Wurm Online is what your describing OP, it is a 2D sandbox and this month is geting a new graphics overhaul with tons of updates. And it is Java based.
Originally posted by Icewhite How about a content-rich game with no graphics at all?
For that there is always MUDs.
http://mudstats.com I guess is a good site if anyone wish find one, personally trying out Aardwolf.
Shhh. Yes, that's what I was getting at.
Hanging around this site, and listening to the complaining, I become more and more convinced that some people just need to escape the limitations of MMOs in general, and go back to the birthplace of the genre.
If graphics really aren't important to this person, why cling to them at all?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by wordiz I was just thinking last night that I'd take a game with Link to the Past graphics if it offered all the right elements. Graphics killed the MMO star.
Sure. A lot of people would take dated graphics if the game offered exactly the gameplay that they were looking for.
But dated graphics doesn't make it more likely that a game will offer the gameplay that you're looking for. It's not like 2D graphics enable you to magically create the game mechanics that everyone wants even though lots of different people want mutually exclusive things.
A 2D game that you dislike isn't any better than a 3D game that you dislike. (In fairness, it's not any worse, either.)
I think im lost on how your assessing the 2D versus 3D game building. I have dabbled with building both (total novice) and it would seem to me drawing in a 2d space is a huge time saver as compared to building a model, animating it and than slapping textures on it, also if you throw armor on it are you going to have those little graphic spikes shooting out from bad joint placement. Where as 2D games are draw, draw armor, done, the hardest part was getting the armor piece to line up with the character while moving.
Also with 2D, we are only looking at 2 axes where as 3D has 3 axes. The complications from adding a third axes we can assume make the game 33% harder to make, or maybe 50% depending on your point of view there. Also with 2D games you can almost completely forget about physics, or if you have physics you only have to work in 2D.
In general it seems to me that a 2D game just seems like a much easier game to design, draw, and program, but that is all based on my very weak experience trying to make indy games.
The tools are all built for 3D graphics. So is the hardware. Whether you're using DirectX or OpenGL, even if you want to make a 2D game, you probably use 3D tools to get there. So that's certainly not an advantage of 2D.
Assuming that 50% more dimensions means 50% harder is complete nonsense. Linear algebra works about the same in any positive, finite number of dimensions, though some things go awry if you want to deal with infinite dimensional cases. And some things do need a large number of dimensions; the smallest known counterexample to Borsuk's conjecture requires 298 dimensions.
3D does mean you need more advanced mathematics to do the graphics, but that's only "hard" in the sense that a math problem is hard if you don't know how to do it--and usually easy if you do. If the reason that developers are sticking to 2D is that they don't have anyone on staff who knows linear algebra or multivariable calculus, then I wouldn't count on them being able to make a content-rich 2D game, either.
Just because the graphics are 3D doesn't mean that the physics has to be. In Guild Wars, for example, it isn't. If a 3D game doesn't allow two characters to be in the same (x, y) location but one clearly above the other, then it's highly probable that the game's internal physics computations are purely 2D. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of 2D games with 3D physics.
Graphics and physics computations are completely independent. Collision detection between arbitrary objects is intractible, so physics computations assume that everything is a fairly simple object. If it's 3D at all, then it's probably a sphere, cylinder, or box--and for the latter two, with an axis parallel to the z-axis.
As for artwork, it depends. For me, making 3D art assets is easier than 2D. If I wanted to make 2D, I'd start with 3D and project it into 2D. For an artist who is good at drawing on paper but doesn't have good 3D intuition or doesn't have much in the way of math skills, 2D art assets might well be a lot easier than 3D. But it's not a clear-cut case of one always being easier than the other. And even if drawing a still picture is easier in 2D, is it still easier once you want to animate it?
Originally posted by Icewhite How about a content-rich game with no graphics at all?
For that there is always MUDs.
http://mudstats.com I guess is a good site if anyone wish find one, personally trying out Aardwolf.
