JMT’s Retro Games

2D vs. 3D Gameplay Mechanics and Graphics Style

Posted on December 6th, 2008 by JMT.
Categories: Articles.

There’s two key factors at play here.

1. Game mechanics
2. Graphic style

 

1. Game mechanics.

This is basically whether the gameplay itself is 2D or 3D. For instance, a 1st person shooter is simply only playable in 3D. And there have been some great 3D FPSes. Also, simulation games like flying and driving from a 1st/3rd person perspective have seen much improvement as 3D engines better match the more “realistic” gameplay.

However, just because every game *can* be 3D nowadays doesn’t mean that *should*. What developers don’t understand is that a 2D platform is just as valid of a gameplay mechanic as a 3D platform. But because the consoles can pump a trillion shaded textured polygons a second means we have to use that for every game, which means they only bother to make games based on 3D game mechanics.

There have been good 3D platformers. But there have been many more excellent 2D platformers. Platforming in 2D gameplay mechanic is still a worthwhile concept for a game. Developers just don’t seem to care.

Even though FPSes tend to work better in 3D, it doesn’t mean the 2D FPS (like NES Punisher or Cabal or T2) isn’t also a valid gameplay. And just like 2D platform is an entirely different gameplay mechanic and gameplay experience from 3D platform, so is 2D FPS from 3D FPS. But the developers don’t seem to understand that they are *different* gameplay styles that can coexist. They seem to think that 3D is purely an upgrade from 2D, and 2D is purely a downgrade from 3D, and therefor 3D is the successor and 2D is no longer necessary. But it’s not true, because they are entirely different styles of gameplay, and both have value.

The game engine used in the original 2D (faux 3D) road rash series is a completely different game engine than the full 3D incarnations. And again it is clear that they are simply different, and the 3D is not the successor with no turning back. This is evident in the fact that the fun factor of the gameplay on the original 2D versions is far superior to the game play on the 3D offerings.

And don’t forget that the 2D (spy hunter, micro machines) and ISO (R.C. Pro-Am, Rock’n'Roll Racing) gameplay mechanics for driving games are also completely different gameplay mechanics from the 3D driving games, and like the previously mentioned styles, have been completely abandoned these days. But again, the gameplay mechanic is unique. 3D driving is not an upgrade from 2D driving. It’s a completely different mechanic altogether. The 2D gameplay can still provide unique and fun game experiences.

And like the Playstation’s ignomonious D-Pad and button-layout, some specific gameplay mechanics that simply suck and have done more to destroy gaming than E.T. continue to be reused ad-nauseum. Basically I’m referring to the 3rd person platformer/shooter. After 13 years and thousands of games, nobody has yet managed to design a camera that doesn’t suck a full 34 feet. I’m pretty convinced by now that it’s near impossible. It can only be developers complete ignorance of other options for platformers gameplay mechanics that allows them to continue to churn out every new game to use a 3rd person view.

 

2. Graphic Style.

Ignoring gameplay for a second, there are basically two ways to make graphics. Sprites and texture mapped shaded polygons. It just so happens that 3D gameplay most easily fits with a polygon graphic engine, and 2D gameplay tends to be associated with sprite-based graphic engines.

Polygon-based graphic engines have several limits. For one, they abide by real-world physics and optical properties. But games aren’t real, and it’s not always necessary for the optical physics of a proper 3D environment to be emulated in a game. They also suffer from morphing. This is where the 2D textures are wrapped around 3D surfaces. Sure there’s a gazillion tricks to make it look more realistic. But there’s still no 3D engine that you can’t look at and instantly tell it’s 3D graphics. They also suffer from zooming. The texture is a fixed size, but since the world is often free-roaming, you can end up zooming in optically to objects beyond the resolution of the textures, resulting in blurry effects or jaggad features.

Sprite based graphics have different limits. These are mainly resolution and color, but also memory which limits how big the on-screen sprites can be. But the artist can draw anything (within the resolution and color limits) and animate it in any way they want. There’s no concession for having to model the shape or motion with polygons and physical models. It’s easier to aminate 3D movements using polygon graphics, but you can simulate any motion with 2D graphics just by creating a series of frames of animation. You can even make sprites photorealistic. And you don’t have to model the physical limits of a sprite with a polygon shape first.

Polygons are limited by the triangle filling power of the processor, which is why early attemps on the 1st gen 3D systems (saturn, 3DO, PS1) were awful to look at. Though I’ve always had a sweet spot for the simple un-textured polygons of the SegaCD/32x era.

Sprites are limited by the color palette of the graphics processor. Sure on the atari and 8-bit systems, we didn’t get much to look at, so gameplay took precedence. And that is why nearly all of the 2D gameplay styles (block-puzzle-clone, breakout-clone, mario-clone, commando-clone, gradius-clone, xevious-clone, contra-clone) were perfected during this era. And almost all of the key franchises that are still being reitereated today originated during that era. But by the time we got 16-bit systems with 100s (wow) of colors., we got some very nice looking sprite-based graphics.

What would 64-color sprites possibly give us that photorealistic lighted textures can’t? Color, and contrast! Low-color sprites tended to use brighter, bolder colors, and also used colors further separated from each other in the color spectrum. It made things moke more interesting and catchy to the eye. It provided more contrast and texture to the pixture, to see the harsher edges between colors and features. Sure 16-million are nice, but if it just means using 1000 shades of brown and grey in your 3D FPS, I don’t call that pretty eye-candy.

