Support NeoGAF

[Mama Robotnik]

Check out this gem of a site I just found:

http://www.vgmapper.com/SysSNES/S/SuperMarioWorld2YoshisIsland.html

Dear god, thank you! They're like paintings!

 

[Red]

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.

OP asked which was "better for games." I took that to mean "which better facilitates gameplay"? And my answer is: neither one more than the other. It all depends on how the game is made, and the final intent. What I mean by that is, NSMBWii would not be any better as a 2D game, and Super Mario World would be no better as a 2.5D one. It is an obvious answer to a pointless question.

 

[sixteen-bit]

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.

Blazblue did the 2D characters, 3D backgrounds right. We've come a long way from CVS2 and MvC2. It can be almost seamless now.

 

[Boogiepop]

Eh, 2D looks better artistically while 2.5D allows things to generally move more fluidly and have more animations in general, as it's much easier to create a new animation for an existing model than to draw one out. Things like Layton's transfer to 3D models on the 3DS feels like a good example of this: it looks worse on a base level, but in exchange you get beautiful over the top animations. Also feeling this vibe from Ghost Trick, having recently started it.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Blazblue did the 2D characters, 3D backgrounds right. We've come a long way from CVS2 and MvC2. It can be almost seamless now.

To be fair BB:CS stages are pretty wildly inconsistent. I'm thinking of that hideous stage with the giant low poly statues in the background.

However you're right we're getting closer; but the bottom line is it still involves burning a lot of calories to sell the illusion.

Also 2Dgaf should check out Twin Blades the Reaping Vanguard for XBL Indies. Animation isn't the best, but given the size of the dev team it's an exceedingly gorgeous little game:

 

[Raging Spaniard]

Whoever pointed out that 2D is better because of the "vivid colors" needs to take that point back, it doesn't make sense.

Its not like making a game with polygons dictates what colors you can and cant use. Thats up to the art director. You could make a game thats 2.5D with the exact same artstyle as Yoshi's Island today and it would look better because of the way you can manipulate depth and rotation, thats just a fact. has anybody done it? No, but theres no technical drawback to do so.

People get too hung up thinking a particular art direction can be tied to a dimension. Thats a stupid thought, specially with today's technology. Its always up to what the art team thinks looks good and the skill level of the people involved.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Easily 2D. 99% of 2.5D games look like shit.

So glad there are still developers like Vanillaware and Wayforward still make great games with great 2D graphics.

EDIT - On a serious note I think it's all about the art direction of the game and how its handeled. Some games like Battle Fantasia and New Super Mario Bros. Wii look great, others look bad. 2D 2D tends to look better as it doesn't have to rely on using special effects and filters to simulate an experience as it's as simple as drawing it.

ITT: Nostalgia rush affects logic.

What logic? The logic that Yoshi Island is one of the best looking games ever?

 

[enzo_gt]

Yes, 2D Yoshi's Island as far as art style goes > any 2.5D game. But you are an ignorant fuck if you think every 2D game > every 2.5D game. On a whole, today most 2.5D games look better than 2D games. Certain games are suited to either styles, but the ignorant mentality that still persists of every game should be 2D is disappointing.

Also, +1 to every Raging Spaniard post, he gets it.

 

[Xater]

I absolutely don't give a fuck as long as it looks good.

 

[cooljeanius]

One of the things I've noticed about perspective in video games is that there's a whole continuum of stuff between 2D and 3D. First you've got completely 2D stuff like the original Super Mario Bros, then you have stuff that's 2D but with a lot of layers of parallax like Muramasa, then there's stuff that's a mix of 2D sprites and 3D polygonal objects like NSMB DS, then there's stuff that's completely 3D in graphics but restricted to a 2D plane of movement like Super Smash Bros, then there's stuff that's like Super Smash Bros but lets the plane curve in and out of the background like Klonoa, then there's stuff that's mostly 3D but has some things that are billboarded 2D sprites like the trees in Super Mario 64, or the karts in Mario Kart 64, then there's completely 3D stuff like Super Mario Galaxy, then there's stereoscopic 3D stuff like on the 3DS, which is the most "3D" 3D we have yet (unless you want to argue that stuff with head tracking like Looksley's Line-Up is more 3D). And that's mostly just going from a sidescrolling 2D perspective to 3D. The transition from overhead 2D to 3D has stuff like Mode 7 and isometric perspectives in it, and I'm not sure what order to put those in. Then there's the first-person perspective, where everything was sprites at the beginning, and then there was a gradual transition of replacing sprites with polygons, but sprites didn't disappear completely for a while. Basically you can't judge 2.5D as a monolithic group. I could go on about how different individual games have their different individual 2.5D styles, but this post is long enough already.

