2D versus 3D Fighters

During my one and a half month stint on this board I have read some posts (here, NGPC Forum, and Neo-Geo Hyper 64 Forum) concerning 2D fighters and 3D fighters. The overall attitude seems to be that 2D fighters are better. Do you really believe that? 2D fighters are great. Plus, there are more of them than 2D fighters. So if you go with the 2D platform you have a larger selection of games to choose from. That is all well and good, but after a while don't you just kind of tire of the playing pretty much the same thing? All 2D fighters are different in ways, but they all are same too. There are different moves, different combo systems, different characters, different backgrounds, different animations, etc... you could go on and on with the differences between 2D fighters. However, each one created steals just a little bit of the magic from a game previous to it. In a way it is sort of like automobiles. For example, (i do not own a Ford, & am not endorsing any of their products, I am just making a point) the Ford F-150 is built on a certain platform that was exclusive to only the F-series truck line, like the 250 and 350. However, when Ford decided to make a vehicle similar to the Chevy Tahoe, they used the F-series truck platform for the Ford Expedition SUV. Of course, the Expedition has a new look, new features, different seating capabilities, and so on and so on... but they are both built from the same platform. See how that is similar to 2D fighting games? If you don't, then I can't help you. That was the simplest explanation I could think of to make my point. So anyway, I love 2D fighters. I got SNK vs Capcom like many of you did for my Dreamcast. I got Street Fighter 3: Double Impact for my Sega. I know for sure I am getting KOF 2000 for Christmas. I also asked for Street Fighter 3: Third Strike for my Sega. So, if it isn't obvious, I like 2D fighters. But, I think 3D fighters are better than 2D fighters. That doesn't mean I won't play my 2D fighters I already own, and it doesn't mean I won't play KOF 2000 to death when I get it. It just means that in the future, when I am at the arcade and a new 2D fighter is there as well as a new 3D fighter, I will try the 3D fighter first. And when I go to Toys R US or some toy and electronic store to buy a new game, I will probably choose a 3D fighter over a 2D fighter, unless the 2D fighter happens to be spectacular. 3D fighers just seem more challenging, and they have the space for more than two fighters simultaneously battling it out. The screen doesn't get crowded when it is 3D and four people are playing all at once on the screen. In fact it is awesome! There is no slowdown either. Just a crazy, fast-paced everyone for themselves fight going on. If you haven't experienced this before, go to the arcades with three buddies and play a 3D four-player fighting game. Or if you have a Nintendo 64 rent Super Smash Brothers and invite over 3 friends. Or if you have Dreamcast rent Power Stone 1 or Power Stone 2 and invite your buds over for some pizza and a kick in the face. I guarantee you will have a good time. I don't personally have an N64 but my friend Clay does and I got to play this game last year sometime when I spent the night over at his house with two other guys named Chris and Garrett. Damn, this game was awesome with four people. One player the game kind of sucked. Even two player was kind of lame. But when you got three or four players at once, it gets to be a lot of fun. On the DC side, I prefer Power Stone 2. Yes, it is made by Capcom and I know many of you loathe that company, but Power Stone 2 is lots of fun with four players and the environment is totally interactive. You can grab boxes and hit your opponent in the head with it. If you pick a big dude to fight as you can lift the large poles out of the ground and swing them at the enemy. You can jump in the water and swim to the next submarine and jump in the cannon shooters seat and start blasting your opponents away or try to sink the submarine they are on. I know, it doesn't sound like your average fighting game. That is what makes it so cool. It isn't an average run-of-the-mill fighter. Its better. Now, for a one-player fighting game, 3D fighters aren't any better than 2D ones, in my opinion. But if you have friends (and who doesn't??) and you have extra controllers, or they have their own controllers, then a 3D fighting game is the way to go my friends. I have seen the kind of crazy, side-splitting action these 3D fighters possess. Its great. Give them a try and see for yourself. And if you come back after trying it and you say that it sucked, then that can mean only one thing, you must have gotten beat a lot by your friends. Cause everyone knows losing isn't fun... even in 4-player games!

I like both 2D and 3D fighting games. I still remember Street Fighter 2, Art of Fighting and Fatal Fury giving me lots fun. Namco, on the other hand, shows me their top notch 3D technology Tekken and it's one of the best fighting in the genre. If a company is willing to put the effort, mind, technology and money, no matter 2D or 3D, gamers like us will support everything they've got. I hate to hear ppl saying that 2D is better than 3D or 3D is surperior than 2D. It's just the taste of individual user. Period.

