No future for 3D Worms [Archive]

EatMe

25 Dec 2004, 23:51

In the end, publishers are only concerned about making money, and they don't believe 2D games can make a decent amount of money in today's gaming world

I still think that the problem is in Team 17, not publishers. They MUST convince publisher that 2D Worms will be MUCH MORE profitable, than 3D. The simpliest way is showing the publisher official stats of Online Worms - over 1 million players registered. Still think 2D is not profitable? I am sure THERE ARE other ways to prove that sometimes 2D will bring more money.

Make shiny 2D graphics, customizable controls, good multiplayer support, ladders, tournaments, constantly add new content, release patches and so on - you'll get zillion of players in no time. The problem of ALL Worms games that they had AWFULL support and some stupidest restrictions like "no ALT-TAB" and fixed controls. Servers were often down, no ladders, no tournaments, people amuse themselves. Do you think this is the way of maiking money? If you do, then I bet ur a homeless guy :-)

One more thing: Worms games were ALWAYS a golden vein, but Team 17 seemed blind to me. There is still a mystery how they could miss such an opportunity they ALWAYS had in their hands. Now, I guess, it's too late already. If they don't plan to release new 2D Worms, than it's better say "Goodbye" to everyone and close the franchise itself. I guarantee you that 3D in Worms wil ALWAYS suck and people will complain continuously.

And yeah, I've forgot to mention, that if Team 17 will stop picking up such lousy publishers like cursed SEGA, they'll score once again someday :-)

Kjatte

26 Dec 2004, 02:09

I don't think you should critizise W3D as it was a really good job to be the first 3D worms game! I like it, but there are just a few points wich pull down the experience!

The gravity seems too 'slow' and unrealistic. Also the friction is too high. The worms doesn't slide!

Some annoying animations

The weapons doesn't seem all that powerful
Way to few awards and all of them are boring..

Akuryou13

26 Dec 2004, 02:55

I still think that the problem is in Team 17, not publishers. They MUST convince publisher that 2D Worms will be MUCH MORE profitable, than 3D. The simpliest way is showing the publisher official stats of Online Worms - over 1 million players registered. Still think 2D is not profitable? I am sure THERE ARE other ways to prove that sometimes 2D will bring more money. you don't have much of a concept for the business world if you believe begging a publisher will make them want to release a game that's been done before. a new worms game in 2D wouldn't offer any new experiences, it'd just be the same old worms remade with a new title.

Make shiny 2D graphics, customizable controls, good multiplayer support, ladders, tournaments, constantly add new content, release patches and so on - you'll get zillion of players in no time. The problem of ALL Worms games that they had AWFULL support and some stupidest restrictions like "no ALT-TAB" and fixed controls. Servers were often down, no ladders, no tournaments, people amuse themselves. Do you think this is the way of maiking money? If you do, then I bet ur a homeless guy :-) you just started with WWP didn't you?! in WWP, servers go down a lot, there are no ranks, and all the players are horrible. in W:A there was a ranking system, and there were and still are tournaments. custom controls aren't enough to warrant a new game, and neither are slightly better 2D graphics. publishers want something new, and flashy looking, not the same old thing over and over again.

One more thing: Worms games were ALWAYS a golden vein, but Team 17 seemed blind to me. There is still a mystery how they could miss such an opportunity they ALWAYS had in their hands. Now, I guess, it's too late already. If they don't plan to release new 2D Worms, than it's better say "Goodbye" to everyone and close the franchise itself. I guarantee you that 3D in Worms wil ALWAYS suck and people will complain continuously. that's so wrong it's amusing. W3D is plenty active, and very well liked. there are many who believe that the switch shouldn't have been made, but many more who like 3D worms as much as 2D worms. in fact, the switch to 3D brought with it many new wormers, and many new forum members. if you don't like W3D, that's fine, but don't whine about it to T17, cause there's nothing they can do about you not liking one of their games.

PsyDome

26 Dec 2004, 10:14

In the end, publishers are only concerned about making money, and they don't believe 2D games can make a decent amount of money in today's gaming world
well, that's not entirely true, it think it's more of the fact that publishers realise that worms is a horse beaten to death...

the fact is that several publishers put out 2D games on the market, so why not worms, one would think

well, you guess why...

pilot62

26 Dec 2004, 10:26

I just think you should remember there are many people who even prefer 3d worms, let alone just like it.

BetongÅsna

26 Dec 2004, 12:14

I just think you should remember there are many people who even prefer 3d worms, let alone just like it.
That is, however, because many people are idiots, and assume that 3D is always better than 2D.

However, the 2D is good 3D is bad thing can be taken too far, as EatMe has just shown us.

AndrewTaylor

26 Dec 2004, 13:09

That is, however, because many people are idiots, and assume that 3D is always better than 2D.
But idiots' money is still money, and usually they're more willing to part with it. The smart business method is to make games idiots will like and try to put enough extra stuff in there that real gamers will like it too.

double post edit:

...and people will complain continuously.
This will happen whatever Team17 (or anybody else) does.

PsyDome

26 Dec 2004, 13:12

But idiots' money is still money, and usually they're more willing to part with it. The smart business method is to make games idiots will like and try to put enough extra stuff in there that real gamers will like it too.

double post edit:

This will happen whatever Team17 (or anybody else) does.
the sad truth about every industry

that's why CRM is a fun concept to look upon :)

VeeGatomon

26 Dec 2004, 13:23

That is, however, because many people are idiots, and assume that 3D is always better than 2D.

However, the 2D is good 3D is bad thing can be taken too far, as EatMe has just shown us.

Take to mind how hard Team17 have worked to produce Worms 3D... :mad:

Maybe you should take a look at Dev Diary on the W3D website...and how T17 waited for the right time to actually produce and release the game! :rolleyes: :mad:
Sorry,no links

double post edit:

that's so wrong it's amusing. W3D is plenty active, and very well liked. there are many who believe that the switch shouldn't have been made, but many more who like 3D worms as much as 2D worms. in fact, the switch to 3D brought with it many new wormers, and many new forum members. if you don't like W3D, that's fine, but don't whine about it to T17, cause there's nothing they can do about you not liking one of their games.

That is so true,Aku. I like both 2dDand 3D games,and W3D shows just how far T17 has come. Besides, continously producing a game like Worms in 2D and never making a switch will later become boring,and the whole series will sink. ;)

EatMe

26 Dec 2004, 15:48

you don't have much of a concept for the business world if you believe begging a publisher will make them want to release a game that's been done before. a new worms game in 2D wouldn't offer any new experiences, it'd just be the same old worms remade with a new title.

There's one small thing called "business plan". You make it good - you attract publisher's attention, no matter is ist 2D or 3D game. You make it ugly - you'll not get ANY money even you have the best game engine ever. So, please, stop telling me this publisher-related crap. Team 17 wasn't able to go on with 2D Worms when 2D was quite popular, they can't do anything with 3D either.

you just started with WWP didn't you?! in WWP, servers go down a lot, there are no ranks, and all the players are horrible. in W:A there was a ranking system, and there were and still are tournaments. custom controls aren't enough to warrant a new game, and neither are slightly better 2D graphics. publishers want something new, and flashy looking, not the same old thing over and over again.

As I told you, I played ALL Worms games including WA. However I chose WWP, coz they have some stuff that previous games don't. You can like WWP or not, but a lot of people playing it and Wormnet still glitching. Just remember that almost 4 years passed already. Still think it's no Team 17's fault?

that's so wrong it's amusing. W3D is plenty active, and very well liked. there are many who believe that the switch shouldn't have been made, but many more who like 3D worms as much as 2D worms. in fact, the switch to 3D brought with it many new wormers, and many new forum members. if you don't like W3D, that's fine, but don't whine about it to T17, cause there's nothing they can do about you not liking one of their games.