Shhh. Yes, that's what I was getting at.
Hanging around this site, and listening to the complaining, I become more and more convinced that some people just need to escape the limitations of MMOs in general, and go back to the birthplace of the genre.
If graphics really aren't important to this person, why cling to them at all?
I think most people aren't able to let go of the graphic aspect same as most people don't read books these days (sadly), they say they don't care about the graphics but in fact they do and they don't want to try it out but instead clings onto their hopes of the perfect game.
Linkrealms isn't a bad example. I played a few years ago in beta...looks even better now. Crafting was pretty detailed and animations were really nice. You should read up on it. I remember the world seemed like large square patches of realms. You could even design your own realm. Almost seemed like it would end like a patchwork quilt of many different players realms that could be travelled through. Whether the developer added more persistent world areas as well is unknown to me.
Recently built a new computer with 3930k processor, too much memory and (2) 670 gtx 4gb video cards in it. Having said that ..... as of late the game that has given me the most enjoyment has been "TOWNS"
I certainly like shiny 3d graphics, but, it doesn't trump game play. Not by a long shot ....
Originally posted by wordiz I was just thinking last night that I'd take a game with Link to the Past graphics if it offered all the right elements. Graphics killed the MMO star.
Sure. A lot of people would take dated graphics if the game offered exactly the gameplay that they were looking for.
But dated graphics doesn't make it more likely that a game will offer the gameplay that you're looking for. It's not like 2D graphics enable you to magically create the game mechanics that everyone wants even though lots of different people want mutually exclusive things.
A 2D game that you dislike isn't any better than a 3D game that you dislike. (In fairness, it's not any worse, either.)
I think im lost on how your assessing the 2D versus 3D game building. I have dabbled with building both (total novice) and it would seem to me drawing in a 2d space is a huge time saver as compared to building a model, animating it and than slapping textures on it, also if you throw armor on it are you going to have those little graphic spikes shooting out from bad joint placement. Where as 2D games are draw, draw armor, done, the hardest part was getting the armor piece to line up with the character while moving.
Also with 2D, we are only looking at 2 axes where as 3D has 3 axes. The complications from adding a third axes we can assume make the game 33% harder to make, or maybe 50% depending on your point of view there. Also with 2D games you can almost completely forget about physics, or if you have physics you only have to work in 2D.
In general it seems to me that a 2D game just seems like a much easier game to design, draw, and program, but that is all based on my very weak experience trying to make indy games.
The tools are all built for 3D graphics. So is the hardware. Whether you're using DirectX or OpenGL, even if you want to make a 2D game, you probably use 3D tools to get there. So that's certainly not an advantage of 2D.
Assuming that 50% more dimensions means 50% harder is complete nonsense. Linear algebra works about the same in any positive, finite number of dimensions, though some things go awry if you want to deal with infinite dimensional cases. And some things do need a large number of dimensions; the smallest known counterexample to Borsuk's conjecture requires 298 dimensions.
3D does mean you need more advanced mathematics to do the graphics, but that's only "hard" in the sense that a math problem is hard if you don't know how to do it--and usually easy if you do. If the reason that developers are sticking to 2D is that they don't have anyone on staff who knows linear algebra or multivariable calculus, then I wouldn't count on them being able to make a content-rich 2D game, either.
Just because the graphics are 3D doesn't mean that the physics has to be. In Guild Wars, for example, it isn't. If a 3D game doesn't allow two characters to be in the same (x, y) location but one clearly above the other, then it's highly probable that the game's internal physics computations are purely 2D. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of 2D games with 3D physics.
Graphics and physics computations are completely independent. Collision detection between arbitrary objects is intractible, so physics computations assume that everything is a fairly simple object. If it's 3D at all, then it's probably a sphere, cylinder, or box--and for the latter two, with an axis parallel to the z-axis.
