Why 2D gaming died?

[pixelFreak]

I want you to answer some simple questions:
Why 2D games died? Would you like to see big game developers making good old 2D games?

Maybe died is not the right word, maybe it's having a little nap. Because it's not completely dead. But playing Sam & Max in 3D does not make me have the same feeling as good as first game. You know, 2D games had a very different look and feel. They did not require a 512MB graphics card. They were gorgeous crafts of pixel artists.

Nowadays, 2D gaming is generally kept alive by independent surroundings. Like AGS community etc. I think possibilities to make a different 2D game has increased because of physics engines.

My only complaint is commercial game developers have mostly yet almost completely went to 3D. It would be good to have old feelings in new technology. Or maybe I'm wrong and I'm a completely dino ( altough I'm only 19! ). Correct me if I'm wrong and tell me if you have some kind of similar feelings like me.

My opinion about my question:
2D games are a bit dead because pixel art is very time consuming and 3D is easier to animate and shade. Dev's can focus more on programming and photoreality. They make hardware intense games and graphics card manufacturers can sell more complex cards, and thay can have more $$$. So, it's about money more than art!

[Babar]

2D gaming has not YET died, even commercially.

Buy a gameboy. Or a DS. Or one of the more popular phones. Many of the games will be in 2D

[InCreator]

2D dead?

Flash!
Why vectors took over sprites, I see well - it's so helluva easier to animate.

But 3D? I wouldn't say that 3D replaces or is any alternative to 2D really. Atleast full, 360-degrees 3D. It's a thing by itsself and everybody played Wolfenstein 3D even at the time when 2D graphics was at its peak and raycasters had no competition in terms of looks. I mean, early 3D games were really UGLY.

But why then? Realistic freedom, I think. Instead of looking at a room at given angle and see what you are meant to see, you can actually move around the room and look things from your own angle. It makes things more interesting, exciting, etc.

See, and out of 10 game developers, how many would choose more interesting over less interesting? Gamers do not really need photorealism, but something interesting and new to do.

Like physics. 2D physics never get even near 3D physics. Half-Life 2, in terms of playability, is actually quite average, has boring and seen-before weapons and mostly generic enemies. But what difference physics makes!

I we'd list most exciting things in gaming world, things that really made difference and are sometimes even loved if rest of the game sucked, it would be something like cursing and flying in Duke Nukem 3D, bullet time in Max Payne, gravity gun in Half-Life 2, etc...

Also, 3D was destined to come. Even if first-person-shooter genre would never happen, every driving/flying/etc simulator is unthinkable in 2D. Without them going 3D, we'd be still in 1980.

Long story short, 3D has more chance to have something exciting in it, and even if not, ability to freely explore game world counts very heavily.

I still enjoy a well-drawn 2D game, and I never erase my NeoGeo roms (2d animation without vectors near it's highest humanly limit). But now it's feeling more like looking at art in a museum, not everyone "gets" that.

3D is more often than not... cheap. No amount of shaders and hi-res photo textures can really make up for artistic 2D drawing. But you see, gaming industry is money industry. And art costs too much to make.

[Buckethead]

2d games haven't died. In fact they are starting to popular again. And I don't know why lots of people say 3d is cheaper to make. This is so not true. If you wanted to make Kings quest in the VGA style for example it would be much easier and cheapter to do then make Gears of war 3. Adventure games are not really popular in general but does it need to be? We have Adventure games paradise right here 

[Ghost]

Aye, 2D is neither dead nor dormant, it has just shifted focus. Back when I was a lad you could buy a slew of 2D games in the shops, now it's all on the internet, and actually the number of 2D games has increased in the past few years.

As for that decond part- 3D being easier and so on, have you ever thought how much time you need to model, texture and animate even a simple 3D character? I daresay a spriter could achieve great results in pretty much the same time and on a lower budget!

[InCreator]

As for that decond part- 3D being easier and so on, have you ever thought how much time you need to model, texture and animate even a simple 3D character? I daresay a spriter could achieve great results in pretty much the same time and on a lower budget!

It is not comparable. For example, giving 2D character all animations typical 3D character has would take LOT more time.

And what if you after animating decide to change something? Or simply put other clothes on character?

It is not comparable. 3D has it's own ups and they seem to be huge pretty often.
For another example, 3D levels. You can draw few days a high-res background and decide that no, that tree or house won't go there and light is all wrong.

In 3D, you simply move house to new location and change light.
In 2D, you hang yourself from mouse cable.

Again, it's not that simply comparable.
I'd love to see a 2D renaissance though. With modern high resolution and much more powerful tools, it would be wonderful.

Interesting, I feel that modern big question is not 2D vs 3D, but in programming: new games suck, no matter what graphics.
Nobody is able to remember what made games actually fun and how little of graphics did it really need.