Again, I suggested you to go and compare how much people play 2D and 3D versions of Worms. You'll be amused, trust me. And this is not mentioning Worms Online, which has MILLIONS of players. This IS fact inspite that some crazy casuals love everything that looks 3D inspite that 2D might be better.

double post edit:

the fact is that several publishers put out 2D games on the market, so why not worms, one would think

Might be true, indeed. But Ultima Online still 2D for 5 years and still attract new players. And Electronic Arts continue to release compilations and addons. So again, the problem is in developers - looks like they can't make a good concept and sell it to GOOD publisher, not to the one that once was almost dead.

double post edit:

Take to mind how hard Team17 have worked to produce Worms 3D... Maybe you should take a look at Dev Diary on the W3D website...and how T17 waited for the right time to actually produce and release the game! :rolleyes: :mad:

Sorry, I don't care AT ALL how much time and efforts Team 17 spent producing W3D. The result is what important, and result is just ugly. I don't think that further improvements will make difference.

***

Anyway, there's always a solution - rework 2D Worms and continue developing 3D versions for casuals. I am absolutely sure that this is possible, because in this way you'll satisfy both sides and will get most money. That's it.

BTW, one more example for those who think that 3D is always a solution and a progress. Tetris is the one game that still popular today. The were some attempts to make it 3D, but they ALL failed. The old 2D version still attract people as much as it did 20 years ago. I even can give you more examples of the same kind, but guess this is useless, coz looks like Team 17 never had good PR and marketing depts. to extimate the market value and promote it's products well. And this is VERY, VERY sad.

double post edit:

That is so true,Aku. I like both 2dDand 3D games,and W3D shows just how far T17 has come. Besides, continously producing a game like Worms in 2D and never making a switch will later become boring,and the whole series will sink. ;)

As I mentioned, they always could make 2D & 3D versions at the same time. Or at least rework WWP or WA with today's requirements. Otherwise, Worms series will sink as well.

Squirminator2k

26 Dec 2004, 15:54

Bust-A-Move, Chu Chu Rocket, Mr Driller, WarioWare, Super Smash Bros, Sonic, these are all fairly successful 2D (or 2.5D) franchises existing today. But they do so mainly out of reputation. WhileWorms has been a big seller in the past I would not call it a "big name" in the industry and Team17 need to go back to 2D and make more noise before they try anything else.

Also Worms Racer needs doing. If they don't, I know someone who will ;)

pilot62

26 Dec 2004, 15:56

That is, however, because many people are idiots, and assume that 3D is always better than 2D.

However, the 2D is good 3D is bad thing can be taken too far, as EatMe has just shown us.
Excuse me, but I know lots of people, myself includedd, who have played both 2d and 3d and prefer 3d, not because I always asume 3d's better than 2d, but because wI find it fun to play.

3D worms does have many many faults, but its still a good game.

MrBunsy

26 Dec 2004, 15:59

BTW, one more example for those who think that 3D is always a solution and a progress. Tetris is the one game that still popular today. The were some attempts to make it 3D, but they ALL failed. The old 2D version still attract people as much as it did 20 years ago. I even can give you more examples of the same kind, but guess this is useless, coz looks like Team 17 never had good PR and marketing depts. to extimate the market value and promote it's products well. And this is VERY, VERY sad.

True, but tetris doesn't exactly make much money anymore does it? The Worms 2D are popular, but unless you manage to make something really original in 2D, then another W2D won't sell, since there are already WA and WWP which would be cheaper than any new game.

AndrewTaylor

26 Dec 2004, 16:22

There's one small thing called "business plan". You make it good - you attract publisher's attention, no matter is ist 2D or 3D game. If that was true then Simon The Sourcerer III would have been released as it stood. The publishers weren't having any of that. A point and click RPG? You must be mad. They took it away, ported it to 3D and showed them again, and they snapped it up.Again, I suggested you to go and compare how much people play 2D and 3D versions of Worms. You'll be amused, trust me. And this is not mentioning Worms Online, which has MILLIONS of players. This IS fact inspite that some crazy casuals love everything that looks 3D inspite that 2D might be better.Earlier in this thread Worms Online was called Online Worms and had only one million players. Besides, a person owning a game, a person being registered on a server, a person playing a game regularly and a person going into a shop and purchasing a sequel are four very different things. Getting statistics on the third is almost impossible and the last is impossible. A lot of people, for example, still play Worms 2 but don't feel the need even to get W:A. What on Earth would convince them to buy the new 2D game, especially when Deadcode is slowly turning W:A into more or less the best thing ever.Anyway, there's always a solution - rework 2D Worms and continue developing 3D versions for casuals. I am absolutely sure that this is possible, because in this way you'll satisfy both sides and will get most money. That's it.

BTW, one more example for those who think that 3D is always a solution and a progress. Tetris is the one game that still popular today. The were some attempts to make it 3D, but they ALL failed. The old 2D version still attract people as much as it did 20 years ago. I even can give you more examples of the same kind, but guess this is useless, coz looks like Team 17 never had good PR and marketing depts. to extimate the market value and promote it's products well. And this is VERY, VERY sad.But developing a Tetris game is easy, and pretty much a sure-fire hit: it's Tetris; if nothing else you can sell it to the parents who bought the console in the first place. I could do a Tetris game. I have done it; it took me about a week, and for my money I did it better than Microsoft have ever managed. You can get the game engine running in an afternoon; all you'd have to do then is menus, backgrounds, some pointless novelty game mode or other, and music (which is a lost cause as Nintendo made the definitive Tetris theme already). A new 2D version of Worms would have to be probably a full ground-up recoding for the new platforms and graphics, and would have to have new weapons and features or else the PC version wouldn't sell at all, and it would take years to complete. And, once it was done, there's no reason to assume it would be a success -- the hard-core would all buy it, but a large number of W2 and W:A fans wouldn't budge from those, some people wouldn't see the new game as different enough, and how easy do you think it would be to sell a 2D game to Jonny X-Box?

In summary,As I mentioned, they always could make 2D & 3D versions at the same time.That would cost twice as much money for a fractionally increased revenue. Or at least rework WWP or WA with today's requirements. They are doing that already, and the game retails for £5.

Swed Simon

26 Dec 2004, 16:34

I have no idea how many this have been discussed and the answer repeated. The truth is that besides the publishers it doesn't matter what you or anyone alse think, in the end Team17 decide, and if you would have been around a bit longer and read there own opinions you would have notice that they are not interested to make another 2D game.
Now, there is only one 3D Worms game this far that unlike WFUS is not a spinoff so no wonder Team17 is going to give it another go. And after that, who knows, maybe they'll start on something new, because fortunately they know that its better to do many different projects then pushing one to far just to end up alienating the fanboys of a series.

VeeGatomon

26 Dec 2004, 17:25

Sorry, I don't care AT ALL how much time and efforts Team 17 spent producing W3D. The result is what important, and result is just ugly. I don't think that further improvements will make difference.

I think the results were excellent,despite the bugs. :p
Besides,you get a chance to see and use highly-detailed 3D versions of many known weapons.

Anyway, there's always a solution - rework 2D Worms and continue developing 3D versions for casuals. I am absolutely sure that this is possible, because in this way you'll satisfy both sides and will get most money. That's it.

First of all,that might take up a lot of Team17's time,considering how long it took to develop W3D.And then having to develop a 2D game in there as well?! NO WAY! :eek:

BTW, one more example for those who think that 3D is always a solution and a progress. Tetris is the one game that still popular today. The were some attempts to make it 3D, but they ALL failed. The old 2D version still attract people as much as it did 20 years ago. I even can give you more examples of the same kind, but guess this is useless, coz looks like Team 17 never had good PR and marketing depts. to extimate the market value and promote it's products well. And this is VERY, VERY sad.

Exscuse me,we are talking about Worms here,wich is NOT Tetris,and is great whether it's 2D or 3D! I like both versions,so stop whining about it! I've seen threads and posts like this,so stop the complaining! :mad:

Swed Simon

26 Dec 2004, 17:31

I like both versions,so stop whining about it!That doesn't make any sense.

I've seen threads and posts like this,so stop the complaining! :mad:
And I belive there is something called freedom of speech...

P.S
Did you know there is a little edit button? It's really simple, you klick on it and edit your posts. I know it can be hard at start, wen I first poted here I were afraid to use it too but if you give it a try you'll soon learn that it wont harm you.

