Are developers afraid to make 2D games on Consoles now?
 

It seems this way. I know there wasn't always the power to make 3D games but now that there is, you don't see any 2D games on consoles.

Only really on the GBA. Do developers think it's a waste of power to make a 2D game on a big console or something.

Or do they think it won't get as many sales as a 3D game would.

I'd play a 2D game, but only if it were hi res. You see how people lately are going apeshit for a copy of Ikaruga.

You certainly can't slap a $50 pricetag on a 2D game, however.

Most game developers like to have an unrestricted perspective. Even games froma 2D perspective still use 3D graphics. One of the reasons is >99% of all 2D graphics are sprite based, meaning if you look closer, the sprite will look blockier. If 2D games are to evolve, they'll need to use vector based graphics (as best seen when you zoom in on a flash movie). 2D gaming is a niche market and is made now from a primarily artistic a standpoint, much like black and white movies are.

Publishers are afraid to publish games mainly because they won't sell. And for the most part, they're right.

People can tolerate 2D games on the GBA because "The GBA is a 2D system"

I think there's a bit too much emphasis on graphics these days for many 2D games to be developed any more. I also agree about the pricing; it wouldn't make good sense to stick current game prices on essentially completely linear games. I remember the first PSX platformers like Pandemonium! were £40-£50 at first launch, and that was a 2D game with pretty poor 3D backgrounds and not the best collission detection either.

Back when games were really cheap and graphics were not so important 2D games were perfect, but now they're not so influential. Of course, I'm sure if a really good innovative 2D game came along it'd be pretty popular; but developers must realise that a pretty large section of their target market is putting at least some emphasis on graphics and it seems increasingly on games with some level of freedom, 2D games aren't really so fitting any more.

Another reason 2D games were made so often back in the early 90's is the fact that most gaming systems couldn't handle good looking 3D. Now that games such as Unreal Tournament 2007 and MGS4 are coming out, it's easy to see why people don't make 2D games anymore, they have great looking 3D games.

Sony refuses to release 2d games outside of japan, only in compilations (think of Metal Slug 4 & 5). And theres hardly any profit gained by releasing non-mainstream games on other Xbox/GC. So 2d games are limited to japanese PS2 goodness.

Sprite-based games can also be much more work.

Not really, with most recent RTS games, all they did was convert the 3D images to sprites, then do the same for various angles and frames. Now a hand drawn style 2D games, that would be a lot of work.

I still demand a 2D Castlevania on the PS2. The level of sprite animation, glowy effects and bells 'n whistles I want to see on that game is astronomical.

The short answer: Sony won't let anyone make 2D games on the PS2.

The long answer: Sony won't allow 2D games because they honestly don't sell, and Sony doesn't want to dilute their console library with "bad" games, which is how the Atari was undone. That attitude used to infuriate me, but now I can't really blame them for that. Bear in mind, we are no longer the mainstream of video gamers. The average consumer sees a game with 2D graphics, says "Those graphics look like shit, they're not in 3D" and bypass the game entirely.

It's a sad state of affairs, but that's reality. 2D games aren't made anymore because people won't buy them. (Most) game companies are interested in making good games, but more importantly they want to make money. So, they make games that make money. If that means frontloading a game with flashy FMVs and special effects for summoning monsters at the expense of coherent storytelling and gameplay, then that's what they'll do - because the consumer base eats it up.

What about Viewtiful Joe? It was released because it looked 3D, right?

Viewtiful Joe sold. And it sold pretty well on the PS2. I don't know how much people warmed up to the sequel but personally I liked it.

It's thought that in approximately 6 years (I think) that console graphically technology will peak and there will be no more need for more console updates. When this happens, games will be able to have graphics that look so realistic, it will fool you into thinking it is real life. As soon as this happens, I reakon everyone is going to go 'wow! well we've got the graphics the best they can be! Err okay, lets start making games with good gameplay again', and then the 2d games will come back, because everyone will be soooo thirsty for them! Raarh!

I've always thought of that happening as well.

When graphics get as good as they are gonna get, then people are going to want to spend $100 (I'm guessing that will be the game price then) on a game with great gameplay and not buy a game solely because of graphics.

Wrong.

It will shift from graphics to whatever kind of gimmick technology may allow for the player to literally become a part of the game.

People are just graphic whores, that's all. I buy my games base on gameplay and storyline.

I thought of that option but then I thought, gamers have a limit to how much they will pay for a system.

Especially, the peer pressure issue. It's "geeky" to pay a lot for basically anything unrelated to clothes or cars.

