It seems like the public prefers 2.5D. I'm not a hundred percent sure why, but maybe it makes them feel like that the game is more advanced or more modern. Nintendo has firmly placed its support into the 2.5D camp and the success of NSMB and DKC proves that they were right from the perspective of the mainstream. Which do you think is better for games?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2D vs 2.5D: Which one is better?
- Thread starter apana
- Start date
Mama Robotnik
Member
No 2.5D game looks as good as Yoshi's Island. 2D wins on that alone.
The vivid colours, and hand-drawn sprite beauty of 2D outclasses 2.5D nearly every time. Super Mario World looks infinitely better than New Super Mario Bros. Sonic 1/2/CD/3k looks infinitely better than Sonic Rush and Sonic the Hedgehog 4.
And I don't think I've seen a side-scroller that looks better than the legendary Guardian Heroes.
Therefore, in my opinion, 2D sprite-based gaming is long overdue a comeback.
The vivid colours, and hand-drawn sprite beauty of 2D outclasses 2.5D nearly every time. Super Mario World looks infinitely better than New Super Mario Bros. Sonic 1/2/CD/3k looks infinitely better than Sonic Rush and Sonic the Hedgehog 4.
And I don't think I've seen a side-scroller that looks better than the legendary Guardian Heroes.
Therefore, in my opinion, 2D sprite-based gaming is long overdue a comeback.
archnemesis
Member
2D is prettier, but 2.5D is probably a lot easier and cheaper to make these days.
Raging Spaniard
If they are Dutch, upright and breathing they are more racist than your favorite player
Neither is better, its all about what the game experience is about.
sixteen-bit
Member
Painstaking hand animation costs lots of time and man hours.apana said:
archnemesis
Member
Well, I was mainly thinking of animating hand drawn 2D sprites individually which is quite costly. When you're using a 3D system you can use the same animations on different 3D objects.apana said:
FromTheFuture
Member
I don't think it's so much 2D vs 2.5D; it's more about how the developer utilizes the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Fimbulvetr
Member
Raging Spaniard said:
Pretty much.
cosmicblizzard
Banned
Both are good. Can't really put one above the other.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Are you arguing that this is impossible, though?Mama Robotnik said:
There was a time when those 2D games you mentioned got the highest budgets they could muster. No 2.5D game since that generation has been as lucky since we're only now seeing some market acceptance of them.
If you took the graphics from, say, Ni no Kuni, and made a 2.5D game out of them, would you still insist that it looks worse than Sonic 2?
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
2D =/= sprites and hand drawn
example:
-Marvel vs Capcom 3 is a 2D game, nothing in the gameplay is 3D
-Little Big Planet is 2.5 D game, 3D elements affecting the 2D gameplay directly
Viewtiful Joe says fuck uuuuuuuu
example:
-Marvel vs Capcom 3 is a 2D game, nothing in the gameplay is 3D
-Little Big Planet is 2.5 D game, 3D elements affecting the 2D gameplay directly
SnakeXs said:
Viewtiful Joe says fuck uuuuuuuu
....in style
eXistor
Member
I' ll always prefer 2D. Generally, the controls feel tighter and more accurate, though of course this is much down to how well its respective tech is utilised. Perfect examples of games that should have been 2D are Ultimate Ghouls ' N Ghosts and Dracula X Chronicles on PSP, you can effectively compare them to their 2D counterparts and it' ll become obvious which is better.
Also play NSMB for an hour and then pop in SMB 3 or SMW, the difference is staggering. Not only do both games look better (sprite art needs to make a major comeback) the games feel more accurate, I never really get a feeling 3d characters interact well together.
Also play NSMB for an hour and then pop in SMB 3 or SMW, the difference is staggering. Not only do both games look better (sprite art needs to make a major comeback) the games feel more accurate, I never really get a feeling 3d characters interact well together.
Mama Robotnik
Member
ShockingAlberto said:
I'd have to see the game running of course. Looking at Ni no Kuni, I can't imagine its visuals being made in 2.5D without losing some of their beauty. Maybe if done well, it could prove me wrong.