 

[RedStep]

I want a new game in the vein of Out of this World / Flashback / Heart of the Alien. Those are like.... 1.5D. Or something.

Also, the artistry shown in sprite-based games does tend to outclass those in model-based games. That can be improved (see: Pixar movies), but it's just easier to do bad/boring 3D models. You really have to work to bring out their personality.

 

[Red]

I want a new game in the vein of Out of this World / Flashback / Heart of the Alien. Those are like.... 1.5D. Or something.

Also, the artistry shown in sprite-based games does tend to outclass those in model-based games. That can be improved (see: Pixar movies), but it's just easier to do bad/boring 3D models. You really have to work to bring out their personality.

Oh god yes.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Its not like making a game with polygons dictates what colors you can and cant use. Thats up to the art director. You could make a game thats 2.5D with the exact same artstyle as Yoshi's Island today and it would look better because of the way you can manipulate depth and rotation, thats just a fact. has anybody done it? No, but theres no technical drawback to do so.

BUT - the act of replicating 2D art using 3D assets is still something that's far from perfect. Not just in games, but beyond that, as well. I have yet to see an example of celshading that looks indistinguishable from 2D art (yes, even Wind Waker).

2D art thrives on "imperfections" that define an artist's visual style. They aren't actually imperfections, but they're the sort of extremely subtle detail that 3D rendered art has difficulty duplicating.

It's the difference between

and

Granted, none of this has any bearing on gameplay. You could render Yoshi's Island in 2.5D and as long as the controls were identical, that would probably be okay from a gameplay perspective. It would just be difficult to accurately replicate the hand drawn/hand painted aesthetic using 3D models instead of appropriately 2D art assets.

 

[Raging Spaniard]

BUT - the act of replicating 2D art using 3D assets is still something that's far from perfect. Not just in games, but beyond that, as well. I have yet to see an example of celshading that looks indistinguishable from 2D art (yes, even Wind Waker).

2D art thrives on "imperfections" that define an artist's visual style. They aren't actually imperfections, but they're the sort of extremely subtle detail that 3D rendered art has difficulty duplicating.

It's the difference between

and

Granted, none of this has any bearing on gameplay. You could render Yoshi's Island in 2.5D and as long as the controls were identical, that would probably be okay from a gameplay perspective. It would just be difficult to accurately replicate the hand drawn/hand painted aesthetic using 3D models instead of appropriately 2D art assets.

Except that no game looks like a clip from the Simpsons show, the images youre using to make your point valid have no place in this discussion at all.

However, and since you brought that game up I'll give you an interesting fact about The Simpsons game (my old studio worked on it). During development EA made a movie sample to prove how well the characters could work in 3D. What they did is take a clip from the show and substitute 2D Bart with a 3D Bart, then showed it to the people that make the show.

They didnt even notice the difference.

I dont think the video is available online, so youll have to take my word for it ... but trust me, in the end is about the talent of the people involved, not the medium. Its like saying acrylics are better than watercolors or gouache.

 

[Guevara]

2D is better but companies feel like they have to use 2.5D lately for a game to feel modern, which is a shame.

2.5D is not bad though.

 

[apana]

I'm wondering what they breakdown will be for the future? Nintendo, Capcom, and others use 2.5D because it's easier and highlights how modern/high value their games are and indie/smaller devs using pure 2D?

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Except that no game looks like a clip from the Simpsons show, the images youre using to make your point valid have no place in this discussion at all.

However, and since you brought that game up I'll give you an interesting fact about The Simpsons game (my old studio worked on it). During development EA made a movie sample to prove how well the characters could work in 3D. What they did is take a clip from the show and substitute 2D Bart with a 3D Bart, then showed it to the people that make the show.

They didnt even notice the difference.

I dont think the video is available online, so youll have to take my word for it ... but trust me, in the end is about the talent of the people involved, not the medium. Its like saying acrylics are better than watercolors or gouache.

I think a more appropriate comparison would be a statue vs. a painting, honestly. Translating one to the other is difficult work. There are some 2D images that cannot be rendered in 3D without altering perspective, proportion and positioning, and there are some 3D images that cannot be rendered to 2D without losing certain elements only possible in the depth afforded to three-dimensional space.

It's not that one is better than the other, it's that they are mediums that aren't 1:1 compatible.

 

[LowParry]

Don't really give a fuck if it's 2D, 2.5D or 3D. If the game plays like shit, the game is shit.

 

[apana]

Don't really give a fuck if it's 2D, 2.5D or 3D. If the game plays like shit, the game is shit.