Even the SNES sometimes used it’s high color palette to its disadvantage. Take the Super Mario All-Stars for instance. The original block-based sprites of SMB on the NES had bright color and contrast. On the SNES SMB, all the blocks use the larger spectrum of colors to blend the colors on the blocks together. The reduction in texture and contrast makes the game feel more washed out, smooth, and less colorful.

That’s not to say that a high color palette can’t be good for a 2D game. For instance, some of the 2D fighters on the dreamcast used high-color count and still looked great, like Fatal Fury MotW or SFA.

I personally think that much of the ‘prettyness” of 2D sprite graphics peaked on the Saturn. They still used lots of color and contrast in the graphics on that system.

But some of the mid-color games still make exellent eye-candy today, such as the Sonic games on the Genesis, and many of the Genesis shooters, like Eliminate Down, Hellfire, and Musha.

But it doesn’t end there. Remember the graphcs style and gameplay mechanic are independent factors. What happens when you put 3D graphcs on a 2D gameplay? Well, if you like 2D gameplay, you get the gameplay you like. However, you’re stuck with the problems of 3D graphics, which is that you have to form the shape out of polygons first, and then wrap textures around it. It simply never will be as pretty as 2D. For instance, all the recent 3D versions of 2D shooters (raiden, darius, castle shikagami, r-type etc) just don’t have the detailed, colorful look of the old sprite-based versions. Sure you can create a bunch of cool effects with the new graphics engines. Volumetric rendering, transparency, light effects, etc. But all it really tends to do is clutter the screen so you can’t tell what’s smoke or lighting effect, and what’s an enemy bullet coming your way. Sometimes 2D game mechanics are easier and less confusing to play with sparser, simpler sprite-based graphics.

 

Now some will point out the plethora of really crappy 2D platforming games, and it’s true. After the success of Mario and Sonic, developers went 2D platformer mad and cranked out shitty game after shitty game. But it’s just the sheer quantity of 2D platformers that came out between 86 and 96 that means that there will of course be a large quantity of crap. But some of the most excellent platform games were also created during that time.

SMB, DDP, SMB3, StH1,2,3,K,CD, contra, contra 3, SOR, metal slug, earthworm jim, cool spot, comix zone, aladdin, castlevania, battletoads, TMNT2, ninja gaiden, DKC. There’s a lot of other very good ones, but these ones definitely top the excellent list.

And as you can see, they all are series that they continue to (and fail to) make attempts to create 3D platform games based off of. The 3D contra, EWJ, castlevania, and sonics are pretty universally reproved. Sure some 3D marios and NG games have been successful. But they are completely different gameplay animals from the original. They are similar only in name, and do not in any way provoke the same style of entertainment as the originals (not to say they don’t invoke a new style of entertainment, it’s just an unrelated style).

 

The 3D platform games we get these days tend to be either:

 

RPGs masquerading as platform-action games

- These are those platform games that pretend to be action-platform style, but really all the action is scripted by cutscenes. You perform one action like pick up a coin or find a lamp or kill an enemy, and advance through the sripted game engine. The new Wii Mario Galaxy is like this. Sure the gamplay engine is amazing. But the “action” is so scripted and too quest-like, that beneath the surface it still lacks something. Sure it’s good in its own right, but it’s not the same as having to go beginning to end stomping shrooms and dodging hopping turtles. Mindless, but addictive!

 

Hach’n’slash masquerading as platform-beat’em’up games

- These are the games that are completely mindless. You just mindlessly jam the attack buttons and wiggle the analog stick while you wait for the 3D engine to slowely animate your sword back and forth and fight through endless waves of regenerating baddies. Sure there were hack’n’slashers in the 2D days as well (and games like Super Smash TV were quite fun too). But it seems that the real genra of beat’em’ups which required more deliberate action, evasion, ans special moves (like SOR and final fight) has been completely supplanted by the hach’n’slash genra.

 

Of course there are more traditional 3D platform games, like SA on dreamcast, rayman 2, klonoa, pandemonium. But 20 years from now, people will still play SMB and StH 2D on their cell phone ocular implants. How many 3D games haven’t been lost in the quest for improved graphics? Seems that once the PS3/XB3/WII are out, the fanboys are ready to forget all the old shitty graphics of the PS2/XB/GC.

It is also true that there were few good 1st person shooter 2D games. Really, the only game that I rate as “excellent” is the NES punisher. Never a game has been made that quite matched the perfect “balance” of that game (kind of like no 3D FPS has recreated the perfect “balance” of the original doom). But T2 is darned fun anyway. And there’s a PAL-only game for Genesis called Bodycount that’s pretty cool, and it supports both the menacer and mega-mouse for 2P fun. But yeah, most of the ‘fun” ones were light-gun based. Like lethal enforcers, that’s quite fun. Oh, there was a PC game for Predator 2 in the 90’s that was 1st 2D shooter, and that was really cool, and used the mouse to point and shoot.

In the end, gameplay is really all that matters. Too often these days, due to the requirement of having cutting-edge graphics - as the fanboys will refuse to pay any attention to something with yesterdays look - gameplay comes in second, or third too often. (and by “fanboys”, I’m just using that to refer to the small selection of people like a couple of posts I saw on blog where they’re like “how can you actually enjoy playing a 2D game when there are 3D games now? You must be a geek who needs to get laid”. I mean those kind of people…).

1 comment.