Does 3D matter?

[Diogenes]

Well Sonic isn't first person now is he?

Obviously that's for reasons entirely different from anything to do with Sonic,

There's no doubt somethings work better in 2D or 3D, but in regards Sonic, it doesn't really matter and it hasn't mattered since the franchise went 3D.

It always matters.

Expansive Sonic levels in 2D tend to exclusively test your skill to decide route, whereas expansive Sonic levels in 3D tend to give you more freedom to choose what route you want to tackle. A very huge generalisation but hopefully you get what I mean.

I don't think this is inherently true. Whether routes are skill based or freely available comes down to how the game is designed; they can both be done in 2D and 3D.

[Scar]

Scar: I have no interest in limiting Sonic to 2D, but the implication that 3D is inherently an advancement over 2D is BS. 3D isn't better, just different; some games work better in 3D, some work better in 2D, some work equally well in both, some only work in one or the other. Choosing not to take a series into 3D doesn't mean giving up on advancing the gameplay, it's just deciding that 3D is not the correct route to take.

That's not what I meant though. I'm saying the idea of limiting Sonic to 2D because "Sonic is better in 2D and the 3D games aren't as good as the 2D ones" (which is bollocks because SA1 and Generations Modern are vastly superior to Sonic 4) is regressive thinking. It is essentially the equivalent of giving up. 3D doesn't provide an inherant improvement over 2D, you're right, but you can do more with it, especially in terms of building a world and gaining player investment. That and, Sonic has seen a fairly conclusive peak in 2D with the classics (whichever you prefer), sure its not perfect and there is still room for improvement, but its still a position which a lot of franchises would envy to reach. Sonic has yet to conquer the 3rd dimension so conclusively though. Its a peak yet to be obtained, and my thinking is that its something that should be strived for, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on that one.

One final thought to end on:

Yes, you can choose to make a game 2D or 3D. Yeah, you could choose to limit Sonic to 2D (as a design choice) and forgoe 3D entirely. But my question is WHY?

Why would you want to do that? What reasoning could you use to justify sticking to 2D?

[Chaos Warp]

As someone who's been with the franchise for over a decade, and played enough games...I'll say that I vastly prefer the 2D games, they just feel the most like Sonic to me, and capture what I love about the series; that however is not to say that the 3D games are terrible, nor should they stop trying, but most of the 3D games are very poorly executed in what they're trying to do and marred down by questionable design choices, not only have the 2D games remained mostly pure in that regard, they're probably the least broken of the series.

Honestly, I see the 3d games as a different take on Sonic, so I don't compare them as much. I still prefer the classics mostly, but I love modern almost equally, and I think Generations is a better game then....say Sonic 1. Sonic 1 is good and all, but I don't think it's on the same level as the rest of the classics.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Chaos Warp

[Diogenes]

That's not what I meant though. I'm saying the idea of limiting Sonic to 2D because "Sonic is better in 2D and the 3D games aren't as good as the 2D ones" (which is bollocks because SA1 and Generations Modern are vastly superior to Sonic 4)

Okay, the worst 2D is worse than the best 3D. So what? The point isn't that either is inherently and inerrantly better than the other. The point is that the best of one may be consistently better than the best of the other, to the point where there's not a whole lot of point of doing the lesser.

3D doesn't provide an inherant improvement over 2D, you're right, but you can do more with it, especially in terms of building a world and gaining player investment.

No, you can do different with it.

That and, Sonic has seen a fairly conclusive peak in 2D with the classics (whichever you prefer), sure its not perfect and there is still room for improvement, but its still a position which a lot of franchises would envy to reach. Sonic has yet to conquer the 3rd dimension so conclusively though.

Have you considered that this may be because Sonic is not as well suited for 3D as he is for 2D? There's certainly a lot to blame on Sonic Team's incompetence and misguided ideas, but what if the problem is bigger than that?

Yes, you can choose to make a game 2D or 3D. Yeah, you could choose to limit Sonic to 2D (as a design choice) and forgoe 3D entirely. But my question is WHY?

If the game works better in 2D than in 3D.