As for artwork, it depends. For me, making 3D art assets is easier than 2D. If I wanted to make 2D, I'd start with 3D and project it into 2D. For an artist who is good at drawing on paper but doesn't have good 3D intuition or doesn't have much in the way of math skills, 2D art assets might well be a lot easier than 3D. But it's not a clear-cut case of one always being easier than the other. And even if drawing a still picture is easier in 2D, is it still easier once you want to animate it?
So, I just want you to know that this is all friendly and I am not looking to delve into the angry bits of debate. What I was talking about in 2D and 3D is vector calculations for position. It is one thing to say if vector x and y collide with this object in space than stop player and a different thing to say it with 3 vectors. With 3 dimensions you also add such features as jumping. Completely, fakable in 2D, unless side scrolling, but adds alot of things that must be taken into account for the character getting stuck or falling through terrain, how to handle collisions, etc.
I understand your linear algebra comment except for the how they could not make a content rich 2d game without it. Only thing I could think of is position, velocity, and acceleration vectors really needing to "go deep" into linear algebra. I would say most other things would just require basic algebra. But I would totally accept an example of a linear algebra based system in a 2D game because I can not think of one other than the previously mentioned vectors which honestly would probably only consist of the position and velocity vectors.
So, I guess it would be a matter of preference on what sort of art style is easier for the developer, If you need to see 2D animation I refer to flash videos on youtube as a reference. If 3D was easier than I would think there would be more 3D animation videos from random bored youtubers. Although it could be due to the amazing fighting skills of stick figures :P.
I reposition my argument on the basis of QA would be easier on a 2D game because there would be less possible errors without having to consider the 3rd dimension and how the predefined shapes will actually react when they are not perfectly aligned during collision (I have personally never fallen through a 2D world probably due to the impossibility of falling since there is no third dimension. I have fallen through the world in a 3D world). I am also sticking with the 2D art assets are easier but I think we should agree to disagree and that it depends on training and preference of the developer. As clarification, I call 3D games with out jumping 2.5-2.7D games, since they are only 3D in the sense of art and maybe camera angle but not access to the world around you.
One final question for you sire. From what I can gather from your posting, you believe that it is not the limitations of labour of creating a 3D game that causes content and features to be lacking in games but that developers just do not want to make them? Or we as consumers dont want them? or something like that. Just looking for your insight since you seem passionate and well informed.
Originally posted by Icewhite How about a content-rich game with no graphics at all?
For that there is always MUDs.
http://mudstats.com I guess is a good site if anyone wish find one, personally trying out Aardwolf.
Shhh. Yes, that's what I was getting at.
Hanging around this site, and listening to the complaining, I become more and more convinced that some people just need to escape the limitations of MMOs in general, and go back to the birthplace of the genre.
If graphics really aren't important to this person, why cling to them at all?
I actually stated I like pretty graphics in the original statement. Sorry to be confusing, I do like graphics I was just saying I would take "downgraded" graphics for more features and interesting things in the game. I guess this can be brought to the extreme of no graphics for "The best feature rich game ever" but that would break my problem with loving pretty graphics. Such a conundrum I am in...
So, I just want you to know that this is all friendly and I am not looking to delve into the angry bits of debate. What I was talking about in 2D and 3D is vector calculations for position. It is one thing to say if vector x and y collide with this object in space than stop player and a different thing to say it with 3 vectors. With 3 dimensions you also add such features as jumping. Completely, fakable in 2D, unless side scrolling, but adds alot of things that must be taken into account for the character getting stuck or falling through terrain, how to handle collisions, etc.
I understand your linear algebra comment except for the how they could not make a content rich 2d game without it. Only thing I could think of is position, velocity, and acceleration vectors really needing to "go deep" into linear algebra. I would say most other things would just require basic algebra. But I would totally accept an example of a linear algebra based system in a 2D game because I can not think of one other than the previously mentioned vectors which honestly would probably only consist of the position and velocity vectors.