I guess this is sort of going into another category but it has to do with why Virtual reality like stuff wouldn't fare so well. Unless it's cheap, which it most likely won't be.

We'll just have to be content with 2D games being made by small developers and as freeware products. After all, has AM radio made a comback for playing music?

Well, small developers are just going to stampeded into non-existence. Now, more than ever, you gotta have the big bucks to create something "qualified" to be on the newer consoles.

Which reminds me, who the hell is funding TREASURE, LoL. They consist of like, six people.

Sega, Nintendo, Konami =\

There's a reason they don't make any original titles anymore :(

Some games I find representative of 2D graphics (and gaming) at it's best:
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island 1996?
StarCraft 1998
Age of Empires II 1999
Heroes of Might and Magic II 1997
Sonic The Hedgehog 3 & Knuckles 1993 & 1994
Sonic CD 1993
Super Metroid 1994
Chrono Trigger 1995 (and most other Square games made for the SNES during 1995 and 1996)
Gunstar Heroes 1993

Feel free to critique and add suggestions to the list.

Good ol' Street Fighter II for the arcades and for the SNES.

I have a hard time considering anything that isn't flat and hand-drawn to be 2-D. StarCraft looks 3-Dish to me.

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/ima.../08/667508.jpg

"Tonight I dine on turtle soup."

Dope game.

StarCraft uses no 3D effects. In fact, DOOM is not true 3D as evident by the sprites and level layouts. Anything that is pre-rendered and doesn't use 3D models is 2D. StarCraft does use the 3rd dimension, but so does some side scrollers (you can move up-down, left-right and move back and forth in the environment without moving higher up).

Most, maybe even all of the 2D games that come out nowadays are arcade fighters. They get alot fo cash while they're in the arcades in Japan, but don't sell nearly as well when they reach consoles. Considering that the US has a declining arcade scene and a bad record with 2D game sales on modern consoles, I can understand why some publishers would be hesitant.

Hell yeah. In my opinion, Castlevania is meant to be a 2D game.


Personally, I think a lot of companies are ruining their games. Megaman is meant to be 2D, as is Castlevania, and Sonic. Well, that's how I see it atleast.

Not everything is best in 3D, and there is still great gameplay that can not be done with 3D. If one day I truly saw that 2D was done, I'd probably give up new games not in protest, but in depression. I'm worried sick that 2D Metroid might be coming to an end, considering the (rightly deserved) success of Metroid Prime and the end of the GBAs life cycle (the DS might be one of the last great 2D systems, but even it gets more and more 3D-centric each day).

- WraithTwo -

I want to see a Castlevania using the graphics engine from GGX.

But then it'd just be an stupid anime.

::stupid teardrop forms next to Alucard's head::

I think game developers should use the graphics that would better suit the game that they are making. I dont wanna play a game in 3d that would be more functional in 2d.

To me, theres still alot of potential in 2d gaming.

Graphics will plateau when we reach FFX CG levels of quality, and that won't be for a while, and by then another "goal", so to speak, will have arisen for graphics. The industry is noticably turning towards physics and interaction in games, with the PS3 (by nature of it's processor) and Revolution (because of it's controller and rumored PPU) leading the way.

I highly doubt 2D will climb back on top, especially with public perception about those times of games as it is. High resolution sprites and backgrounds coupled with next gen effects would be damn nice though.

Pretty much from here on out most 2D games made will go for a highly stylized artistic look, which is how games should look anyways. Playing a game that looks like a crappy summer blockbuster (movie) would only show how much we lust for games where people look and move realistically.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...bdog/dkjb1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...bdog/dkjb2.jpg

The best game of this generation is 2D

Thread over... :kitsune:

I don't think its so much an idea that 3D looks better than 2D, its just that 2D can be seen as an extremely limited medium when compared to 3D. Though most hardcore gamers would disagree, I think a lot of developers still aim to do something new and different with their games, and 2D simply does not offer a good platform to do that. 2D has been around for a long time, and if you think about it everything that could be done in 2D space has pretty much already been done and there really isn't much variety in genres when confined to two dimension.

Most games I think would be rather better as sidescrollers aka 2D(or 3D but still 2D to a degree.) such as Metroid and other games such as as those.

Except that's 2D games with 3D enviroments, idiot. Klonoa was one of the first games to see this in and now it's spread like fucking aids.

Why can't people be satisfied with the obscure, unpopular, and possibly japanese 2D games which we still see. I'm sure Disgaea didn't sell because of it's 3D battle levels, oh no.