Let's look at Mega Man. They've tried a few times to move the series into 3D, and while I'm not terribly knowledgeable about them, I've gathered that they haven't been particularly successful. And I think a big part of that is that a lot of features of typical Mega Man gameplay do not translate all that well to 3D. Shooting in 3D is a very different beast than shooting in a 2D sidescroller. The pixel-perfect gameplay of the classic series is lost in a world of polygons. The dynamics of the player and enemies "controlling" the screen is entirely different. I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that a good 3D "Mega Man" is not really going to resemble a good 2D Mega Man, not beyond superficial trappings anyway. So if 2D Mega Man is successful, and 3D "Mega Man" becomes a wildly different game, why do it?

Also, counterquestions: Why must a series try to conquer 3D? Why should a series feel obligated to succeed in different perspectives any more than in different genres? Should Sonic also try to conquer top-down and isometric gameplay?

[Chooch]

I won't argue with anyone that Generations was a decent if not good game, but I cant be the only one who craves what was lost after 1995.

Multiple playable characters that aren't forced into an alternate gameplay style? Yeah, me too.

In all seriousness tho', I don't really think either perspective is inherently superior to one another and they both have their own distinct strengths and weakness. That's why I like the current formula that has transitions from 2D to 3D and vice versa.

I don't know, I just don't see anything inherently wrong with either. That's just nonsense. I like having both.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Chooch

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If the game works better in 2D than in 3D.

Let's look at Mega Man. They've tried a few times to move the series into 3D, and while I'm not terribly knowledgeable about them, I've gathered that they haven't been particularly successful. And I think a big part of that is that a lot of features of typical Mega Man gameplay do not translate all that well to 3D. Shooting in 3D is a very different beast than shooting in a 2D sidescroller. The pixel-perfect gameplay of the classic series is lost in a world of polygons. The dynamics of the player and enemies "controlling" the screen is entirely different. I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that a good 3D "Mega Man" is not really going to resemble a good 2D Mega Man, not beyond superficial trappings anyway. So if 2D Mega Man is successful, and 3D "Mega Man" becomes a wildly different game, why do it?

Eh, that's a bit of a muddy area.

Their attempts at making a 2D/3D game for the X series turned out very poorly, mainly because of how the 2D and the 3D felt awkward with the transition. That it didn't seem like any decent effort went into the 3D sections.

Their Megaman Legends is their attempt at 3D done right, but they had to restructure a lot of things with it in it's gameplay to where it is far different from their past titles.

[Diogenes]

I'm struggling to find the part where that differs from what I said.

[Nepenthe]

If the 3D Megaman games were bad because the 3D was done half-heartedly, that implies both an execution problem and an existing potential for 3D Megaman games to be excellent in their own right anyway. Ultimately, that still makes it illogical to blame 3D itself as an inherently negative design decision for Megaman's formula*. In fact, I imagine arguing otherwise for most Polygonal Ceiling cases can really only amount to making the same correlations without causation.

* Until we start getting into whether or not even excellent 3D games in a series are inherently lesser if they're fundamentally different from their original 2D counterparts, but of course I sit on the side of the fence that calls that point bollocks.

[Scar]

Have you considered that this may be because Sonic is not as well suited for 3D as he is for 2D? There's certainly a lot to blame on Sonic Team's incompetence and misguided ideas, but what if the problem is bigger than that?

We don't know that though. And whilst Generations is far from perfect or ideal, its proof enough that the concept of Sonic can exist in a 3D environment, even though it could still do with a bit of work with the level design a physics.

If the game works better in 2D than in 3D.

Again, that is something we don't know until we do it and it is proven to be unsuccessful. Even if after all that, it doesn't work as well in 3D , that's still not reason enough to give up. As long as its not physically impossible, you can still improve and at the very least reach a point which is asymptotic.

Let's look at Mega Man. They've tried a few times to move the series into 3D, and while I'm not terribly knowledgeable about them, I've gathered that they haven't been particularly successful. And I think a big part of that is that a lot of features of typical Mega Man gameplay do not translate all that well to 3D. Shooting in 3D is a very different beast than shooting in a 2D sidescroller. The pixel-perfect gameplay of the classic series is lost in a world of polygons. The dynamics of the player and enemies "controlling" the screen is entirely different. I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that a good 3D "Mega Man" is not really going to resemble a good 2D Mega Man, not beyond superficial trappings anyway. So if 2D Mega Man is successful, and 3D "Mega Man" becomes a wildly different game, why do it?