[eternal_renegade]

I see good points and bad points here.

You see on a graphical aspect, setting up the world works kind of like a movie. You actually can use lights and the lights will light the objects and cast shadows.

But I think creating models that work well takes just as much time and patience and really is a different work ethic.
You can give objects different surfaces that will change how light will effect it, define how it is shaped, how it looks, etc.
It's really a more detailed process in general, however with easier functionality, I feel it can allow developers use more of their creativity.
2-D or 3-D is not what makes a game great, it's up to the developer and what he/she does with those things.

[Ghost]

It is not comparable. For example, giving 2D character all animations typical 3D character has would take LOT more time.
And what if you after animating decide to change something? Or simply put other clothes on character?

Point taken, but count in stuff like motion capturing, equipment and processing of 3D models, and you still get a LOT of overhead to deal with (texturing alone!). You're right in saying that 2D graphics require a lot of "hand-crafting" while a 3D model, once created, can save you time, but I think people really underestimate the time a model takes to be made.

Nobody is able to remember what made games actually fun and how little of graphics did it really need.

And that sentence, in these forums, just makes me smile in a good way. We're keepers of the flame, ain't we? 

[Khris]

To answer the question (why commercial 2d gaming died): companies make games not to entertain people but to make money. And the most money is made using as much eye-candy as possible (same concept works for Apple, btw, think iPod: the most expensive & restricted way ever of hearing music outside the house, but everybody bought the little pieces of colored shit).

My roommate, who certainly isn't the ego-shooter-only gamer, keeps telling me that game_x would be better/more fun if they had made it a 1st-person game, regardless of the genre, age or game play.
When I showed him Fallout 3, he complained about the combat being too slow or something stupid like that; when I explained to him that it's a fuckin' RPG, he kept blabbering about how they could've made it better by making a shooter out of it. He wasn't able to grasp that the game is of a completely different genre.
He loves the old Age of Empires Games, or Indy3 (not as much as Indy 5&6, of course), so not all hope is lost, but he's pretty much the average gamer out there today.
Show him a random screenshot of a "rich 3d world" and he'll go "ahh, uuhh, me wanna play" without even having a clue what the game's about or how good it is.

People like him are the reason MI, GK, StS and other series went 3d, and downhill. To them, 2D = old = bad. Unfortunately, they are the majority of potential buyers.

There are exceptions though, check out Crayon Physics and World of Goo, two prime examples of excellent, recent, commercial 2d games.

[Ultra Magnus]

the most money is made using as much eye-candy as possible [...]
Show him a random screenshot of a "rich 3d world" and he'll go "ahh, uuhh, me wanna play" without even having a clue what the game's about or how good it is.

This is pretty much it.

Most people buy games based on very little information - a couple of screenshots, a trailer, maybe a short demo - and graphics are the first impression the games give.
It doesn't matter if the gameplay's pants, because by the time they figure that out they've already bought the game.

Conversely, a game could be the best in the world ever, but nobody will know that if they don't buy it.

Graphics are like the picture on the box, it's just a shame that lately the prettiest boxes have had turds inside them.
Can't judge a book by it's cover, and all that.

[Wonkyth]

 I ask another question: what can be done about the fact that the only preview that your going to get of a game before you buy it is a graphic one?

To me, the answer is borrow the game from a friend first, or buy a well pronounced classic that people were raving about 5 years ago.
I find it sort of works, and thanks to this method, I've come across games like Myst and Heroes Of Might and Magic 3.
but that's not a real answer to the problem, is it? No.

you could always try the reviews, but however funny Yahtzee and other reviewers might be (no offence), few are actually useful when it comes to actually forking out $100 for a game that someone you hardly know raved about.

That's probably why I'm such a big fan of Shareware...

[Oliwerko]

Exactly. Modern gaming people buy games because of their looks, not because of their gameplay. People wouldn't play an old game even if it has superb gameplay, because it looks old.

That's why I still have pieces like Floor 13 around on my HDD and others don't even know what Floor 13 is.

[Layabout]

It is not comparable. 3D has it's own ups and they seem to be huge pretty often.
For another example, 3D levels. You can draw few days a high-res background and decide that no, that tree or house won't go there and light is all wrong.

In 3D, you simply move house to new location and change light.
In 2D, you hang yourself from mouse cable.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with that statement.

Firstly, you would plan your location properly. Make sure your composition is right.

It would be about 10 minutes work to move a tree in 2D.

And about 8 of it would be deciding where to move it to.

But yes, 3D assets are great since you don't have to redraw that lamp-post 18 times, you just import your pre-made lamp-post model. But the time to model, unwrap, texture, normal map and spec map and whatever other maps your engine uses, you would spend a looooot more time on that lamp-post than you would if you had to draw that lamp-post 38 times.