VeeGatomon

26 Dec 2004, 17:37

Excuse me, but I know lots of people, myself includedd, who have played both 2d and 3d and prefer 3d, not because I always asume 3d's better than 2d, but because wI find it fun to play.

3D worms does have many many faults, but its still a good game.

I'm with you on this one,pilot. I'm another of those who like BOTH 2D and 3D games,they are lots of fun,so no one has the right to call those who like the 3D games,or like them better,idiots. It's just rude! :rolleyes:
Besides,the 3D games are a completely new experience. Who's with me?! ;)

double post edit:

That doesn't make any sense.

And I belive there is something called freedom of speech...

Yeah,but many people have complained "no! 2D is better!",and this is just another complaint.Let's face it. Team17 doesn't care how many complain about it,they'll do what they want to,when they want to. :rolleyes:

Kjatte

26 Dec 2004, 18:31

Just a thought, They could pull off something really original on the DS ;)

PsyDome

26 Dec 2004, 18:37

Besides,you get a chance to see and use highly-detailed 3D versions of many known weapons.
ehh... did you actually play the game? worms 3d is as high-detailed as the sun is blue

Akuryou13

26 Dec 2004, 19:18

ehh... did you actually play the game? worms 3d is as high-detailed as the sun is blue you truly ARE ungrateful. you make it sound like W3D has the worst graphics you've ever seen. other than the blockiness of the land, the game actually looks pretty good. if you disagree (which you always do) please explain why it's so horrible.

PsyDome

26 Dec 2004, 19:47

you truly ARE ungrateful. you make it sound like W3D has the worst graphics you've ever seen. other than the blockiness of the land, the game actually looks pretty good. if you disagree (which you always do) please explain why it's so horrible.
compare worms 3d to any playstation 1 game, and i'll agree with you, compare it with most modern games released at the end of 2003, and worms 3d looks extremely bland...

i'm not saying it looks rubbish, i'm saying it looks, well, bland...

EatMe

26 Dec 2004, 20:58

you truly ARE ungrateful. you make it sound like W3D has the worst graphics you've ever seen. other than the blockiness of the land, the game actually looks pretty good. if you disagree (which you always do) please explain why it's so horrible.

As Psy told you, W3D looks not very nice in comparison with modern games. And this is 100% true. Just look at the worms - they look like they were made my drunk Papa Karlo from worst wood he was able to find in the whole Italy. I don't thing this is the way to win the prize for best graphics or even compete with some modern blockbusters.

pilot62

26 Dec 2004, 20:59

Don't you think you might be slightly biased by the fact your a moron whose entire purpose on the forum is to constantly remind people you have w3d.

I like the graphics on w3d, the may be less impressive than some, but they're nice, I think the game looks good and anyway, tehe graphics arn't the most important thing, the gameplay is. (You hate that as well though don't you.)

EatMe

26 Dec 2004, 21:06

Don't you think you might be slightly biased by the fact your a moron whose entire purpose on the forum is to constantly remind people you have w3d. I like the graphics on w3d, the may be less impressive than some, but they're nice, I think the game looks good and anyway, tehe graphics arn't the most important thing, the gameplay is. (You hate that as well though don't you.)

I'll talk to you next time, child, when you'll grow up and learn how to talk politely without words like "moron" and exessive sarcasm.

MonkeyforaHead

26 Dec 2004, 21:22

Besides, continously producing a game like Worms in 2D and never making a switch will later become boring,and the whole series will sink. ;)
And exactly where do you think the series is currently headed in 3D, hmmm? At least in 2D they managed to crank out several games before the redundancy really started to kick in.

I'm not saying 3D is necessarily a bad realm for Worms, although, in my opinion it is. W3D itself wasn't a bad game, though it could've been better... and I think that most people here will agree, even those who like W3D, that the 2D series was better as a whole.

SargeMcCluck

26 Dec 2004, 21:49

Again, I suggested you to go and compare how much people play 2D and 3D versions of Worms. You'll be amused, trust me. And this is not mentioning Worms Online, which has MILLIONS of players. This IS fact inspite that some crazy casuals love everything that looks 3D inspite that 2D might be better.

Onlineworms does not count. Onlineworms was released (with different names) in a few asian countries as a free product. Free. At least, I've played two different versions and there's been no fee whatsoever. Worms has also never been big in Asia - It's relatively new over there, and so there's a lot more interest in it.

Free + New concept (for them) + Fun = many people want to play it. Comparing Onlineworms to Team17's games is pointless.
And for the record, Team17 did not release Onlineworms. It was done by asian developers - MGame, I believe - they did get Team17's permission obviously, but it's not just Team17's work.

BTW, one more example for those who think that 3D is always a solution and a progress. Tetris is the one game that still popular today. The were some attempts to make it 3D, but they ALL failed. The old 2D version still attract people as much as it did 20 years ago. I even can give you more examples of the same kind, but guess this is useless, coz looks like Team 17 never had good PR and marketing depts. to extimate the market value and promote it's products well. And this is VERY, VERY sad.

Tetris doesn't attract as many people as it did when it came out (Which I assume you mean by 20 years ago). At least not commercially. And if you're mixing free downloads/things like Tetrinet then that's crazy.

Tetris does not make as much profit as it did when it first came out. That's a fact. When Tetris came out it was bought by insane numbers of people. Everyone now either already owns it (If they play on a Gameboy or whatever), doesn't like classic games (So doesn't play it), or owns a PC and so downloads one of millions of free clients (Including some great ones like Tetrinet).

Also, Team17 are the developer. They DEVELOP the game.
The publisher publishes the game. This includes marketing. No developer markets the game. That's the publisher's job.

double post edit:

I'll talk to you next time, child, when you'll grow up and learn how to talk politely without words like "moron" and exessive sarcasm.

I think he was talking to Psydome btw, not you.

PsyDome

26 Dec 2004, 22:36

I think he was talking to Psydome btw, not you.
what ?

Akuryou13

26 Dec 2004, 22:55

compare worms 3d to any playstation 1 game, and i'll agree with you, compare it with most modern games released at the end of 2003, and worms 3d looks extremely bland...

i'm not saying it looks rubbish, i'm saying it looks, well, bland... I agree that the graphics are nothing compared to the new games, or even games that are a year old, but the graphics aren't THAT bad. the graphics are cartoony and wacky looking, so they stick to the style of worms, and that's enough for me. new games are highly detailed and awesome looking, cause they're going for realism in them, but look at the less serious titles around, their graphics aren't a whole lot better than worms, if they are better. worms is a game that's meant to look cartoony and is meant to be taken less seriously (as far as graphics go). the blockiness of the land IS pretty bad looking, but it doesn't take much to get over that, and for the first worms game in 3D, and for one of the first 3D games with destroyable landscape, I'd say they did a darn good job. I can see why you can say the graphics are bland, but they're not BAD, just kinda average.

Just look at the worms - they look like they were made my drunk Papa Karlo from worst wood he was able to find in the whole Italy. I don't thing this is the way to win the prize for best graphics or even compete with some modern blockbusters. the worms look like worms, they don't look like a 3 year old painted them, they don't look like a drunk guy modelled them, and they don't look like something that comes out something butt hole. they look like worms, made in a 3D environment. they're cartoony, smooth, and well-made. the graphics aren't SUPPOSED to run against the graphics of games like half-life and doom; they're just supposed to be cartoony 3D graphics that fit with the style of worms, and you'd have to be more childish than pilot was in his last post to not realize that worms wasn't made to compete for graphic awards. look around at today's games, and at the games that came out last year, and I challenge you to name 10 that DO compete with doom and half-life graphically. also look at the more cartoony games of the last year, and see how many of them have graphics that are equal or close to worms's graphics.

also eatme, don't call someone childish when you've joined a forum just to flame and rant. if you want to post your opinions in a logical and organized manner that displays valid points you want to make, and that provides constructive criticism about something, then please do, but if you join a forum just to flame the owners of the forum, don't even think you have room to talk about those who flame back.

SargeMcCluck

26 Dec 2004, 22:56

what ?

pilot62.
He said "by the fact your a moron whose entire purpose on the forum is to constantly remind people you have w3d."

