2D OR 3D?

2D is more of an artistic venture.

3D is very technical.

Boo! ~ Ghost

This RTS bashing... I don't know man. I'm no fan of RTSes. But there's vast differences as long as you go outside the same subgenre. 3d RTSes like Homeworld and Total War (TOTAL WAR WHOHOOO!) would not be possible without the 3d.

Now I look at more modern games like Warcraft III, Age of Empires III, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations, and Empire Earth

Moderna games? The newest one of those is Age of Empires which is from 2005. Look instead at games like Dawn of War 2 (2009), Hearts of Iron 3 (2009), Empire: Total War (2009), Endwar (2009) or Men of War (2009). Now some of these games still use the old kind of style where 2d would do almost just as fine (HoI3 comes to mind, but also DoW2 and MoW), but the fact is that it's a lot less demanding to make 3d so why invest extra time and money to make 2d graphics when 3d are cheaper and allow a lot more customizability and freedom?
EDIT: Oh and Sins of a Solar Empire (2008)!



Speaking of games looking the same though... What about those SNES 2d RPGs?

Shinan

As far as the "modern" choice of word is concerned, the games I mentioned are "more modern" when compared to the RTS games which I found were identifying of themselves. I'd love to play some of the even more modern 3D RTS games you've listed up, but my computer has not aged all that well. ;_;

That aside though, I can't feel it as mere coincidence that RTS games suddenly seemed to become carbon copies of each other with the advent of 3D engines. Maybe the situation is different now, but of the 3D RTS games I've played, none of them (save games like Homeworld and Total War) have really been notable in terms of their uniqueness.

Speaking of games looking the same though... What about those SNES 2d RPGs?

"2D graphics" has many more variations they can manifest as compared to 3D, so that probably alleviates some of the "looks the same" syndrome. Don't quote me on that, though.

The thing about those early 3d RTSes was that they were stuck in the 2d-mindset and thus didn't really do much with the 3d. (Like a lot of early 3d it didn't really do much other than look a lot shittier than 2d).

Of course today 3d looks better than 2d.

"2D graphics" has many more variations they can manifest as compared to 3D, so that probably alleviates some of the "looks the same" syndrome. Don't quote me on that, though.

I just did. Quote you on that. It's not true. I think. If you mean that 2d graphics have more variety than 3d then you're absolutely wrong. Since 3d graphics are 2d graphics with an extra dimension so by their very definition you can do more with 3d graphics.

There's a term that was thrown around a year ago or so called 2.5D. Which is 3d graphics used to make a 2d game. (Bionic Commando Rearmed comes to mind). Combined with stuff like cel-shading it's simple enough to make games that look like old 2d games in 3d graphics. 3d graphics are a lot more versatile than the 2d ones.

Games all looking the same has been a problem for the longest of time. I just look back at those movie license games I mentioned earlier because they are sort of a staple of cheap knock-offs of popular games/genres for any time they've been made. So they're nearly always comparable. Today we see all those actiony third-person games that most of them are either grey and boring or based on kids movies and colourful and boring. The same thing we could see backinthedays. With either dark sprites and environment with pixel-people running around the same boring shooter/platformer levels or colourful sprites doing the exact same thing.

I like both.

This should be more of a discussion about controls because 3d games still have not gotten controls down as well as 2d games. I'm not even talking about pixel based movement or anything, just bad camera issues and having to move around using two control sticks. You're always struggling with the game. Even the simple act of turning around takes way longer than it should in most games. And now you've got motion controls when people haven't even perfected regular controls yet.

You should write a thesis paper on this.

So? It's a pretty fun mechanic that I enjoyed playing with. Odin Sphere is a great - and gorgeous++ - game.

post=131599
So? It's a pretty fun mechanic that I enjoyed playing with. Odin Sphere is a great - and gorgeous++ - game.

I'm not bashing Odin Sphere or anything, just saying that the levels looping (while completely understandable as this game probably killed several animators in the making) really prevent the graphics from being an eternal eye candy.

Speaking of 3D controls

I'm really not sure about the upcoming metroid game: Other M because at first it turns out to be 2.5D game and that seems acceptable, but then it turns out to have a third person behind view in a 3D way....using the dpad. Then there's a first person view and some weird fatality melee moves samus is pulling off. It comes to the point where the only genre I can think of for this game is: action. I thought this would turn out to be a great game despite the obvious departures from the exploration aspects but since the controls don't make any sense (NES style for running around and stuff, aim wii mote for FPS view even though it seems like you'll stand still like in MGS2/3) I'm just.. not sure anymore. WTF was wrong with the super metroid formula?

post=131595
You should write a thesis paper on this.

Theses are documents intended for educated persons to read. A learned man hardly needs to be told two-dimensional games are thoroughly superior - this manner of petty discourse exists along among the pedagogically challenged. I partake in it only for the sake of art.