Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi It doesn''t defeat the argument anyway.
It wasn''t meant to defeat the argument. It was meant to point out that while: CDs are better than vinyl WinXP is (probably) better than Win3.x (please don''t turn this into a windows debate) DVD is better than VHS
3D is not inherently better than 2D.
Anyway, I don''t want to start a war.
John B
"It''s not how many dimensions you use, it''s how you use them that counts." - me
The best thing about the internet is the way people with no experience or qualifications can pretend to be completely superior to other people who have no experience or qualifications.
quote:
Original post by JohnBSmall CDs are better than vinyl
Just like 3D and 2D, not necessarily. There''s a particular sound unique to vinyl - that crackling noise as the pick skips and passes over little dust particles. Agreed, CDs have a greater storage capacity, longer lifetime and suffer less degradation. However, in some instances vinyl would be preferrable.
Which is how I view 3D. 3D is a much better approximation of the real world, so if you''re trying to simulation something even remotely possible in our universe... Even overhead strategy games (ostensibly 2D) can benefit from being 3D. So we agree, but just don''t state it in similar fashion. I consider 3D generally "better" than 2D, but in certain specific situations clearly the wrong choice. As you said, "it''s how you use them that counts."
quote:
Original post by DavidRM 2. Vinyl LP sound quality is *superior* to CDs...for about the first 100 or so plays. After that, CDs reign supreme.
...and assuming that you have top notch equipment, and that it is maintained in perfect condition. Unless you have a multi-thousand dollar record player in perfect condition, I doubt the quality would come anywhere near a $50 CD player.
Ron FrazierKronos Softwarewww.kronos-software.comMiko & Molly - Taking Puzzle Games to A Whole New Dimension
My opinion on this whole topic is kinda split. I do kinda agree with the trend towards using 3D to replace 2D, even for games that arent stirctly 3D in nature. Yes many of these games would look better with hand drawn 2D tiles, but I think we are just at a transition phase here, where companies learn slowly what does work & what doesnt work, where artists learn to think a bit differently when they design graphics, and where programmers learn more how to generate "2D-quality" 3D graphics. A lot of the stuff going on now, especially with advanced graphics techniques like shaders, will help(are helping) programmers. And with this process, artists/modelers need time to learn how to adjust their work to take full advantage of this stuff. 2D graphics has been stable for a LONG LONG time, but even after several years of being mainstream, 3D graphics is still very immature. So I guess I see where 2D has its benefits NOW, but in the long run 3D is where its at, and if companies dont adopt 3D now that will only make the transition take longer.
On the other hand, I have one other unique perspective with 3D which it seems I NEVER see anybody bring up: people who CANT play 3D games. My wife cant play a lot of 3D games because they just plain make her sick. This is especially true in 1st person view or 3rd person (where the camera follows the character). The movement of everything makes her dizzy. It was funny, one time I was playing Unreal Tournament and kicking major behind, and she needed me to do something. So I told her I couldn't stop or it would screw up my game. I told her I would do it, but she had to take over my game for a minute while I did it. She was only playing for like 2 minutes, but she was noticably disoriented by the time she was done (and I was a little proud, she at least go me a kill:-) ). Not all 3D games do this. For the most part, she is fine with games that use 3D to simulate a side scroller, and most racing games are fine with her. I think for the most part her problems are when the camera does more than just slight/gradual movements (side scrollers and racing games seem to have pretty smooth camera movement).
It kinda sucks for her too, because all these new games come out, and every time we look at the back cover we have to question whether or not she can play the game. And all of her old favorite games are moving (or have moved) into 3D, especially into 1st person.
Does anyone else have (or know anyone who has) these problems?
Edited by - LordKronos on January 16, 2002 9:41:48 AM
Ron FrazierKronos Softwarewww.kronos-software.comMiko & Molly - Taking Puzzle Games to A Whole New Dimension
as technology advances, soon 3d will be able to perfectly simulate 2D stuff, including style and texture. the bottom line is that 3d is more imperical -the world is 3d, so should models of it be. it saves space, time, and is the rave -go 3d!
for example, the great fallout:tactics. 2d -it devours so many resources it is scary. the fallout peoples are making fallout3 in 3d, but plan to retain the styles and feel from the 2d titles.
3 years ago they wouldnt have dreamed of making a 3d fallout - the technology simply wasnt ready.
LordKronos: the only game that made me sick like that was Wolfenstein 3D. Don''t know why though.
Going back to the topic though, the problem with 3D games is they''re very EXPENSIVE to make. Eventually, most (if not all) companies will buy 3D engines and modify them to their needs. Game budgets are out of control as it is, and the further we go the worse it will get. Licensing 3D engines (and other stuff like that) is a good thing though, because it will free developers to work on the gameplay. Half-Life is a good example of that.
I''ve been watching this thread since yesterday and always find this topic a good read.
I personally don''t believe 2D is dead at all. Sure it has a much smaller market than it did 5 years ago, but that doesn''t mean it''s going anywhere.
I won''t bother to mention names of 2D games since it has been done already, but the point is that the technology used (2D vs. 3D) does not make a great game.
The technology is simply a vessel in which the game designer wishes to present his/her vision. My personal favorite style is pre-rendered 3D graphics in a 2D game. To me it features the best quality of graphics found in any game (I personally believe that today''s 3D graphics still look way to blocky even in the best 3D game).
Anyways, as most of us are hobby or budget/shareware developers, I think chosing a technology should be based on factors such as personal vision of the game, technical (both programming and artistic) abilities, and available resources (funds, software, etc.). Your goal should be creating your game the way you want it. What the rest of the world is doing shouldn''t mean squat.
Imagine a game like Monkey Island 2 or Day of the Tentacle, but instead of concentrating on amazing geforce 4 graphics (!), it''s all applied to design, with brilliant gameplay and puzzles. And it''d last for ages. I''m sure a lot of people, especially LucasArt old timers, would lap that up. Right?
Ah well. At least IndyProject (Fate of Atlantis 2) is in the works. =)
quote:
Original post by LordKronos Does anyone else have (or know anyone who has) these problems?
I''ve read about it. It''s apparently an inability to compensate for the unrealistic motion and positioning presented in certain 3D games (most notably FPSes). I''m sure she''ll have absolutely no problems if you could hook UT up to a VR headset.