I agree Silent Scope, it is the taste of the individual. So as for my personal taste, I'm one of those guys that thinks 2D is superior to 3D, and this is for a number of reasons.

1. Graphics: While there is no denying that 3D can be very impressive, I just haven't seen a 3D fighter that looks as good as, say, KOF 96-99, Last Blade 1 & 2, or Garou. And for all the effort I've seen put into 3D graphics, they still look blocky and boxy to me, as good as they can look at times I can't help but notice the boxed segments of the characters. Also, there seems to be no artistic style in the characters, no exaggerations and extremes. 2D retains the hand drawn look, and to me that is way more personal and convincing than a computer rendered figure.

2. Gameplay: Again, I haven't seen a 3D fighter yet that plays as fast or controls as tight as a 2D fighter. On top of that, a lot of the 3D fighters I've seen and played have a particularly slow feeling to them. No offense to you Tekken fans, but I can't go but three or four fights on any given Tekken game before it gets stale, then I'm ready to turn it off and play some KOF.

3. Funfactor: The thing I associate most with 3D gaming, and this may be a prejudgment on my part, is that the developers of 3D games are more worried about realism instead of fun. Hell, I know a move like Terry's Lightening Tackle is impossible to do in real life. Also, all the flames, electricity, napalm, etc that 2D fighting characters can throw is outlandish and unrealistic, but that's part of the fun. The majority of 3D games I've seen and played barely have "chi-based" attacks compared to 2D fighters.

It's not that I think 3D sucks and should be destroyed, I just think it has a LONG way to go before it can match up to 2D.

As for polygonal technology in games, I think it's got a place. Games like the Resident Evil series, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, where you have the ability to explore things, 3D works like a charm for that. Also driving and flight sims, fits perfectly. But for fighters, shooters, and platformers, I think 2D is the best medium for those type of games.


http://www.fanscene.org

It really doesn't matter to me, as long as the games are good. But I do have affinity towards 2D.

I have to agree with Silent Scope, guys. 3D fighters are still in their infancy, and most of
them borderline tedium. There are some notable exceptions to the genre (Soul Calibur
anyone?), but most current 3D fighters lack the same flair found in 2D fighters. Fatal Fury
Wild Ambition is proof of this: while it retains the overall feel of FF, it still doesn't play the
same. Tekken is an acquired taste, and some people will enjoy it more than a 2D fighter.
Being an artist myself, I can appreciate hand drawn visuals more than some 3D model
generated by a 3D modeling program. Besides, more man hours are placed into a 2D
fighter (the art, animation, etc.) and real talent is needed to portray a convincing 2D
environment. As long as you're good with mathematics (and have a good sense of 3D
modeling) anyone can create a 3D fighter. It takes a talented individual to hand draw
thousands of frames of animation and make it convincing all at the same time, and that's
what Capcom and SNK do on a daily basis.

------------------

NeoLord
Neo-News and much more!

IM TIRED, ILL GIVE 3D THE KASUMI SCHOOL GIRL UNIFORM KNOCKED OUT OVER THE FAN AS 3DS MASTERPIECE!

I LOVE THE CAMERA ANGLES ETC.......
BUT FOR GAMEPLAY.....HEH NOTHING BEATS 2D!
I LOVE THE ART ETC.........I JUST WISH THERE WERE MORE HALF NAKED LADIES IN THE 2D WORLD THAT COULD BE VIEWED FROM MORE ANGLES

WELL IF MY WIFE DONT PLAY HOW CAN SHE KNO WHAT IM LOOKING AT

AH KILL ME I DONT MIND!.......IM A DISGRACE!
UNTILL THEN ILL JUST KEEP ON TRYING TO ENJOY THE ATTROCITY THAT IS LIFE......INCLUDING THE ONLY INTERESTING THINGS IN IT, LADIES AND VIDEO GAMES (FIGHTERS)
DEVIL GUI

I'll take 2-D over 3-D anyday... It takes longer to make a kick ass 2-D fighter than it does to make a crappy 3-D fighter... KoF and SF forever...man...hehe FUCK NAMCO AND TEKKEN...I used to like Tekken...but then I got tired of the way the characters move...and they all look so generic...2-D is much better in my opinion. SNK needs to do collaboration work with SNK!

Bryan

------------------

While not completely on topic, I'd just like to say that I think 3D on consoles should have waited another generation than it did. Most of PSX's 3D games had terribly blocky and pixellated 3D graphics that just didn't look all that good. With the Dreamcast, we finally started to see some really clean-looking, higher-res 3D graphics that looked good.

So at least on consoles, 3D games generally didn't even start to look all that good until we got Soul Calibur and DOA.