So, I guess it would be a matter of preference on what sort of art style is easier for the developer, If you need to see 2D animation I refer to flash videos on youtube as a reference. If 3D was easier than I would think there would be more 3D animation videos from random bored youtubers. Although it could be due to the amazing fighting skills of stick figures :P.
I reposition my argument on the basis of QA would be easier on a 2D game because there would be less possible errors without having to consider the 3rd dimension and how the predefined shapes will actually react when they are not perfectly aligned during collision (I have personally never fallen through a 2D world probably due to the impossibility of falling since there is no third dimension. I have fallen through the world in a 3D world). I am also sticking with the 2D art assets are easier but I think we should agree to disagree and that it depends on training and preference of the developer. As clarification, I call 3D games with out jumping 2.5-2.7D games, since they are only 3D in the sense of art and maybe camera angle but not access to the world around you.
One final question for you sire. From what I can gather from your posting, you believe that it is not the limitations of labour of creating a 3D game that causes content and features to be lacking in games but that developers just do not want to make them? Or we as consumers dont want them? or something like that. Just looking for your insight since you seem passionate and well informed.
Thanks for the good replies!
I went through the old NES games I have sitting here. I count 18 of them that are "3D" in terms of three-dimensional positions being relevant. Double Dribble, Marble Madness, Super Dodge Ball, StarTropics, TMNT 2... well, you get the point. The NES launched in 1985 in the US, and was based on the Famicom that launched in 1983 in Japan. It simply couldn't handle the graphics that we think of as "3D".
As for internal computations, whether your graphics are "2D" or "3D", if you're using modern tools, you're not only guaranteed to have places where you have both 2D and 3D vectors as internal steps, but also 4D. (If you're using an off-the-shelf game engine, the 4D stuff with homogeneous coordinates in RP^3 may be covered up so you don't see it, but it's still there for technical reasons.) And probably also 1D, though that depends on the precise details of what you're doing.
You talk about jumping being "fakable" in 2D, but you're looking at it all wrong. There isn't some "real" way to do graphics and some fake alternatives. All of computer graphics, whether 2D or 3D, is completely fake. Trying to mimic the way things work in the real world is nearly guaranteed to result in a game that is unplayable on even the highest end hardware. Doing graphics is all about finding methods that give final pictures that look nice (though internal steps assuredly will not!) while running fast. What it looks like and how fast it runs are all that matters, and thinking of it as "fake" as though that were a bad thing means you'll have no hope of getting anywhere.
You don't know what mathematics you need until you need it--and happen to already know it. If you come across a problem that requires mathematics that you haven't seen before, you might realize that you can't solve it, but probably not what methods you'd need in order to solve it.
Let's grab a problem I ran into for the game I'm working on: given five points on an ellipse, find the center of the ellipse and the length and direction of its axes. That's 2D, but good luck solving it without linear algebra.
Whether or not there are more possible errors when doing 3D rather than 2D, there are so many errors possible that it's not clear that there is a meaningful distinction. When 3D graphics have bugs, they tend not to be subtle. The first time you compile something, there's a pretty good chance that it immediately crashes, and debugging is just a matter of figuring out what is causing the crash. Even if it does run, if the internal steps are wrong, they'll probably be wildly wrong: building walls that are completely missing, or perhaps far outside of the building entirely, tree branches that don't come even close to connecting to the trunk, gaping holes in the ground that let you see the "sky" below the ground, etc. Stuff like that won't even make it to QA because the programmer will figure out that it's wrong inside of five seconds, and then set out trying to fix it.
As I said, the mathematics necessary to do rudimentary 2D graphics, such as the flash animations you mention, is much lower level. You can do 2D graphics on high school mathematics, while you really need linear algebra and multivariable calculus to do 3D graphics. But if the reason a game is doing 2D graphics is because they don't have anyone with even the basic math background to do 3D graphics, don't you think that's going to cause problems elsewhere in the game? Graphics is hardly the only area where competence in mathematics matters.