I'm glad you cleared all this up for us.

 

[Raging Spaniard]

I think a more appropriate comparison would be a statue vs. a painting, honestly. Translating one to the other is difficult work. There are some 2D images that cannot be rendered in 3D without altering perspective, proportion and positioning, and there are some 3D images that cannot be rendered to 2D without losing certain elements only possible in the depth afforded to three-dimensional space.

It's not that one is better than the other, it's that they are mediums that aren't 1:1 compatible.

Which is why were talking about 2.5D instead of regular 3D ... and besides, since you're always seeing an image on a 2D plane (that being a television, monitor or projector) the image can always be manipulated in a way to give the audience an impression of depth.

Anytime a 2D game has parallax happening in the background theyre attempting to give depth to the image which means theyre trying to be 3D in their own way. 2.5D games are basically trying to enhance that fact, it has nothing to do with how GOOD it looks, like I said thats all up to the artists.

The Paper Mario games are a good example of how you can fake the eye very well. Specially when the 3DS version comes out

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

I dont think the video is available online, so youll have to take my word for it ... but trust me, in the end is about the talent of the people involved, not the medium. Its like saying acrylics are better than watercolors or gouache.

The flaw in this analogy is that in most cases 3D pretending to be 2D is akin to acrylics, watercolors, and gouache in the hands of a novice and not a master.

A lot of it is half assed unfortunately.

I realize there's going to be a cut off / threshold to how convincing 3D posing as 2D, but I'm willing to accept that so long as it's evident the developer is putting for the effort. Like Wind Waker.

Playing SSF4 the other night it dawned on me, part of the reason I dislike the visuals relates to my old hatred of Tekken 1 and the rest of the PS1 Tekken games. Heavy reliance on grotesque textures. My preference for 3D visuals will always be model it brilliantly, then light it properly. Don't apply, what equates to, stickers in place of this.

I'm not sure what Dimps/Capcom were thinking because the Cavemand Ryu/Ken we saw early on stuff isn't overly evident in the final game and it seems like at some point Dimps saw the production art the Capcom staff was cranking out and tried to make character textures that somewhat resembled that art style. Unfortunately it isn't convincing and this is the game with by far the fugliest chicks in video game history.

Just noticed the other night how much Makoto looks like Josh Gordon Levitt.

 

[Jaroof]

I have yet to see an example of celshading that looks indistinguishable from 2D art (yes, even Wind Waker).

I'd say this has come the closest... and it's pretty damn close.

Such a great looking game

But as for my answer.. I'd have to go with 2D, because of games like Muramasa, Odin Sphere, Yoshi's Island... and so many others.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

I'd say this has come the closest... and it's pretty damn close.

Such a great looking game

It is amazing looking, but it's the exception; not the rule.

This is also limited to an anime style, which isn't suitable or what all old 2D games were striving for.

A Street Fighter Alpha in 3D using this engine would be perfect though.

Hell, I'd take a Darkstalkers using that engine for that matter.

 

[Acquiesc3]

I prefer 2D style, but they shouldn't be much different when it comes to gameplay..

For example I enjoyed Blade Kitten's gameplay as much as Symphony of the Night's.

Wait.. ok maybe not.

 

[LowParry]

I'm glad you cleared all this up for us.

I am alpha and omega.

 

[MisterHero]

I disagree that 2.5D has no brilliant representative. First game that occured to me was Viewtiful Joe.

I'm not one who actively enjoys emulation, but GAFers who've done so revealed that New Super Mario Bros. Wii is quite a gorgeous game when upscaled. The game itself removes a lot of the more abstract level design that give Yoshi's Island that extra-organic feel, but it's absolutely functional and legible for 4 people playing at the same time, and that matters more than random eye-candy.

I'm wondering what they breakdown will be for the future? Nintendo, Capcom, and others use 2.5D because it's easier and highlights how modern/high value their games are and indie/smaller using pure 2D?

I still argue that it doesn't matter if one's tied to "higher production values". A developer will do what they're familiar with, and/or what they want.

2D art direction (competitively, at least) requires talent and hardware resources. Most artists today are trained in 3D even though the basic principles of art and animation are taught in 2D.

Street Fighter III is a 2D masterpiece but was perhaps not quite the return on investment Capcom wanted, compared to SFII, Alpha, and Vs.. On top of that, it was harder to port because of the amount of sprite art.

Models and animation data are easier to move between platforms. Also, they scale better when compared to hand-drawn art, especially on a low resolution screen (for example a phone).

In the end, on any given platform, all developers have to comply with the hardware's limitations.