Graphics-wise, these games do indeed look good, but still lack the personality of hand-drawn sprites. The really fluid motion you get in games especially like Last Blade 2 and Garou really shows where 2D shines in fighting games. To give a non-fighting game example of where 2D shines as well, have a look at the Metal Slug games. You just don't see that kind of detail and personality in 3D games yet.

Moving back to fighters, gameplay wise, I tend to prefer 2D fighters with their tighter control schemes. They tend to lend themselves to less button mashing than 3D games. I realize that there are exceptions to this in both 2D and 3D games, but as a general rule, 2D games do tend to have tighter control.

I think 3D is starting to head in the right direction though. Give it a few more years, and I think 3D will start to hit its prime.

It's just really a shame that there are fewer and fewer 2D games these days, since many of them possess a style that can't be duplicated in 3D.

In other words, I wish 3D was more of another alterternative in the market instead of a replacement for 2D.

All I have to say is Street Fighter: 3rd Strike is the best 2D game on the Dreamcast, period!

I swear DOA2 was the biggest waste of $50 I ever spent. I agree with Lou that Tekken gets stale real fast, what a real POS. None of the characters of the aforementioned games are even remotely memorable as Iori, Terry, or K', and that IMO is why the 3-D fighters can't hold a candle to the 2-D fighters.

Tekken is the best 3D fighting game so far. PSX does show its age but PS2 is powerful.
No doubt that Street Fighter and KOF are the two best 2D fighting game. Other than those two are not my taste. I do agree that DOA 2 is a waste and I only play three times on my JPN version.

I've always preferred 2D fighters, due to the way a 2D game flows and for its visual look and feel. There aren't many 3D fighters out there that I pay too much attention to... the only exceptions were Tekken 1&2, Bloody Roar, Wild Ambition, SF EX1 and Rival Schools. Rival Schools 2 looks to be one of the best 3D fighters out there, but even with its crazy combos and visual effects, nothing beats out a crazy fighting battle in 2D from SNK or Capcom... and also Sammy, now that I own and have fallen in love with Guilty Gear X.

The gameplay in many 3D fighters is still the same as in 2D. Granted Powerstone 2 is definitly 3D. Tekken on the other hand simply has 3D fighters. The fighting plane is still relatively only 2d. As in, you fight in a side to side view. Any 2d fighter can have fade in and out. 2D fighters have excellent gameplay , 3D is still primitive in my mind. 3D meaning free roaming as in Powerstone.

Well, it seems that most of you prefer the 2D over 3D fighting games. Some of you said that 3D had some cool aspects but the 2D fighters still had better gameplay, graphics, fun factor... etc... That is fine with me. I love 2D fighters too. Street Fighter 2 will always be a favorite of mine. So will Fatal Fury Special. As will most of the KOF series, but I didn't like '97 or '99 that much. I can understand where you would think 2D requires more hand-drawn animation, that is probably true. Some 3D fighters tend to pan out from the action and then zoom back in as the fighters move closer to one another... some 2D fighters did this too, but the zoom in and zoom out feature on those 2D fighters can't really compare to the 3D scaling effects. But when the camera does zoom out from the fighters in 3D games, the characters are smaller and you can't really see the facial expressions of the fighters. So I do agree that 2D fighters hold an edge over 3D fighters in close-up animation. I wasn't really trying to cut down 2D fighters or sway your opinion to that of 3D fighters. I just wanted to see what you all thought about 3D fighters and 2D fighters when compared with one another. Yes, Street Fighter 3: Double Impact is better than Power Stone 2 and Power Stone 1, and Soul Caliber, and DOA2. I admit that much. I don't like SF3: Third Strike, more characters doesn't make it better IMO. But Soul Caliber, DOA2, and the Power Stone games are fun to play in their own right. They are cool fighting games, especially when you have friends to play with. To me, the VERSUS mode between 2 or more players is much better on 3D fighters than 2D fighters. But that is me. Anyway... thanks for the responses, I wasn't sure how kindly a lot of Neo-Geo 2D fighting maniacs would take to the mentioning of a 3D fighter being better than a 2D one. I too am a Neo-Geo fighting game fanatic. So obviously I haven't left my 2D fighters out in the cold, I still play them. But now I have an alternative to my 2D fighters, and that alternative comes with built-in, truly amazing 3D graphics.

