{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/19/2013 6:15:14 AM
6
2D vs 3D games
*All assumed under comparisons of video games within the same genre*
I was having an argument over youtube about the meaning of a successful video game, if it is possible to objectively rate games on their level of "greatness," or the level of good quality that it possesses. We then transitioned to the idea of whether or not 2D games and 3D games can offer the same type of experience, and whether they do or don't, does one of the two offer more than the other in terms of "greatness."
I said it's impossible to provide the same kind of experience. I also thought that the max potential for "greatness" in a 3D video game outperforms the max potential for "greatness" in a 2D video game. But I thought about it and i'm not quite sure it's true.
The youtube video was simply an ost for Majora's Mask. So naturally the discussion entailed the Zelda series. Can you objectively critique a Zelda game and identify it as a good or bad game? Can you compare the experience found within the Zelda series of a 2D Zelda game and a 3D Zelda game? Can you achieve the same type and/or the same level of experience found within a 2D zelda game and a 3D zelda game?
We can expand these questions to shooters, rpg, RTS, etc.
-
I've never been into 2D Zelda games, because the 3D games are so immersive. If you play Ocarina of Time, then go over to a 2D game, it feels like the overall experience just dropped like a rock.
-
1 Reply[quote]I was having an argument over youtube[/quote]Should have stopped right there. That's the exact moment when you know that you've lost. Nobody in any argument over Youtube wins. Everyone who participates is a loser. Save yourself the trouble in the future. OT: No, you can't objectively rate a game as a whole. It is impossible as a game as with any other work of art. It is only possible when specific attributes of the game are being compared. Even then that mostly falls into the technical realm (which game is better optimized, etc). It is incorrect to say that the "max potential for greatness" in 3D games is more than that of 2D games, since the potential is irrelevant. Attempting to compare the merits of two games is difficult enough; trying to compare the possible artistic merits of games that do not exist is absurd. Never-mind the fact that 2D or 3D in itself is always a conscious design decision. No one can be said to be "better", as a pencil can be called greater than a pen. The closest thing you can do is argue why you feel that X game provided a more compelling experience than Y game. It can never be said that one is definitely better. Only that you can try to best articulate the appeal of your particular favorite as best as you can for the sake of bettering your own understanding of what makes you enjoy a game.
-
Good points. I was thinking that if someone was a video game designer, someone who develops a video game has a certain goal in mind, something that a developer would like to deliver to a gamer through the art that is the video game. As "art" in the traditional sense is much more abstract, art as a game has a particular method to use and a goal to achieve (through that method). For example, one could say that the design of the Zelda series is to help put a gamer in the shoes of a hero. To make the gamer feel like they are exploring a new world with a story and quests that develop the hero. The devs may want the player to feel engaged in the story and its combat, and feel sufficiently satisfied when completing the game. Point is, one could ultimately "rate" this Zelda game as good or bad depending on whether or not the goals of the devs were met. And to figure out what exactly is needed in order to fulfill the developer's goals, it could likely suffice to formulate a basis of criteria on what would make the goals a reality. In the specific case of the Zelda game, an action-adventure puzzle solving game, one could imagine basic criteria to include something like these: - thoughtful and engaging dungeon puzzles. - fluidity and originality in combat - Developed story - Side story development - cohesive, relate-able side missions that add to the main So let's say in order to achieve that dev's goals for Zelda, to the highest degree, each of the goals above (not exclusive to these, obviously) must be met. As these game devices could be said to be integral to the successful immersion of the gamer in Zelda. I think to a certain point, the rest of the rating for a game comes from the gamer. How much a gamer resonates with a particular game's style, settings, and whatnot, could add to the "greatness" of the game. Those attributes, however, aren't objective criteria that have a basis in rating the game as positive or negative additions to the game. This is how we (at youtube) transitioned to the idea of the 2D and 3D video games. In particular with Zelda, assuming that the goals of the devs are the same in the zelda franchise, whether it be a 2D rendition or a 3D one, is it possible for someone to create a 2D zelda game that can provide the same type of experience found in a 3D Zelda game? Is it possible for a 2D Zelda game to capture the same level of experience that a 3D Zelda game would offer?
-
2D games are better than 3D games.
-
When I first played Link to the Past, it was the greatest game I had ever played until that point. Yes, I do think some 2D games can offer the same experience as 3D games.
-
9001D games