Capcom will probably stick to 2.5D to be able to port to more systems. Nintendo chose 2.5D for NSMBDS/Wii because they wanted to establish/re-establish a standard look for their characters. Yes, Yoshi's Island is 2D and gorgeous but it came at the end of the SNES' lifespan and required the Super FX-II chip to make it happen. Neither should be considered cheap or easy, even if 2D arguably costs more.

Pretty much all 2.5D games look like crap with some exceptions as seen above. For the most part they are vastly inferior visually to just plain 2D. SFIV looks like ass.

That's not the technology's fault though. ;P

 

[InfiniteNine]

Pretty much all 2.5D games look like crap with some exceptions as seen above. For the most part they are vastly inferior visually to just plain 2D. SFIV looks like ass.

 

[abstract alien]

Pretty much all 2.5D games look like crap with some exceptions as seen above. For the most part they are vastly inferior visually to just plain 2D. SFIV looks like ass.

I've seen just as many shitty looking 2D games as I've seen 2.5D ones...

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Pretty much all 2.5D games look like crap with some exceptions as seen above. For the most part they are vastly inferior visually to just plain 2D. SFIV looks like ass.

so...

Bionic Commando looks like crap
Marvel 3 looks like crap
Viewtiful Joe looks like crap
SuperStardust HD looks like crap
Limbo looks like crap
Outland looks like crap
flOw looks like crap
Donky Kong Wii looks like crap
Kirby's Epic Yarn looks like crap
El Shaddai looks like crap
Pixel Junk games look like crap
Ikaruga looks like crap
...

yea, ITT: the Nostalgia Army are strong and defensive as hell

 

[InfiniteNine]

I said there where some exceptions in the post you qyoted and a few in your list pass with me. I've seen it done terribly more often than I've seen it done well so I have my reasons for preferring straight-up 2D.

 

[Tellaerin]

I'm partial to 2D gameplay in general. I love the character you get with hand-drawn/pixelled sprite animation and backgrounds, but I don't have a problem with companies combining 3D models and backdrops with 2D gameplay. I want more oldschool-style platformers and scrolling shooters, period, so I'm willing to take whatever I can get at this point.

 

[Big One]

Nothing wrong with 2.5D games. Donkey Kong Country Returns does this particularly well in design aesthetic.

 

[Fugu]

I think 2.5D has a lot of untapped potential, but almost as a rule 2D looks better. Nintendo does some good 2.5D (The Super Smash Bros. series looks great, for example) but I think that's about it. Capcom is increasingly convincing me that 2.5D is a horrible idea, because all of their 2.5D games look absolutely dreadful.

so...

Bionic Commando looks like crap Yes.
Marvel 3 looks like crap Yes.
Viewtiful Joe looks like crap No.
SuperStardust HD looks like crap Yes.
Limbo looks like crap No.
Outland looks like crap Yes.
flOw looks like crap Yes.
Donky Kong Wii looks like crap Oh god yes.
Kirby's Epic Yarn looks like crap Gorgeous game, wouldn't call it 2.5D though.
El Shaddai looks like crap Yes.
Pixel Junk games look like crap No.
Ikaruga looks like crap No.
...

yea, ITT: the Nostalgia Army are strong and defensive as hell

The funny thing about opinions is that trying to contextualize them like this to invalidate them doesn't really contribute anything, especially for those of us that fall in the giant deadzone between "entirely nostalgic" and "not nostalgic at all".

 

[SappYoda]

Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins is one of the best looking games on PSP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAxedQBTKMQ

Also Tombi! was awesome.

 

[InfiniteNine]

Tomba/i! is awesome no matter what though man.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

For me, 2.5D all the way. Anything done in a sprite can be replicated polygonally, with added benefits like more and better scaling/rotation, and greater allowance to alter an object with a new skin or costume without having to then recreate a bunch of animation.

Is it possible to point out 2D games that you perceive as looking more beautiful than some similar 2.5D game? Sure, but I don't extrapolate from that. Nostalgia and Super Mario World love make me like its look more in many ways than NSMB Wii, but they weren't trying to make Super Mario World again. However, we occasionally do see pretty good examples of a 3D game aping an old game's style, like several Super Smash Bros. stages.

 

[SabinFigaro]

When enough attention is given to detail, I believe 2D will always triumph over 2.5D. Not that I have anything against the style, as I greatly enjoyed both DCKR and NSMB:Wii, but there is something special about good, clean 2D.