-----
"From what I can gather from your posting, you believe that it is not the limitations of labour of creating a 3D game that causes content and features to be lacking in games but that developers just do not want to make them? Or we as consumers dont want them? or something like that."
What very commonly happens is that game developers have a bunch of cool ideas for features that they want to implement. But then when they go to implement it, they discover that they can't, so they have to cut it. Or it's too expensive to implement it, so they cut it. Or they do implement it, but the way it works as implemented is nothing like what they imagined. Or it just doesn't mesh with other features that they want to keep. Or they can't play balance it. Or the game is behind schedule and over budget (what game isn't?), and they're forced to start cutting things, and innovative things are more risky and more likely to be cut.
As you know, players have lots of cool ideas for games. But so do game developers, and if anything, an average game developer has better ideas than an average player. But coming up with ideas isn't the hard part. Everyone and his neighbor's dog can do that. The hard part is implementing them and making them actually work. That's what the overwhelming majority of players can't do, and even the game developers who do it for a living constantly struggle with.
The problem with innovative game ideas usually isn't "what if no one likes it?" Rather, it's "what if we can't do it?" Or "what if it unbalances other things?" Or "what if we can't debug it?" Or "what if it takes ten times as long to implement as we think?" Features that lots of other games already have implemented are, by definition, features that aren't that hard to implement. That's why so many other games have already been able to implement them. If no one has tried something before, then you don't know how hard it will be until you try it--and might learn that it's vastly harder than you expected. If it's your own money on the line paying for development, that matters.
I'm not privy to the internal deliberations that go on when determining what features a game will have. But I'd be absolutely shocked if a lot of the games that we think of as "WoW clones" wouldn't have been vastly more innovative if only the developers had been able to implement everything they wanted rather than having to settle for what they can make work on time and on budget.
I have been thinking lately, I would play a pretty 2D game with alot of feature more than a 3D game with none. Now maybe this is because I am a girl, but I like my characters to look pretty. One of my problems with Wizardry is it is so brown. Now games like Fiesta have tons of colors and really draw my eye, but they are 2D. So, I guess for the sake of this post, pretty = colorful.
Now to the point, I would rather play a pretty 2D game with tons of features then what we are usually given as 3D games. I would even choose one over a pretty 3D game. What I am saying is that alot of the games that get released today are 3D and lack alot of the "world building" qualities I want. I want to make and design a house, in the actual world, make communities with my friends in the game world (not an instance), farm, fish, whatever in the real world.
I believe that when we went to 3D games alot of the assests of the game started going to 3D modeling and textures. I believe this because everytime you see a indie 3D game, the color palette consists of grey, red, and an ample amount of brown. So they must be cutting corners on making good textures and models cause they cost to much.
MMO's have come a long way in looking good, but I think we can all agree that we have hit a wall with features. A common excuse for this is, we do not have the technology available to support it. Well why dont we down scale all our pixel and polygons and just flatten them? Lets go back to 2D and make a really great game. No one will not be able to play it and if you make the world really interactive than why not?
Thanks for reading this far, sorry for the rant
*If you skipped everything else*
I personally would play a really feature rich, totally alive, good looking 2D game over what we have been getting as 3D games. The point of this post is why dont we see really feature rich 2D mmos that can do everything since they dont have to waste time on graphics as much? Why do we need 3D? Would you also play a 2D game with everything over the 3D games we get with nothing?
I've been saying this for years now , let's see if a female gamer with pink text can change the MMO world just a tiny bit.
Wall of text from me, which if you read the Quizzical response youll be able to read this. It is all chronological.
Wall of well thought out text from Quizzical (read original it was informative)
Thanks for the well thought out response. I still do not completely agree with you, but we are humans and we are unique. What I do appreciate about your posts though is that they make me think and now I must start a new thread about engineering in video games. Maybe I will see you there!
