Contra: Shattered Soldier

http://www2.webmagic.com/klov.com/sc...tal_Slug_3.jpg

why do you say Metal Slug looks like cel rips?

there is a loss in the precision and control of a shooter if it moves to a free range 3D style. This is why we find a prevalence of lock on attacks and things of that nature.

if we're talking "2.5"D,then the gameplay should work out to be about the same, but the look of a solid parralax 2D background is still sharper currently,(comparatively) simply because of the level of control that can be had when creating the background in 2D, instead of building it in 3D. arguments involve direct pixel placement, and things of that nature, if anyone wants me to get specific.

If 3D effects are wanted, they can be added where needed. If the gameplay is 2D, the 3D aspect is suspect. The value of the 3D character is that they scale properly, since they are a combination of very large textures(relative to sprites) and sprites are one small image, they do not scale as well. If you were to get the true size of a 3D character(where all textures are represented properly), i imagine it would be horrendously huge. and if you were to create 2D sprites of that same size, the detail would be amazing, but sprites can't be created at that size. not for the sake of a game anyways. At a distance, detail is less than a comparative sprite, and I imagine that would be the primary view for a conventional Contra game. I suppose it all depends on how much you like that 3D demo sequence before a boss fight, or arbitrary rotation. But there is not a grand benefit for a side scrolling "realistic" shooter to be made 3D. not of the nature of contra. But I imagine this game will be somewhat different, in which case, its not what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taito

I don't understand what it is you want. I'm content with 3D graphics that retain the 2D gameplay, but it seems like you will not be content unless the game is 100% 2D. High-quality 3D characters do the same job what developers were trying to do with 'realistic' 2D sprites, using less time and cost.

---

That's exactly what I want. 100% 2D. Not in all my games. Just where it applies. It certainly applies here. It's not that I'm uncontent with 3D. It's just that 3D is so old and tired. It's all we've seen for 6 years. High res 2D is new and exciting.

Here's two analogies for you: 2D is a hammer. 3D is a wrench. Now say that developing a racing game is like tightening a bolt and developing a shooter is like pounding in a nail. Don't use the damn wrench to pound the nail in!


Or 3D is a chicken sandwich and 2D is a hamburger. I love both chicken sandwiches and hamburgers. It's just that I've had nothing but chicken sandwiches for as long as I remember, and I really want a hamburger now!

This is all getting way too technical with pixel placements and game controll aspects and whatnot. For me it is much simpler: I love the way 2D looks. I ABSOLUTLY LOVE IT. From a purely visual standpoint, it looks fantastic. And this is only coming from what 8, 16, and 32 bit games look like. I'm immagining what 2D could look like with some money and great developers thrown its way on current hardware, and I'm going crazy thinking about the possibilities. They could be the most beautiful games anybody's ever seen AND WE'LL NEVER KNOW UNTILL SOMEONE TRIES!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rezo
http://www2.webmagic.com/klov.com/sc...tal_Slug_3.jpg

why do you say Metal Slug looks like cel rips?

---

Because Metal Slug is purposely going for a 'cartoonish' look, not a 'realistic' style, like every Contra game save for Hard Corps.

Quote:

---

there is a loss in the precision and control of a shooter if it moves to a free range 3D style. This is why we find a prevalence of lock on attacks and things of that nature.

---

And this is where I have to challenge your statement. How many traditional 2D games with 3D graphics have you played? Have you played Zero Gunner 2? Was precision and control lost in that game? I don't think it was.

Quote:

---

arguments involve direct pixel placement, and things of that nature, if anyone wants me to get specific.

---

Go ahead. i'd like to hear (read?) this.

Quote:

---

I suppose it all depends on how much you like that 3D demo sequence before a boss fight, or arbitrary rotation. But there is not a grand benefit for a side scrolling "realistic" shooter to be made 3D. not of the nature of contra. But I imagine this game will be somewhat different, in which case, its not what I'm talking about.

---

Did you see the PS2 Contra screen with the hero fighting the robot on the train/railroad tracks? I can all but guarantee that fight scene would not be implemented as efficiently and as seamlessly using hand-rendered graphics, no matter what rotation, parallax or scaling was used.

