Are 2D computer games more enjoyable than 3D computer games?
Debate Rounds (4)
movements: up, down, left and right. Shadows or lighting can give a 3D appearance.
movements: up, down, left, and right, into the screen (depth)
environment: 3D due to multiple angles
If you are happy with these definitions we can begin
I'm sure you will agree on the following, but if you don't then please do say
a) It would be unfair to decide which type of game is more fun by asking which sort of game people complete more times. 2D games were made first before memory cards were even invented, so they tend to be quicker to complete. A fairer or more accurate way to determine which is more fun would be to ask how long you play on them.
b) It would be unfair to decide which type of game is more fun by comparing the best of 2D and 3D games for each genre and sube genre. 2D games have existed a lot longer whereas 3D games are in their infancy, also if you did give the latest game which tend to be in 3D it will seem more fun just because it's new, but it's impossible to know whether you will play on it longer than any older game.
c) Comparing how much more fun 2D and 3D games is going to be challenging because "what is fun" is subjective.
In case you disagree with point b, I will list below what I believe are the main components of a game i.e. what you "do". This would save having a time consuming debate on the many genres. I've broken games down into 5 things, feel free to add to this list if you like.
In games such as Sonic the hedgehog on the mega drive players collect rings - lots of them, in a 2D world you feel you are progressing through the game, whereas if the game was in 3D and allowed you to move "side-to-side" then you'd feel like you are wasting time by collecting items and that makes a game less fun. There are players who prefer to explore the vast 3D world and find fewer items at a time, but items can be hidden equally as well in 2D.
It may seem more fun at first to dodge something coming at you, but very soon it becomes tiresome and a matter of remembering which side you should run. In the game Pac-Man, and Snake from Nokia which are 2D games you not only dodge for the sake of saving your character's life but have to to collect things to win, the combination of dodging and collecting simultaneously makes a game more fun, and it is hard to imagine how a 3D can combine these so well.
It may seem more fun to kill things in 3D, but games such as Worms show that this is not necessarily true. More useful information can be shown in 2D than in 3D e.g. it is possible to dig tunnels in worms 2D, but you can't do this in te 3D version of this game.
Imagine throwing a ball in real life, the hardest part is applying the correct power, throwing it straight is easy. 3D games incorporate that easy part of throwing/shooting straight. If you get that wrong in a 3D game you may feel stupid and this can make 3D games less fun.
The 2D games like Tetris and Bust-A-Move are fun games because you are instantly challenged. 3D games like Minecraft (sorry about using 3D examples) can give players more time to complete a challenge. This isn't a bad thing, in fact a more complex challenge can be more fun. It is down to personal preferences.
Are racing games better in 3D? It depends on what you like to do. Reflexes can be tested in both 2D and 3D. If you like doing things in single player against the clock then 2D mazes would be more fun than 3D mazes where bad angles can exist, but you can do things against the clock in 3D that are equally fun e.g. Marble Madness.
There are games where certain combinations work better in 2D than in 3D and vice versa. I think the best way to find what kind of game is better is to look at the limitations.
+ Dying/Taking damage
In 2D games when you take damage you may become temporarily invulnerable giving you a chance to get out of a situation, whereas in 3D games which are geared toward reality it might not make sense to do this, and it can make playing 3D games frustrating i.e. less fun.
In 3D games like Resident Evil (sorry again) which is actually a very fun game, when you die you see a clip of your character being eaten, at first it adds to the fun, eventually though you will just want to skip it. If you have to press a button to skip any such screen then it can take the fun out of the game, but you may need these video clips otherwise players may say 'what just happened'. Long clips can make you feel like giving up. In 2D games it's much easier in my opinion to keep trying when you die which shows it is more fun. It also doesn't matter so much if your character dies in exactly the same manner e.g. Bubble Bobble - you don't take damage, you lose a life. I've played that game thousands of times and never got bored.
Most people prefer to play against other humans than playing against "a bot". A 3D environment can hold more players and there is thus more fun potentially to be had. It is also much better to play against more players in a 3D world than trying to play against the same number in a 2D world.
When I played a 3D game called Tron Evolution for xbox 360 (a good game) where if you die you vanish (which I like), I found newbies would switch side to which ever side was the strongest ie. my side, so I'd end up playing against one outnumbered newbie! The point I'm trying to make here is that people will want to do things which can make a game less fun. That problem I gave can be solved by giving players an option where team sides are either fixed or switch-able. There will inevitably be more options that people want in a 3D world, this means that before playing you must select your preferences and this takes the fun out of a game. Even this problem can be solved by saving your preferences, but midway through a game you may want to change your preference and find yourself quitting more often. If you want to play against a huge number of people the chance is they will not be your friends (could become though), these strangers are likelier to quit soon after accepting a game with you simply because they think they will lose. Playing against lots of people is not necessarily a good thing. In 2D games you don't really experience anything that can spoil the game.
+ Virtual Games
Clearly, this is the direction 3D games are heading. It sounds cool, I can imagine sitting in a virtual formula one car and having to turn my head to look in the mirror to see behind me. If you can't tell the difference between reality and a game, you will walk away from a game and the memory you have will feel real.
There are car/lorry drivers who have sat in front of a computer screen that surrounds them to simulate driving, and when they had a crash it made them feel shaky even after realizing it was a simulation. It was just like having a real car crash. The question is would you want to experience terrible things like this, and war? How would you feel if you killed someone in a virtual world? Can that be fun? If you do have fun in any such game, would you not prefer to do it in real life? I think 3D games cause you to ask yourself 'why am I playing this?' because they try to mimic real life, and that takes away the enjoyment. I like to play games like chess in 2D because there is no shadow or detail to distract you, and it can give you a new perspective which can help you to improve your game. If I played Chess in 3D I'd just want to move the pieces with my own hand.
I look forward to hearing from you
ARN0LD forfeited this round.
ARN0LD forfeited this round.
ARN0LD forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This looked to be a promising debate, but instead Con chose to forfeit every round. Since Pro's arguments were left standing unchallenged for the entire debate, Pro wins the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.