I have tried to read every post made but since I'm going through information overload right now maybe I missed it. Does anyone know where any movies of Contra: Shattered Soldier are? This game looks amazing from the screenshots at videogames.com
Printable View
I have tried to read every post made but since I'm going through information overload right now maybe I missed it. Does anyone know where any movies of Contra: Shattered Soldier are? This game looks amazing from the screenshots at videogames.com
the return of 2D (well 2.5, close enough)....
hopefully this game will spark up some interest in 2D dev.
Damn... I didn't even know there were screens.
The PS2 Contra, right? Gotta check this out.
I don't know why there aren't more "2.5d" games. The modern 3d graphics will attract the casual gamers so developers don't have to worry about the games looking too "old-school". I prefer 2d-playing games to be handdrawn but since gameplay is much more important than graphics, it's a small price to pay.
Wow. One of the rare games that gets a "wow." Thanks for the inadvertent heads up with the screens.
I was piss at Nintendo of America for the FE No-Show, that I've almost forgot about the new Contra. When I first saw the thumbnails, I started having bad flashbacks of Legacy of War/C, but after a taking a closer look, I was relieved. The game is being developed by KCE Tokyo (the same people responsible for Symphony of the Night), which includes members of the original Contra team, so I can say Shattered Soldiers is in good hands. I'm worry that the graphics might be a bit too dark. And there's overhead stages too. Hopefully these will be Super Contra-style overhead stages and not Contra III-style overhead stages.
And one more thing.
Bill Riser is back, baby! Now where's Lance?
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen011.jpg
Strider 2 and R-Type Delta....fine examples.Quote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
I don't know why there aren't more "2.5d" games. The modern 3d graphics will attract the casual gamers so developers don't have to worry about the games looking too "old-school". I prefer 2d-playing games to be handdrawn but since gameplay is much more important than graphics, it's a small price to pay.
Mind-stoppingly amazing.
The lack of power-ups frighten me to no end though. I was never too keen on the reliance of power-ups but, damn it, this is Contra!
Very nice! :)
Hope there is some crazy weaponry ;)
YEESSSSSSSS!!!!!:evil:
'bout time! maybe this game will replace Hard Corps as my Contra game of choice( for a little while). I'm getting a PS2.
I missed the details for this bad boy. What's the target system and release date look like?
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen007.jpg
Sweet. The return of the straight-up action game genre continues !!
- Kabuki
No! Don't shoot Ranger X!:(Quote:
Originally posted by kabuki
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen007.jpg
Sweet. The return of the straight-up action game genre continues !!
- Kabuki
Amazing stuff this is. Contra needs its Symphony of the Night. *crosses fingers*
Hmmmmm, I'm trying to be optimistic, but these pics do not excite me. We'll just have to wait and see.
*crosses fingers*
Hmm, I hope that's a very early build, because right now, it looks like a homebrew PC game. However, it's being developed by KCET, and they've got the 2.5D thing down, so my hopes are high.
Ahh yes, the much overlooked 2.5D... I'm VERY happy that they went this route. The screens aren't too impressive, but I wasn't expecting to be absolutely BLOWN away yet. I want to see more games in 2.5
Sometimes 3D REALLY can't do what 2D can (I've already said this haven't I?). I think that Contra could be done in 3D well enough, so long as it was handled by good developers.
ºTracer
Fuckin awesome. I'm pretty sure there are powerups because in one shot you have a flamethrower. Who cares if it doesn't even look better than this in the end? Oooo it doesn't push the graphics to the limit. I DON'T CARE. God damn graphics whores. Oh and most of the screens I've seen look like updates of earlier games. I saw bosses from Alien Wars and that big mech with the extended chain arm kind of reminds me of the second boss in Hard Corps. All in all this is one good day. So many good games announced it's not funny. :)
Later all...
I just read the gamespot impressions for this game.
Unfortunately, there aren't any powerups for the game. You start with everything you'll have. As you can see from the screens, the three weapons you have are the machine gun, the flamethrower, and the grenade launcher. You can switch between these weapons freely, like in Hard Corps. Also like Hard Corps, you can switch between free and fixed movement while firing as well. All three weapons may also be charged up for new attacks. These are:
Here's the link to the full article:Quote:
The machine gun's special launches a small satellite that spins for a few seconds while firing, filling the screen with bullets. The flamethrower will launch a large, fast, and powerful straight shot. The grenade launcher charges up to release homing missiles.
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...867062,00.html
Konami has lost its collective fucking mind. Contra is no longer hand drawn and now has no power ups? WTF? The gameplay better kick some serious ass, because those shots are not impressive at all. :(
Back to Metal Slug 4...
I'm still not sure I like the graphic style. I hate the fact that there will be no power ups. The main thing for me is that it controls like, and is as intense as the two 16 bit games. Give me gameplay like Alien wars and Hard corps and the rest will take care of itself.
I have faith in how this will play. This will most likely be the game that sells me a PS2, so high hopes from me. If there is a new (good) Contra, I will play it. To bad it doesn't look as good as either of the 16 bit ones.
Say what you will about the graphics, at least it's being developed by KCE Tokyo and at least it's not a rehash like Contra: Alien Wars EX.
Yes, It looks pretty cool, and being developed by Konami original team is great :)
Say what you want about it, but I'm all excited :) Just another great game for PS2 awesome line up :)
Tell me you wouldn't be more stoked if it was 2D sprites. I know any real Contra fan would prefer 2D sprites. The graphics don't really match the Contra universe in my opinion. It doesn't mean I think the game will suck. I'm not a huge fan of 2.5D but I would much rather see Contra in 2.5D then in 3D. I'm looking forward to this game in a big way. I just want it to live up the the franchise. someone said it best earlier. Contra deserves it's Symphony of the Night.Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Undaunted
Say what you will about the graphics, at least it's being developed by KCE Tokyo and at least it's not a rehash like Contra: Alien Wars EX.
