Analysis: The Quandary Of 2D Vs. 3D
November 23, 2008 8:00 AM | Simon Carless
[In a fascinating analysis piece, originally printed in Game Developer magazine earlier this year, EA Maxis designer and programmer Soren Johnson (Spore, Civilization IV) talks about a genuine choice game developers have in picking 2D vs. 3D for their games, arguing that 2D games are "an underrated style that is often unfairly ignored as an old technology."]
The industry's first video games -- Pong, Asteroids, Space Invaders -- were all 2D by necessity. A few early games experimented with basic 3D, such as Battlezone's vector-based tank simulator, but these games were simply interesting footnotes, not the mainstream.
Everything changed in 1992 with id Software's Wolfenstein 3D, which popularized 3D as the leading edge of game development. Since then, almost no corner of the industry has been left untouched by the transition from 2D to 3D graphics. Almost every franchise, from Mario to Zelda to even Pac-Man himself, has tried out 3D technology.
Now that this transition is essentially complete, it may finally be a good time to ask ourselves what we have learned in the process. What are the advantages of 3D? What are its challenges? For what is 2D still best?
Perhaps game developers can now at last choose the best graphics environment on a game-by-game basis instead of making the move to 3D just from competitive pressure.
Troubles with Cameras
3D games and cameras have a long, troubled history. While first-person games are essentially a solved problem for 3D, most other genres are still adapting to the new technology. Teaching the player how to use a camera while also teaching the game's core experience can be a tough challenge.
One distinct advantage 2D games have is that the easiest camera to teach is one which doesn't exist. In fact, 3D games have been trending away from giving the player extensive camera controls.
Super Mario 64 is credited with being the first successful 3D platformer, but it required the player to make extensive use of the camera controls to keep Mario visible and heading in the right direction.
Platformers attempted more intelligent camera systems over the years, trying to dynamically determine the best perspective at any given time. Such solutions, however, are bound to fail at some point, such as when the character gets stuck behind a corner or under a ledge.
To solve this sticky problem, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time introduced two alternative static camera perspectives that the player could access at any time. God of War took this approach a step further and enforced a single fixed camera for each of the game's scenes, approaching the level design almost like a film cinematographer.
Super Mario Galaxy has a dynamic camera without any controls whatsoever, although it adopts a nearly top-down view to enable the player to always see the surrounding area. Other avatar-based games, such as World of Warcraft, prevent the player from tweaking the camera while moving, ensuring that the player can never end up running directly into the camera.
Strategy games have also gone through a progression of camera systems, similarly trending towards taking camera controls away from the player, or at least hiding them from the novice. Star Wars: Force Commander, one of the first 3D RTS games, had an infamously difficult free camera, which made finding the right angle to view your troops a constant chore.
Warcraft 3 may be considered the first RTS to get 3D right. The designers achieved this feat by greatly restricting the camera's freedom -- the zoom range was minuscule, the pitch angle came directly from zoom, and the only camera rotation was attached to an obscure hot-key.
Lead Designer Rob Pardo describes the process behind these restrictions:
"With 3D, we decided to bring the camera down quite a bit and try out some things. The problem was with the camera pulled all the way down, it became a pseudo-third-person experience.
It was disorienting when you went around the map, and it was difficult to select units in battle because your camera frustum was pointed in one direction so you didn't have a good view of the battlefield.
It was a challenge because we still wanted a fun strategy game. Eventually we pulled the camera into a more traditional isometric view, and that's when we really started making progress."
But Which 2D?
Not all 2D games are the same. Two major styles have developed: “classic” 2D, which is a straight top-down (chess/checkers) or side-on (Sonic games) view, or isometric 2D, which tries to fake 3D with an isometric projection at a pre-set angle. Before making the full jump to 3D, many genres made a move from classic 2D to isometric 2D as an intermediary step.
For example, the original Civilization had a traditional top-down grid view while Civ 2 had a three-quarters isometric view. While this new perspective gave the game world a more life-like appearance, the change did come at a cost to the user's game experience. Namely, distances are much more difficult to judge on an isometric grid as the east-west axis takes up twice as many pixels as the north-south axis.
To solve this problem, for Civ 4, our 3D perspective actually hearkened back to the original game as we showed the game's grid straight ahead and not at an angle. The easier the players perceive the grid through the graphics, the better they can “see” their possible decisions.