And that's what Cetra was getting at.. that's pretty limiting. Metroid Prime 2D probably would've been a completely different experience, far less immersive than what we've got now. How many 2D side scrollers have we seen since gaming started? Things would have to get pretty gimmicky for them to start becoming popular again.

Elixir no need for name calling now, it's still 2D in a sense since sidescrolling(I think that is what that game is) is 2D shape...

And yes I know MP and MP2 would have been totally different but then again, at first I cursed at how they made it into a FPS, now I'm totally like it after playing it for a year or so.

That's like calling Ikaruga a proper 2D game. Face it, if the backgrounds aren't 2D, it isn't a true 2D game. Killer Instinct Gold is another example of how they managed to make a game which has sprites and 3D enviroments.

There isn't that many purely 2D-based games available these days, but that's bcause the gaming industry is rubbish now.

3D background, not environment. The gameplay is 2D.

Is Super Mario Bros 3D because the pipes have shadows?

Only 'classic' because you grew up on them. A 3D title can be just as timeless, enthralling and captivating as any game.

You can have shadows in 2D games without having models.

Well, I'm always happy with 2D sidescrollers with 3D backgrounds.

I feel it's a good way to stay update with graphics and keep some good sidescrolling gameplay.

If a game has the ability to have 3D backgrounds then I say go for it. It can really only get better.

Namco keeps the 2D dream alive on current consoles.

"Well boys, Dreamcast is here"
"NAMCO MUSEUM AND MR. DRILLER"
"Yes, yes!"

"Here's PlayStation 2, I think Sony said something about this being four thousand times more powerful than the human brain"
"It needs Namco Museum"

"GameCube and Xbox are due out soon, we should think about making some new ga-"NAMCO MUSEUM FOR BOTH"
"You're on a ROLL"
"ALSO, we'll make .. MR. DRILLER for GameCube"
"Whoa whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves here"
"Hey guys how about we make a new 2D game?"
"What, and waste precious time in thinking how to release the same four games over and over again? What are you, some kind of dickhead? You're fucking fired"

Who the fuck cares what the backgrounds look like as long as the game is still played solely on the X-Y axis. 2D is still 2D.

And yes, Grubdog, that game was incredible.

I've read a few articles that mentionned that even though some developers still want to make 2d games, it's this ideology that the game won't sell that holds them back nowadays.

Instead, 2D games are still well alive on handhelds, and will probably remain that way for some time to come. I mean Treasure, (the developers behind Ikaruga, Gunstar Heroes) focus mainly on handhelds these days, and they make some of the best 2D games around.

It's quite obivious that some developers lost their talent trying to make the switch from 2D to 3D (the Sonic Team being a good example, though the Sonic Adventure games were great). Anytime you try to make a 2D franchise 3D, something is lost in translation.

No no, they don't allow 2d games period. At least SCEU doesn't. Metal Slug 3? The cream a la cream of the series, it was more of a piece of art then a game itself with all the stuff they creamed into it (it featured much, MUCH more ideas and almost perfect implementations of them then many 3d games do today) - and they didn't allow the USA release because it was a 2d game. It was released in Japan, in Europe, on the Xbox, but not on the USA PS2. They don't want "graphically inferior" games or some such bullshit.

2D games are still being made and released in Japan, and they are doing fine and dandy. There's just the fact that outside Japan, clever marketing can create a much bigger hype to a game, ultimately selling it even if its a turd. And what's easier to hype then fancy graphics? Do a fancy techdemo and label it Metal Gear Solid xy and you will instantly grind the sales of the competition to a halt even if your machine is not out yet. It's all about the hype, and you can't create enough hype with a 2d game for it to sell outside of Japan.

At least in Japan they actually care about the game itself so thats not a danger there, and we can still get some awesome 2d titles every now and then.

SCEA has largely been anti-2D since the original PlayStation cam out in 1995. In fact the only reason so many 2D games came out on the PS1 &PS2 is either because they were ports of excellent PC/16bit games or the fact that the developer probably begged them to accept their game. Outside of sidescrolling games, 2D is completely dead because the perspective fits 3D games so well (like in RTS games and other isometric games).

They were pushing 3d graphics as a selling point for the original Playstation, because the Saturn completely blew the ps1 out of the water for 2d gaming. That way they killed a potential selling point of the Saturn with hype alone, and it didn't matter that 3d games looked like a turd on the Playstation because by the time the better hardware came out, they could shift their marketing to "look, we have more games! It's the games that matter".

Ironically they could do something similar with the Playstation 2 a generation later.

As for why they still do the anti-2d marketing thing, they are probably retards or something. It's not like they want to stop crap games filling the market, because they can have just as many shitty two-bit 3d titles (and they do).