So... There won't be a SPREAD gun power-up in this one? Man... :(
I like bitmap-based sprites as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is one of those so-called 2D haters), but I also accept the fact that developers aren't using hand-drawn sprites as much as they used to. The graphics, while a bit too dark, are just fine to me. It reminds alot of the two Arcade Contra games for some reason. And just as long as the classic Contra-gameplay is there, I'll be fine.Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel-The-Landstalker
Tell me you wouldn't be more stoked if it was 2D sprites. I know any real Contra fan would prefer 2D sprites. The graphics don't really match the Contra universe in my opinion. It doesn't mean I think the game will suck. I'm not a huge fan of 2.5D but I would much rather see Contra in 2.5D then in 3D. I'm looking forward to this game in a big way. I just want it to live up the the franchise. someone said it best earlier. Contra deserves it's Symphony of the Night.
Whine, whine, whine.
The game isn't finished yet, so neither are the graphics. It seems that graphics, the least important aspect of games, are becoming the focal point on this board for each and every new game that's coming out this year. I don't know about you guys, but even though 2D graphics are my favorite, they aren't the reason that 2D games are my favorite types of games. The reason is that the gameplay they exhibit is typically more action-packed and fully realized than MOST 3D games. This is changing, though, as 3D games are improving with each year. Gameplay is essential, graphics are aesthetic.
I think this new Contra is the best attempt that Konami could make to un-taint the Contra series. The dev. team is comprised of members from the original Contra AND SOTN teams. These people are responsible for some of the best(2D)games Konami ever produced. Who cares if it isn't pretty if the game rocks?
Graphics are pretty damn important. We always say games are art, right? I think visuals are kind'a up there as far as what matters with art. Yes, a great play experiance can save crappy visuals. At the same time great visuals can save crappy controlls. A great atmosphere can save crappy game objectives. Great sound can save crappy mapping of the buttons. Whatever. It's all part of the game. I know it's "cool" to say to hell with the graphics, but they really are very important. Extreemly important actually, because that is what you are actually interacting with.
Understand this: If the game used the same 2D sprites of previous Contra games it would sell like shit. The Polygonal graphics are there to keep mainstream gamers from dismissing it just because the graphics "suck". Personally, I could care less what it looks like, (Unless it's cell-shaded) as long as the gameplay is similar to past Contras. All I need now is a PS2.....
I think it looks like a cheesy POS. I don't care who's developing it, it looks like ass.
WHat if it was on Xbox Ethugg? Would it still be POS? ;)
Graphics and sound can improve upon a good game, but they can't save a crappy one. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play a shit game just because the music is good and the graphics are pretty.Quote:
Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
Graphics are pretty damn important. We always say games are art, right? I think visuals are kind'a up there as far as what matters with art. Yes, a great play experiance can save crappy visuals. At the same time great visuals can save crappy controlls. A great atmosphere can save crappy game objectives. Great sound can save crappy mapping of the buttons. Whatever. It's all part of the game. I know it's "cool" to say to hell with the graphics, but they really are very important. Extreemly important actually, because that is what you are actually interacting with.
Yes. I hate lots of XB games...Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
WHat if it was on Xbox Ethugg? Would it still be POS? ;)
:lol:
Do you like Contra series games?
The older ones I played were ok...
If the whole game is shit, no, graphics can't save it. If part is shit, graphics certianly can save it. Ask any Resident Evil fan what they think of the controlls. That game is two things: graphics and atmosphere. It is still a great game, because the whole things comes together and makes you forgive the controlls. Take the graphics away and what do you have? You have the GBC version. I'm willing to bet that game was canned for a reason. Without graphics and atmosphere to save it, there wasn't much left.Quote:
Originally posted by deathwishkersey
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play a shit game just because the music is good and the graphics are pretty.
I think the controls are perfect. Don't pretend to speak for RE fans....Quote:
Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
If the whole game is shit, no, graphics can't save it. If part is shit, graphics certianly can save it. Ask any Resident Evil fan what they think of the controlls. That game is two things: graphics and atmosphere. It is still a great game, because the whole things comes together and makes you forgive the controlls. Take the graphics away and what do you have? You have the GBC version. I'm willing to bet that game was canned for a reason. Without graphics and atmosphere to save it, there wasn't much left.
Agreed! If my only gripe with this game is that I'm not a huge fan of the graphics so be it. I can't wait for this game.Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Undaunted
I like bitmap-based sprites as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is one of those so-called 2D haters), but I also accept the fact that developers aren't using hand-drawn sprites as much as they used to. The graphics, while a bit too dark, are just fine to me. It reminds alot of the two Arcade Contra games for some reason. And just as long as the classic Contra-gameplay is there, I'll be fine.
As a RE fan, I have always disliked the controls and some of the shitty gameplay mechanics incorporated into the series, but the great atmosphere and fear factor of the game are worth the pain of these minor problems.
Holy Shite guys! It Contra and its 2-D gameplay, what more could you want!!!!!
I was convinced ultra-shitty Konami was gonna butcher Contra and make it a First person shooter, it was the clear thing to do, the thing that would make them the most money...Half Life, Halo, Metroid Prime are all gonna.
But for the love of everything Konami has done that was good, they have kept it 2-d gameplay. Thats all I need. Thank you Konami...so much!
The hits keep coming!
I'm with Ethugg on this one. RE controls are just fine. Played RE games for 7 years and never had problems with them, except on Cube, but only because Dpad is damn too small.