I'm glad we're still getting such wonderful examples of this style in today's market:

A Boy and His Blob

Muramasa

 

[Mike Works]

Donkey Kong Country Returns had some instances where they really took advantage of the 2.5D:

- having the character play in deeper planes (though I suppose this could be pulled off in 2D as well)
- using 2.5D's superior depth perception when it comes to stuff like the tidal waves or cannonballs coming in

that being said, I usually prefer 2D; it's often just easier to discern what's in the foreground and what's not.

 

[ColtraineGF]

They are both styles of animation/presentation. Great-looking/playing games can be achieved with both.

 

[MNC]

When enough attention is given to detail, I believe 2D will always triumph over 2.5D. Not that I have anything against the style, as I greatly enjoyed both DCKR and NSMB:Wii, but there is something special about good, clean 2D.

I'm glad we're still getting such wonderful examples of this style in today's market:

[IM]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/kotaku/2009/10/boyblob.jpg[/IMG]

A Boy and His Blob

Muramasa

You just reminded me I have to buy Muramasa!

Dat field is looking superb. Also!

Ghost Trick is 2.5D and has gorgeous animation!

 

[JEKKI]

what the fukk is 2.5D?!?!

I dont even think it's a real thing... it's just a lie!!

 

[apana]

what the fukk is 2.5D?!?!

I dont even think it's a real thing... it's just a lie!!

You're right, I think I must have been imagining it this whole time.

 

[Dark Octave]

I thought 2D would have been cheaper. Can you explain?

Fuck...drawing EVERY frame one by one. Tedium that would make a recent lottery winner want to hang himself.

It's exciting to see the finished product, but...FUCK!

 

[KittenMaster]

I think of 2.5D as games that let you move on an x & y axis to an extent but still are side scrolling.

Like Double Dragon.

Or the graphics are projected at an angle to show the ground for a pseudo-3D effect.

I didn't expect this thread to be about 2D vs. 3D in games with 2D gameplay.

 

[apana]

"The term "2.5D" is also applied to 3D games that use polygonal graphics to render the world and/or characters, but whose gameplay is restricted to a 2D plane. Examples include Donkey Kong Country Returns, Pandemonium, Klonoa: Door to Phantomile, Nights into Dreams..., Viewtiful Joe, Shadow Complex, Strider 2, Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards, New Super Mario Bros.,Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project, Yoshi's Story, Tomba!, The Simpsons Game (DS), Sonic Rivals, Sonic Rush, & New Super Mario Bros. Wii. The Crash Bandicoot series is sometimes referred to as 2.5D because although the characters and scenery are rendered in 3D, it is not as free-roaming like 'true' 3D platformers. Other examples include R-Type Delta, Sonic Colors, Gradius V, Contra: Shattered Soldier, Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles, George of the Jungle and the Search for the Secret, LittleBigPlanet and Bionic Commando Rearmed.

Some fighting games such as the Super Smash Bros. series, Marvel Vs. Capcom 2, Street Fighter IV, and BlazBlue also utilize 2.5D to showcase 3D backdrops and/or characters while limiting the action to a 2D plane.

In some games, such as Goemon's Great Adventure, the area of gameplay can be described as a two-dimensional surface twisting and bending in a three-dimensional space. Inside this surface, the character and physics behave like in a traditional 2D platformer. There are however a number of twists that aren't possible with normal 2D platformers: it is common in such games to let the two-dimensional plane cross itself or other planes on certain points, thus creating "track switches" in the course. Players can explore different areas of the 3D world that way or can be brought back to previous points seamlessy. Interactions with the "background" (non-accessible points in the 3D landscape) are also used extensively."

-Wikipedia

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.5D#3D_games_with_a_two-dimensional_playing_field

Wikipedia is our friend.

 

[MisterHero]

For what it's worth there are 2D games that let you modify a generic character sprite with new objects. Dungeon Fighter's avatar system works that way. Of course, they have to draw them to suit every one of the character's sprites which is why they have to limit the frame count for each animation, but it works and I like it.

I think of 2.5D as games that let you move on an x & y axis to an extent but still are side scrolling.

Like Double Dragon.

Or the graphics are projected at an angle to show the ground for a pseudo-3D effect.
I didn't expect this thread to be about 2D vs. 3D in games with 2D gameplay.

Are you talking about isometric 2D like Super Mario RPG?

 

[Celcius]

I definitely have to say 2D. Muramasa = 'nuff said.

 

[Chet Rippo]

I don't care either way. Both are fine in my eyes.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

2D. It's prettier and more precise in pretty much every single case. There's a couple of exceptions like Klonoa on Wii, but such games are few and far between.

 

[apana]

Does everyone agree that 2.5D games are more popular thatn 2D games? Not much discussion in here on that topic.