That suits you more than EatMe by description, and if you look at the post times, when pilot62 was writing his post EatMe's reply won't have been there. So I was informing EatMe that pilot62 was probably talking to you with his post.

thomasp

26 Dec 2004, 23:02

This thread is descending into a flamewar. Please, keep the comments about Worms3D and not about how "childish" you think someone is being. I don't want to have to close this thread.

EatMe

27 Dec 2004, 07:30

Onlineworms does not count. Onlineworms was released (with different names) in a few asian countries as a free product. Free. At least, I've played two different versions and there's been no fee whatsoever. Worms has also never been big in Asia - It's relatively new over there, and so there's a lot more interest in it. Free + New concept (for them) + Fun = many people want to play it. Comparing Onlineworms to Team17's games is pointless.And for the record, Team17 did not release Onlineworms. It was done by asian developers - MGame, I believe - they did get Team17's permission obviously, but it's not just Team17's work.

Of course I know that Team 17 didn't release Online Worms - that's what I'm tryin to explain exactly. The problem is in VERY BAD marketing and support.

For me Worms was ALWAYS a lost opportunity. The game was great, people were nuts of it, everybody loved that cartoony style and simlplicity of controls/gameplay and at the same time - a lot of tactics when you play professional. But remember who made the first ladder? Users did, not developers. I think this is quite revealing.

There IS a good chance to make 2D game a huge online hit and collect money for it. There are enough examples of it like Puzzle Pirates or Ragnarok Online - they ALL have a monthly fee and people still play. Don't you think that reworked 2D Worms made in better grafics with great online support played without any monthly fees will remain in dirt? I don't think so. You even don't need to add crazy something new - combine all the best WA and WWP have, add graphics like Worms Blast has, make support for all modern resolutions, ladders, tournaments, online stats, comunity support and you'll make a HELLUVA GOOD GAME.

Tetris doesn't attract as many people as it did when it came out (Which I assume you mean by 20 years ago). At least not commercially. And if you're mixing free downloads/things like Tetrinet then that's crazy. Tetris does not make as much profit as it did when it first came out. That's a fact. When Tetris came out it was bought by insane numbers of people. Everyone now either already owns it (If they play on a Gameboy or whatever), doesn't like classic games (So doesn't play it), or owns a PC and so downloads one of millions of free clients (Including some great ones like Tetrinet).

The point of my comparison with Tetris was that this game STILL popular however it is 2D. Yes, it is free now, but it wasn't free those days. Now the concept itself is too old to sell itself.

Also, Team17 are the developer. They DEVELOP the game.The publisher publishes the game. This includes marketing. No developer markets the game. That's the publisher's job.

This is if you DO have publisher already. When you want to sell the idea of something to publisher, you should make your own marketing research and find the attractive solution. That is quite clear, I guess.

***

OK, here is the main point of all my posts.

The advantages of 2D Worms were:
- fun
- simplicity
- intuitive controls
- lotsa tactics if you trying to play good.

Unfortunately W3D has nothing of it:
- it is NOT fun, coz animations are quite average and worms themselves are not funny
- it is NOT simple due to some crazy camera issues and 3rd dimension (yes, it can confuse people in this game, trust me)
- controls are absolutely ugly and sluggish
- tactics are so-so, coz, for example, you can't use some good old weapons like rope (the one in W3D is unusable at all) and some very interesting modes like shoppa.

I think now it's clear.

double post edit:

I agree that the graphics are nothing compared to the new games, or even games that are a year old, but the graphics aren't THAT bad. the graphics are cartoony and wacky looking, so they stick to the style of worms, and that's enough for me. new games are highly detailed and awesome looking, cause they're going for realism in them, but look at the less serious titles around, their graphics aren't a whole lot better than worms, if they are better. worms is a game that's meant to look cartoony and is meant to be taken less seriously (as far as graphics go). the blockiness of the land IS pretty bad looking, but it doesn't take much to get over that, and for the first worms game in 3D, and for one of the first 3D games with destroyable landscape, I'd say they did a darn good job. I can see why you can say the graphics are bland, but they're not BAD, just kinda average.

I didn't say the graphics are damn bad - average, that is. But for me old 2D looks very stylish even today - only Worms Blast look better. Got my point?

also eatme, don't call someone childish when you've joined a forum just to flame and rant.

If "someone" will stop calling me moron, I'll not call him childish. I guess, this must be clear.

if you want to post your opinions in a logical and organized manner that displays valid points you want to make, and that provides constructive criticism about something, then please do, but if you join a forum just to flame the owners of the forum, don't even think you have room to talk about those who flame back.

As I have already mentioned, I am a fan of Worms. The only purpose of all this plead is to make developers think about turning back or at least paralleling the developing of 2D Worms. I don't think this is only me who would love to play Worms 2D in new graphics and with good online support. As you know, there were a lot of complaints about W3D and they still appear quite regulary. For me this is the point to think of and I want Team 17 to think about it too. If those who love 2D will be silent, we'll never see old good Worms again and will get ugly 3D clones published by louse developer.

And btw, I liked WFUS, but in single player only. Great game, looks very interestimg for me, but I am talking about MULTIPLAYER, which made the whole series so popular. And 3D Worms will never be as much popular as it's predecessor was. I told a few lines above why - SIMPLICITY is the keyword of popularity.

SargeMcCluck

27 Dec 2004, 08:11

But remember who made the first ladder? Users did, not developers. I think this is quite revealing.

Remember who made the first Quake ladder? Who made the first Command & Conquer ladder? I could go on for hours. Internet play was a new feature in games when Worms 2 came out. Ladders were not made by developers then, because it was good enough that it had online play.

There IS a good chance to make 2D game a huge online hit and collect money for it. There are enough examples of it like Puzzle Pirates or Ragnarok Online - they ALL have a monthly fee and people still play.

Both of which are MMORPGs. You can't compare MMORPGs to turn based strategy in the way you are doing - It's like comparing the sales of airplanes to cars.

Don't you think that reworked 2D Worms made in better grafics with great online support played without any monthly fees will remain in dirt? I don't think so. You even don't need to add crazy something new - combine all the best WA and WWP have, add graphics like Worms Blast has, make support for all modern resolutions, ladders, tournaments, online stats, comunity support and you'll make a HELLUVA GOOD GAME.

Helluva good game? Yes.
The problem is actually selling it.
Tell you what - Find a publisher that gives you a statement that they would definitely be willing to publish a 2D worms game on PC, and then I'll start listening to that part of your argument. Until then, you're just saying "I know better than Team17 about how publishers work, even though Team17 are industry veterans".

The point of my comparison with Tetris was that this game STILL popular however it is 2D. Yes, it is free now, but it wasn't free those days. Now the concept itself is too old to sell itself.

Of course it's popular - It's free. Free makes a huge difference.
If Worms Armageddon suddenly became free and appeared on say, fileplanet, a LOT of people would download it. Free games are very attractive. You can't compare the distribution of a free game to a commercial game. That is my point.

This is if you DO have publisher already. When you want to sell the idea of something to publisher, you should make your own marketing research and find the attractive solution. That is quite clear, I guess.

That's not the point. You said:

Team 17 never had good PR and marketing depts. to extimate the market value and promote it's products well.

Estimate the market value and promote its products well.

Estimating the market value has... nothing to do with finding a publisher, except on the very basic "should we listen to a few fanboys who want 2D or should we go with the huge amount of casual gamers who will, and have, bought 3D?". You decide to make a game, and then you find a publisher that will publish this game. If no publisher will publish it then you change the game and repeat. Obviously you wouldn't completely ignore the market value of the game, but you don't need a department for that - You need this crazy thing called "common sense".

Promoting its products has... nothing to do with finding a publisher, as that's what the publisher would do.

Fwd. Adm.