It is significant that Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (DS), the latest version in this long-running series, has maintained the traditional chess-board view, keeping the player focused squarely on the core gameplay. The “chunky” unit art familiar to the series is a great example of an artistic style which flows from the limitations of the game's presentation.
In contrast, a game heavily influenced by the Advance Wars series -- Age of Empires: The Age of Kings (DS) -- chose to move the same game mechanics into an isometric 2D world. The transition was not altogether successful.
Not only was the immediacy of the grid harder to follow, but because units extended beyond the edges of their tiles, selecting units and locations became a significant problem when groups of units overlapped one another. Thus, tile-based games tend to be more successful when a top-down view is adopted.
Graphics are not Gameplay
3D graphics are not the same things as 3D gameplay. For example, two sci-fi RTS games -- Homeworld and Sins of a Solar Empire -- use very similar 3D engines to recreate the vast scale and special effects of deep space combat.
However, they do not share core gameplay, as Homeworld is a "true" 3D game, meaning that ships could be moved freely along the z-axis, while Sins actually has 2D gameplay, as the game is played on a single, flat plane, meaning that ships cannot fly above or below each other.
In fact, the game could have been implemented with a 2D engine; using 3D was a secondary choice to enable smooth zooming and to evoke the "feel" of outer space. The team's decision to adopt 2D gameplay saved Sins from the interface complications of Homeworld, which required two or three separate clicks to give units a destination in all three dimensions.
Many other example of hybrids exist, where games use 3D graphics to render essentially flat 2D gameplay. Super Smash Bros. Brawl, for example, is fought on a single, vertical plane that uses the 3D engine for the all-important animations and fluid background environments.
Cliff Bleszinski has described the gameplay of Gears of War as a horizontal version of the classic 2D platform Bionic Commando. Instead of using the grappling hook to ascend from platform to platform, Gears players "jump" from cover point to cover point along a horizontal plane.
Essentially, most games can be divided into three play mechanic categories which are related to but semi-independent from the graphics:
- Tile-Based Games (Tetris, Puzzle Quest, Civilization, Oasis, NetHack)
- Single-Plane Games (Starcraft, Madden, Geometry Wars, Super Mario Bros.)
- Real-World Games (Portal, Super Mario Galaxy, Burnout, Boom Blox)
Good rules-of-thumb exist for each of these categories.
Real-world games essentially require 3D graphics. Of course, the term "real" is not meant to be taken literally. The gun from Portal is not real, but the user enjoys playing with it because of the expectation that its unique behavior exists in harmony with the physics and gravity of our own world.
The easiest way to guarantee that the player bring along assumptions from the real world is to immerse them in a 3D environment that looks, behaves, and feels real. These environments are the equivalent of what-you-see-is-what-you-get for games.
On the other hand, tile-based games usually work best as top-down 2D games, with little separating the player from the core game mechanics. For single-plane games, the choice comes down to largely one of aesthetics and technology.
Can the game's platform support 3D graphics smoothly? Does 3D provide an advantage, from either shared animations or dynamic effects or general flexibility, that makes the technology worthwhile?
All in all, 2D is an underrated style that is often unfairly ignored as an old technology. Developers should not underestimate the advantages of avoiding the technical overhead of maintaining a bulky 3D engine and asset pipeline.
Furthermore, well-made 2D graphics never really go obsolete. Sulka Haro, lead designer of Habbo Hotel, likes to point out that their retro 2D style looks just as good today as when the game launched eight years ago. If they had used 3D, Habbo would probably be on its second or third engine by now.
Once a 2D engine is up and running, the artists can focus on simply improving the game's look piece by piece. If 2D helps clarify and communicate the underlying game mechanic, then all the better.
[You can find out more about Game Developer magazine, including how to subscribe to physical and digital versions and its digital sample issue, at its official homepage.]
Categories:
24 Comments
I agree 100% with you on this one. Whilst 3D games obviously on paper seem better looking, 2D has an appeal that is undeniable. I stand firm by my belief that SimCity 4 is one of the best looking games around, simply because it's fixed with a 2D camera angle, with incredibly detailed buildings.
Jon | November 23, 2008 12:33 PM
Where is that last screenshot from?
Really interesting, deep article.
Jesse Dylan Watson | November 23, 2008 12:43 PM
It's Habbo Hotel, I believe - habbo.com. It's got some really neat graphical looks.
simonc | November 23, 2008 1:26 PM
I disagree about cameras being solved for first person games in 3D. If anything, such camera problems have only emerged since first person games began trying to evolve (and with improvements in what can be shown).