OK, forget Resident Evil then. Take the graphics and sound away from Rez and then tell me how many of you still want to play?
My point is simply that graphics do matter. They are not nearly as trivial as some people make them out to be. If the industry announced tomarrow that from this point on any and all games will have the graphics handled by 8th graders, how many of you would be upset? Yeah, that's what I though. We do in fact care about graphics. :)
After looking at all the screns I think it's safe to say the new Contra borrows heavily on ideas from previous games.
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters...00.html?page=7
Contra III anyone?
Yea, that turtle boss and the flying bugs while climbing on the ledge is ripped strait from Contra III.Quote:
Originally posted by wEEman33
Contra III anyone?
Looks very nice ...does it have 2 player co-op play.......but theres no browny in sight...:(
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen004.jpg
Looks like there is a female character as well. I think this game looks pretty darn good, backgrounds have seem to have been the least worked on so far, but the enemy/bosses looks great. Sure the lack of power ups is odd, but it sounds like each weapon has a alternate way to shoot, so its really like six guns. I can't wait for this game to come out.
I would put some cash on the fact that a NEW 2D Contra would outsell both of the 3D abortions that were sold on the PSX combined.Quote:
Originally posted by wEEman33
Understand this: If the game used the same 2D sprites of previous Contra games it would sell like shit.
It seems there will be.Quote:
Originally posted by xS
Looks very nice ...does it have 2 player co-op play.......but theres no browny in sight...:(
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen009.jpg
BTW, the new heroine is called Lucia, not that it matters though.
:lol: I get your point. I don't think Contra is going to be made by 8th graders, though.Quote:
Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
OK, forget Resident Evil then. Take the graphics and sound away from Rez and then tell me how many of you still want to play?
My point is simply that graphics do matter. They are not nearly as trivial as some people make them out to be. If the industry announced tomarrow that from this point on any and all games will have the graphics handled by 8th graders, how many of you would be upset? Yeah, that's what I though. We do in fact care about graphics. :)
Hell, I love to see good graphics in a good game and in a game like RE, atmosphere is everything, so graphics and sound would be crucial to that game. A game like Contra, where action rules, it isn't quite as important, certainly not important enough to totally ruin the game. The screenshots aren't very impressive graphically, but it seems that the game is sticking to the tried-and-true gameplay that Contra is known for. That's all I ask of Konami, to stick to the gameplay.
Eww... What's that stuff coming out from the pipe? Ground Beef? :lol:Quote:
"Contra: Shattered Soldiers in Hamburger Factory"
I'm warming up to the idea of no powerups. Why? Well, how many times have you been shot in a game of Contra while running after a floating pod and trying to shoot it? How many times has a glowing orb distracted you from that robot with the flame thrower that ended up costing you a life? Plus, it makes sense you would have your weapons from the start, and not have to rely on some floating pods that just pop out of nowhere. You got your weapons all set, ready to rock, and easily switched. Fast, precise, just like a good shooter.
Quote:
Originally posted by dorikyasu
Eww... What's that stuff coming out from the pipe? Ground Beef? :lol:
"Contra: Shattered Soldiers in Hamburger Factory"
Looks like it.Reminds me of the Contra: Hard Corps commercial.
Anyway, I think this game is looking great and I'm very excited.
About there being no powerups, there's no powerups in Radiant Silvergun(Something very uncommon for a shmup game) yet I hear no complaints about it. Perhaps, *gasp* it could actually work out well!?
While 2D graphics (like Salamander 2 but with higher resolution) would've been nice, I've got no problems with the 3D graphics here- It'll be interesting to see what they do with this. At least we're GETTING a real Contra. Good riddance to Appaloosa as far as this franchise is concerned.
I'm going to miss that spread gun- it is the signature weapon of Contra. Nevertheless, the lack of powerups may be a good thing.
The team on this one sounds trustworthy, especially when there are some original Contra developers among them.
Ashley Wood is doing the character designs, in case anyone is wondering.
I think the weapons are still changable in some way, lack of powerups does not exclude this. For instance, in this shot he's armed with the green weapon, but it seemd to be homing missiles. However, in this shot he's armed with the same weapon, but it's now a grenade launcher. A grenade does appear in the first shot, but I think they can each be altered in their firing in some way.Quote:
Originally posted by gameoverDude
I'm going to miss that spread gun- it is the signature weapon of Contra.
Uh... MechDeus? I think that's what was mentioned earlier about a "charge-up" shot for each of the original 3 weapons you start out with... the machine gun has a satellite that sprays bullets, the flame thrower shoots out a super flame blast, and the grenade launcher fires homing shots...
I don't mind the graphics frankly, as long as we don't go back to nasty pixellated doom-era graphics. =) The graphics here are far from horrible, if you want bad, take a look at RE: Gaiden. Hehe...
And what's coming out of that pipe on the bottom? I believe what you see coming out are ex-Appaloosa employees sent courtesy of Konami.
-Search
Heh, then ignore my stupid ramblings, as I completely missed that. :oQuote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
Uh... MechDeus? I think that's what was mentioned earlier about a "charge-up" shot for each of the original 3 weapons you start out with...
from what i can see, konami's got their work cut out for them..
...this looks like it could use a lot more work..
I'm not sure whether to be happy that it retains 2D gameplay or be disgusted at the graphics. Looking very western to me and the absence of powerups is a turn off. Unless Konami change it to 2D sprites, put back in powerups and make the game consist of something other than set pieces from Contra on Mega Drive, then i'm not interested and won't buy this.
Damn it's fugly. Like a side-on version of Expendable on Dreamcast. Those bosses look really shocking.