I agree, most of the mmo's of late focus too much on making it look pretty and not nearly enough on the more important part which is the gameplay. Game can look as pretty as it wants, but if the gameplay sucks, the game still sucks no matter how good it looks.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Originally posted by Siveria I agree, most of the mmo's of late focus too much on making it look pretty and not nearly enough on the more important part which is the gameplay. Game can look as pretty as it wants, but if the gameplay sucks, the game still sucks no matter how good it looks.
So, discard graphics entirely. And whatever's left is, by definition, pure gameplay.
Oh, well, you do have to be a fair typist. But a couple of months of text-based makes everyone a pretty fair typist.
(And no, I'm not terribly serious. There are advantages to text-based games, but they don't tend to outweigh the drawbacks, for most folks. Still, every time you read a "omg community" thread...Massive looks just a little bit less attractive.)
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Comments
Shhh. Yes, that's what I was getting at.
Hanging around this site, and listening to the complaining, I become more and more convinced that some people just need to escape the limitations of MMOs in general, and go back to the birthplace of the genre.
If graphics really aren't important to this person, why cling to them at all?Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The tools are all built for 3D graphics. So is the hardware. Whether you're using DirectX or OpenGL, even if you want to make a 2D game, you probably use 3D tools to get there. So that's certainly not an advantage of 2D.
Assuming that 50% more dimensions means 50% harder is complete nonsense. Linear algebra works about the same in any positive, finite number of dimensions, though some things go awry if you want to deal with infinite dimensional cases. And some things do need a large number of dimensions; the smallest known counterexample to Borsuk's conjecture requires 298 dimensions.
3D does mean you need more advanced mathematics to do the graphics, but that's only "hard" in the sense that a math problem is hard if you don't know how to do it--and usually easy if you do. If the reason that developers are sticking to 2D is that they don't have anyone on staff who knows linear algebra or multivariable calculus, then I wouldn't count on them being able to make a content-rich 2D game, either.
Just because the graphics are 3D doesn't mean that the physics has to be. In Guild Wars, for example, it isn't. If a 3D game doesn't allow two characters to be in the same (x, y) location but one clearly above the other, then it's highly probable that the game's internal physics computations are purely 2D. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of 2D games with 3D physics.
Graphics and physics computations are completely independent. Collision detection between arbitrary objects is intractible, so physics computations assume that everything is a fairly simple object. If it's 3D at all, then it's probably a sphere, cylinder, or box--and for the latter two, with an axis parallel to the z-axis.
As for artwork, it depends. For me, making 3D art assets is easier than 2D. If I wanted to make 2D, I'd start with 3D and project it into 2D. For an artist who is good at drawing on paper but doesn't have good 3D intuition or doesn't have much in the way of math skills, 2D art assets might well be a lot easier than 3D. But it's not a clear-cut case of one always being easier than the other. And even if drawing a still picture is easier in 2D, is it still easier once you want to animate it?
I think most people aren't able to let go of the graphic aspect same as most people don't read books these days (sadly), they say they don't care about the graphics but in fact they do and they don't want to try it out but instead clings onto their hopes of the perfect game.
Linkrealms isn't a bad example. I played a few years ago in beta...looks even better now. Crafting was pretty detailed and animations were really nice. You should read up on it. I remember the world seemed like large square patches of realms. You could even design your own realm. Almost seemed like it would end like a patchwork quilt of many different players realms that could be travelled through. Whether the developer added more persistent world areas as well is unknown to me.
http://www.linkrealms.com/ (site link)
http://youtu.be/yOS3SfrT8Ew (video link)
Recently built a new computer with 3930k processor, too much memory and (2) 670 gtx 4gb video cards in it. Having said that ..... as of late the game that has given me the most enjoyment has been "TOWNS"
I certainly like shiny 3d graphics, but, it doesn't trump game play. Not by a long shot ....