Its certainly possible for 2.5D to get better, but at the moment the best looking 2.5D games look positively shoddy when compared to their 2D sprite-based predecessors.
Tain said:
Spot on.
Granger Danger
Member
Epic Yarn looks better than Yoshi's Island. Deal with it.Mama Robotnik said:
Zombie James
Banned
2D.
NSMBWii and DKCR were used as examples of 2.5D in the OP, and they do very little that couldn't be done in a 2D game. I don't think NSMB does anything at all different except have fully rendered objects and characters, and DKCR basically does very little differently from DKC besides the ability to travel along the background (and that's a trick that's been done in 2D before).apana said:
This has nothing to do with the fact that it's rendered in 3D.eXistor said:
I like the look of 2.5D much better, not for the games there are, but for the possibilities it has. I think games have the potential be much more stunning with 3D models than solely with hand-drawn sprites. But it comes down to preference obviously. The two are different styles and cannot be compared directly.
Mama Robotnik
Member
Emonga said:
I deal with nothing,
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
2.5d can have an absolute and definite technical edge when it runs at 60fps and involves extremely fluid animation or is a game where full physics are involved.
LittleBigPlanet would not be possible using sprites - not possible to make a game that moves and feels the same way, or better.
Likewise, no 2D fighting game has animation as smooth as the best 2.5D fighters like SFIV and MVC3 - that's not subjective, it's purely technical. No hand animated game ever made has 60 unique frames of animation for every single movement and transition.
2D animation can give a better artistic impression, like the famous rubbery, stretchy animation in Street Fighter III. But at this point, it's no longer a matter of sprites simply working better for a 2D game; there's tradeoffs in each direction.
Also, I don't really believe that 2D games using 3D engines can't feel or play like a sprite based game; I believe much of this is just perception bias on the part of the players, who are convincing themselves a 2D game is "more responsive". Developers have figured out how to translate snappy control and physics to 2.5D games now; the fact that theres infinite depth perception and softer edges to objects (due in part to z-space depth on those objects) may lead people to believe they're not seeing the same harsh, digital response in controls or collision detection.
Truth is, now that we have high quality 2.5D games around, I can't go back to certain games. I can't play a fighting game with King of Fighters style animation, and Arc System Works' stuff, while having pretty still frames, is pretty fuggly and awkward in terms of animation, leading the gameplay to actually feel more floaty and mushy than it is.
But, some folks seem unwilling to accept that 2.5D graphics just have their own art style and are determined to see them an inferior imitation of "real" 2D graphics.
LittleBigPlanet would not be possible using sprites - not possible to make a game that moves and feels the same way, or better.
Likewise, no 2D fighting game has animation as smooth as the best 2.5D fighters like SFIV and MVC3 - that's not subjective, it's purely technical. No hand animated game ever made has 60 unique frames of animation for every single movement and transition.
2D animation can give a better artistic impression, like the famous rubbery, stretchy animation in Street Fighter III. But at this point, it's no longer a matter of sprites simply working better for a 2D game; there's tradeoffs in each direction.
Also, I don't really believe that 2D games using 3D engines can't feel or play like a sprite based game; I believe much of this is just perception bias on the part of the players, who are convincing themselves a 2D game is "more responsive". Developers have figured out how to translate snappy control and physics to 2.5D games now; the fact that theres infinite depth perception and softer edges to objects (due in part to z-space depth on those objects) may lead people to believe they're not seeing the same harsh, digital response in controls or collision detection.
Truth is, now that we have high quality 2.5D games around, I can't go back to certain games. I can't play a fighting game with King of Fighters style animation, and Arc System Works' stuff, while having pretty still frames, is pretty fuggly and awkward in terms of animation, leading the gameplay to actually feel more floaty and mushy than it is.
But, some folks seem unwilling to accept that 2.5D graphics just have their own art style and are determined to see them an inferior imitation of "real" 2D graphics.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
"2.5D" is bullsh*t.
Just call this spade a spade. It's 3D pretending to be 2D.