Uh, what are you talking about?Quote:
Originally posted by Sidez
and make the game consist of something other than set pieces from Contra on Mega Drive, then i'm not interested and won't buy this.
Not sure if anyone pointed this out: Contra for GBA is not just Contra III. It has content from Contra Hard Corps and a PR guy stated that half the game was new. He wasn't very informed on other things, though, so don't take the "half new" tidbit as gospel yet.
Contra: Shattered Soldiers has a nice new feature. Holding down... L1, I think, lets you walk in one direction while firing in another. So, you can basically do a moonwalk of death now. The weapons feel very weak when charged up, unfortunately. The grenade launcher's default attack is also kinda useless feeling.
The character art is by artist Ashley Wood, who is supposedly well-known (not up on comics). I really, really liked his rendering of the male hero, which was a standup in Konami's booth. Cool stuff, very dark. Should make for nice box art.
In all the game was kind of rough graphically, but it seemed gameplay elements were shaping up fairly well.
So it will be just like Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts R, which is a port of an existing SNES game but with levels borrowed from other games in the series? Either way, I'll pass. They should have made an entirely new game from scratch.Quote:
Originally posted by BenT
Not sure if anyone pointed this out: Contra for GBA is not just Contra III. It has content from Contra Hard Corps and a PR guy stated that half the game was new. He wasn't very informed on other things, though, so don't take the "half new" tidbit as gospel yet.
Sometimes I wonder at what end will gamers be happy. They're not straight-porting it, they have PS2 Contra, ZOE 2, and on and on... How much do people demand out of a company in one year, and when is enough enough?Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Undaunted
So it will be just like Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts R, which is a port of an existing SNES game but with levels borrowed from other games in the series? Either way, I'll pass. They should have made an entirely new game from scratch.
*raises hand* I'm, uh... I'm happy.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
Sometimes I wonder at what end will gamers be happy. They're not straight-porting it, they have PS2 Contra, ZOE 2, and on and on... How much do people demand out of a company in one year, and when is enough enough?
I think they may be happy with some of the other games, but not
the remix of Contra levels.
though many people are happy with playing those old games once again
on a new system. who knows.
SWEET!Quote:
Originally posted by MechDeus
*raises hand* I'm, uh... I'm happy.
*gives you cookie*
This is just... frightening. Hopefully the Genesis classic bastardizing will be kept to a minimum.Quote:
Originally posted by BenT
Not sure if anyone pointed this out: Contra for GBA is not just Contra III. It has content from Contra Hard Corps and a PR guy stated that half the game was new.
I don't understand the dispute over the 3D polygonal structure of the game. Contra games do not look cartoony or 'anime' in nature. They always were meant to be based in reality, albeit a science fiction-based 'reality' (although Contra Hard Corps strayed from that style, granted). Castlevania and its overall theme would have benefitted from a anime-styled hand-rendered artwork, but not Contra's necessarily. I think hand-rendered 2D would have been a detriment to this Contra title's gameplay, since the handdrawn 2D animation would be of less quality than whatever animation they have implemented (unless they went the Earthworm Jim or Street Fighter 3 route in animation quality), and there'd be no chance to play anything new besides the same Contra we've been playing for years.
I'm very excited that action games are making a triumphant comeback, but after waiting so long for its return, I'm not interested in being patronized by playing the exact same game for the sole purpose of nostalgia. At least with polygonal 3D, there's the possibility for extra gameplay enhancements, and at the very least, different camera angles aside from the staple side view. The fact that the developers of SotN and Contra are making this game as 2.5D is adequate affirmation that the game will offer classic Contra gameplay, as well as opening the doors for something new without screwing up the Contra formula.
The power-up system bothers me though. It seems like they're going with the Target Earth/Cybernator style of gameplay, where weapon upgrades are offered as you rack up points/kills. At least Contra PS2 is two-player. It could turn out to be a great game. I'll keep my eye on this title.
You are allowed to draw in a non-anime fashion, you know. Heck, you can even draw realistic if you want. The drawing police won't come get you.:)Quote:
Originally posted by Taito
I don't understand the dispute over the 3D polygonal structure of the game. Contra games do not look cartoony or 'anime' in nature. They always were meant to be based in reality, albeit a science fiction-based 'reality'
The lack of animation certainly didn't hurt the older title's gameplay, and there are plenty of instances where over animation does hurt gameplay. Besides, with the RAM these systems have these days you can almost animate as smoothly as you want to. Why would having hand drawn graphics force it to be the same old game? The controller has two analoge sticks that weren't on the SNES and the system it's on is capable of so much more than the SNES. You could have the graphics hand drawn and still be able to impliment any kooky "no powerups/weapon switching" game designs you felt like.Quote:
I think hand-rendered 2D would have been a detriment to this Contra title's gameplay, since the handdrawn 2D animation would be of less quality than whatever animation they have implemented (unless they went the Earthworm Jim or Street Fighter 3 route in animation quality), and there'd be no chance to play anything new besides the same Contra we've been playing for years.
I have nothing agaisnt ports, remakes and rereleases in general. I own a few compilations and remakes and I wouldn't mind having a Super Mario All-Stars-style compilation of all the previous Zelda titles in one GameCube disc, nor do I mind rereleases of Japanese-only games.
But charging full price for what is basically a port of a single SNES game with lower resolution and worse sound is robbery. Especially when some of those games can be found at GameStop's bargain bin for a very small fraction of the price (minus the neat manual and box).
With the technological leap from the GBC to the GBA, I just don't see why we should settle for a mere port of A Link to the Past after the release of three original Zelda games for the Game Boy/GBC (Link's Awakening, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons).