~Harrysun
http://www.straightdope.com/
Yes, I noticed Wurm Online having a third dimension, too. Strange.
So, I just want you to know that this is all friendly and I am not looking to delve into the angry bits of debate. What I was talking about in 2D and 3D is vector calculations for position. It is one thing to say if vector x and y collide with this object in space than stop player and a different thing to say it with 3 vectors. With 3 dimensions you also add such features as jumping. Completely, fakable in 2D, unless side scrolling, but adds alot of things that must be taken into account for the character getting stuck or falling through terrain, how to handle collisions, etc.
I understand your linear algebra comment except for the how they could not make a content rich 2d game without it. Only thing I could think of is position, velocity, and acceleration vectors really needing to "go deep" into linear algebra. I would say most other things would just require basic algebra. But I would totally accept an example of a linear algebra based system in a 2D game because I can not think of one other than the previously mentioned vectors which honestly would probably only consist of the position and velocity vectors.
So, I guess it would be a matter of preference on what sort of art style is easier for the developer, If you need to see 2D animation I refer to flash videos on youtube as a reference. If 3D was easier than I would think there would be more 3D animation videos from random bored youtubers. Although it could be due to the amazing fighting skills of stick figures :P.
I reposition my argument on the basis of QA would be easier on a 2D game because there would be less possible errors without having to consider the 3rd dimension and how the predefined shapes will actually react when they are not perfectly aligned during collision (I have personally never fallen through a 2D world probably due to the impossibility of falling since there is no third dimension. I have fallen through the world in a 3D world). I am also sticking with the 2D art assets are easier but I think we should agree to disagree and that it depends on training and preference of the developer. As clarification, I call 3D games with out jumping 2.5-2.7D games, since they are only 3D in the sense of art and maybe camera angle but not access to the world around you.
One final question for you sire. From what I can gather from your posting, you believe that it is not the limitations of labour of creating a 3D game that causes content and features to be lacking in games but that developers just do not want to make them? Or we as consumers dont want them? or something like that. Just looking for your insight since you seem passionate and well informed.
Thanks for the good replies!
I actually stated I like pretty graphics in the original statement. Sorry to be confusing, I do like graphics I was just saying I would take "downgraded" graphics for more features and interesting things in the game. I guess this can be brought to the extreme of no graphics for "The best feature rich game ever" but that would break my problem with loving pretty graphics. Such a conundrum I am in...
I went through the old NES games I have sitting here. I count 18 of them that are "3D" in terms of three-dimensional positions being relevant. Double Dribble, Marble Madness, Super Dodge Ball, StarTropics, TMNT 2... well, you get the point. The NES launched in 1985 in the US, and was based on the Famicom that launched in 1983 in Japan. It simply couldn't handle the graphics that we think of as "3D".
As for internal computations, whether your graphics are "2D" or "3D", if you're using modern tools, you're not only guaranteed to have places where you have both 2D and 3D vectors as internal steps, but also 4D. (If you're using an off-the-shelf game engine, the 4D stuff with homogeneous coordinates in RP^3 may be covered up so you don't see it, but it's still there for technical reasons.) And probably also 1D, though that depends on the precise details of what you're doing.
You talk about jumping being "fakable" in 2D, but you're looking at it all wrong. There isn't some "real" way to do graphics and some fake alternatives. All of computer graphics, whether 2D or 3D, is completely fake. Trying to mimic the way things work in the real world is nearly guaranteed to result in a game that is unplayable on even the highest end hardware. Doing graphics is all about finding methods that give final pictures that look nice (though internal steps assuredly will not!) while running fast. What it looks like and how fast it runs are all that matters, and thinking of it as "fake" as though that were a bad thing means you'll have no hope of getting anywhere.
You don't know what mathematics you need until you need it--and happen to already know it. If you come across a problem that requires mathematics that you haven't seen before, you might realize that you can't solve it, but probably not what methods you'd need in order to solve it.
