default header

Theory

On 2D vs. 3D Platformers

Moderator: JC Denton

On 2D vs. 3D Platformers

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Nov 2014 04:00

The opening paragraph of my Super Mario 64 review:

I wrote:It's quite a well-known fact that 3D platformers tend to, if not outright suck, then at least be generally less exciting and accomplished than their little 2D brothers. But why is that? The average gamer would blame it on collectibles, hub worlds, the "Mane Streem" or "evil corporashuns", or any combination of any of these tired old scarecrows, but I am here to tell you that the reason is far more complex and profound than anything casuals such as these would ever be able to dream up -- or comprehend, even. It cuts right to the core of the aesthetics vs. mechanics duality that is essential to the understanding of videogames as art, and which we must attempt to fully analyze and grasp if we are ever to solve this, and other, far more complex and difficult riddles.


Try to think up reasons why 3D platformers suck compared to 2D ones -- and why our theory predicts that they MUST suck, merely by virtue of being 3D. If you prefer 3D ones don't even bother replying.

(Note that I've already given out half the answer, since every single person on the planet who plays games believes, or has been brainwashed to believe, that Mario 64 is a great game. I, on the other hand, begin from the fact that it is nothing of the kind; and that already takes you half the way to my ultimate goal.)
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Cassowary » 19 Nov 2014 04:33

My guess:

2D platformers are fundamentally about moving around a simulated two dimensional space -- enemies, difficult jumps and obstacles are there to prevent the game from becoming boring. Moving around in 2D space can be fun in and of itself because of the fact that 2D space is necessarily abstract and limited, making graceful movement that much more exciting. If you need evidence, you just need to look at any discussion of the genre at any relatively sane part of the internet: aspies and morons can discuss level design all they want, but most people are more excited by the means of traversing levels than by the levels themselves. The early Kirby games are a great example -- the level design is nothing special at all, but Kirby's charming float and powers make the games enjoyable nonetheless. This is absolutely impossble to translate into 3D -- we experience three dimensional movement all the time and take it for granted the instant we are faced with a three dimensional space, and as such, it takes incredibly clever subversion to make three dimensional movement fun in and of itself -- think Jet Set Radio and Vanquish. Even then, three dimensional movement still cannot sustain a game on its own -- what would Jet Set Radio or Vanquish be if their stages had been designed with the care of an early Kirby game's stages? Simply being able to walk, run and jump around isn't exciting in three dimensions, no matter how much resistance there is. I can walk, run and jump around in almost any 3D game, on top of all sorts of other interesting things that 3D allows me to do.

Also, 2D platformers take a much more "do or die" approach out of bare necessity. If you have to jump over a pit in Super Mario World while a koopa or whatnot flies over it, you simply have to figure out a way to get over that challenge within the designer's parameters. If the same thing happens in Super Mario 64, you can more than likely find a way to ignore the koopa, the pit and the platforms without any significant difficulty. 3D space is simply too open for the platformer genre, which relies entirely on constraints.
User avatar
Cassowary
 
Joined: 15 Nov 2014 22:41

Unread postby Texas » 19 Nov 2014 06:15

3D games in general are exciting compared to 2D ones because the third dimension opens up new possibilities. For example, FPSes are exciting compared to 2D shooting games because aiming and shooting in three dimensions is more complex and engaging than the eight-directional shooting at best offered by 2D games. In contrast, jumping on platforms in three dimensions doesn't really offer any new possibilities than jumping in 2D platformers, and the 3D games are actually easier because jumping onto a three-dimensional platform requires less precision.
User avatar
Texas
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2010 05:07
Location: Michigan, USA

Unread postby jeffrobot494 » 19 Nov 2014 06:37

My guess is that it's due to the tropes of the platformer genre, like floating platforms, creating environments that don’t make sense. Why is this platform moving back and forth between two points? Why is there a huge gap here I have to jump across? When seen in a more immersive 3D world, the nonsensical-ness is more obvious and more jarring.

For example, Darksiders features dungeons similar to those in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. There are floating platforms, switches you hit to make platforms change direction, etc. In an otherwise highly-immersive world, it makes no sense. No one would ever build something like that. The most platformey dungeons are definitely low-points of the game.

That said, Assassin’s Creed 1 overcame this problem by creating a world where the environment and platforming makes sense and is believable (I would call Assassin’s Creed 1 a 3D platformer because most of what you do is run and jump around platforms). The levels are composed of everything from shantytowns to towering libraries, and it’s all believable (except for a few places where the stepping stones and window sills are just a little too convenient).
User avatar
jeffrobot494
 
Joined: 26 Sep 2012 23:59
Location: California, USA

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Nov 2014 15:09

You are doing very well so far, especially jeff (who paid attention to the aesthetics vs. mechanics hint I gave). Here are three of the main games I'll use as examples in my review: Power Stone, Mirror's Edge and Portal. Mirror's Edge will take the place of jeff's suggestion of Assassin's Creed (because I haven't played AssCreed, that's why it didn't occur to me as an example; though I probably will have by the time I write the review).

Can anyone guess wtf Power Stone and Portal have to do with this issue? I will have to review both of them before I can do Mario 64.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Nov 2014 15:25

Also, PlanetSide 2. That will be the final example that I will use.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Nov 2014 15:34

I guess you could also add Crackdown in there. But PlanetSide 2 is a better example of the same thing.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Nov 2014 15:47

And Metroid Prime lol. This has to do with something that Cassowary mentioned.

I am not joking. These games are all intimately tied with the matter at hand, and their designers all faced, in one way or another, similar issues.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Hanged Man » 19 Nov 2014 16:21

icycalm wrote:Can anyone guess wtf Power Stone and Portal have to do with this issue? I will have to review both of them before I can do Mario 64.

I don't know about Power Stone, but Portal is basically a 3D platformer: the game gives you advanced methods of moving around in its world, and yet you don't really interact with anything in it. Sometimes you need to flip a switch or move a box for some "puzzles", but that's mostly it.
User avatar
Hanged Man
 
Joined: 29 Aug 2014 04:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Nov 2014 17:14

As a change from how I usually do it, and to give you a glimpse in my writing process, here are my current notes for the Super Mario 64 review, that pretty much answer everything. All that remains now is to sit down and clean them up into a proper review (after, of course, I have reviewed the couple of other games that must be reviewed before it). Enjoy, and congrats on your astute speculation, especially jeff.

I wrote:Not Art: Super Mario 64
The important games are Jak & Daxter and Mirror's Edge.
What is the best 3D platformer? Gun Valkyrie. Lost Planet. Jet Set Radio. Ultimately, PlanetSide 2. No other game I have played comes close to the sensation of using the jump pads in PlanetSide 2. The feeling is exhilarating beyond words, even on a laptop screen. On a projector screen it's a huge rush, and I imagine on a VR headset it would cause many people to lose their dinner.
As you up the aesthetic complexity, you must increase the mechanical one too. Just jumping looks stupid in 3D dimensions. Imagine a movie where the protagonist spends the whole time jumping. But a movie in which he spends the whole time shooting, etc. as in Contra/Rambo can work, and indeed works. Obviously it doesn't work as well as a Bond movie, but it works. Just jumping would be retarded (remember the Mario movie?)
Also, Portal example.
So yes, Nintendo is doing its best, but it still finds itself returning to 2D. E.g. the New Mario games, Yoshi's Yarn, or that Mario game which plays like Fez, etc. They settle for 2.5D, EXACTLY as fighting games (which means Power Stone review must come before this one). They don't have the theory, but they can clearly see that something is wrong with their practice.
So the 2D Marios are far superior games to the 3D Marios. The 3D Marios are for children, for children who don't even know what the best toys are.
That's why 2D platformers were dominated by mascot/caricatures. Because the whole thing is stupid by nature, and hence better represented by caricature, by stupid aesthetics. See Recap's article on Genocides and Reinventions and my Braid review.
The problem with people analyzing the problem is that they treated the genre as equal to every other. "If one genre can work in both 2D and 3D, every genre can", which is bullshit because genres are not equal, and though it's true that the MAJORITY of successful 2D genres can be successfully evolved to 3D, it is not true of ALL of them, and hence they must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis (without, of course, forgetting to use the rule as a general guideline; i.e. the one or two exceptions do not disprove the existence of the rule).
Lost Planet. Throwing the hookshot is jumping. It is the evolution of platforming, via Bionic Commando, to 3D action. It was the platformer's DESTINY to become a tiny aspect of a much larger, more complex genre. A 3D game build entirely around jumping would be stupid. In fact even in the 2D era it was deprecated. Look at the Super Shinobi, Contra or Daimakaimura. They have a ton of platforming in them, but they also have a ton of other stuff, and that's why they are cooler games than pure platformers. Even in the time of 2D games had already moved past pure jumping as a main mechanic -- never mind in 3D. And look how the pure platformers tended to have children's themes, while the ones which integrated jumping in a larger context tended to be more mature, more realistic, adult, grown up. More serious. Not completely serious of course -- neither Shinobi nor Contra nor Makaimura were completely serious. But they were far more serious than Mario or Sonic.
And lo and behold: the 3D platformer as a genre has been essentially abandoned by game developers (and even by players: no one is asking for on Kickstarter). Only Nintendo takes it seriously anymore, but as I have already explained, Nintendo is ARTISTICALLY RETARDED today. As in literally retarded, "behind", not as an insult (though it is, of course, an insult). And Sega who just won't let 3D Sonic, at least, die. But even they turned to 2D and 2.5D in the end, and those games are being received better. It's basically the now grown up ninnines, the "mini-gamers", the retards on Nintendo fan sites and forums, who are buying and playing these games, funding their development. (i.e. only the 2 biggest mascots survived in 3D, and these only because of the MASCOTS -- i.e. because of the aesthetics, not the mechanics (just like the only 3D fighters that survived are Tekken and VF). Or gimmicky games like Portal, which are praised as "innovative" and Games of the Year though they are backwards- and retrogressive-as-fuck. Retarded players for a retarded genre. Portal had to have hilarious jokes to hide how boring the thing was, and it was praised because of the jokes. Lipstick on a pig. There's no hope for the 3D platformer, and I've done my best to explain to you why.
Super Mario Sunshine. Cute, but boring. Even IGN agreed at the time. Even the press. By the time Galaxy game around everyone HAD to praise it, since they had been hyping up the Wii through the roof, and the thing was selling. But you could tell who the weeaboos were right away.
Instead of asking "where are 3D platformers today?" you should be asking "where is jumping in games today?" and the answer is "everywhere". It's in Vanquish, in Jet Set Radio, in Splinter Cell, etc. Early games had one button, so it was natural to combine it with a stick and use it for jumping, and thus arose the platformer genre, or jumping genre, for a more helpful label. But once you have 2 dozen buttons, a game about only jumping doesn't make sense, and in a 3D context a game about jumping ON YOUR OPPONENT'S HEADS is almost impossible to pull off without going for a pure comic aesthetic. But Sam Fisher DOES jump on people's heads in Splinter Cell, to GUT them. It is precisely arthouse developers like Ubisoft, and "brown murder simulators" like Splinter Cell that have really taken the jumping concept and ran away with it. And panting in the back, are the failed developers like Nintendo and the "indies", and their small legion of fat, neckbearded, effeminate aspies and the journalists who pander to them (Super Mario 64 on a ton of top 100 lists where it barely even deserves a 3/5).
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Metal Wolf » 21 Nov 2014 01:08

The main reason why 3D platformers suck is the lack of depth perception. I'm aware that stereoscopy exists, but so far not even one 3D platformer was designed with this technology in mind. Even 3D Mario Land was made to be perfectly playable without the 3D effect.

This limitation pushed 3D "platformers" away from platforming towards exploration and collecting, turning them into sucky, simple action-adventure games for kids.

Compare the action of hitting the floating block in Super Mario Bros and in Super Mario 64. Doing this is much more difficult and clumsy in 3D space. At first glance a trivial change, like introducing dynamic shadows to the game, could make it even worse, because it would remove the visual aid in the form of the shadow directly below the block.

Now imagine a section in an SM64 level that forces players to jump between several Mario sized blocks hanging over a bottomless pit, like in 2D games...

Texas wrote:In contrast, jumping on platforms in three dimensions doesn't really offer any new possibilities than jumping in 2D platformers.


Texas wrote:jumping onto a three-dimensional platform requires less precision.


Jumping in 3D actually requires more precision because you have to take one more axis into account. The problem is, as I wrote above, 3D platformers are far from precise, so developers don't make precision demanding platforming sections in 3D.

Cassowary wrote:aspies and morons can discuss level design all they want, but most people are more excited by the means of traversing levels than by the levels themselves. The early Kirby games are a great example -- the level design is nothing special at all, but Kirby's charming float and powers make the games enjoyable nonetheless.


And the early Turrican games are a great example of the opposite situation. Cool abilities are not worth much if the level design is abysmal.

icycalm wrote:Super Mario Sunshine. Cute, but boring. Even IGN agreed at the time. Even the press. By the time Galaxy game around everyone HAD to praise it, since they had been hyping up the Wii through the roof, and the thing was selling. But you could tell who the weeaboos were right away.


Compared to 64, Sunshine, and most other 3D "platformers", 3D Mario games for Wii and WiiU are at least deserving of their genre classification. Also, Nintendo learned to circumvent the depth perception issue through clever camera placement better then any other developer managed to do so far... but yeah, its very true that not many of them are trying.

That's the impression i got from just seeing the games. The only recent one i actually finished is 3D Land. I still don't own a Wii or WiiU because they are at the bottom of my gaming priorities.

icycalm wrote:Just jumping would be retarded (remember the Mario movie?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZrAlA31RUs

How about something like this, expanded into a feature film, with roughly 50% of it dedicated entirely to graceful jumping in slow motion?

icycalm wrote:But once you have 2 dozen buttons, a game about only jumping doesn't make sense


icycalm wrote:What is the best 3D platformer?


(EA) Skate 3
Metal Wolf
 
Joined: 16 Nov 2014 21:06
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Nov 2014 01:13

You are just giving me the popular explanation that I already refuted. I am telling you a 3D game built entirely about jumping is boring and looks stupid. You are telling me "blah blah blah everything I can read on NeoGAF".

You don't seem capable of understanding my explanation.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Nov 2014 01:16

You know what, you are right. My theory is wrong and the only thing that needs to be fixed is the "depth perception" problem, which will usher in a new glorious era of masterpiece 3D platformers.

Let's just wait for that then.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Nov 2014 01:45

I also see you have great taste in games. Skate 3 is indeed better than Gun Valkyrie. Sports games in general are awesome and all hardcore gamers love them.

I am thinking maybe I should turn control of my site over to you, and just kick back and watch you take care of things. Lemme mull that over for a while and I'll get back to you.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby jeffrobot494 » 21 Nov 2014 02:05

Metal Wolf, you need to write your introduction post in the Welcome thread. This is a room in Icy's house, where a group of people that know and respect each other are talking. You just walked in and opened your mouth without even introducing yourself. Also, when you quote someone you should attribute the quote to them. Write [quote="icycalm"][/quote] for example. Much easier to follow.
User avatar
jeffrobot494
 
Joined: 26 Sep 2012 23:59
Location: California, USA

Unread postby JC Denton » 21 Nov 2014 02:07

I did that for him. I spent 5 minutes editing his post to make it legible.
User avatar
JC Denton
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 08 Sep 2006 14:10
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Unread postby Metal Wolf » 21 Nov 2014 06:12

icycalm wrote:You don't seem capable of understanding my explanation.


icycalm wrote:You know what, you are right. My theory is wrong and the only thing that needs to be fixed is the "depth perception" problem, which will usher in a new glorious era of masterpiece 3D platformers.


icycalm wrote:You are telling me "blah blah blah everything I can read on NeoGAF".


Like you asked, I mentioned a reason, the main reason they sucked as much as they did (and they sucked so badly they could not even be true 3D platformers for a long time). I also mentioned a game that is built entirely around jumping, uses every button on the controller and avoids the usual aesthetics. I never browsed NeoGAF much, but I doubt anybody there would choose the same platformer as me.

I never disagreed with the main point. In fact, I would be thrilled if in above mentioned game, as I'm gathering speed, just before launching a quadruple kickflip between two buildings like usual, i could also shoot down a nearby enemy helicopter, killing its pilot with one well placed bullet, making it crash on the building as I'm flying towards it, and land into a grind on its broken rotor.

icycalm wrote:I also see you have great taste in games.


My tastes were the reason I stumbled upon this site. I was searching for information about different arcade versions of Outrun 2.

icycalm wrote:Skate 3 is indeed better than Gun Valkyrie.


I found out about Gun Valkyrie from your review of the game. It looks cool. I will play it.

@jeffrobot494
Thank you. I didn't realize introductions were mandatory. I was eager to participate in a thread as soon as i got the access to the forum.

@JC Denton
I'm sorry. I will take a longer break from posting and just read from now on.
Metal Wolf
 
Joined: 16 Nov 2014 21:06
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Nov 2014 11:45

Metal Wolf wrote:Like you asked, I mentioned a reason


The reason had already been explained by the time you entered the thread. The thing that I asked had already been answered. And, on top of that, the answer you gave was wrong.

Metal Wolf wrote:the main reason they sucked as much as they did


The reason you gave was not a reason at all, never mind the main reason.

Metal Wolf wrote:(and they sucked so badly they could not even be true 3D platformers for a long time).


Random bullshit that makes no sense. Mario 64 was a true platformer. Stop making shit up.

Metal Wolf wrote:I also mentioned a game that is built entirely around jumping, uses every button on the controller and avoids the usual aesthetics. I never browsed NeoGAF much, but i doubt anybody there would choose the same platformer as me.


Yes, because even NeoGAF has better taste than you. Skate 3 better than any of the games I listed? Go to IGN.com dude.

Metal Wolf wrote:I never disagreed with the main point.


You gave a different main reason than the one I gave. In English, this is called "disagreeing with the main point". I don't know what it's called in Serbian, and I don't care. Learn English. And also learn what "pathetic backpedalling" means while you are at it.

Metal Wolf wrote:In fact, I would be thrilled if in above mentioned game, as I'm gathering speed, just before launching a quadruple kickflip between two buildings like usual, I could also shoot down a nearby enemy helicopter, killing its pilot with one well placed bullet, making it crash on the building as I'm flying towards it, and land into a grind on its broken rotor.


Yeah, that's not a platform game. You would be "thrilled" if your perfect platform game was an action game instead, which is what I was saying.

Please don't post in this thread again. For no reason whatsoever. Not even to make a one-sentence post that tries to one-up me and save face with people with whom you never had any in the first place. Theory is not for everyone. In fact it is not for the vast majority of people. And that's okay. We can still be friends and talk about stuff in the News and Games forums instead. Thanks.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Bread » 22 Nov 2014 13:06

The issue of shoddy cameras is another standard reason for preferring 2D platformers over 3D. Camera problems don't arise in 2D, because the side view gives you a godlike perspective on the surrounding area. The camera sits 'outside' of the game space, looking in at the ideal 90-degree angle. In 3D, the camera is another object within the world. You need to deal with the possibility of stuff in the world obstructing the view. If the player can move in all directions, the camera angle needs to swing around to accommodate this. Direct control of the camera is given to the player out of necessity (then occasionally, annoyingly, taken away from them in certain situations).

For 3D games, a bird's-eye view of the area seems the closest possible 3D approximation of the transcendent perspective inherent in 2D (short of letting you see through objects). And it only works for outdoor areas. I recall Mario Sunshine having great, smooth control for this. C-stick up and down controlled both camera pitch and zoom together, so you pulled back for a zoomed-out bird's-eye view.

Modern 3rd person cameras trend toward being fixed closer to the player avatar. So when you want a bird's-eye view on the world, you go climb a tower.
User avatar
Bread
 
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 03:26
Location: London, UK

Unread postby icycalm » 22 Nov 2014 17:54

You guys do not understand a frigging word I am saying and seem hellbent on softening the conclusion of my theory by covering it with the EXACT SAME bullshit reasons that I wrote my theory to REFUTE.

Every single frigging "problem" you hallucinate IS SHARED BY 3D ACTION GAMES, and yet the genre is flourishing and NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT EXCEPT PEOPLE WHO CAN'T PLAY THESE GAMES AT ALL. "Depth perception", "3D cameras": Ninja Gaiden and Mirror's Edge and every frigging 3D game ever have these "problems". Do you have trouble playing these games too? I wouldn't be surprised. And keep pretentious bullshit like "transcendent" cameras to yourself, please. I am getting flashbacks of old threads in which you called playing games "donkey-work". Are you sure you wouldn't rather be posting on Select Button instead?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 22 Nov 2014 19:01

Look guys, amazing game that doesn't have any pesky depth perception or camera problems:

Pong.png


It's transcendent!

And that's why its clones dominate the market today. Because they don't have those problems that so many people find so problematic.
Last edited by icycalm on 22 Nov 2014 19:07, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 22 Nov 2014 19:02

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands


Return to Theory