27 Dec 2004, 10:52

EatMe

27 Dec 2004, 11:35

There really shouldn't be another 3D worms game. IMO, I don't think worms should have been designed to have depth. It makes favorite pastimes, like roping, become a total bummer for elite ropers in 2D games, and worms is designed to be simple and easy to play. In 3D, there are too many concepts to learn and you have to be quite an expert to be able to not waste your turn trying to figure out the controls. A 2.5 game would top the charts, if you ask me. Some 2D games can sell and sell, like the Metal Slug series. To me, certain 3D remakes of 2D's, like the Pac-Man World series, have gone too far and have made many nostalgic gamers feel that their ol' quarter-robbing game has appealed to kids by adding cute bosses and weapons and crap. It's the same basic concept, but it was taken too far.

Totally agree. Let's say, if you have a truck you don't need it to speed upto 300 km/h to deliver goods inspite that the whole world seems crazy about speed of their cars. The same thing with Worms - they'll never attract a lot of people if they'll have 3, 4, 5 or even 100 dimensions. This is the game of FUN and SIMPLICITY, nothing more is needed. 3D even confusing for me, a gamer with 20 years experience and a game journalist.

Worms 3D were uninstalled on my computer in a couple of days after purchase. I played'em, tried a couple matches online, wrote a crashing review and got back to WWP. So I was VERY sceptic about WFUS, but was quite amused with it's single player. However I still want something new in 2D series, something with better graphics, customizable controls and all that stuff I mentioned twice already. And this is not only me who want this.

pilot62

27 Dec 2004, 12:02

There really shouldn't be another 3D worms game. IMO, I don't think worms should have been designed to have depth. It makes favorite pastimes, like roping, become a total bummer for elite ropers in 2D games, and worms is designed to be simple and easy to play. In 3D, there are too many concepts to learn and you have to be quite an expert to be able to not waste your turn trying to figure out the controls. A 2.5 game would top the charts, if you ask me. Some 2D games can sell and sell, like the Metal Slug series. To me, certain 3D remakes of 2D's, like the Pac-Man World series, have gone too far and have made many nostalgic gamers feel that their ol' quarter-robbing game has appealed to kids by adding cute bosses and weapons and crap. It's the same basic concept, but it was taken too far.I completely disagree, if a game moved into 3d of course its going to be differnt. I think the "new concepts" you need to learn make it fun, a challenge, rather than being fed the same old thing from the 2d series again. The concept was good but lets face it, it needed a change. If any of you have been on wormNET recently you will see that some people have persevered extreemly well in all manner of skills, most noticably roping, these days the standard is phenomanal compared to when it first came out and people didn't know what do do with it.

EatMe, Sarge is correct, I was calling Psydome a moron, not you.

EatMe

27 Dec 2004, 13:15

I completely disagree, if a game moved into 3d of course its going to be differnt. I think the "new concepts" you need to learn make it fun, a challenge, rather than being fed the same old thing from the 2d series again. The concept was good but lets face it, it needed a change. If any of you have been on wormNET recently you will see that some people have persevered extreemly well in all manner of skills, most noticably roping, these days the standard is phenomanal compared to when it first came out and people didn't know what do do with it.

That's what we all talking about. The problem is in choosing the right degree of changes. Since W2 the whole series didn't change much and then it was BOOM! - ugly 3D version appeared, killing all good that was made. No ropers, no shoopa, no fun, no anything that was so attractive in 2D. Nice way to make fans, huh?

EatMe, Sarge is correct, I was calling Psydome a moron, not you.

Excuse me then, my fault. I didn't mention the time of the post. Better quote always or put the name of the person whom are you talking to.

PsyDome

27 Dec 2004, 14:42

EatMe, Sarge is correct, I was calling Psydome a moron, not you.and i'm sure you had a perfectly good reason too

Swed Simon

27 Dec 2004, 14:48

No ropers, no shoopa

That's probably the only good thing about 3D worming.

Fwd. Adm.

27 Dec 2004, 16:47

I completely disagree, if a game moved into 3d of course its going to be differnt. I think the "new concepts" you need to learn make it fun, a challenge, rather than being fed the same old thing from the 2d series again. The concept was good but lets face it, it needed a change. If any of you have been on wormNET recently you will see that some people have persevered extreemly well in all manner of skills, most noticably roping, these days the standard is phenomanal compared to when it first came out and people didn't know what do do with it.Pilot, that's the thing. Would YOU like to see worms go from old school and simple to what happened to Pac-Man? You'd like to see it asidesome game rated 'EC'? Worms. Isn't. Supposed. To. Be. Hard. The real challenge of it is learning little things like deciding the fuse time on grenades, and wind affecting weaps, and not blasting yourself up with a donkey, etc. Many people haven't mastered these skills yet, so why would T17 have introduced a harder to learn game when many were struggling with the first game? I admit, W3D was fun for about a week and then I realized how tough it was, and now I just keep it in a case on my bedstand.

pilot62

27 Dec 2004, 17:57

No ropers, no shoopa.Wrong, well, sortof, now it seems everygame is full of ropers, sure the technique is different, and its much harder to learn, but some people are absolutely fantastic, take cyclaws, or anymember of n00b or noskill, and most people now are at least competant with it.

Personaly, i'd like to see a game that was much more like 2d, sweet graphics, large lan dmasses, less water, more skil, tunneling, caverns, better rope, more skill needed, good awards and an awesome level of strategy and fun gameplay, i'm not saying w3d dosn't have any of these features, but it dosn't have eough of them in a bi enough quantity.

Fwd. Adm.

27 Dec 2004, 18:04

Wrong, well, sortof, now it seems everygame is full of ropers, sure the technique is different, and its much harder to learn, but some people are absolutely fantastic, take cyclaws, or anymember of n00b or noskill, and most people now are at least competant with it.

Personaly, i'd like to see a game that was much more like 2d, sweet graphics, large lan dmasses, less water, more skil, tunneling, caverns, better rope, more skill needed, good awards and an awesome level of strategy and fun gameplay, i'm not saying w3d dosn't have any of these features, but it dosn't have eough of them in a bi enough quantity.I agree. A 3D version of worms could have been awesome, if T17 would have put some effort into some of their games. W3D was TERRIBLE compared to games being released at around the same time as it was. Compared to PlayStation games, it was around average. IMO, they should have made a 2.5D version of worms. Or the graphics could be like Viewtiful Joe graphics(what's the name for that type of animation?)with 2D layered on 2D making it look like a 3D game with 2D graphics.

Cyclaws

27 Dec 2004, 18:30

Fwd. Adm.

27 Dec 2004, 18:38

How exactly do you propose a 2.5D game would work? I understand what your trying to say, about having 2D worms in a 3D enviroment (at least I think thats what your saying), but like it says at the beggining of this post, how do you propose Team17 do it? Something tells me it won't work.A 2.5D game is like Super Smash Brothers: Melee. 3D figures, 3D landscape, but no panoramic action. Basically side-scrolling 3D. A 2D/3D game has already been done. Have you ever played Viewtiful Joe? If not, look up some screenshots of it on Google or something. 2D worms in a 3D environment? I thought I explained it...

Cyclaws

27 Dec 2004, 18:43

A 2.5D game is like Super Smash Brothers: Melee. 3D figures, 3D landscape, but no panoramic action. Basically side-scrolling 3D. A 2D/3D game has already been done. Have you ever played Viewtiful Joe? If not, look up some screenshots of it on Google or something. 2D worms in a 3D environment? I thought I explained it...
However much I understand the idea, I don't think it would get far. 2D has a lot of fans, but you have to remember, that 3D has a fair few fans itself. Now publishers these days are not going to publish another 2D game, they see it as a waste of money. Publishers don't think they will profit from another 2D game. In my opinion, 2.5D is more 2D than is it 3D, so the publishers wouldn't publish it either. Its a sad fact, I would like to see another 2D game as well, but thats just the way it is.

Fwd. Adm.

27 Dec 2004, 18:55

However much I understand the idea, I don't think it would get far. 2D has a lot of fans, but you have to remember, that 3D has a fair few fans itself. Now publishers these days are not going to publish another 2D game, they see it as a waste of money. Publishers don't think they will profit from another 2D game. In my opinion, 2.5D is more 2D than is it 3D, so the publishers wouldn't publish it either. Its a sad fact, I would like to see another 2D game as well, but thats just the way it is.How is 2.5 more like 2D than 3D? Isn't it an equal mix of both? I mean, 3D worms, 3D landscape, yet no panoramic view. Actually, I think it's more 3D than 2D. It's a 3D twist, but game still has some 2D characteristics. That's rarely been done before, as I can only recall SSB: M with that type of animation.

pilot62

27 Dec 2004, 19:33

No, 3d graphics, thats it.