Let's grab a problem I ran into for the game I'm working on: given five points on an ellipse, find the center of the ellipse and the length and direction of its axes. That's 2D, but good luck solving it without linear algebra.
Whether or not there are more possible errors when doing 3D rather than 2D, there are so many errors possible that it's not clear that there is a meaningful distinction. When 3D graphics have bugs, they tend not to be subtle. The first time you compile something, there's a pretty good chance that it immediately crashes, and debugging is just a matter of figuring out what is causing the crash. Even if it does run, if the internal steps are wrong, they'll probably be wildly wrong: building walls that are completely missing, or perhaps far outside of the building entirely, tree branches that don't come even close to connecting to the trunk, gaping holes in the ground that let you see the "sky" below the ground, etc. Stuff like that won't even make it to QA because the programmer will figure out that it's wrong inside of five seconds, and then set out trying to fix it.
As I said, the mathematics necessary to do rudimentary 2D graphics, such as the flash animations you mention, is much lower level. You can do 2D graphics on high school mathematics, while you really need linear algebra and multivariable calculus to do 3D graphics. But if the reason a game is doing 2D graphics is because they don't have anyone with even the basic math background to do 3D graphics, don't you think that's going to cause problems elsewhere in the game? Graphics is hardly the only area where competence in mathematics matters.
-----
"From what I can gather from your posting, you believe that it is not the limitations of labour of creating a 3D game that causes content and features to be lacking in games but that developers just do not want to make them? Or we as consumers dont want them? or something like that."
What very commonly happens is that game developers have a bunch of cool ideas for features that they want to implement. But then when they go to implement it, they discover that they can't, so they have to cut it. Or it's too expensive to implement it, so they cut it. Or they do implement it, but the way it works as implemented is nothing like what they imagined. Or it just doesn't mesh with other features that they want to keep. Or they can't play balance it. Or the game is behind schedule and over budget (what game isn't?), and they're forced to start cutting things, and innovative things are more risky and more likely to be cut.
As you know, players have lots of cool ideas for games. But so do game developers, and if anything, an average game developer has better ideas than an average player. But coming up with ideas isn't the hard part. Everyone and his neighbor's dog can do that. The hard part is implementing them and making them actually work. That's what the overwhelming majority of players can't do, and even the game developers who do it for a living constantly struggle with.
The problem with innovative game ideas usually isn't "what if no one likes it?" Rather, it's "what if we can't do it?" Or "what if it unbalances other things?" Or "what if we can't debug it?" Or "what if it takes ten times as long to implement as we think?" Features that lots of other games already have implemented are, by definition, features that aren't that hard to implement. That's why so many other games have already been able to implement them. If no one has tried something before, then you don't know how hard it will be until you try it--and might learn that it's vastly harder than you expected. If it's your own money on the line paying for development, that matters.
I'm not privy to the internal deliberations that go on when determining what features a game will have. But I'd be absolutely shocked if a lot of the games that we think of as "WoW clones" wouldn't have been vastly more innovative if only the developers had been able to implement everything they wanted rather than having to settle for what they can make work on time and on budget.
I've been saying this for years now , let's see if a female gamer with pink text can change the MMO world just a tiny bit.
Thanks for the well thought out response. I still do not completely agree with you, but we are humans and we are unique. What I do appreciate about your posts though is that they make me think and now I must start a new thread about engineering in video games.
Maybe I will see you there!
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
So, discard graphics entirely. And whatever's left is, by definition, pure gameplay.
Oh, well, you do have to be a fair typist. But a couple of months of text-based makes everyone a pretty fair typist.
(And no, I'm not terribly serious. There are advantages to text-based games, but they don't tend to outweigh the drawbacks, for most folks. Still, every time you read a "omg community" thread...Massive looks just a little bit less attractive.)
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.