I don't know much at all about Megaman, but I don't see why Megaman couldn't be 3rd Person platformer-shooter (maybe, kinda similar to Ratchet and Clank). I don't know if Capcom gave up with the idea because it was impossible, or because they couldn't be bothered. OK some concessions with the type of platforming would have to be made, but in the same way that 3D Mario is not 100% exactly the same as 2D Mario, I don't see how that would be a problem.

Also, counterquestions: Why must a series try to conquer 3D?

I'm sure one of the cavemen in the past must have thought; "But why? Why should we have to go out and discover new lands and people? Why can't we just stay here in this cave?". Its not exactly forward thinking now is it? 3D exists for us to explore. Thus far in the franchise we've barely scratched the surface. There is so much to do with 3D, so why limit to 2D?

I'm not saying 3D is the only thing we should do. Certainly a 2D spinoff (like Sonic 4, but better) can co-exist with a 3D game. Limiting to 2D restricts the options. There is room for so much more so use it.

There is room to improve on the classics, so you can do that. There is PLENTY of room to improve the 3D gameplay so you can do that too...

Why should a series feel obligated to succeed in different perspectives any more than in different genres? Should Sonic also try to conquer top-down and isometric gameplay?

Sure why not!

Spin-offs exist for a reason. Might as well do something interesting with them.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm struggling to find the part where that differs from what I said.

That they actually made a successful 3D Megaman game. Unless you meant that too.

[Diogenes]

And whilst Generations is far from perfect or ideal, its proof enough that the concept of Sonic can exist in a 3D environment,

Anything can "exist" in a 3D environment, that's not even worth saying. The question is if it's meaningful.

Again, that is something we don't know until we do it and it is proven to be unsuccessful.

At what point will it be proven unsuccessful? Let's be honest here the series has been struggling for nearly or more than a decade, depending on your perspective, to make a decent 3D game.

Even if after all that, it doesn't work as well in 3D , that's still not reason enough to give up.

Yes it is. If it doesn't work well, continuing to do it is just throwing good money after bad.

I don't know much at all about Megaman, but I don't see why Megaman couldn't be 3rd Person platformer-shooter (maybe, kinda similar to Ratchet and Clank).

Because that makes it a completely different game. Is it "Mega Man" in anything other than the graphics at that point? Why is that something to strive for?

I'm sure one of the cavemen in the past must have thought; "But why? Why should we have to go out and discover new lands and people? Why can't we just stay here in this cave?". Its not exactly forward thinking now is it? 3D exists for us to explore. Thus far in the franchise we've barely scratched the surface. There is so much to do with 3D, so why limit to 2D?

Does every single person go out and explore every inch of the world? Should every single person go out and explore every inch of the world? If the series doesn't legitimately have something to offer in 3D, it's not "exploring" shit. Other series, new or old, are free to explore the places this one particular series can't do well.

That they actually made a successful 3D Megaman game. Unless you meant that too.

I think Legends is a cult classic at best; I don't think it has anywhere near the appeal the 2D games have had. So if you change so much and a lot of your audience isn't even following, why bother?

[Ekaje]

Mega Man has only had one real attempt at 3D, X7. And that game's 3D being bad had more to do with the whole thing being bad.

Legends isn't really a Mega Man game, and not it the sense of too much was changed to bring it into 3D. It's like Battle Network, it's really nothing like the rest of the series to begin with other than the title, the names of some characters, and that the main character has an arm cannon.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Ekaje

[Scar]

Anything can "exist" in a 3D environment, that's not even worth saying. The question is if it's meaningful.

Yeah, I think it is. You may not like Generations, but myself and many others do. Primarily because its a fairly engaging platformer featuring stuff I've come to expect from Sonic. Decent amounts of speed, luscious visuals and sound and decent platforming. That may be because we "lack taste" or "don't understand" or maybe its because we don't demand anything specific.