It's pulled off in some instances, never by Capcom/Dimps/Eighting; and I still feel there's a massive amount of room for improvement as 3D pretending to be 2D isn't convincing as actual sprite work. Stuff looks like real time Donkey Kong Country / Killer Instinct (at best) and that sh*t is just garish.
Give me more bold visual stylization than what we're seeing now and it will be tolerable. Until then, it will always be as Bufallo Bill making a girl suit and playing pretend.
Just call this spade a spade. It's 3D pretending to be 2D.
It's pulled off in some instances, never by Capcom/Dimps/Eighting; and I still feel there's a massive amount of room for improvement as 3D pretending to be 2D isn't convincing as actual sprite work. Stuff looks like real time Donkey Kong Country / Killer Instinct (at best) and that sh*t is just garish.
Give me more bold visual stylization than what we're seeing now and it will be tolerable. Until then, it will always be as Bufallo Bill making a girl suit and playing pretend.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Crunched said:
What both those games bring to the table is that they flow like hot butter down a greased chute. The sheer fluidity of their movement and animation - that includes animated background and interactive elements, not just characters - is something no 2D game before has achieved; not even Yoshi's Island, in the same way. Kirby's Epic Yard is also up there for the amazing fluidity it brings to the gameplay and feeling.
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
Depends on the game. I would never want 2.5D visuals for Yoshi's Island, but a game like DKCR could never really be done with purely 2D visuals.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
thetrin said:
I'm pretty sure people supporting 2.5D is how the Salem Witch Hunts started.
abstract alien
Member
Thank youRaging Spaniard said:
crazy monkey
Banned
what ever those are
2.5D is great as long as it's both 3D characters and backgrounds (played on a two-dimensional plane obviously). I also love 2D, and always will. There are a lot of things though that you can do with 3D graphics that are hard to replicate in 2D without undertaking painstakingly long amounts of effort.
Sometimes I wish someone would create a "sprite filter," that would combine the relative ease of 3D graphics with a hand-drawn look.
Sometimes I wish someone would create a "sprite filter," that would combine the relative ease of 3D graphics with a hand-drawn look.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
Each has their own place but I am of the opinion that 2D art is generally more stylistically pleasing than 3D art. 2D art generally seems to have much more character, and an individual artist's style can flourish better in 2D. It's easier to do abstract lighting effects for the sake of tone, too.
2.5D has advantages, though. Klonoa and Tomba on the PS1 are good showcases as to why that is (being able to move through background layers in psuedo-3D space, etc.)
2.5D has advantages, though. Klonoa and Tomba on the PS1 are good showcases as to why that is (being able to move through background layers in psuedo-3D space, etc.)
Mama Robotnik
Member
whitehawk said:No.
To this day its still soooo beautiful.
Oni Link 666
Member
I can't say that one is better than the other. It depends on what kind of look you're going for with the game.
Celshaded polygons can look pretty damned good (See Street Fighter IV) but, I have yet to see polygons that could pass for HD sprites or an anime.
Non-celshaded polygon games like DKCR and NSMB come pretty close to the pre-rendered look of CG movies. And they definitely looks better than the old DKC games. I doubt DKCR would actually look better if it used pre-rendered sprites.
Also, I doubt most developers could make something that looks as realistic as say, Shadow Complex, using sprites.
Celshaded polygons can look pretty damned good (See Street Fighter IV) but, I have yet to see polygons that could pass for HD sprites or an anime.
Non-celshaded polygon games like DKCR and NSMB come pretty close to the pre-rendered look of CG movies. And they definitely looks better than the old DKC games. I doubt DKCR would actually look better if it used pre-rendered sprites.
Also, I doubt most developers could make something that looks as realistic as say, Shadow Complex, using sprites.
Check out this gem of a site I just found:Mama Robotnik said:
To this day its still soooo beautiful.
http://www.vgmapper.com/SysSNES/S/SuperMarioWorld2YoshisIsland.html
ZephyrFate
Banned
As far as pure 2D games go, Odin Sphere and Muramasa are reigning kings of everything, but I can't deny the visual pizzazz of both Kirby's Epic Yarn and Donkey Kong Country Returns. I'd say it's even.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll