2D versus 3D?

[Blake]

Usually games like SMAC are called 2.5D or simialler.

I'm inclined to think that Roller Coaster Tycoon wouldn't be nearly as fun in 3D, but I really should reserve judgement until trying RCT3.

With good artists I think that 2D graphics are easier to make look very good, but with poor artists I think 3D graphics can actually be easier, because a lot of the effort is put into modelling.

My opinion is that certain simulation/city builder games (Sim City, Caesar, Tycoon, Settlers Series) are better in 2D, while RTS games are better in 3D, I really can't honestly say that Total Annhilation, Warcraft 3 or C&C Generals would have been better in 2D, the 3D graphics really can add a lot, especially with terrain and making the units move and act smoothly. But in a simulation game you need to do a lot of precise placement of buildings, paths etc, and here the 2.5D isometric is a big boon.
So in short, building games = 2D, fighting games = 3D.

Something about The Sims 2 is that all the game mechanics are still the same as the old 2.5D isometric, you can just move the camera around - but highly detailed 3D models and textures were required. The Sims 2 was probably only possible because of the mind bogglingly massive budget it no doubt got. Any 2.5D probably could be adapted to 3D in much the same way - that is - with a large enough budget.

[vovan]

Originally posted by Adagio
Oh, I forgot to mention that I see games like SMAC and The Settlers 3+4 as 2D games, since that's how the game engine works. Even though all characters/buildings in Settlers 3+4 were created in 3D, they were all pre-rendered, which makes it possible to add more detail to them, without slowing down the system.

I wasn't talking about units. I was talking about the terrain. Units are obviously pre-rendered 2D sprites. However, in SMAC, the terrain is sort of 3Dish because they overlaid the tiled isometric map on top of a heightmap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

3D depends on the genre. For FPS or RPGs, 3D can be very important as better graphics can draw you further into the game (though I realize the 2D RPGs can draw you in as well... but 3D can do so better).

[Japher]

don't care. I generally play TBS so it doesn't really matter

[child of Thor]

I'm old fashioned. I like corderoy trousers and comfortable shoes, and i smoke a pipe. So it goes that i like 2D best................

Ok well i'm just messing around, i voted for the 'As long as i get a good game i dont care'.

But we just have to look at many of the games that have come out and just used 3D cause its the in thing, without a thought(it would seem) for if it actualy makes the game better.
It just happens that for strategy games like Civ, 2D is my preference and i havent seen a good version of a fully 3D stategy game yet. It usualy just gets in the way of the gameplay.

I used to really not like 3D, but games like Morrowind have shown me that it can look really good and can help with immersion into the game world, it just depends what type game you are making and what makes a better play experience.

With CotN, its difficult to make up my mind with only the screenshots to go on, as i think they look fine for me in a game like that? But then again i'm not a demanding player graphic wise. The sunrise/sets look very nice

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Ok well i'm just messing around, i voted for the 'As long as i get a good game i dont care'.

And me.

[Sava]

If all things are equal (i.e. gameplay being awesome) 3D would be preferrable, but not necessary. I gave Starcraft a bad rap because it wasn't 3D... once I played the game, I immediately changed my tune.

Gameplay is by far the number one factor in my judgement of games and how good they are. Graphics are nice to have, however.

So I guess my answer is: I prefer 3D.

[Adagio]

Sava >> Yep, gameplay is supposed to be the same (or as close to the same as it can be), but you also have to compare what the same game would look like in 3D, seen from a economic perspective, so you can't expect a game with crappy 2D (read: cheaply done) to have 3D graphics that looks like HalfLife 2...

But I guess Starcraft people would have enough money to make it a bit more than average 3D...

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by DrSpike


And me.

I'm in your club here

[Spiffor]

Depends of the style of the game.

2D is excellent for fast paced games with an "old" perspective (bird view, isometric view) like bird-view racing games, or diablo-likes. In these games, there is little to no need for graphical variety, AND the perspective (camera angle) doesn't change.

In many games, however, 3D is a sound idea. All games that require a camera-change (First Person or Third Person games) require it absolutely. As do games that need a great graphical variety, that could only be matched with a humongous amount of sprites.

For example, I support the idea that Civ4 should be 3D, because it would allow for a far greater graphical variety: you could see at first glance whether your city has a granary, mosque or Pyramids. You could see at first glance the stregth and the composition of an army. A 3D-engine would even allow a unit workshop, like it did in SMAC.

[Jamski]

I'm divided, but many games would have been better left in 2D.

-Jam

[duke o' york]

Can I have the fake 3D of Civ 2 please?

Stick me with Spike and bADGer regardless.

[edit] Damn! It was Child of Thor, not bADGer, but I just realised that I haven't called bADGer bADGer in a while so it is probably time for me to call him bADGer again. But where and when? [/edit]

[pg]

2D is generally better for city builders, TBS, etc. SMAC is also 2D, it's just faking 3D looks. Personally only a few games really need 3D like FPS's, or racing games, new 3D platformers, etc. Usually in computer games 3D is a turn off more often than not because they seem to run so horribly even if I am above minimum specs by a fair bit. I'd rather have crappier graphics and have the game running 3x(or more faster) and at lower resolutions if I want than having it be 3D.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DrSpike
No one likes games that are all graphics and no gameplay, but if better graphics can be had with no loss in gameplay then everyone is a winner.

Wouldn't that just be great?

If trade-offs needs to be made, what would you prefer to be scaled back: graphics or gameplay?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Can I have the fake 3D of Civ 2 please?

I think the overhead view of Civ is good enough for TBS.