You make a good point but until the GBA has some competition, Nintendo can get away with milking their old games.Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Undaunted
With the technological leap from the GBC to the GBA, I just don't see why we should settle for a mere port of A Link to the Past after the release of three original Zelda games for the Game Boy/GBC (Link's Awakening, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons).
I don't think they are trying to get a way with something, its not like they are saying its an all new game, nothing like any other completly original. And then when you play the game you find out its a port. They are telling us its a port, with some new stuff. People will still buy it knowing its a port, its just a cheap way to make some money, to fund the production of other games. For all you know they could be thinking "Hey lets put out a port of Contra III, see how that sells to see if people still like Contra, and then make a new Contra for GBA." I swear lots of you people think that these companys are out to trick you. Its not like they are saying "Oh you did'nt know it was a port?! BUWAHAHAHAHHAAHHA! FOOL!" Its a buisness strategy, to see if people are still intrested in old style Contra, makes sense to me. I want a new 2D Contra with 2D sprites as well, but I know its only going to come to the GBA. And if I were Konami I would want to test the waters of 2D Contra as well, it has been several years after all. They are taking a big chance with Shatter Soldier as well, but less of a chance because its 3D, but same gameplay. Its just like the whole Metroid Prime/Metroid Fusion thing, some of you just can't be happy with 2 seqauls at the same time (looks at Chibi).
It's not about game companies trying pass SNES-to-GBA as new games, but rather how almost every GBC/GBA game are suddenly ports of existing NES/SNES one. Like I said, rereleases of old games aren't really bad a thing, but we like new stuff as well. While I may have enjoyed Breath of Fire 2 when it was released for the SNES years ago, I much rather spent my money on Mega Man Battle Network over either of the BOF ports. And if game developers have the resources to recode an already existing just to add bonus levels, then they have the resources to develop a new game from scratch as well. For God's sake, Flagship made both Oracle games, so why all of the sudden they're churning out ports.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
I don't think they are trying to get a way with something, its not like they are saying its an all new game, nothing like any other completly original. And then when you play the game you find out its a port. They are telling us its a port, with some new stuff. People will still buy it knowing its a port, its just a cheap way to make some money, to fund the production of other games. For all you know they could be thinking "Hey lets put out a port of Contra III, see how that sells to see if people still like Contra, and then make a new Contra for GBA." I swear lots of you people think that these companys are out to trick you. Its not like they are saying "Oh you did'nt know it was a port?! BUWAHAHAHAHHAAHHA! FOOL!" Its a buisness strategy, to see if people are still intrested in old style Contra, makes sense to me. I want a new 2D Contra with 2D sprites as well, but I know its only going to come to the GBA. And if I were Konami I would want to test the waters of 2D Contra as well, it has been several years after all. They are taking a big chance with Shatter Soldier as well, but less of a chance because its 3D, but same gameplay. Its just like the whole Metroid Prime/Metroid Fusion thing, some of you just can't be happy with 2 seqauls at the same time (looks at Chibi).
I'm not too worried about the overdose of ports on GBA because eventually companies will have ported all the big name older games they want. Something tells me more obscure 16-bit games like say Alien Storm or Firepower 2000 will never see GBA ports.
Come on, we all knew it wasn't going to be 2d. I'm giddy that it's 2.5D and not some 3d aberration.
Plus, it doesn't look like they're trying to SOTN it and turn it into some sort of terrible, perverted take on Metroid - even better.
On top of that, getting rid of power-ups is a good idea. Power-ups don't help gameplay - by giving the player a set number of weapons, they'll be able to create game situations that require the use of all 3 together: more complicated, harder to beat bosses/enemies/whatever. Gameplay has to be simplified when you don't know which weapons the player is carrying (the obstacles have to be able to be overcome by any of the weapons.)
Great news... reason #2 to buy a PS2, it looks like.
I don't even know why these 2D debates occur anymore. 2D is dead, or if you like, it's living on borrowed time on the GBA. It's like asking for a return to silent films. Yeah, some of the best motion pictures were in fact made in the first thirty years or so of the form. Similarly alot of the best video games were made in the 2D sprite era. Well that primitive yet creative period is over. Don't expect many franchises to be done justice in this day and age. When rock bands get old they get stale and they try to conform to modern sensibilities and it's a rotten mongrel mess; that's where we are right now, in the lifetime of such series as Contra.
You cut me Shrek, you cut me deep.:(Quote:
Originally posted by Ranji
I don't even know why these 2D debates occur anymore. 2D is dead, or if you like, it's living on borrowed time on the GBA. It's like asking for a return to silent films. Yeah, some of the best motion pictures were in fact made in the first thirty years or so of the form. Similarly alot of the best video games were made in the 2D sprite era. Well that primitive yet creative period is over. Don't expect many franchises to be done justice in this day and age. When rock bands get old they get stale and they try to conform to modern sensibilities and it's a rotten mongrel mess; that's where we are right now, in the lifetime of such series as Contra.
I don't agree. I think 3D will continue to be dominant but 2D games will never go the way of silent films. If they do then I will become just a casual gamer. I love the great 3D games but they are few and far between. Much more so then 2D games to this day, even thought they are only on the GBA.
There's still the ability to do some things with 2D. Unfortunately, most companies don't seem to keep that in mind and it's become nichey. I wouldn't want to see Street Fighter IV or Guilty Gear XXX go 3D. High-res 640x480 2D with some 3D effects would be nice.
Konami's ACM (Advanced Computer Modeling) 320x240 Salamander 2 looks pretty good. With the PS2's RAM, it'd be possible to put together some rather mindblowing ACM sprites that would make this look like an ASCII text game in comparison. An ACM Contra done in a res of 640x480 would be great.
Even if it's in polygons, Contra on PS2 doesn't look too bad. There's maybe a hint of blockiness, but much less than you'd see on a PSone title. If I can't have 2D, I'll take 2.5D anyday.
I'm glad it's using 3d models. With that, we can now fight bosses from many interesting angles (from the side, in front etc) without the 2d flatness of the last games limiting what the bosses can do in terms of maneuvers onscreen. You'll notice with games like metal slug the bosses sort of stand around letting you hit them repeatedly because they seem stuck in a 1 general area. Thier attack patterns are classic but thier movment is stunted to X-Y) With 3d models a mech boss or whatever can move away from the screen and attack at different angles giving a greater sense of realism in the battles.
Anyone here play a ps1 shooter called Raystorm? (I don't hang out here much but I know you are all shmup whores) Well a good instance of this is when mechs which are modeled in true 3d polygons, kind of have more functionality and attacking styles to them in this game by nature of existing in real 3d because they can hide weapons in certain compartments on thier body, arms and legs for example. If you blow off a piece of armour and the mech rotates in the distance to use its left arm to shoot at you, there are parts hidden from view. The mech can dance all it wants and the details of the mech's gradually destruction are still faithfully represented because it is a 3d object with individual parts to it. Again I don't see this so easily done in 2d and to such great effect that it would warrant not having 3d mechs which fly around into, and out of, the distance to attack at you from using many different parts of itself and many hidden layers of hidden detail underneath that object.
Anyway Look at past contra games:
-the arcade contra allowed you to walk and shoot into the screen as well as run sideways to avoid shots, nam-75 style.
-Snes Contra allowed top down views to shoot 360 degrees
and you'll see that Contra imo is screaming for a 2.5d style arcade game with 3d environments and backgrounds. You can see more detail, the camera can switch to many angles as you move to new areas to give a sense of level continuity (for example I emerge from a cave that winds into different directions instead of just sideways. Think about strider 2 and how it felt like you were really moving around in 3d environments but the controls were spot on all the time regardless of what the camera was doing. The structure of the levels looked very convincing and you didn't stick out like a sore thumb in how you would walking from left to right, thanks to the way the camera would track you. You could see everything onscreen at once and still avoid enemy attacks while benefiting from the zooming in and out of the camera to reveal the area in front and behind of you and any hazards up ahead. (that Tank chase scene in one of the levels where the whole screen is zoomed out is a classic example. It allowed me full speed running without hiding the obstacles infront of me that would noramlly would have caused me to fuck up my timing ala a standard 2d games.) Also we get to see more detail on bosses by getting to look at them from other angles (like a mech which is flying around the screen and allows me to see it's back and sides) An exmaple: Think about tanks that can shoot at you away into the 'scenary' in the background and whose turrets are constantly rotating left and right to get a nail on you. In 2d, this animation would be choppy and the graphics memory-hungry and less convincing than if they just used 3d polygon models of the turret rotating in the distance to shoot at you. Another example in strider 2, is where you are negotiating your way through a 3d castle to sneak up to a boss who is hiding underground: there were many opportunities to see into the background, into the far and medium distance, where you were going to go next. These locations were actual places you could and would be going. (you could even go inside places and they weren't just cheap effects but real levels with real 3d structure that made it seem natural. You don't get that thrill with just 2d graphics. Standing up high on one of the towers and seeing the enemies (from other locations) shooting from afar on other sides of the castle. (that you were soon going to be walking though.)
I think people's main phobia is more with chance that the 3d modelers and level designers may be poor at thier job and inexperienced at it than with '3d graphics' tendancy to look more ugly than 2d' itself.
I like 2d graphics too but like I've already pointed out it is limited in that you can only see things as flat objects which spoils the feeling of moving around in a huge environment that creates the level's atmoshpere. It all depends on the creativity of the people behind the whole game. If the graphics are implemented well into the levels and creates interesting situations, then it enhances my experience of the game too. (remmember the first time you played contra 3 and saw that huge plane zooming in from afar to blow up the level you were standing on? Those created moments of excitingment for me as much as the standard gameplay did. Or how about those situations of desperately clinging onto the sides of buildings and from poles and parts of enemies, at great heights just to fight the enemy? Those were just more moments of excitement where the 'graphical implementation' can enhance the excitment of the levels again. Anyone who doubts a good 2.5 d game can be as exciting as a normal 2d game should go and play strider 2 and fight the multiheaded dragon boss to see where I am coming from. The 3d graphics were implemented very well for that fight, because you could see the sides of the boss in all directions, which were crucual to gameplay, because seeing which parts on the other sides of the boss were going to attack; and at whichever moments they were about to attack, that allowed you to make decisions of where to jump to and run. (some heads would attack simulataneously cutting you off from doing certain things at certain times. Anyway that 3d-ness enhances the game experience for me by implementing its benefits into the gameplay itself.
During the 16 bit days, everyone thought cds were going to destroy the gameplay that was prsent in cartridge games because of the non-instant loading times, and the fact that many early cd games were crappy and didn't take advantage of the media and utilise it in proper ways. They were scared. These days we all take advantage of the capacity and benefits of the media because people have gotten used to thier advantages. Same with the 3d implementations of traditional 2d gameplay. The polygonal levels with 3d structure can only add to the gameplay imo. People are just running scared again because the majority of thier classic action games started out in 2d.
And therefore they are just biased towards the look of the games without considering the benefits. (because sprites are just prettier, right? As though that's the only reason that makes them care) I love the sprites, but it is time to move on. Contra unlike castlevania was always meant to be 2.5 just by looking back at the past games in the series:
From the way the bosses would rotate your character in mode 7 while you were despereately clinging on (because there was no other dimension to attack from this seemed to make sense) to the 'shooting-inscreen' levels of contra 1 and the top-down levels in the games, to the effects like the plane zooming in from the distance to attack from the background, and finally how you could climb onto and around buldings and objects instead of only walking from left to right like in metal slug.
Casltevania had none of this. Contra did, so imo it is more suitable for this seires to go into the '2.5d, strider2-like' format of gameplay. It can work but it depends on the creativity of the developers.
Call me crazy, but I've got a strange feeling Contra isn't supposed to be realistic. Also, if it's 2.5D, the bosses really aren't going to attack in any way they wouldn't be able to in 2D, it's just eye candy.Quote:
With 3d models a mech boss or whatever can move away from the screen and attack at different angles giving a greater sense of realism in the battles.
I do. With both mediums, it's all in how good the artist and design are.Quote:
You don't get that thrill with just 2d graphics.
And 2D generally has a much better record with hit detection, clipping, camera angles, and control (even many 2.5D games so far haven't been spot-on like Ninja Gaiden or Contra).Quote:
(because sprites are just prettier, right?)
I'm not saying 2.5D is wrong, and I think this game looks incredible. One of my favorite 2D games is Mischief Makers, which uses a combination of 3D backgrounds with 2D sprites (and the sprites all use rotation for animation instead of the traditional method of hand-drawing every frame), and I love sprite rotation more then any other effect ever. I just think it looks slick as hell.
I have to agree but, with 3d models fighting you, it opens up certain things that the boss can do onscreen (and what you can see) much more easily than if it had to have itself represented in only 2d. If you could have a mech flying around in the background (say raystorm) and it is throwing around hundreds of missiles at you from afar and spinning around and animating (arms and legs movement independantly without any jerkiness),Quote:
You don't get that thrill with just 2d graphics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do. With both mediums, it's all in how good the artist and design are.
it is more natural (I hate saying 'realistic'. Maybe that is not the right word) for that to make it a 3d model. In 2d they would have to draw this giant thing hundreds of times to get it's body animating so natuarally around the screen and being seen at many angles.
And even if they did do it in 2d it would have predetermined animations looped into a linear pattern than have parts moving naturally and independantly from another.
Because that model looks better and moves more naturally in 3d, (because of what that boss is going to do and where it is going to go in the level) it's like 2d tekken versus 3d tekken, what's the point? (of drawing this giant object in 2d) Besides the handrawn nicness, you lose the efects you gain from 3d models being seen and fighting you at different areas of the level and in varied and interesting ways. The point I'm saying is not that it can't be done in 2d, but why should it be done in 2d? I find that 3d-modeled mech bosses that just face me from 1 direction or move in only X-Y co-ordinates, and have limited animation to be less inspiring and less convincing than if they were just fully 3d models with smooth animations and 3d structure to their individual parts. And it's not as though 3d models can't be made to look just like 2d sprites. Check out the new Zoids cartoon. :D
All I'm saying is there are certain real advantages that implementing 3d graphics into a tradional 2d game, can bring to the experience.(especially in bringing interesting fully structured levels) The collision detection in Strider 2 is enough accuracy for me. And collision detection in 3d can be made to be just as accurate as a 2d game. (and the camera will always be locked onto you from a side-on view, tracking everywhere you walk in. It's just the environment that will look different as you move around obviously to reflect the perspective of the camera which is locked to you from the side, and maybe some bosses that will be moving around in 3d space, that will also look different because of what you can see from where you are standing, naturally.) But people are convincing themselves that 3d is going to wreck the gameplay (it's an old stereo type, just because there are more successful 2d action games in this genre, that immediately all 3d is going to suck.) just like the way cds were going to destroy games with thier loading screens. There are ways around these problems people, but if nobody tried to intriduce the new things to the games, then the problems wouldn't be solved would they?
Wrong, what you're refering to is tradtional 2D animation, but there's another option. You forget something very important, and something I briefly brought up. Sprite scaling and rotation. If you use these well, you can do anything at all a 3D game can with 2D sprites, it all depends how imaginative you are. Currently the only game I know of which use this to any sort of decent potential is Mischief Makers, but honestly this game only touches the tip of the iceberg.Quote:
In 2d they would have to draw this giant thing hundreds of times to get it's body animating so natuarally around the screen and being seen at many angles.
And even if they did do it in 2d it would have predetermined animations looped into a linear pattern than have parts moving naturally and independantly from another.
The main problem here is that developers don't want to put the time and effort into 2D graphics and would rather create solely 3D objects, and so once we gained the console power to put this technique to incredible use, no one wanted to. Basically, you seperate each "piece" of the character or enemy and have them all animate independantly, so that every movement isn't regulated to one sprite, just like a 3D model.
I think that's the problem developer's face here. 2D sprite manipulation can be more time consuming and tedious then creating a 3D object and having the freedom to move and manipulate that 3D object. Therefore, 3D manipulation is easier, less time consuming, meaning less development time, meaning publishers are satisfied, more time can be devoted to GAMEPLAY, and thus a smaller budget.Quote:
Originally posted by MechDeus
The main problem here is that developers don't want to put the time and effort into 2D graphics and would rather create solely 3D objects, and so once we gained the console power to put this technique to incredible use, no one wanted to.
If you had Microsoft funding your development and they didn't give a rat's tail how long it took you to make your game, then maybe we would see something like that. But Konami, like any other company, makes games according to how a real business model works.
