Notice how I purposely didn't make this a "VS" thread.
That's because, I believe that one day, 2D and 3D can co-exist peacefully one day.
I said, "one day" and not "right now" because for the most part, game developers have the most control when it comes to the majority of 3D action games.
A lot of independent devs out there are making a good amount of clever FP games (like Day Z for instance), but what I'm looking for is more of an action-adventure way to play.
As of now, I've yet to see very many 3D action-adventure games being made by devs who are "completely" independent.
I mean in a "50 people or less" sort of way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, as it stands, I'd like to talk about the benefits of both 2D and 3D.
2D: Cost-effective, and allows for more of an "old-school" gameplay approach.
3D: When done right, 3D gameplay allows for more creative freedom when it comes to level design and control, in my humble opinion.
Graphics, Artwork, and Story are equally applicable to both 2D and 3D, so I don't think they have a lot of merit when comparing the two types against each other.
I'm not saying that they're not important, I'm just saying that they're more or less interchangeable because they don't effect the overall gameplay experience, just the emotional and visual engagement experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love 2D gameplay. It's just that sometimes, when 3D games successfully carry the spirit of its 2D predecessors into it's latest iteration (e.g. Sands of Time, Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, the unreleased "Sonic X-treme" prototype, Lords of Shadow *ahem, took them long enough* and Metroid Prime), I think there's something special to be found there.
Not to mention the countless other great games that focus on gameplay (like Arkham Asylum) and strong level design, but that's another story.
That's because, I believe that one day, 2D and 3D can co-exist peacefully one day.
I said, "one day" and not "right now" because for the most part, game developers have the most control when it comes to the majority of 3D action games.
A lot of independent devs out there are making a good amount of clever FP games (like Day Z for instance), but what I'm looking for is more of an action-adventure way to play.
As of now, I've yet to see very many 3D action-adventure games being made by devs who are "completely" independent.
I mean in a "50 people or less" sort of way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, as it stands, I'd like to talk about the benefits of both 2D and 3D.
2D: Cost-effective, and allows for more of an "old-school" gameplay approach.
3D: When done right, 3D gameplay allows for more creative freedom when it comes to level design and control, in my humble opinion.
Graphics, Artwork, and Story are equally applicable to both 2D and 3D, so I don't think they have a lot of merit when comparing the two types against each other.
I'm not saying that they're not important, I'm just saying that they're more or less interchangeable because they don't effect the overall gameplay experience, just the emotional and visual engagement experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love 2D gameplay. It's just that sometimes, when 3D games successfully carry the spirit of its 2D predecessors into it's latest iteration (e.g. Sands of Time, Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, the unreleased "Sonic X-treme" prototype, Lords of Shadow *ahem, took them long enough* and Metroid Prime), I think there's something special to be found there.
Not to mention the countless other great games that focus on gameplay (like Arkham Asylum) and strong level design, but that's another story.