If you disagree then fine by me. I guess I'll continue to enjoy it

At what point will it be proven unsuccessful? Let's be honest here the series has been struggling for nearly or more than a decade, depending on your perspective, to make a decent 3D game.

I certainly think Generations is better than "decent". On top of that the series has being doing pretty well financially. Where's the problem? It could stand with improvements and its improving in one way or another, and that's something. To come back from a disaster such as Sonic 06, which would have quite easily brutalised any other franchise, is quite something.

Yes it is. If it doesn't work well, continuing to do it is just throwing good money after bad.

I meant to say, that if it still doesn't quite meet the standard of the original 2D counterpart, are you just going to throw in the towel? That's it, its not as good as S3K, therefore its not good, so we should just stop trying now.

Because that makes it a completely different game. Is it "Mega Man" in anything other than the graphics at that point? Why is that something to strive for?

What do you mean? As far as I've played Megaman, it seemed just like a platformer where you have a small blue robot with a gun for an arm shooting at various colourful enemy robots whilst traversing extremely cheap level design and enemy placements. Then you beat that stages boss and gain his power.

So why exactly wouldn't a 3rd person shooter/platformer work? Why would it automatically be considered a game which is only superficially Mega Man?

Does every single person go out and explore every inch of the world? Should every single person go out and explore every inch of the world? If the series doesn't legitimately have something to offer in 3D, it's not "exploring" shit. Other series, new or old, are free to explore the places this one particular series can't do well.

Because I'm fairly certain that the Sonic franchise does in fact have something to offer in 3D. Evidence in terms of recent games may suggest to you that it isn't the case, but I think it can work and I think it can be far better than average or even merely "good".

That's precisely why I, and many others are here. Because we believe that there is something this franchise has to offer.

I've said my piece on this now. I can't be bothered with circular arguements. Else we'll be back-n-forthing until the end of time.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Scar

[Chaos Walker]

Sonic games can't make that justification. What would be acheived 'artistically' by sticking to 2D, that couldn't be achieved in 3D? In what way would a concious design choice of sticking to 2D, benefit the Sonic franchise in a way that 3D wouldn't? If you're as serious as you say about game design, you should be able to answer these questions. Other than simply attempting to invoke memories of the classics, I can see no reason you'd want to limit Sonic to 2D. Another is sheer laziness or cowardice - that you cannot be bothered to try making Sonic work in 3D. Sonic has arguably reached his peak in 2D in Sonic 3 and Knuckles. There are no valid reasons for limiting the franchise to something it has already conquered.

I just said it's not simply artistic. Choosing between 2D and 3D to a game designer is an even bigger choice than control scheme or genre. The level design in a 2d platformer can be handled alot differently knowing the player can see everything behind them, below, and above. Precision platforming is easier since you only have to line up one axis with your target landing spot. The behavior of character movesets have to be largely reconsidered as something that used to be perfectly plausible like ducking and tapping jump might not work once down doesn't exist on your control stick. A move like Tail's flying will have to be taken into acount differently if he can pass obstacles from any side. How much longer would you have to examine the structures in angry birds before launching anything if it was in 3D? Could you even see the entire structure without taking the camera inside? Would angry birds become LESS immersive in 3D?

Immersion is cool and all, but if the gameplay experience suffers then it's not worth it.

I love how everything every person says on the internet has to come with a disclaimer. Don't asume everything I'm saying is condeming all 3D Sonic games forever. 3D Sonic games arn't right yet, and it's embarassing/bad for the character's name to have them promoted as the mainstream releases time and time again. The massive response I recieved certainly convinced me that there may still be some relevance in Sonic going to 3D but I still don't see it as necesary, or even the best thing for Sonic right now. I don't think building off the unleased/generations fomula will take Sonic in the right direction at all. In fact, I think Sonic Team needs a back to the drawing board moment in terms of moveset, physics, and level design. In the mean time, if something Sonic has to happen let it be 2D or a spinoff.