-Search
Not really. Once you have the movement subprograms up and running, the movement is all in what you tell it to depending on the circumstance. Exactly like a 3D model. Only you're technically moving in 2D dimensions with the effect of a 3D, so it might actually be easier.Quote:
2D sprite manipulation can be more time consuming and tedious then creating a 3D object and having the freedom to move and manipulate that 3D object.
Oh yeah I almost forgot about that. But again I must ask why? Wouldn't you still miss out on detail because the individual parts were still only 2d pieces string together? I'm talking about full on tanks and mechs with enough detail that gives them that solid-all-round' look to them. I suppose you could do a mech made of up 2d images using sprite scaling and rotation (this is nothing new btw) but it still wouldn't match the detail (and the convenience) of just doing a 3d model. In terms of animation sure you got me on that, but it is still more limited in visual to full 3d. In terms of animation Rotoscoping was quite convincing in it's movement (prince of persia looks straight out of a disney movie) but still, I also want the back ground 'moving around me' (and similarly enemies which are standing there to look right) as the camera tracks my movments (I won't be moving left to right in the level but going inside, around under, and above the level, and turning at 90 degree angles and what not as I push forward through the levels, the camera of course still being locked to my sides but the levels and enemies around me seen at different angles to reflect the whole place properly.)Quote:
Sprite scaling and rotation.
To take an example from an FPS, Doom allows me to see imps at multiple angles but think about how much work it would take just to draw and animate those creatures at every angle? And it would still look jerkier and animate less well than 3d objects would. All I'm saying is it would take more work and be less convincing to implement 2d hand drawn sprites. By putting 3d objects in a 2.5d game you get the benefits of a full 3d level and environment without forsaking the gameplay. 3d is getting close and closer to looking more and more like 2d anyway. 'Celda', and Thievus Raconus are great examples.
But anyway, when dealing with vehicles and mechs, the look and movment is less organic than with people where thier movments are softer and more subtle. That's why I use examples of giant mechs and tanks and the levels. It's ok if the look of these is a bit rough and angular since they are aritcficial man-made structures. (we're not demanding SF3-like levels of expression where the characters have flexbile limbs that stretch and deform for effect in motion or anything.)
I don't know about anyone else here but I play games to get AWAY from reality. The posts are going on about real looking mechs and people. Let's not forget we are talking about a game about aliens taking over the world and 1 (or 2) person saving the world. I mean, reality is suspended right off of the bat. When games reach the level of reality that life is then I think that's when I'll stop playing. At least the new ones. A great game is one that while you play it you forget about your real life for that brief period of time. When this stops I'm out of here.
I'm pretty sure they mean realistic visuals for a "fantastic"
setting.
this is a game, about 1 or 2 people saving a world, that happens to
look realistic. You still get to shoot mechs and aliens and the like.
What's this about 3D starting to look like 2D with cell shading? That's not true at all. It makes the visuals look like cartoon cells, yes, and cartoon cells are 2D, but I don't ever recall a 2D game from back in the day that looked like a cartoon cell. Gaurdian Heros and SF Alpha are the closest I can think of. Sprites were always shaded with depth, and they didn't have the black outline. Cell shading isn't even remotly close to the sprite look. Please stop equating 2D visuals with cartoons and anime. They were almost never drawn like that.Quote:
Originally posted by GameHED
3d is getting close and closer to looking more and more like 2d anyway. 'Celda', and Thievus Raconus are great examples.
2D graphics had a wonderfull look that 3D isn't even close to replicating. Hell, it's impossible for 3D to ever replicate the look because 50% of the 2D look is in fact the 2D nature of the whole thing, flat scrolls and all. I for one think it looks better for sidescrollers.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
What's this about 3D starting to look like 2D with cell shading? That's not true at all. It makes the visuals look like cartoon cells, yes, and cartoon cells are 2D, but I don't ever recall a 2D game from back in the day that looked like a cartoon cell. Gaurdian Heros and SF Alpha are the closest I can think of. Sprites were always shaded with depth, and they didn't have the black outline. Cell shading isn't even remotly close to the sprite look. Please stop equating 2D visuals with cartoons and anime. They were almost never drawn like that.
2D graphics had a wonderfull look that 3D isn't even close to replicating. Hell, it's impossible for 3D to ever replicate the look because 50% of the 2D look is in fact the 2D nature of the whole thing, flat scrolls and all. I for one think it looks better for sidescrollers.
What I was trying to convey earlier is Contra games always did try to look 'realistc', instead of looking like rips from animation cels (ie. Gunstar Heroes, Metal Slug). I always believed there is not much reason for games with 'realistic' sprites to exist in this day and age with 3D graphics.
Certain 2D shooters with 3D graphics (Zero Gunner and Ikaruga, even though I've only seen Ikaruga in action and have not yet played the game myself) play just as tight as old-school 2D shooters, and sport visuals and special effects that would not be implemented as well, if at all, if the game was purely 2-dimensional. Plus, frankly I find myself just as amazed looking at a traditional 2D game with 100% 3D graphics as much as looking at a purely 2D game with special effects out the wazoo.
I just don't see what I'm missing if this upcoming PS2 Contra game were to be entirely 2D. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
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.
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.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.
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!!!!!
Because Metal Slug is purposely going for a 'cartoonish' look, not a 'realistic' style, like every Contra game save for Hard Corps.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?
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:
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.
Go ahead. i'd like to hear (read?) this.Quote:
arguments involve direct pixel placement, and things of that nature, if anyone wants me to get specific.
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.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.
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.
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.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!!!!!
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.
x_X let me repeat what I said: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.
"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.
you'd have to get Johnpv to join this topic and argue for 3D artwork for me to need to post any lengthy explanations.:PQuote:
Go ahead. i'd like to hear (read?) this.
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.