Fwd. Adm.

27 Dec 2004, 19:45

No, 3d graphics, thats it.Pilot, I said that 3D worms games are hard. They aren't meant to be. T17 introduced it wrongly, and it's just...wrong. They should have put more work into it. My idea compromises, so how can it be wrong? A 3D worms game with the simplicity of a 2D worms game.

MrBunsy

27 Dec 2004, 20:28

That's rarely been done before, as I can only recall SSB: M with that type of animation.
Someone had to bring it up, the classic failure. Lemmings.

I really don't see why you need to bother, it'd just be more trouble than its worth, surely? 3D graphics, unless very highly polished, don't look as good as well done 2D graphics. I think AT said somethign about the problems with 3D graphics a while ago.

Fwd. Adm.

27 Dec 2004, 20:56

Someone had to bring it up, the classic failure. Lemmings.

I really don't see why you need to bother, it'd just be more trouble than its worth, surely? 3D graphics, unless very highly polished, don't look as good as well done 2D graphics. I think AT said somethign about the problems with 3D graphics a while ago.More trouble than it is? Not many publishers are going to publish a 2D game, and T17 has room to improve on their 3D graphics, and we'd all like to see a new worms twist, so isn't the only option a 2.5D game? It's gonna be tough to pull of, but it's the only way that I see that they can make a new title that's actually appealing.

Akuryou13

27 Dec 2004, 21:50

That's what we all talking about. The problem is in choosing the right degree of changes. Since W2 the whole series didn't change much and then it was BOOM! - ugly 3D version appeared, killing all good that was made. No ropers, no shoopa, no fun, no anything that was so attractive in 2D. Nice way to make fans, huh? the rope us QUITE usable, it jsut takes more skill. excuse them if we made the game too hard for you to play, but it's not T17's fault if you're unwilling to work up the skill it takes to use a weapon. all games require the player to become good enough to use the weapons on the game, and that doesn't make it a bad game. worms IS simple, and it IS strategic, and W3D is the same, just to a lesser degree. W3D was released too early, and it doesn't have the same fun to it that 2D worms has, but it was the first game of its kind. give T17 some time to release a new version of it, with large, full landscapes, and a better camera (or a new camera view, or possibly highlighted characters, or something) to show worms digging, so that darksiders can survive, and the game will be just as good as the 3D games. T17 made a relatively bad game, that's the only problem, not the 3D environment. every company makes a mistake from time to time, and W3D was the mistake in worms. it's still fun, it's still challenging, and it's still a good game, but compared to the 2D games, it ISN'T that great, but its not the fault of the graphics, it's the fault of the time T17 had to make it. if given more time, they could've solved the problem of the tiny landscapes, and the camera, but they didn't have it due to sega.

also, just because you can't play shoppas or ropers, doesn't mean it's not a fun game. shoppas and ropers are games made by the players to allow those who can't play the normal game to play a game of worms. ropers and shoppas have since evolved into a more skilled game type that attracts many people once they've bought the game, but people buy and play worms because of the normal games that you play in missions. not accomidating those who want to use the rope and nothing else isn't something T17 needs to care about.

I agree. A 3D version of worms could have been awesome, if T17 would have put some effort into some of their games. NO EFFORT?!?! they made a new system of graphics and invented the poxel for christ's sake!! they made a game that allowed for fully destructible landscapes that doesn't require a whole lot of computer power to play. I challenge you to name a game that would've had MORE effort put into it (and remember, W3D was made in little more than a year of work).

AndrewTaylor

27 Dec 2004, 22:15

More trouble than it is? Not many publishers are going to publish a 2D game, and T17 has room to improve on their 3D graphics, and we'd all like to see a new worms twist, so isn't the only option a 2.5D game? It's gonna be tough to pull of, but it's the only way that I see that they can make a new title that's actually appealing.
It would be a dreadful game. Why can't people get this through their skulls? It's a bad idea and it would make a bad game.

Fwd. Adm.

29 Dec 2004, 08:18

It would be a dreadful game. Why can't people get this through their skulls? It's a bad idea and it would make a bad game.How is it a bad idea? T17 has basically screwed up their other ideas, except for WFUS, so I see no other way(correct me if i'm wrong). I personally don't think it'll be the bast worms title, but either they should scrounge for ideas or come up with a new game series. Fast. Aku, I meant the graphics when I said they needed to put some effort into their games. I wasn't insulting their entire reputation. Jeezus Christ, i'm not forming a New World Order. Yet. :rolleyes:

SargeMcCluck

29 Dec 2004, 08:43

Surely the want of 3D isn't because it looks different, but because 3D *allows* moving in the third dimension.

I assume that when publishers say 3D they mean a 3D world with 3D gameplay, not 3D graphics and 2D gameplay - 3D graphics and 2D gameplay is crazy a lot of the time because 2D graphics can be far superior graphically. The advantage of 3D graphics is the whole third dimension thing. So it would be crazy.

Fwd. Adm.

29 Dec 2004, 08:53

the rope us QUITE usable, it jsut takes more skill. excuse them if we made the game too hard for you to play, but it's not T17's fault if you're unwilling to work up the skill it takes to use a weapon. all games require the player to become good enough to use the weapons on the game, and that doesn't make it a bad game. worms IS simple, and it IS strategic, and W3D is the same, just to a lesser degree. W3D was released too early, and it doesn't have the same fun to it that 2D worms has, but it was the first game of its kind. give T17 some time to release a new version of it, with large, full landscapes, and a better camera (or a new camera view, or possibly highlighted characters, or something) to show worms digging, so that darksiders can survive, and the game will be just as good as the 3D games.Saying a simple game should be made harder when everyone wants it simple is like playing chess four to one when you have all pawns and a king and you opponents have double compliments of knights, queens, and bishops. Like 3-D tic-tac-toe, or knots and crosses or whatever. Too confusing and nobody wants it, except out of pure curiosity. T17 made a relatively bad game, that's the only problem, not the 3D environment. every company makes a mistake from time to time, and W3D was the mistake in worms. it's still fun, it's still challenging, and it's still a good game, but compared to the 2D games, it ISN'T that great, but its not the fault of the graphics, it's the fault of the time T17 had to make it. if given more time, they could've solved the problem of the tiny landscapes, and the camera, but they didn't have it due to sega.I'm not saying it's T17's fault, but you don't screw up your first 3D game from a 2D series. First impressions are always permanent, and I was a bit hesitant about buying WFUS as I wasn't too impressed by W3D. IMHO, W3D really DID have more cons than pros.

also, just because you can't play shoppas or ropers, doesn't mean it's not a fun game. shoppas and ropers are games made by the players to allow those who can't play the normal game to play a game of worms. ropers and shoppas have since evolved into a more skilled game type that attracts many people once they've bought the game, but people buy and play worms because of the normal games that you play in missions. not accomidating those who want to use the rope and nothing else isn't something T17 needs to care about....Holy cheese farting brontosauruses. If ropers/shoppas have their own section on WormNets 1 and 2, and they're talked about enough to be a friggin religion, T17 should at least make one or two OPTIONAL roper/shoppa missions. If T17 is going to keep making difficult roper 3D worms games, they might as well have some type of practice for it. Before you might say that it just takes skill to learn roping, let me just say that worms isn't supposed to be hard. It's 'desingned to be be played by the 80 IQ person, yet appeals as challenging for a 180 1Q person', quoted by NintenDojo.

NO EFFORT?!?! they made a new system of graphics and invented the poxel for christ's sake!! they made a game that allowed for fully destructible landscapes that doesn't require a whole lot of computer power to play. I challenge you to name a game that would've had MORE effort put into it (and remember, W3D was made in little more than a year of work).if by a little more than a year you mean a year and 3 months, then Red Faction 2. That was a gaming masterpiece, for it's amount of time.