Jumping introduced the "where am I" disconnect which has arguably yet to be solved. (Said disconnect isn't aided by games that don't allow the player to see himself.) FPS still cheat by mixing the character's view with the gun's camera. And as for looking around independent of both movement and gun aiming?
Okay, the first and third are more issues beyond the camera, mostly because the camera itself doesn't offer enough feedback. But they are still issues.
Some games try to address this by switching between first and third person views, particularly for situations like taking cover. How well this works varies by game. (Rainbow Six Vegas 2 has one of the more praised handlings of "lean against cover," and yet it can still be disorienting when you move out of it.)
Baines | November 23, 2008 2:23 PM
@Baines: You said
"FPS still cheat by mixing the character's view with the gun's camera. And as for looking around independent of both movement and gun aiming?"
For the record, Iron Soldier on the Atari Jaguar (and Iron Soldier 2 on the same system, as well as Iron Soldier 3 on the PS1) allowed independent torso/head movement, and was shown from a first-person perspective almost exclusively. Your aiming/movement could be in one direction while you looked practically anywhere else.
jvm | November 23, 2008 4:57 PM
As a reference, A link to the past still looks beautiful and is most commonly referenced as Zelda art.
Wile OoT, with its 3d engine, is represented by the promo art, with the actual models rarely shown.
kirocuto | November 23, 2008 6:03 PM
I agree that 2D is far from outdated, there are still plenty of gameplay types that have yet to be bettered by 3D gameplay. Most notebly are games like Metal Slug and Contra which rely heavily on being able to see all around your character to avoid being hit.
With games like Braid and Little Big Planet I think we'll see something of a realisation that 2D gameplay is still relavent to the industry and definitely resonates with casual gamers more than 3D games would.
Also, as an admirer of pixel art, I'd love to see more games going for sprites, they allow more charm and character and capture an artstyle easily, I've yet to see a game more visually endearing than the likes of Braid, and I hope we see more in the future.
Matthew | November 23, 2008 6:46 PM
Myth figured out 3D warfare way before Blizzard used a similar camera system (and sometimes similar characters too).
Bob | November 24, 2008 8:41 PM
I never understood the attitude of 2D being an "outdated technology." It seems to be a popular sentiment with players and developers.
As mentioned in the article, the choice of technology depends on the type of game. For FPS games (one of the most popular gaming genres), yes I can understand how pure 3D vs sprites can be superior from both the player and game development perspective. Same with simulation/racing games.
But considering games like Diablo 3 and Streetfighter 4 (both of which have gorgeous looking 3-D engines) but fundamentally play like their predecessors...sure the animations are smoother since they're not using separately drawn frames but it feels like something's lost aesthetically.
Another example is that I felt more emotional resonance from the hand drawn sketch portraits in Hotel Dusk: Room 215 than from the facial animations in the Source engine games (Half Life 2). Coupled with excellent dialogue, the characters in Hotel Dusk felt more believable and alive.
Dewdphella | November 24, 2008 9:10 PM
I would call Starcraft more of a multi-plane game. The game gives an advantage to the high ground, unlike Diablo 2. Also the air units fly above the ground without regard for obstacles. I am always amazed getting on battle.net and always finding a massive number of people playing a game that is over a decade old. Sure it isn't the best looking game out there, but the feel of the gameplay is still spectacular. It's a game with no good reason to stop playing.
Thermo | November 25, 2008 12:18 AM
2D can look beautiful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy61ui0rhZQ
That proves it. BlazBlue looks to be the most beautiful fighting game ever.
Cyph3r | November 25, 2008 12:19 AM
I think the Japanese entertainment industry particularly will continue to embrace 2d for many years to come. Strategy, RPG, music, puzzle, and all sorts of genres of games work perfectly fine with 2d graphics.
math4origami | November 25, 2008 4:09 AM
Just look at the beautiful hand drawed backgrounds of Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate 2.
OdinEDG | November 25, 2008 5:05 AM
My favorite example has always been the Heroes of Might and Magic series, of which my brother is a big fan. I remember spending afternoons in front of the decent but unintrusive graphics of Heroes 3. But with the move to 3d later in the system, he actually loses that smoothness. As a high school student, he can't afford discreet 3d hardware, and so he attempts to run Heroes 5 on integrated hardware. And it suffers. It's choppy and difficult to interact with. And as a tile based game, it does nothing for the gameplay. It's a case of the 3d aspect hurting the game.
