4 ms·

The main problem with 2d sprites is animation. 2d sprites will never compare to 3d animation in terms of what an object can visually communicate to a player abo

The main problem with 2d sprites is animation. 2d sprites will never compare to 3d animation in terms of what an object can visually communicate to a player about what is happening in a game. In full 3d, animation can tell a player a lot about what is happening on the battle field, such as where the bounding boxes actually are near a unit, what the actual angle is they are using to target a unit, or how a unit is physically affected by different buffs/debuffs. Although I find well made 2d games to be remarkable for their own reasons, I don't there is a legitimate argument as to which provides the superior gameplay.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
For me 2D graphics do look better (especially SC1 vs. SC2) because of the art style. When you go from hand-drawn sprites to 3D models, you always lose quality, because there's more computation to be done than any hardware could reasonably perform in real-time. Some games try to hide it by altering their art style, e.g. by making more cartoony-looking units. Warcraft 3 did that, and SC2 seems to have inherited it. Which for me was huge negative - the general atmosphere of SC1 was dark and serious; SC2 feels lightweight and more like a comedy at times.
spicytunacone 10y ago
>I don't there is a legitimate argument as to which provides the superior gameplay. I think you're conflating graphics and gameplay too much here; different games need to communicate different things. If anything, well made 2D games, because of their economy of expression, possess superior legibility once you learn to read the sprites.
- debaserab2 10y ago
  Legibility? Yes, more recognizable. Definitely cannot communicate as many different things about what is going on in the game though.
fuckthis 10y ago
>what an object can visually communicate to a player about what is happening in a game. And yet somehow with superior visual fidelity, Andromeda looks worse than Mass Effect 1. 'Better' animation technology not always the answer.
- NTripleOne 10y ago
  Developer incompetency has nothing to do with 2d vs 3d animation.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

For me 2D graphics do look better (especially SC1 vs. SC2) because of the art style. When you go from hand-drawn sprites to 3D models, you always lose quality, because there's more computation to be done than any hardware could reasonably perform in real-time. Some games try to hide it by altering their art style, e.g. by making more cartoony-looking units. Warcraft 3 did that, and SC2 seems to have inherited it. Which for me was huge negative - the general atmosphere of SC1 was dark and serious; SC2 feels lightweight and more like a comedy at times.

spicytunacone 10y ago

>I don't there is a legitimate argument as to which provides the superior gameplay. I think you're conflating graphics and gameplay too much here; different games need to communicate different things. If anything, well made 2D games, because of their economy of expression, possess superior legibility once you learn to read the sprites.

debaserab2 10y ago
Legibility? Yes, more recognizable. Definitely cannot communicate as many different things about what is going on in the game though.

fuckthis 10y ago

>what an object can visually communicate to a player about what is happening in a game. And yet somehow with superior visual fidelity, Andromeda looks worse than Mass Effect 1. 'Better' animation technology not always the answer.

NTripleOne 10y ago
Developer incompetency has nothing to do with 2d vs 3d animation.