SargeMcCluck

29 Dec 2004, 09:42

...Holy cheese farting brontosauruses. If ropers/shoppas have their own section on WormNets 1 and 2, and they're talked about enough to be a friggin religion, T17 should at least make one or two OPTIONAL roper/shoppa missions. If T17 is going to keep making difficult roper 3D worms games, they might as well have some type of practice for it. Before you might say that it just takes skill to learn roping, let me just say that worms isn't supposed to be hard. It's 'desingned to be be played by the 80 IQ person, yet appeals as challenging for a 180 1Q person', quoted by NintenDojo.

So by that thinking, as cheating is talked about enough to be a "friggin religion" in games like Counterstrike, does that mean that CS: Source should have inbuilt wallhacks?
No.
Worms is not roping. You can rope if you want, but that's not what it was made for. Team17 attempted to make Worms 3D as worms should be - Like the original, and W2/WA etc.

if by a little more than a year you mean a year and 3 months, then Red Faction 2. That was a gaming masterpiece, for it's amount of time.

Er. Red Faction and Red Faction 2 had limited, scripted destruction. The Worms 3D engine is unlimited, freeform and unscripted. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.

Red Faction style destructable terrain could be made easily with the engine from the original Quake. Worms 3D style destruction requires a custom engine designed to do just that. If you're comparing the two for a second then you have no idea what the hell you're on about. Why do you think Team17 gave so much detail on the engine? Because no engine before has had freeform poxel-based destructable terrain. It's always been scripted.

pilot62

29 Dec 2004, 13:35

Saying a simple game should be made harder when everyone wants it simple is like playing chess four to one when you have all pawns and a king and you opponents have double compliments of knights, queens, and bishops. Like 3-D tic-tac-toe, or knots and crosses or whatever. Too confusing and nobody wants it, except out of pure curiosity. I'm not saying it's T17's fault, but you don't screw up your first 3D game from a 2D series. First impressions are always permanent, and I was a bit hesitant about buying WFUS as I wasn't too impressed by W3D. IMHO, W3D really DID have more cons than pros.That, is a matter of opinion, as well as taste. You might not like it being complicated, you might think of it as a screw up, it dosn't mean everyone does.

...Holy cheese farting brontosauruses. If ropers/shoppas have their own section on WormNets 1 and 2, and they're talked about enough to be a friggin religion, T17 should at least make one or two OPTIONAL roper/shoppa missions. If T17 is going to keep making difficult roper 3D worms games, they might as well have some type of practice for it. Before you might say that it just takes skill to learn roping, let me just say that worms isn't supposed to be hard. It's 'desingned to be be played by the 80 IQ person, yet appeals as challenging for a 180 1Q person', quoted by NintenDojo. OK, go and play on wormnet 3d for a day, then come back an say that. There is a shoppa room, most gmes are pro and have unlimited ropes, and thier are enough people who are absolutely obsesed with it, not quite a religion, but a, if not the, major style of 3d gaming these days. Also, w3d isn't particualy hard, ok, maybe you have to do the tutorials to get the hang of the controlls but at a basic level not hard. However, when you begin to take it to a better level, of course its going to be hard, you'd be bloody deluding yourself if you thought it wasn't going to be.

Fwd. Adm.

29 Dec 2004, 18:07

That, is a matter of opinion, as well as taste. You might not like it being complicated, you might think of it as a screw up, it dosn't mean everyone does.Well. most everyone I've talked to on Wormnet3D says that 3D worms is hard. When I said that it was like a religion, I was exasperating. I wasn't serious.

OK, go and play on wormnet 3d for a day, then come back an say that. There is a shoppa room, most gmes are pro and have unlimited ropes, and thier are enough people who are absolutely obsesed with it, not quite a religion, but a, if not the, major style of 3d gaming these days. Also, w3d isn't particualy hard, ok, maybe you have to do the tutorials to get the hang of the controlls but at a basic level not hard. However, when you begin to take it to a better level, of course its going to be hard, you'd be bloody deluding yourself if you thought it wasn't going to be.Yes, but there's a difference between 2D hard and 3D hard. In 2D, the only hard part was basically your enemy and the occasional finger slip. Now in 3D, not only are the enemies harder, but the controlls are quite a bit confusing. Having something on Wormnet and having something on the actual game are two very different things. No amount of training against a computer can prepare you for a match against a human. Humans are generally harder to beat, so why not, at the BARE MINIMUM, have a tutorial on tips for roping. I don't learn too well when my only instruction is against some experienced roper and I lose miserably. I still say they should make a new 2D game with some sort of twist. AT, I don't understand how a 2.5D game wouldn't work.

pilot62

29 Dec 2004, 18:18

Lol, I think you mean exagurating :rolleyes: !

But a 3d roping tutorial wouldn't work well, because, yes, it is too hard for some newbies, roping is something that has to be learnt through experiance, practise and by playing other people, well, at a good level. King kong teaches you how to get from one place tp another, although admittedly very quickly and not very well, after that realy all you can do is attatch your rope and real it in. The jet pack is much better in 3d though, and the parachute, so people wouldn't have any trouble getting around anyway.

Fwd. Adm.

29 Dec 2004, 18:57

Lol, I think you mean exagurating :rolleyes: !Dude, exasperating is an actual word. :eek:

But a 3d roping tutorial wouldn't work well, because, yes, it is too hard for some newbies, roping is something that has to be learnt through experiance, practise and by playing other people, well, at a good level. King kong teaches you how to get from one place tp another, although admittedly very quickly and not very well, after that realy all you can do is attatch your rope and real it in. The jet pack is much better in 3d though, and the parachute, so people wouldn't have any trouble getting around anyway. Yes, it might be hard for some newbies. But there might be a newbie or two who haven't even tried roping that much and they might be a natural at it and become the next Cyclaws. The rope is EXTREMELY fast under the right conditions, up to 7x as fast as a jetpack moving horizontally. on a level ceiling, hook on to the ceiling. Swing forward, and at the end of the swing, release rope and attach another in mid-air. Keep doing so until you've reached wherre you want to go. If the entire length of the 'marijuana' map were level, you could cross its length in seconds.

PsyDome

29 Dec 2004, 19:51

Dude, exasperating is an actual word. :eek:
sure it is, but it wasn't the word you were looking for :)

exasperate - to make very angry or impatient; annoy greatly
exaggerate - to represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate

Fwd. Adm.

30 Dec 2004, 02:12

MrBunsy

30 Dec 2004, 12:02

A teletuby of course... can't you tell?

SuperBlob

30 Dec 2004, 12:10

Psydome. I know what exasperate means. I became very exasperated because I kept getting ***3D by ropers, as i'm a total noob when it comes to roping. Now kindly explain what your avatar is supposed to be. :p
Its from an animation on weebls stuff (http://www.weebls-stuff.com).
This argument is stupid. You're entitled to yor opinion, but making a thread so that people can argue?

pilot62

30 Dec 2004, 12:12

Nah, teletubbies have telies in there bellies, and weired antenna thingies, simmilar though.as i'm a total noob when it comes to roping.Yea, well then I guess you wouldn't wan't to spend ages trying to complete some mission that needed roping skills you don't have.

Fwd. Adm.

30 Dec 2004, 23:37

This argument is stupid. You're entitled to yor opinion, but making a thread so that people can argue?Well, i'd call it friendly debating, but of course that's what this thread's about. Deciding whether or not there's any future for 3d worms, posting different ideas, and trying to get people to agree with you if you want.

Akuryou13

31 Dec 2004, 04:18

that's what this thread's about. Deciding whether or not there's any future for 3d wormsno, cause there IS a future for worms3D, cause enough random people will buy enough to make it profitable. whether its better or not, there WILL be people buying it, cause there are many people who've never played the 2D games, and to them, W3D will be awesome. I'm sure we can all agree that unknowing people will buy enough of the game. the sale of W3D and WF:US show that 3D games make a profit, so there obviously is a future for 3D worms, just not among hardcore fans.

Fwd. Adm.