I've seen some very artistic 3d models. Not necessary from games, as unfortunatly most commercial games ARE about how many minute details can I fit into this SUPER BUFF SOLDIERS armour, regardless of how impracticle it may be for Gorthor to be wearing decorative armour with sharp bits that have the potential to dig into ones skin, or shoulder pads with 13 spikey spiraled appendages which would poke your eyes out if you looked left. But returning to my original point, I've seen 3d that looks like an illustration due to very artistic texturing. Never see a realistic human character since no-one can pass the uncanny valley.

Back on track, 2D games are being made and released every day. Just go to any casual game portal and look at the screenshots. Very rare for a casual game to use 3d graphics, as the audience, according to our friend Dave, does not like 3D graphics and associate such as 'gamer' games... Which they do not play. Or want to be associated with. And unlike gamers, the casual audience are pretty choosy. They get a great variety of games, they get to try said games for 1 hour.

So no, 2d games are not dead.

'nuff said.

[pixelFreak]

As for that decond part- 3D being easier and so on, have you ever thought how much time you need to model, texture and animate even a simple 3D character? I daresay a spriter could achieve great results in pretty much the same time and on a lower budget!

Plus there is also a ecological loop between the manufacturers and developers. Most of them advertise ATI or NVIDIA or INTEL at intros of games. So 2D games changed dimension by the natural selection =)

With the flash revolution, 2D games morphed into vectors and that really sucks. I know, we are in 2009 and it would be a shame if we were playing still 2D game. Maybe, soon a virtual reality machine will pop from somewhere.

Only brilliant 3D ultrarealistic graphics doesn't make a game beautiful. A game must also have a spirit. You know, while playing Yahtzee's games, I feel I'm going to shit in my pants. Does it use Source engine or something? Todays game developers must think that way and maybe invent some different genres or make it unique. Because it's getting too repetitive.

[InCreator]

But yes, 3D assets are great since you don't have to redraw that lamp-post 18 times, you just import your pre-made lamp-post model. But the time to model, unwrap, texture, normal map and spec map and whatever other maps your engine uses, you would spend a looooot more time on that lamp-post than you would if you had to draw that lamp-post 38 times.

So we never agree on this. What if you have 30 lamps? What if the light they get is all different? Shade & color 30 times? Or simply duplicate 30 times and get automatic light & shadow?

I'm a personally able to model this lamp with all needed maps quicker than draw some.

XFader tiles your photo texture in 2 clicks. NVidiaNormalMap plugin creates nice-looking fake normalmap in 2 clicks also. Specular maps is a bit of desaturation and adjustment in photoshop. It's not THAT time-consuming! Even if you make normals out of high-poly models (normal way), check out on videos on Zbrush. It takes minutes to make heavy stuff. Taken you have a company and ten modellers / artists under command, in pure 8 hours, I believe progress would be noticeable and probably bigger than giving em' tablets and forcing to draw.

Ever made heightmaps? A whole land (area) from World of Warcraft can be made in hour or two.

Unless you're making some sick artistic billion-poly stuff that you cannot even render in real-time. But we're talking about games, aren't we?

[Layabout]

Bah! Using a photo texture is cheating. I may as well use my stock 2d lamp-post photo, copy and paste a few times and adjust the lighting and highlights. Bob's your Fannies Uncle.

Depending on the technique used, 2d and 3d scenes can take a similar amount of time. Esp with photoshops vanishing point thingmabob and layers. 2d artists don't have to draw what the camera can't see, where as 3d, the camera can see every angle.

Even Sam and Max, which primarily uses a fixed point camera which only really dolly's left and right with the occasional pan. Cutscenes you can see the background.

I have no idea what my point is other than to agree with you that they aren't comparable.

2d can be crap or it can be sexy.
3d can be crap ot it can be sexy.

[Wonkyth]

2d can be crap or it can be sexy.
3d can be crap ot it can be sexy.

I like that so much that I'm gonna make that my new quote!

[blueskirt]

I don't think it died, it's just that unlike in the older days, makers can now choose between 2D and 3D while in the past they didn't have that choice. With the rise of casual gaming and indie games like Braid, World of Goo or Crayon Physics in the video games related medias and the fact that recently some developers have finally realised that some genres are better off in 2D and other genres are better off in 3D, like Capcom did with Mega Man 9, I believe 2D has a very bright future in front of it. At least brighter than 8 or so years ago, back when everyone mindlessly jumped in the 3D bandwagon, at the detriment of many genres and franchizes.

[ALPHATT]

The majority of low budget shareware games ar in 2D.

[Wonkyth]

Probably because 2d is much easier to think in.