Gaming 2D or 3D?

[BlueYoshi]

Personally, I don't have a preference. Graphics hardly appeal to me in games, but some games are suited to different kinds of layouts if they are to be played effectively. If I'm playing a game that I feel is "perfect" in almost every manner, then I won't question it in terms of the dynamics of the graphics (or anything else for that matter), because I'll know that another layout may not be beneficial towards it.

For example, take a look at FSA. A 3D version of FSA would look pretty and all, but there is no way on earth that the multiplayer would be as polished as it would be in the 2D version. Split-screens won't cut it for a game of that principal, as there is a lot more to FSA's teamwork aesthetics than combat, like having to push obstructive large rocks, or solving puzzles... both of which are attributes that promote how fun the game is.

Another example is the evolution of the GTA series. The PlayStation releases were composed with a bird's-eye view (which is optional in GTA3, too), and the controls were very basic because of it. The GTA games of today aren't perfect, but having a 3D atmosphere really helps the fundamental core of the game, as missions become far more interesting and fun to undertake, plus, it opens its doors to introducing new styles of play, [spoiler]like the mission where you have to throw a grenade through some guy's window in GTA3[/spoiler].

So generally speaking, this subject has its ups and downs, but my question to you is; which do you prefer? Or, if your views on it vary like mine, in which sections would you prefer one or the other in any existing game?

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I'm more predisposed towards 3D, but I don't really care that much. I mean, in all a cases, its the gameplay I care about, not the shininess (or lack thereof) of the graphics.

I also think some games are better suited to 2D, as well. A good example of this would be the Worms series. In its 2D form it had awesome gameplay and provided endless fun, but when they took the step up to 3D... Blegh. It wasn't nearly as enjoyable. The environments were far too big and the graphics were subpar.

GTA taking the step was a good choice though. That was a game that could really accomodate and use 3D graphics in its overall design. It wasn't just a shiney add on, heh, and was used effectively in most cases.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='Alan][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I'm more predisposed towards 3D, but I don't really care that much. I mean, in all a cases, its the gameplay I care about, not the shininess (or lack thereof) of the graphics.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

Well, true, but you're forgetting that gameplay can be effected by the type of engines or graphics style that games run on, since factors like bugs and glitches can pose a problem and ultimately bare some decisive action on the outcome of the game's playability.

But yeah, I'd have to agree with you on GTA's rendered style not being a mere gimmick because it actually helped the game to progress more. It's kind of like how Metroid Prime was developed, as both that and GTA switched to fully utilized 3D environments that upped exploration and offered a lot more freedom, as opposed to their predecessors.

[Shinmaru]

For me, it depends on a lot of things. In platforming, I prefer 2D, mostly because I can make all the jumps and stuff without having to deal with a ridiculous camera. However, I've seen a marked improvement, camera-wise, in most platformers of today (pretty much all of which are 3D, heh), so whatever lol.

I prefer 2D shooters, not just because those were what I've grown up on, but there aren't that many 3D shooters that 'get it right' so to speak (but they [i]do[/i] exist, I'm certain of that). To me, it just seems like there is far less hassle to deal with when creating a 2D shooter over a 3D one.

Something like Resident Evil would absolutely [i]have[/i] to be in 3D, though, because it would be nearly impossible to get the same ambience from a 2D game (which is one reason why the Game Boy RE game was such a colossal flop). I don't think I'm in the minority when I say that nobody would be really afraid to play a Resident Evil (or Silent Hill, for that matter) game if it were in 2D.

Many franchises made the leap from 2D to 3D back in the N64/PS/Dreamcast era, and Zelda pops to mind right away for me. With Zelda's jump to 3D there was both an upside and downside, for me. The upside was that the dungeons and puzzles became more intricate, because you can accomplish some more unique things that you couldn't do in 2D. The downside to it all was that the bosses, for me, became way, way too easy, even though they looked far better than they ever did in 2D.

[Hevn]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][SIZE=1][B]I personally love anything 3D and even take time in criticizing 3D animation. When it comes to games, it's definitely a plus but, yes, I have to agree that some are better off in 2D. It's just that I started playing a lot more games when almost everything went 3D.

GTA was fun. And whole lot funner when it came 3D. And yes, I would've played Resident Evil and Silent Hill if they were in 2D. It'll be a lot less scary and gory then. So, yeah, I honestly can't play Metal Gear, Prince of Persia, or Tomb Raider in 2D. I tried, but it's just not pretty for me.

On the other hand, Metal Slug was good in 2D as well as some classic games. Some are also good regardless of graphics...like Final Fantasy... and... Megaman. I'm not into videos games a lot though, so I can't say much =/[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[noelmvilla]

[COLOR=Red]I prefer both. In 2d games, it's basically a hell lot easier to aim. Your projectiles have a bigger chance of hitting in 2d games.
I also like 3d games because it's a lot easier to move around. You have less chance of getting hit.
Both are really cool to me.

(((((Don't punish me for posting this but this is my first post in a very long time. I just like to say It's good to be back on the boards (Though still very strict))))))[/COLOR]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='Shinmaru']Many franchises made the leap from 2D to 3D back in the N64/PS/Dreamcast era, and Zelda pops to mind right away for me. With Zelda's jump to 3D there was both an upside and downside, for me. The upside was that the dungeons and puzzles became more intricate, because you can accomplish some more unique things that you couldn't do in 3D. The downside to it all was that the bosses, for me, became way, way too easy, even though they looked far better than they ever did in 2D.[/quote]

So in a way, you can say that some things get cancelled out in the process. It's a shame really, because only a handful of games have managed to evenly balance [i]everything[/i] out, from bosses to visuals to gameplay.

Right now, only MGS2: Sons of Liberty comes to mind. That game took advantage of a lot of what 3D environments had to offer, and many of the new features that debuted to the series were effectively put to use, I thought. Fatman is a good example, as you had to switch to the first person mode in order to get a clear shot at his head if you wanted any chance of defeating him. Sure, there was the distraction of the C4 explosives that were scattered around the place, but that only helped to make hitting him more difficult, since your mind would be spinning in all sorts of directions lol.

Plus, certain camera angles helped to add suspense to the scenes during those tight spots in the game, like when you creep through a long, narrow corridor while being followed by your own shadow, or the supplementary camera that replaces the radar during the cleanings. Those can't be achieved in 2D, or at least, not as well.

Also, I think you're absolutely right about Resident Evil and Silent Hill. How in the hell can you get the same feel from them in 2D as you would while playing in 3D? The genre plays a huge factor as to how effective the game's format will be, and that proves it.

[James]

[QUOTE=Wingnut Ninja]

For example, take a look at FSA. A 3D version of FSA would look pretty and all, but there is no way on earth that the multiplayer would be as polished as it would be in the 2D version. Split-screens won't cut it for a game of that principal, as there is a lot more to FSA's teamwork aesthetics than combat, like having to push obstructive large rocks, or solving puzzles... both of which are attributes that promote how fun the game is.

[/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I think that the GTA example is better than this one. There's nothing inherent in FSA's 2D graphics that formulate a particular gameplay style that you couldn't achieve in 3D. Fundamentally, FSA's biggest attribute is probably the overhead perspective, in terms of how viewpoint/graphics has a relationship with gameplay.

You could do the game in 3D and maintain the overhead perspective, while also maintaining identical gameplay. A 3D makeover would make no difference, unless you actually create puzzles and camera angles that are specifically related to a 3D environment.

What makes the 3D GTA games different is that they take advantage of the third dimension. You could redo an old GTA game in 3D graphics, without changing the gameplay at all. 3D [i]alone[/i] is only going to make an aesthetic difference. The question is whether or not you actually utilize the properties of a 3D world.

There are some games that you just can't do in a particular format. For example, Super Mario 64. That game utilized the core properties of a 3D universe, which is what made it fundamentally "new". Unlike other 3D games at the time, Mario 64 was the first [i]true[/i] 3D game.

What I mean is, you can take something like the first Crash Bandicoot and you can make 3D visuals. But that game wasn't [i]true[/i] 3D. It utilized a digital controller, with eight-way directional movement. Fundamentally, there was very little about it that actually changed the nature of the gameplay (other than aesthetic differences).

Super Mario 64 introduced a very precise 360 degree control system, which, for the very first time, allowed the player to move in [i]true 3D[/i]. So, 3D graphics did exist before Super Mario 64...but that game was really the first completely 3D game.

Much of it does come down to aesthetics, admittedly. However, there are some games that simply work better in a 3D environment, because they actually take advantage of those three dimensions as part of their core gameplay.

But for me personally, I don't really have a preference. I still love 2D games and some games are clearly better suited to that style (both as a matter of function and as a matter of aesthetic direction). But 3D has become the staple for several reasons and I think that even now, we're still seeing only a few games that actually truly utilize the 3D environment to its fullest extent.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']I think that the GTA example is better than this one. There's nothing inherent in FSA's 2D graphics that formulate a particular gameplay style that you couldn't achieve in 3D. Fundamentally, FSA's biggest attribute is probably the overhead perspective, in terms of how viewpoint/graphics has a relationship with gameplay.[/color][/quote]

Hm, I agree with your views (particularly your comments regarding SM64 and Crash Bandicoot), but when I said "3D", I actually meant 3D as in FSA undertaking the third-person perspective like in OoT and TWW. I thought I made that clear by my statement about the "split-screens", but obviously not. Sorry for the confusion, heh.

[James]

[quote name='Wingnut Ninja']Hm, I agree with your views (particularly your comments regarding SM64 and Crash Bandicoot), but when I said "3D", I actually meant 3D as in FSA undertaking the third-person perspective like in OoT and TWW. I thought I made that clear by my statement about the "split-screens", but obviously not. Sorry for the confusion, heh.[/quote]

[color=#707875]Third person perspective just means that you're viewing the action from a seperate camera, outside the character's own point of view. So FSA is already in that perspective (so what I meant was, 3D graphics alone wouldn't make the difference).

However, if you actually had camera angles like Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time, that definitely changes the dynamic significantly. I suspect that a FSA-style game could still be done in that way, but the gameplay would probably need to change to some degree, which would potentially change the experience itself (for good or bad).[/color]

[Brasil]

What is really interesting is how particular franchises are magically wonderful in 3D, while others fail abysmally. Obviously, developer strength plays a large part in this and a successful translation from 2D to 3D.

But...gah...I lost my train of thought, lol. The Star Wars documentary is on right now.

Uh...well, basically, it's neat how Super Mario Bros translated so well into 3D, but a game like Contra failed miserably. Metroid Prime was amazing, as was Zelda's 3D foray. Why is that?

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]I've actually written an article about my preference for 2D games, if anyone wants to read it. It's called [url=http://www.wrappedinplastic.net/rupees/miscarticles-editorials.html][u]Two-Dimensional Taboo[/u][/url], and I think it relates to this thread rather well.

Overall, I do prefer 2D games over 3D, though there are some exceptions. But mainly, I like how easy it is to pick up and play 2D games. Controls are rarely complicated, movement rarely requires time to get used to it (assuming the game doesn't have bad play control), and action/combat is usually a lot more fun, at least for me. For the most part, I enjoy 3D games for somewhat different reasons than I do 2D games.

The biggest example in control/movement that comes to mind right now is the Metroid series' transition to 3D, having just replayed Super Metroid. Because of Metroid Prime's 3D environments, the game loses a lot of its platforming action, since there's stuff you just can't do well in 3D. In Super Metroid, there's a lot of vertical jumping, shooting, and dodging, rather than mainly just side-to-side as in Metroid Prime. In Metroid Prime, when you're having to climb or descend through a room, you're rarely confronted with attacks from multiple sides, and when you are, good luck dodging all of them without falling.

And that leads into my third point: combat. In Super Metroid, running through the game and blasting all the baddies as I go is one of the biggest things I enjoy about the game; I can blast things as I go. I can run, shoot something in a lava pit with the Ice Beam to freeze it, and then hit it with a super missile as I jump over it, the only thing slowing me down being me maybe stopping to pick up whatever the enemy drops when it dies. In Metroid Prime, enemies just started getting annoying after the first few hours of playing; every time I'd come to a room with some space pirates, I'd have to stop, fight them, and then move on to the next room where -- guess what? -- there were more space pirates. Progress in any area where there were space pirates felt like a stop-and-go process.

So the main thing I enjoy about Super Metroid is the platforming action mixed perfectly with combat; shooting at something horizontally, then jumping over it as it charges at you and shooting down at it as you fly overhead is something that just can't be done in Metroid Prime. In Metroid Prime, however, I enjoy exploration more than anything else in the game; the 3D world lends itself to exploration much more than 2D, making it more fun to just wander through the areas while looking for secrets.

As I say, though, there are some exceptions -- RPGs, for example, are pretty much exempt since the graphics rarely affect gameplay. F-Zero GX is a good example of a game where I really prefer 3D over 2D, though. This is mainly because the addition of 3D environments only adds to the gameplay, without taking anything away; as Wingnut Ninja put it, nothing gets cancelled out.

Comparing F-Zero: Maximum Velocity on the GBA to F-Zero GX on the GCN, the core of the gameplay is pretty similar, while the main difference between the two are the 3D tracks in GX. With the transition into 3D, much more complex tracks are able to be created, while still maintaining the same basic gameplay and controls. Nothing is really taken away from the gameplay, but the fun of racing through looping, jumping, and spiraling 3D tracks adds to the already intense feeling of speed that the series has always held fast to.

It really does depend on the game, then; some styles of gameplay can be translated into 3D worlds without losing anything, while others can't. Then again, there are things that can be done in 3D which don't translate at all well to 2D. I just prefer more 2D games than 3D games, really.[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Uh...well, basically, it's neat how Super Mario Bros translated so well into 3D, but a game like Contra failed miserably. Metroid Prime was amazing, as was Zelda's 3D foray. Why is that?[/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I haven't played a 3D Contra, so I can only talk in reference to Nintendo's 3D offerings really.

But I think there are a variety of factors. I've been playing Zelda since the late 80's, like many gamers. And so, I think that as the years went by, I developed a strong sense about what Zelda was.

I remember that when I first saw Ocarina of Time in video form, I was amazed by it. Obviously the visuals were stunning at the time - there was really nothing like it. But also, just watching the footage, you could still somehow get the sense that this was still Zelda, regardless of the new environment.

I think that a lot of that feeling comes from aesthetic design, which may include art and music. Although Ocarina of Time was 3D, it still had a "Zelda feel". But at the same time, it definitely had its own unique feel. When I first played OoT, I had a sense of wonder about it, not just because it was so new...but because it was also incredibly nostalgic at the same time. It did feel like a true evolution of the franchise.

Fundamentally though, I think it comes down to implementation.

When talking about Ocarina of Time, it's tempting to talk about the fantastic dungeon designs or the cool enemies and things like that. But fundamentally, what makes Ocarina of Time work, are its mechanics. Same goes for Super Mario 64.

Ocarina of Time is fun because it's easy to play. I mean, it's easy to jump in and move your character around in a seamless and direct way. Swordfighting is fun because it's intuitive and fluid; it doesn't feel unintuitive or repetitive, even though it has plenty of repetitive elements to it.

I think that Super Mario 64 has similar qualities. Regardless of visuals, there was one factor that made that game work: mechanics. When you move Mario around for the very first time, with the control stick, you're really experiencing a degree of freedom that has never previously existed. Before Super Mario 64, I'd never played a "true 3D" game. So it took me about fifteen minutes or so to actually adjust to this completely new type of interaction.

But once I did, a critical threshold had been reached. Not only did I have freedom that I'd never had before, but it was [i]easy and intuitive[/i] to move Mario around and to make him do what I wanted.

If you fast forward to Super Mario Sunshine, you notice another qualitative leap forward. If you go and play Super Mario 64 for ten minutes, then you play Super Mario Sunshine directly afterwards, I guarantee, you'll feel as though you've stepped another ten years ahead.

And it isn't because of graphics. It's because Super Mario Sunshine's controls are even more sublime than its predecessor. By comparison, controlling Mario in Super Mario 64 feels clunky and stiff. Part of the fun of Super Mario Sunshine is simply moving Mario around and [i]feeling[/i] the very precise and direct interaction between yourself and Mario.

Shigeru Miyamoto has talked about that multiple times and it relates somewhat to the philosophy behind Nintendo DS. The idea is that incredible game mechanics -- mechanics that are fun in and of themselves -- can be used to introduce a game to a 3D world, or to create something entirely different that is still a lot of fun.

So, apart from the great level designs and so on, I think that Mario, Zelda and Metroid have translated well to 3D because the mechanics are spot on. Metroid Prime maintains elements from the older Metroid games that made them fun. But it takes some intelligent steps forward, in terms of extending the mechanics into a 3D environment and making them fun.

Ultimately there's so much more to it than that. But if these games didn't have flawless (or near flawless) mechanics, they just wouldn't work. And therefore, no matter how great the level designs are and everything else, something still wouldn't feel right.[/color]

[*GaLxY-GiRl*]

When it comes to fighting games, I prefer 3-D because they're typically a little more simplistic and easier to master, and that's good news for retards like me. Soul Caliber II; I'll whoop you with Taki!

However, 2-D fighters make up for what they lack in explorable territory with complication, it seems. Even though one of my favorite fighters is Guilty Gear XX it is complicated as hell. Oh, but so much ridiculous fun. May for life! Then, there's a little shooter by the name of Ikaruga... I do not play this game because I am a female, but it is beautiful and I fully respect anyone who can play it because it is haaard (by way of defying all definitions and laws of nature).

As for "regular" games, as in every other type aside from fighters, it's still a toss up. 3-D games like RPGs are so much fun because you're running around, doing your thing for days... or maybe that's just me. Heck, I still haven't finished FFX because I inspect every inch of the territory. (In related news, I also tried to dig up every inch of land in my old Zelda Game Boy game, Link's Awakening... still haven't beaten it either. -_-') ---However, 2-D games remind me of nostalgic Mario Bro.'s and all that terrific junk I was raised on. Original Nintendo and its games are those toys you just won't sell or even put away. It's hooked up to your TV until you die.

So, in conclusion, I have mad respect for both types of games and have typed about it for too long. fin. Oh, and seeing how this analysis is mostly opinion-based, I'm aware of all the impending exceptions. fin fin.

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='Desbreko][color=#4B0082']Overall, I do prefer 2D games over 3D, though there are some exceptions. But mainly, I like how easy it is to pick up and play 2D games. Controls are rarely complicated, movement rarely requires time to get used to it (assuming the game doesn't have bad play control), and action/combat is usually a lot more fun, at least for me. For the most part, I enjoy 3D games for somewhat different reasons than I do 2D games.[/color][/quote]

This is an important thing to bare in mind, I think. There has been talk of how 3D environments allow for players to interact with them, but with all that fuss going on, we're forgetting how some games are particularly effected by those environments in terms of controls and simplicity.

RPGs, for example, will need to be somewhat deep or unique if they are to aspire in the rankings. While a lot of the best ones are extremely basic and easy to play, like LttP (though it's an adventure/action RPG), I still wouldn't mind seeing some depth in the control system of various others. FFVIII and FFX aren't the best RPGs out there, but a few of the elements that were implemented to the battle system were pretty innovative, if not decent. I would much rather rely on myself to have to pull off Limit Breaks or Overdrives, simply because it's a lot more fun that way, and it adds a level of depth and involvement to some degree, as opposed to waiting around and countering the damage dealt with an overpowered attack of some sort, *cough* Omnislash.

In a way, you could call what I'm talking about here a "three dimensional control mechanism".

[quote name='James']Ocarina of Time is fun because it's easy to play. I mean, it's easy to jump in and move your character around in a seamless and direct way. Swordfighting is fun because it's intuitive and fluid; it doesn't feel unintuitive or repetitive, even though it has plenty of repetitive elements to it.[/quote]

Now here, this is the exact opposite of what I was saying previously. OoT, with its amazingly realistic 3D graphics and engine, managed to keep its mechanism completely on level to that of LttP. Even with the assorted three dimensional pad of the N64, it remained relatively easy to play with. But, like Shinmaru said, along with the 3D designs came a slowdown in the difficulty of certain different areas in the game, namely the bosses. It's not a huge problem, really, and it's understandable, since it's the first transition of a 3D game for the Zelda series, but all in all, the feeling just wasn't there.

I totally agree with SM64 and OoT being near flawless, too. The only thing I can think of that I didn't like in OoT that regards the mechanics was that stupid minor freeze that occurred each time after Link made a forward roll.

[James]

[QUOTE=Wingnut Ninja]
OoT, with its amazingly realistic 3D graphics and engine, managed to keep its mechanism completely on level to that of LttP. Even with the assorted three dimensional pad of the N64, it remained relatively easy to play with. [/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]The thing is though, with LttP, you have a very limited set of moves. Variety is added by allowing you to use a variety of different weapons and items.

The great thing about Ocarina of Time is that by moving the control stick whilst moving your sword, you can actually create different kinds of strikes. The ability to jump from side to side and to leap backwards also make swordfighting incredibly fun, while also adding some variety. In that sense, OoT is far, far more complex than LttP. But it feels just as fun, because it's very intuitive (due to Z-Targeting and the rhythm of swing/block in combat).