^

Now feel free to disagree with this statment. It keeps the topic going. :3 Idk about you guys, but I'm having fun.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Chaos Walker

[Kuzu]

I didn't say 2D gameplay is a regression; I said the thought that 3D has nothing to offer Sonic and is an inherently negative design decision is both regressive and atrocious thinking. I further asserted that this was because it makes an infantile correlation between dimension and quality. Even you know this and agree with me, stating that Sonic 4 would still be bad if it were in 3D which is my entire point: Episode 1 is bad because it was poorly designed and programmed, its two-dimensional nature doing little to nothing for its quality.

But here's the thing, we've had more bad 3D games than 2D ones. All I'm saying is that a 2D Sonic game would probably get more people excited as opposed to another 3D one, because of past missteps with it.

I also disagree with you that 2D is capable of perfectly replicating 3D, especially in terms of gaming; it's utterly impossible by the fact that you simply don't have a Z-axis to work with which inherently limits your mobility, your ability to view the world and orient yourself properly, and the limit to which the designer can physically and aesthetically replicate our own actual reality. I mean hell, if we agree that 2D and 3D are design choices, that'd mean they have inherent differences that are mutually exclusive.

What I meant was, that a 2D game has just as much a chance at success as a 3D one would, and that one shouldn't be prioritized over the other.

It always matters.

Really? Would 06 be a better game if it was 2D, that crappy ass port sure doesn't think so.

[Kamicciolo]

If you're referring to the 2D remake of 06 done by fans, then bare in mind that that game is intentionally mimicking 06's glitches and poor design choices, and considering it's a fan-made project and stuff it really shouldn't really count for the argument of how Sega and Sonic Team handle things for the series (06 itself probably isn't a great example on whether 3D works or not either, since it was something of a horrible fluke in terms of quality compared to any 3D games that preceded or followed it).

[Nepenthe]

But here's the thing, we've had more bad 3D games than 2D ones.

Strictly speaking in terms of dimension, we've had more 2D games that were bad or mediocre on arrival than 3D ones. There's a crapload of 2D Sonic games beyond the five classics.

All I'm saying is that a 2D Sonic game would probably get more people excited as opposed to another 3D one, because of past missteps with it.

In the end as more and more media was shown, Episode 1 didn't have the amount of gamer-generated hype that Colors, Generations, and even Unleashed had, and that's probably the most prominent 2D Sonic game we've had since the classics; forget about the Advance, Rush, and Rivals series.

What I meant was, that a 2D game has just as much a chance at success as a 3D one would, and that one shouldn't be prioritized over the other.

Why shouldn't 3D platform games be a financial priority in an era where 3D platformers are more standard and successful at retail than 2D ones?

[Diogenes]

Really? Would 06 be a better game if it was 2D, that crappy ass port sure doesn't think so.

You can't apply this retroactively, and bad design is always going to be bad design, but when you're looking to make a game deciding if it's 2D or 3D is a major fuckin' decision.

[Chaos Walker]

Perhaps part of the issue here is also what "a Sonic game" means to people. For newer fans a fast platformer will do just fine, but us old timers (lol, I'm only 18) feel the need for those spinning/rolling gimicks.

The next Sonic game could be "Sonic Adventure With HD Graphics, And No Glitces, And A New Story, And Just Two Playable Characters, And Good Platforming, And Decent Ammounts Of Speed, And Branching Paths, No 2D Sections, And No Rolling Unless You Count The Spin Jump." (BREATHE) Some would soil their pants on the spot, and talk about how Sonic is back. Others would whine that it isn't really Sonic except for him being on the box, and that the lack of rolling makes it Mario with jet skates.

[Chaos Warp]

The next Sonic game could be "Sonic Adventure With HD Graphics, And No Glitces, And A New Story, And Just Two Playable Characters, And Good Platforming, And Decent Ammounts Of Speed, And Branching Paths, No 2D Sections, And No Rolling Unless You Count The Spin Jump." (BREATHE) Some would soil their pants on the spot, and talk about how Sonic is back. Others would whine that it isn't really Sonic except for him being on the box, and that the lack of rolling makes it Mario with jet skates.

Well, honestly I think rolling isn't the only way to interpret Sonic in a 3d platformer. It's my preferred way, sure (but not by too much), but I see Modern gameplay or the more open Adventure style as much, "Sonic", as Classic style was. It's just a different take.