I don't see what's so hard to understand. No matter how realistic it looks, he's got the idea.

X. Y. No Z.

I honestly wish that more 2D games would come out. Right now people have such a hardon for graphics that something gets forgetten in the process: Actual gameplay and enjoyment. When 2D games were in their heyday, that's what developers had to focus on when making the game, since 2D graphics would only take them so far. It became up to the game itself to determine if it were good or not, rather than the pretty screenshots put up to sell the game in advance.

Me, I find most 3D games very ugly, and really wish that there would be a push to either produce better games or go back to when games actually meant something.

I miss the fun that games used to have. Playing Gauntlet or Contra or R-Type or Tetris for hours on end. What is there now that compares? Not too terribly much, and when a game gets re-made 3D, it mostly ends up sucking hardcore. There are a few exceptions (I enjoyed Pitfall 3D), but they all seem to "lose" something in the translation, and end up being far worse than the older originals. It's too bad really.

This argument must be printed on the backside of every cereal box or something for it to get recycled so often.

The problem is that this argument is flawed. You see in the conditional you've used the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent.

We can break this into 2 seperate arguments:

If a game has good graphics
Then it is not the case it has good gameplay
(P > ~Q)

If it is not the case a game has good graphics
Then it has good gameplay
(~P > Q)


P Q |(P > ~ Q) > (~ P > Q)
T T | T F F T| T |F T T T
T F | T T T F| T |F T T F
F T | F T T T| T |T F T T
F F | F T T F| F |T F F F

Using this truth table shows that there is at least one interpretation which is false which means this is not a truth-functionally true argument. That means to make the claim that games presently being released have non-existent gameplay because they have good graphics is false. You need to revise your argument.

Back in 1994 there was this gem of a game called Flashback: The Quest for Identity. Apart from having a very engaging plot and great gameplay it was also an absolute technical showpiece. It used motion captured animation along with animated cinematics and the graphics were stunning! Truly a game ahead of its time. To say this game’s graphics back in the ‘heyday’ were limited is rather meaningless because 10 years from now it’s quite conceivable that we’ll be saying the same thing about HALO and <insert game here.>

Christ boris, get your shit together if you're going to make such sweeping arguments. Metal Slug 4+5 were released in the US. Capcom's Street Fighter Anniversary Collection - marketing focused solely on the inclusion of Street Fighter 2 - was released in the US. The Arc the Lad games were released in the US. The Megaman collection was released in the US. All 2D games.

It's true that Sony does a lot of arm-twisting to companies that want to publish 2D games here. They pretty much have to be published as collections to get sold. Sony disallows any 2D games at all unless they think the games will turn a substantial profit. 2D games appear mainly in collections with the reasoning that consumers will be more willing to plunk down their money if they think they're getting a lot for their money.

Ergo, Street Fighter stands pretty much on its own because it's a classic title, though I suspect Sony might've had a little something to do with Capcom throwing in a port of SF3.3 as a bonus. Metal Slug 4 + 5 have to be sold together because Sony (rightfully) doesn't think they'll sell well individually, and is why Metal Slug 3 alone got passed over. And so on.

Hahahahahaha

You want me to dig up the weekly sales records from Japan showing licenced shit like the Full Metal Alchemist games and One Piece fighting games perpetually sitting at the top of the list? Or hell, just look at the wild success of Dragon Quest 7. Japan's mainstream audience is just as asinine as consumers here. The only reason that 2D games are allowed to flourish in Japan - assuming they're even any good, as a lot of games don't get ported because they're crap - is because there's no expensive licensing and localization issues involved.

I understand what you're saying JackyBoy. I'm not saying that all games that are 3D suck for gameplay, nor that all 2D games are great. What I am saying is since 3D is the accepted style now, it seems as if all gameplay elements and the things that make games fun seems to have taken a back seat to prettifying a game. It makes it easier to sell a game if it's pretty, simply due to magazine adds and such that can advertise your pretty graphics.

2D games had a limitation to how gorgeous they could be (although developers were always pushing that limit somewhat). Thus, the game could focus more on the actual gameplay in development, rather than spend all its time making a pretty CG scene or making the background flawless. Of course there are exceptions to everything. Look at God of War or Devil May Cry. Both absolutely stunning games that were fun to play, and both 3D. They problem is these games are more the exception than the rule. 2D games that are released in recent times tend to be much better than 3D games (I'm not stating a fact here, simply opinion... :) ). The problem is those 2D games, although great looking for their style, simply can't compete with the 3D games and their "leet" graphics.

A simple (opinionated, of course) example is this: Look at Final Fantasy VII and compare it to Final Fantasy VI. Everybody and their dog loves Final Fantasy VII (except me, heh). They think it is the epitomy of games. For many games it is the first Final Fantasy game they've played, let alone their first RPG. When told there are earlier games, they eagerly jump to them...only to say they suck because they aren't as pretty. That's where the problem lies. They are the "mainstream people". The hardcore gamers know that this is not true, but games are a big money business and developers will put out games to what the mainstream audience wants, which means too much 3D and not enough "game".

Please do notice that all of those were released in compilations, and not as standalone games. There was even a big fuss about Sony not allowing them to release them as standalone games, and they have to go and pack them together just so they are allowed to sell the games. "retro collections" are okay, but A STANDALONE TWO DIMENSIONAL GAME? FUCK NO!
My point is, that they allow noname crap with ps1 level of graphics and atari 2600 level of gameplay released if its 3d, but a soon to be 10 year old cult classic shooter needs to be stuck inside compilations just so it is allowed to be released.

Of course you do know that Dragon Quest holds such wild popularity in Japan that they had to pass a law for DQ games not being allowed to be released only on weekends because people were skipping work to buy the game.
Compared to that the USA had the Hot Coffee fiasco: a bunch of soccer moms whom politicians took advantage of in their campaign because GTA San Andreas had leftover code that could be activated to view polygon sex scenes. Which is UNACCEPTABLE for a game that is marked for ages 17 and up.

Mainstream gaming is naturally everywhere, but at least Japanese gamers are much more open to cult games (which 2d classics fall under by now) instead of shunning them in favor of Final Fantasy / GTA / World of Warcraft just based on graphics and hype.

It'll be interesting to see what (if any) 2D PS3 games will look. With vecor graphics or painstakingly hand drawn art, they could look great. With current technology, it would be easy to make a game look like a high quality Anime series, whihc sounds very appealing to me.

Probably because the Metal Slug games take all of fifteen minutes to finish. Perhaps you should go grab the PAL PS2 versions, which were released separately, and cost an arm and a leg.

I am very grateful that SCEE doesn't give a shit about what gets released, though. Euro publishers can get away with anything, such as releasing straight ports of old Amiga games such as James Pond or Impossible Mission on PS2. There's ZERO quality control. It's hilarious.

Well at least you get to try a lot. Most of the crap in the US is big budget and as such makes the PS2's greatest hits have some mediocre games.

You know guys, having spoken to people from places like Sony Europe, it's not that they're morons who can't design decent games that are fun to play. Making a 3D game doesn't automatically mean it'll be less fun, which seems to be the tone of this thread. What ultimately stifles the creation of fun games is the constant striving for greater profitability in an industry that isn't flowing with milk and honey right now. Plenty of companies out there have gone belly-up despite having great portfolios simply because someone bigger and fatter squeezed them out of the market.

I'm not a fan of most 2D stuff with the exception perhaps of Megaman and certain Pokemon games, and I only play those on an emulator anyway. 3D has a lot of potential, which I highly doubt will reach a limit in six years time. FFX CGI is supposed to be realistic? Look out the window and think again. nVidia is aiming for photo-realism and I don't think they'll stop until they have it. Wasn't it them that created a "Spirits Within" realtime demo for their GeForce 4 series?

Anyway, I don't think that very creative and/or fun games will come out except in two alternative circumstances; either it's a small upstart of a company that is willing to risk it all on an innovative game just to get their names out there, or it's a huge and wealthy company that has so much financial security that it can afford to invest in something more radical and accept the risk should it end up a failure.

Well, that's not entirely true. It's the same with most arcade games, it takes hours of practice to get through. You won't be able to get through 3, 4 or 5 within 20 minutes.

Speed Demo Archives have a couple which show somebody completing the first game and X around 15 minutes, but you must consider that that isn't concerning the amount of practice they would of gotten out of the game in order to achieve that initially.

It kind of makes a difference when you have the satisfaction of knowing you've completed a game on a single credit or single life, and then there's the feeling of "well, I went through 100 credits, and this game only took 15 minutes."

Haha, yeah, I oversimplified there. I have nothing against the series, but that's probably how the vast majority of zany 50 Cent Bulletproof consumers out there would see it, hence why SCEA would want them to bundle stuff. Because despite the gameplay, it's just not going to sell.

"THIS LOOKS KIDDY"
"But you shoot the hell out of everyone"
"BUT LOOK AT IT, GONNA BUY ME SOMETHING ELSE"
*Walks out with a copy of Urban Reign*