Contra: Shattered Soldier

[MechDeus]

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.

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.

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.

(because sprites are just prettier, right?)

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).

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.

[GameHED]

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.

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),
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.

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?

[MechDeus]

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.

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.

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.

[SearchManX]

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.

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.

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

[MechDeus]

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.

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.

[GameHED]

Sprite scaling and rotation.

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.)
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.)

[Glass Joe]

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.

[rezo]

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.

[Cheebs]

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.

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.

[Taito]

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.

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.

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.