We''ve all seen it happen: We play a certain 2D game, and love the hell out of it. It''s perfect, it''s fun, we get into the story behind it, we love playing it, the whole deal. Then, it comes time for a sequel, oh goody! In 3D this time, that''s even better! We get it, we play it, it sucks. *blink* What the hell was that? Sure, we''re upset that the game we got sucks, that we wasted our time with it. But more than that, we''re upset that they took something good and pure and defiled it. Sometimes it''s just not the same, at all. It''s similar to how I felt when I saw the new Star Wars Episode 1...I mean, as a movie it wasn''t bad, but it wasn''t nearly as good as it should have been. I was disappointed. But more than being upset for paying my ticket price to go see it, I was upset that Lucas took something good and pure (the Star Wars story) and ruined it a bit. There were story inconsistencies, some things just plain outlandish (oh Anakin is Jesus now?) and it was overall wayy too childish. They still have two chances to redeem themselves - here''s hoping. As far as games go, it''s a precarious dilemma...If a game license is to go from 2D to 3D, it must be done RIGHT so as to preserve the essence of the game and still make use of the 3D aspects. I started thinking of this when, after getting a nice windows snes emulator and playing Mega Man X (perfectly legal I might add, I own the cartridge) with my new Gravis GamePad Pro, (awesome peice of hardware, surprisingly easy to develop for too) I got the idea of making a 3D Mega Man X-style game. In my mind''s eye, it would be glorious! I pitched my idea to a few online friends to see what they thought, and they absolutely hated the idea! They thought it would be morally wrong to take something so 2D as Mega Man and even ATTEMPT to make it into 3D, without it somehow degrading into a mindless 3D shooter like your standard FPS or into a behind-the-back view adventure game. Now, I still think my idea is a good one. It would be 3D, from a distance, and from above with an angle (although in the engine I am developing for it, I have put it in so that you have pretty much full camera control so you can place the camera wherever you want it in relation to the character and it will stay there) and the gameplay would be just like Mega Man X, but in 3D. The enemies would be made to move well in 3D, and I have some rather cool (I think) ideas for some levels, and so on - I think I could do it well. What do you people think, on the subject of writing a sequel to a 2D game in 3D, or in particular about my aforementioned idea? - Hai, watashi no chichi no kuruma ga oishii deshita! ...or, in other words, "Yes, my dad's car was deliscious!"

I hate it when games are 3d for the hell of it. The only 3D RTS (Im an RTS maniac) I find that benefits from its ''3Dness'' is SHOGUN. If Age of Empires III came out at xmas in 2D isometricovision, I would still be darned happy, and buy it immediately. Thats an example of 2D done well, as opposed to 3D done badly (like Force Commander).
I just dont think you need 3D in so many of these games. To me, its like FMV, it costs a fortune and achieves nothing. Maybe some silly kids are impressed by the 3d''ness of an engine, but it dosent make the game at all playable. I think we are a LONG way away from sufficiently subtle AI that will position the camera in the right place at the right time, ALL the time.
Until then , the 3D gamers can spend half their time playing, the other half repositioning their camera. What suprises me is how so few games use 3D hardware to accelerate 2D, maybe the marketing bods cant understand that concept. If AOE 2 was accelerated properly, it wouldnt slow down on my TNT2. :-)


http://www.positech.co.uk

Question here: Some people here love the 2D games, some love the 3D games. How about the 2.5D games?

Those being games are set in a 2D perspective, like a side scroller or most fighting games, but still have 3D qualities, like instead of sprites, they have 3D polygoned characters, and/or characters can go towards and away from you. Basically, a 3D game with a fixed viewpoint.

Anyways, those games would have the nice look of a 3D game, and still eliminate the problems of messed up angles. Opinions?

-Blackstream

"See you later, I'm going to go grab a few Bytes. I'm so thirsty, I could drink a whole data stream."

My dad''s into RTS and got TA Kindoms. You wouldn''t think that on a 400 MHz system it would slow down with just a dozen units on screen. Admitingly, the units graphics are fairly large. Perhaps that''s what slows down the game and why Westwood''s games have such small sized graphics for their units.

Back to the topic:
I certainly prefer 2+1/2-D. Jazz Jackrabbit 2 was a faithful reproduction of the original, with high-res graphics and some 3D effects thrown in. It even had alpha-blended effects - very pretty.

There is one aspect that most people seem to glaze over when they want to make this jump to 3D. It fundamentally changes the game-play. Just how do you show what''s above, below, to the left, and to the right with a single camera without going comepletely fish-eye or basically fixing the camera a certain distance away at all times, perpendicular to the action {aka 2+1/2-D.} Thwy usually don''t and try to mash the old mechanics to fir into the new system, quite often failing.