Nick | November 25, 2008 7:33 AM
There are several problems with the camera in 3d games, but I believe they can be solved with fixed position camera hotkeys. There should be a hotkey set for every 45 degrees rotation on the x,z plane, and hotkeys for chase cam on target or fix cam on location. That would make camera so much easier to adjust. Also, camera should have clip plane and no collusion detection. Auto zooming based on location is annoying.
JXu | November 25, 2008 8:23 AM
World of Warcraft actually doesn't restrict your camera while moving. The default behavior is to allow movement, and then for it to snap to the back of the character when the mouse button is released.
The 'smart' camera can also be turned off, which I greatly preferred while playing the game.
Sorren | November 25, 2008 11:28 AM
Not all games can make the transition from 2D to 3D. And for some games, the transition changes the gameplay significantly. For example, the difference between GTA2 and GTA3 is dramatic. The games are similar but you can't really compare them anymore. Same with WC3.
Other games just should never be converted. At least not unless you expect it to be a different game.
GTAStud | November 25, 2008 1:55 PM
Wow, what a nice article. The choice of 3D seemed like more of a reflex with game programmers two or three years ago than it is right now. I see lots of indie developers realizing that 2D is usually the best choice for their level of skill and manpower. Since so much gameplay works as well with 2D as it does with 3D it is definitely in their best interest to make the aesthetic choice that is also the most feasible to actually execute.
I also wanted to comment that Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 seem to strike a nice balance between single-plane and real-world. Movement occurs in a single plane with simple controls and a relatively fixed camera, but shooting can be done in first person.
John C | November 25, 2008 3:00 PM
This "2D gameplay/graphics outdated" is making me sad. But there's a reason for this. most of the people that argue in favor of the good ol' pixels are indeed the good ol' players who have spend more than 10 years and have enjoyed the good ol' graphics when the 3D was restricted to ugly, low poly models. nowdays, with the steamrolling of the new 3D engines trying to render as accurate as posible the most realistic enviroments in a overwhelming manner that you should drop on your knees and cry. the new generations are growing with this as their standard, and seeing those old arcade games that we all enjoyed in our past when gameplay was king and graphics queen just gets them bored as hell. wonder why most of us buy a DS and just upload it with old Genesis/Snes/Mame emulators.
Francisco Cifuentes | November 25, 2008 8:14 PM
Warcraft 3 was not the first RTS to use 3d graphics well. Total Annihilation by Cavedog was several years before War3 and used full 3d models and maps, with a fixed non-adjustable camera. The range of motion and angles of units as they drove over uneven terrain was miles ahead of the competition (Starcraft) but the gameplay, balance, and strategy weren't as good.
chris | November 26, 2008 1:59 AM
I think 2D is less outdated than you think. The most often played game in the world is still patience in Windows. Ignoring that game however, I think the gazillions of Flash games on the internet, most of which are 2D, are extremely popular and often played, and have much more complex gameplay today than 5 years ago. So 2D dead? I don't think so.
toiletpot | November 26, 2008 4:54 AM
One example, for me atleast, of a good 3D camera is Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2.
I don't recall there ever being a time the camera got in my way - and I've played through the game atleast 20 times - and you can rotate it left and right, it all feels very natural to play.
I also think that a lot of the time when people complain about 3D graphics they're just being nostalgic and wrongly see 3D as the reason why the games industry has gone stale, when in fact the real problem is that there is little to no innovation anymore, and that can happen no matter what dimension you're in, it just happened to happen around the advent of 3D graphics so we like to blame them.
To end, I don't think we're likely to see the death of the 2D game anytime soon if at all, platforms such as mobile phones and the previously mentioned web based games are ensuring it has a future. And then you have the new Wario game which is a marvellously animated and wonderfully 2D game, although it's not terribly innovative it appeals to our 2D ideals.
Boyd | November 27, 2008 12:58 PM
I always believe that 2d and 3d art is somewhat uncomparable. Each has its own characteristics. I like both, but what is most irritating here is the phenomena of f*cking Graphics Card (I'm PC user) that swept and underrated 2d games. Well, not at all, as today I still heavily depend on minigames and emulator games which present beautiful 2d arts.
AM Putra | November 28, 2008 5:47 AM
What are you talking about? Of course you can tweak the camera while moving in World of Warcraft. If you zoom in too close, you just switch to a first person view.
I spin the camera while running (holding down the arrow key) all the time.
Mike Green | December 14, 2008 1:06 AM