I'm surprised by this 3D backlash. There are a lot of terrible 3D games, but that doesn't mean 3D graphics is bad. I just believe 3D was the natural progression for games like this, and I don't see the benefit of using exclusively 2D sprites, or the detriment for using exclusively 3D models, in a game like Contra.

I gotta go, so don't anticipate a response from me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
This is all getting way too technical with pixel placements and game controll aspects and whatnot. For me it is much simpler: I love the way 2D looks. I ABSOLUTLY LOVE IT. From a purely visual standpoint, it looks fantastic. And this is only coming from what 8, 16, and 32 bit games look like. I'm immagining what 2D could look like with some money and great developers thrown its way on current hardware, and I'm going crazy thinking about the possibilities. They could be the most beautiful games anybody's ever seen AND WE'LL NEVER KNOW UNTILL SOMEONE TRIES!!!!!

---

Fuck, I'm just happy seeing the apparent renaissance of traditional 2D action games. Can we all agree 2D gameplay is sharper and more exhilirating than the sweeping majority of 3D games? Other than that, we're just arguing over preferences.

Taito, you're missing the point. I'm all for a 2.5D or 3D action game. The point is Contra, Mega man, Castlevania, Metroid, etc, are 2D games and should stay that way. I'm all for Konami making a 2.5D/3D action game but why use the Contra name? Because people are familiar with the name. The same people that want the fucking game in 2D. We don't want progression in our 2D games. We want more 2D games on the newest hardware that can do more with 2D sprites then any system before them. Give me all of the new 2.5/3D games you want just leave the great 2D games where they belong. Proof of this is both of the 3D Contra games and both of the 3D Castlevania games. They weren't really bad games they just were an embarrasment to the lineage they came from.

attempting to look "cartoony"(using a broad definition based on your use of the word and not mine) has nothing to do with looking like cel animation.it sports a level of detail that is too high for regular animation, which is limited by the volume of work they do.

Quote:

---

And this is where I have to challenge your statement. How many traditional 2D games with 3D graphics have you played? Have you played Zero Gunner 2? Was precision and control lost in that game? I don't think it was.

---

x_X let me repeat what I said:

"there is a loss in the precision and control of a shooter if it moves to a free range 3D style."

I meant 3D. not polygonal graphics. not a polygonal game
with limits composed in a "2D" manner. this line was related to
what I said later, about the benefits of "3D" realism, being based
on up close action, and generally not from viewing the game passively ala 2D games with occasional changes in direction.

Quote:

---

Go ahead. i'd like to hear (read?) this.

---

you'd have to get Johnpv to join this topic and argue for 3D artwork for me to need to post any lengthy explanations.:P

here's the crux: for a 2D image. a sprite, what have you, you are responsible for everything that is applied to it, at the pixel level. you decide directly where the shadows go on the image, the placement of the sprites hair, and redraw it for each movement and are responsible for each frame of animation, to whichever degree you like. in essence, each piece is like a completed piece of art unto itself. if you are of want, as an artist, you can have 100% control over how you would like your sprite to look, using the tools available.
If you create a 3D character, you are essentially building it, and subequently manipulating it for each animation produced. You do not decide directly where the shadows are on the character. you set a "light", and a relative degree and adjust whatever properties, and the computer handles the actual shadows once everything is set. It moves the artist to the role of a director in that respect. You do not independently animate hair, you work with algorithms that effect the hair, but in that respect, you are directing what happens to your creation, and not being directly responsible for it. Textures do not occupy perfect space. Often, they are repeated to fill out their area. You are responsible for the pattern, and not the final product. In a sprite, you are responsible for every pixel on the character, so in this respect, a 2D artist has much more control over his artistic, directly,literally if he so wishes, vision than a 3D artist. control, in respect to what is actually created.

a Complex 2D map of any size takes just as much time to load and display as a simle map of the same size. A 3D background, harms the system at a level relative to the amount of complexity it has. There are direct limits to what can be put into a 3D space, however high, and the use of "wallpapers" is proof of this. Which look rather out of place when everything else is 3D, but stand fine on their own.

probably not what people thought I was going to say. It isn't technical at all. . .



Anyways, my previous response wasn't part of a "3D" backlash. It was against the idea that 3D is a necessity for "realism". I don't care directly if a game is in 3D or not, and if the gameplay stays sharp, I'm cool.