In regard to bosses...I think that's largely just a personal thing. I don't think that Nintendo deliberately dumbed them down or anything. To give you an example, I found some of the bosses in Majora's Mask to be as difficult as anything I'd faced in the 2D games. By the same token, though, I also found those bosses to be slightly tougher than most of the bosses in Ocarina of Time.

Not to say that OoT didn't have its tough boss fights, but bear in mind that the game was introducing players to a 3D Zelda for the very first time. Again, not to say that Nintendo necessarily dumbed bosses down (in fact, I think that their routines in OoT are more complex than their routines in LttP), but in my experience, LttP had one major thing with bosses than OoT didn't: speed. Sometimes boss fights in LttP had an insanely frantic/quick pace to them. So I'd attribute that to the perceived higher level of difficulty, in my own experience with the series.

By the same token, I felt that Majora's Mask's boss fights seemed a little faster and more frantic than the fights in OoT. So I'd say that speed is a major factor when it comes to difficulty.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]In regard to bosses...I think that's largely just a personal thing. I don't think that Nintendo deliberately dumbed them down or anything. To give you an example, I found some of the bosses in Majora's Mask to be as difficult as anything I'd faced in the 2D games. By the same token, though, I also found those bosses to be slightly tougher than most of the bosses in Ocarina of Time.

Not to say that OoT didn't have its tough boss fights, but bear in mind that the game was introducing players to a 3D Zelda for the very first time. Again, not to say that Nintendo necessarily dumbed bosses down (in fact, I think that their routines in OoT are more complex than their routines in LttP), but in my experience, LttP had one major thing with bosses than OoT didn't: speed. Sometimes boss fights in LttP had an insanely frantic/quick pace to them. So I'd attribute that to the perceived higher level of difficulty, in my own experience with the series.

By the same token, I felt that Majora's Mask's boss fights seemed a little faster and more frantic than the fights in OoT. So I'd say that speed is a major factor when it comes to difficulty.[/color][/QUOTE]

I agree with this. For me, I felt that Ocarina's boss fights were far easier than those of Link to the Past's because of the less frantic pace and because of Z-Targeting, which basically got rid of just about any camera-related issues that the game might have had. The boss fights took a pretty sharp hit in difficulty because of this, but it's honestly not that big of a deal; I mean, you'd be crazy [i]not[/i] to prefer the Z-Targeting system over anything else lol. And it's not as if OoT's boss fights aren't still fun, it's just that they aren't as tough as I'd like them to have been. Same goes for Wind Waker, too.

Majora's Mask's bosses were tough, though. Not quite as tough as some of the LttP bosses (except for Gyorg, perhaps), but still plenty tough in their own right.

[James]

[QUOTE=Shinmaru]And it's not as if OoT's boss fights aren't still fun, it's just that they aren't as tough as I'd like them to have been. Same goes for Wind Waker, too.

[/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Actually, this is one area where I felt that Wind Waker was really a step backwards from Majora's Mask. It was a [i]lot[/i] easier, despite being directed by the same guy. I found that a little mystifying, myself.

I agree that Z-Targeting makes a significant difference. It's interesting, because such a system would never really be required in a 2D game. It's the nature of 3D, that such a system needs to be implemented.

But having said that, it's a lot easier to block or dodge attacks in a 2D game. In a 3D game, you're having things attacking from many more angles and movement itself is more complex. So that's another interesting aspect that differentiates 2D from 3D. Although, having said that, it's also probably true that Mario Sunshine has more rapid movement than Wind Waker. So, 3D doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have the kind of "twitch" controls that you see in 2D games. But making movement identical between LttP and Wind Waker just wouldn't work, for obvious reasons. So yeah...it definitely depends on the game.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Although, having said that, it's also probably true that Mario Sunshine has more rapid movement than Wind Waker. So, 3D doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have the kind of "twitch" controls that you see in 2D games.[/color][/quote]

Yeah, I agree with that. This is one of the areas in a lot of games where neither 2D or 3D really matter, because a game's rapidity is solely reflected by its mechanics.

You can use the Mario games as a good example. In the Mario games (particularly the 2D ones), you generally choose if you want to run through the courses as wildly and recklessly as possible, or if you want to play it safe and go past them like a turtle, but really, as long as that key attribute of rapidity is there, then the game can be as challenging or as difficult as you want it to be. And that's the exact same principal of the 3D Mario games, though there are one-off areas in the games where rapidity is more or less forced upon you.