference to Wikipedia... all it is refering to is that ALL 3d is in fact 2d. So then there is no 2.5d either.

Besides you only gave ONE 2.5d game. May I remind you HEAVILY that Street Fighter 4 is a 2.5d game.

So your example and your implication of it has been completely invalidated.

[crayauchtin]

If I remember right, the game Sacred was 2.5D but they had a 2D background/landscape and 3D models on it which is backwards from most 2.5D games which use 2D models (like MegaMan) on a 3D background. Watch that trailer again, and look at MegaMan -- not the screen, just the one little guy that you're playing. That is not 3D.

They also used 2.5D graphics with their sidescrolling game Sacred Citadel but I have to be honest, I know literally nothing else about that game.

Wikipedia has a list of games that use 2.5D graphics as well.

Anyways -- in the idea behind this discussion, 2.5D has to be its own thing. The question is, which do you like better, 2D graphics or 3D graphics? If you like 2D graphics better, you don't like 2.5D because they use 3D. If you like 3D better, well, you don't like 2.5D because they use 2D.
THAT is why, at least for the purposes of this discussion, 2.5D has to be its own thing. We're not talking about the science of graphics. We're referring to which one we like better. Saying 2.5D isn't a valid answer is basically saying either that it doesn't exist or that it actually defies the laws which hold the universe together to like a game with 2.5D graphics. Neither is the case.

[stika]

If I remember right, the game Sacred was 2.5D but they had a 2D background/landscape and 3D models on it which is backwards from most 2.5D games which use 2D models (like MegaMan) on a 3D background. Watch that trailer again, and look at MegaMan -- not the screen, just the one little guy that you're playing. That is not 3D.

They also used 2.5D graphics with their sidescrolling game Sacred Citadel but I have to be honest, I know literally nothing else about that game.

Wikipedia has a list of games that use 2.5D graphics as well.

Anyways -- in the idea behind this discussion, 2.5D has to be its own thing. The question is, which do you like better, 2D graphics or 3D graphics? If you like 2D graphics better, you don't like 2.5D because they use 3D. If you like 3D better, well, you don't like 2.5D because they use 2D.
THAT is why, at least for the purposes of this discussion, 2.5D has to be its own thing. We're not talking about the science of graphics. We're referring to which one we like better. Saying 2.5D isn't a valid answer is basically saying either that it doesn't exist or that it actually defies the laws which hold the universe together to like a game with 2.5D graphics. Neither is the case.

thank you