2D or 3D, that is a question. Frankly speaking, I don't like both. I like real fight. Mano a mano, man. Fight like man, licking blood on my fist....
Don't like to sit in front of TV set and argue 2D or 3D fighting.....>:P

I will approach it from a slightly different angle. For those of you that play RTS games on computers, consider StarCraft VS. WarCraft III. StarCraft is 2D Isometric View. Due to the non-polygonal approach they took for this game, it runs fine on older machines, has great detail on the units and terrain, and can have a ton of different units on the screen performing different actions with no slowdown whatsoever.

WarCraft III, by the same company (BLIZZARD), is their first RTS to use a polygonal approach. They had to cut the game down from masses of troops (StarCraft) to squad-based combat, because all those tiny units running around the screen would not work, if done up in polygons. Also, they will not have the amount of detail the the 2D units of StarCraft have. I realise that it takes time to perfect technology, but quite frankly, I would rather that the "3D Growing Pains" of the PlayStation and N64 era had been skipped completely, until the technology was powerful enough to handle them. How much better (or worse) might gaming be now if we had not had to experience 3D CrapFests that were repeatedly sold to the mass market, simply because people believed that because it was 3D, it was better? What if the PlayStation and N64 had focused soley on 2D gaming, and then boom, out of nowhere, the DreamCast comes along with great 3D games like Soul Calibre and Super Magnetic Neo.

I realise I am just speculating here, as they would not have had funding to continue developing 3D hardware if they had not been selling some of those 3D CrapFests, but still, one can imagine.

As for the polygon issue, it will soon become a moot point. Polygons are going to go the way of the horse and carriage (meaning the Ahmish will use them?) They are being replaced by NURBS (Non-Uniform Radial B-Splines). NURBS are what are used for 3D animation such as Toy Story, and in a few years, they will become the gaming standard, and no doubt there will be more 3D CrapFests (heck, there were even 2D CrapFests, I am not trying to say 2D gaming is perfect, by any means). Gaming and technology continues to evolve and grow, and sometimes that growth is painful.

Hmm, did I actually make any sort of point with all that I just said?

BTW, no offense intended with the Ahmish joke, I am not trying to belittle or berate them.

-BioMotor_Unitron

One thing I forgot to mention. I think cel-shading will do a lot for 3D games in improving looks, etc. Jet Grind Radio and Sonic Shuffle both employ this technique, and they look great! I have not played Sonic Shuffle, but I love Jet Grind Radio, the looks, the gameplay, etc. It just works great as a 3D game.

-BioMotor_Unitron

Doa2 is one of the worse fighting game i know. I think 2d fighter a really better. Powerstone 2 is'nt as good as it seems exept for 4 player mode, powerstone 1 is a really good game, one of the rare 3d fighting that have deep gameplay, but powerstone 2 lost the gameplay. I think that the 2 best fighting game are kof and sf 03.

At my opinion, the question is not about 2D vs 3D.for me,it doesn't matter if it's a 2D game or 3D, the most important thing is that the game is good.Too many 3D games prefer technologie to gameplay and quickness(with smashing effects,zooms,..);it's not my opinion.personnally,RB special,kof 99 and MotW are the best fighting game I ever seen.

Well as far as 2D fighters go, I think the top 2 of them all are Street Fighter 3 and KOF '96. KOF 2000 will no doubt change my mind and take KOF '96's place. But SF 3 is a masterpiece and a blast to play. The original 2D fighters kings are Super Street Fighter 2, that might be my all-time favorite. Also Fatal Fury Special is awesome! Even to this day Super SF2 and FF Special are exciting and fun to play. As for 3D fighters, Dead or Alive 2 is great IMO. I don't understand why a lot of you don't like it. But then again, tons of people like Tekken and the people on this board seem to hate it. I respect all of your opinions, if I didn't I wouldn't be here. But sometimes I think you (me too) seem to cling too tightly to the Neo's standards and capabilities. In reality the Neo is great, and we are all fortunate to have had the opportunity to own one and play its games... but those days are fading fast, and its a whole new world out there now.

add something.....
I think Street Fighter 3rd strike is the best.
KOF 96 and 99 still my favorites.
Tekken 3 is the king~~~~

Street Fighter 3: 3rd Strike is cool. I love it at the arcades... but I asked for SF3: Double Impact for my DC. I dunno why I didn't opt for 3rd Strike... I guess the cover art pulled me in. The Double Impact cover is awesome. Far superior to the 3rd Strike cover art IMO. I always liked the SF2 Championship Edition box for the Genesis. It had M. Bison and Guile on the cover... Guile is my favorite Capcom fighter... and so thats why I loved it.

2D and 3D games both have their values. It may seem to be an age thing, but most older people seem to prefer 2D gaming. I do like 3D for RPG and some action games, but for platformers and shooters, it has to be in 2d.

"the frog"