31 Dec 2004, 06:32

no, cause there IS a future for worms3D, cause enough random people will buy enough to make it profitable. whether its better or not, there WILL be people buying it, cause there are many people who've never played the 2D games, and to them, W3D will be awesome. I'm sure we can all agree that unknowing people will buy enough of the game. the sale of W3D and WF:US show that 3D games make a profit, so there obviously is a future for 3D worms, just not among hardcore fans.T17 dosen't have very much publicity in the US, as I found WWP, my first worms game, on the back shelves of a Wal-Mart. Added to the bugs with FortNet, the worms series, as far as I know, is very rarely seen in major video game stores like Toys R' Us and Wal-Mart, and rarely seen in lesser popular places like Hollywood video and EB Games. Most of the people who buy it in the US who aren't already fans wil have a small chance of running into on the Internet. The majority of people who buy it will be in the UK, and sales in the UK won't be enough to make a profit since SEGA or whoever the publisher is might overproduce and screw up. You're right, there is a future for worms, just not a very good one compared to the 2D games.

MrBunsy

31 Dec 2004, 12:57

There are completely different publishers for the UK + Europe and the US. Publishing companies in the UK will probably make a profit, I mean, why wouldn't they? They've had practise and are unlikely to majorly over-produce They may sell less than in the US, but they produce less games too. And its up to the publishing companies in the US to get publicity.

AndrewTaylor

31 Dec 2004, 15:02

There are completely different publishers for the UK + Europe and the US. Publishing companies in the UK will probably make a profit, I mean, why wouldn't they?
Because publishing a computer game costs millions of pounds and there's always the chance that nobody will buy it. Look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office_bomb

It's a list of movies that mostly failed to recoup the production costs. Some of them are quite good movies. Most of them, mark you, like The Core, are awful and deserve to make far bigger losses, but some are quite good and you'd have thought they'd have got a couple of million dollars back for them. (I haven't found an equivalent list for video games, but it would be very, very long.)

It's if anything worse for video game publishers; last I heard between one in five and one in ten games make any money at all. Publishers only survive by publishing lots. Lots of eggs in equally many baskets, so to speak.

VeeGatomon

1 Jan 2005, 15:27

ehh... did you actually play the game? worms 3d is as high-detailed as the sun is blue

Yes, I've played the game before,and I'm talking about comparing the 2D weapons to the 3D weapons,
for example:
2D grenade: Can't make out what it looks like but doesn't really look like a grenade.
3D grenade: Looks more or less like a grenade
2D sheep: Looks like a cloud with legs,eyes and a nose.
3D sheep: Looks more like a sheep rather than a cloud

Hope I proved my point. I'm not saying that 2D is bad,though,just explaining how much better the weapons look compared to the 2D weapons. :rolleyes:

double post edit:

Its from an animation on weebls stuff (http://www.weebls-stuff.com).
This argument is stupid. You're entitled to yor opinion, but making a thread so that people can argue?

Your'e right, so why am I still arguing?

dawnraid

8 Jan 2005, 07:03

Fwd. Adm.

10 Jan 2005, 19:56

Akuryou13

10 Jan 2005, 22:10

Fwd. Adm.

10 Jan 2005, 22:18

so, you say the game sucks just because you're not good at it?! I take it you never played the regular nintendo.Once again, I said I don't prefer 3D because it's too hard to figure out. Before you say "Then just practice and maybe you'll get better", let me point out that Worms games shouldn't be confusing to play. I have played the old Nintendo, which is the main reason I prefer the 2D versions.

Akuryou13

10 Jan 2005, 22:39

Once again, I said I don't prefer 3D because it's too hard to figure out. Before you say "Then just practice and maybe you'll get better", let me point out that Worms games shouldn't be confusing to play. I have played the old Nintendo, which is the main reason I prefer the 2D versions. the original worms was equally hard to be good at, just simpler to play when you first start off. it takes close to as long to get good at both (you just can't do the same things in 3D a lot of times), but 3D is just more intimidating due to the 3D, but once you get the hang of 3D, I find that its just as easy to work with.

granted, I don't know if you'd find it just as easy, but I do. of course, you may not, and that could be the whole basis of your argument. either way, I'd suggest you get used to the game and get to know the physics before you just file it away as a crappy game. (yes, I do realize you told me not to say that, but it makes sense if you ask me)

Glenn

11 Jan 2005, 01:48

When I first played 2D worms, it was a whole lot easier to understand and get a grip on things, but when I first played worms 3D it was much harder as a beginner. I have no idea about being good at 3D worms because I never got off being a newbie at it :P
My point exactly.

Here we go. This is the point that is killing most games coming out now. People keep thinking that everything should be easy. And don't even get me started on cheat codes. So, because everyone (well, almost everyone) listens to the complainers, we are constantly getting dumbed down games. Is it so unreasonable to tell someone that the only way they'll be able to play a game well is if they actually PRACTICE playing it? Apparantly it is unreasonable.
Look at Shinobi. That game was great because it was so FRIGGEN RIDICULOUS in the difficulty level. It was actually challenging. It even went above and beyond the call in that department. While it may not have sold as well as if it had been as easy to play through as, say, Final Fantasy (which has come to the point where just hammering on the button will get you through), it still managed to get a healthy following of die-hard gamers looking for something that would actually challenge them.

So I say this. If you don't like hard games, and you are unwilling to try your hardest to conquor them, then there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.

Akuryou13

11 Jan 2005, 03:08

Here we go. This is the point that is killing most games coming out now. People keep thinking that everything should be easy. And don't even get me started on cheat codes. So, because everyone (well, almost everyone) listens to the complainers, we are constantly getting dumbed down games. Is it so unreasonable to tell someone that the only way they'll be able to play a game well is if they actually PRACTICE playing it? Apparantly it is unreasonable.
Look at Shinobi. That game was great because it was so FRIGGEN RIDICULOUS in the difficulty level. It was actually challenging. It even went above and beyond the call in that department. While it may not have sold as well as if it had been as easy to play through as, say, Final Fantasy (which has come to the point where just hammering on the button will get you through), it still managed to get a healthy following of die-hard gamers looking for something that would actually challenge them.

So I say this. If you don't like hard games, and you are unwilling to try your hardest to conquor them, then there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out. THANK YOU!! that's EXACTLY how I feel about it. I'm completely sick of all these new games being like that. I swear that if I ever have any influence on a gaming company, I'm banning all stupidly easy games made by that company. thank you glenn for saying what I was trying not to say so that I wouldn't sound flamey.

and to Fwd. Adm. and dawnraid, glenn's got a pretty good point there. if you want an easy game, there are plenty of sesame street and power ranger games out there that you can play and beat to make yourself feel special. don't complain that a game is too hard if you're not willing to put forth any effort on it. I suggest you get aquainted with the NES and SNES games, and see how challenging and fun those games are, and develope your gaming skills. if you don't want to put enough effort into playing a challenging game to become good at it, step out of the way or be fragged by the hardcore gamers out there.

Glenn

11 Jan 2005, 13:44

Um... look at the name Akuryou. It's Glenn, not Zero. I just happen to use Zero as an avatar here, since my new Glenn one is too big...

Akuryou13

11 Jan 2005, 15:48

Um... look at the name Akuryou. It's Glenn, not Zero. I just happen to use Zero as an avatar here, since my new Glenn one is too big...heh, oops. I just glanced at the avatar....I'll go change it now. sry.

SuperBlob

11 Jan 2005, 16:45

I have played the old Nintendo, which is the main reason I prefer the 2D versions.So you're saying that 3D Worms is harder than some NES games? If you are, I take it you never played LoZ.

MrBunsy

11 Jan 2005, 17:21

What about with games that have difficulty settings? They might appeal to both.

Fwd. Adm.

11 Jan 2005, 17:30

So you're saying that 3D Worms is harder than some NES games? If you are, I take it you never played LoZ.The LoZ series are a whole different genre, and they have nothing to do with worms. I was talking about the 2D's on the Amigas, not like WWP and W:A. Glenn and Aku, there is a difference between hard and confusing. Hard means just needing lots of practice, like Halo and...well Shinobu too for that matter. Confusing games are things like LoZ, games that require you to think beyond what the average person thinks and require a load of patience. Confusing can also mean when something requires trial and...wait, i'm going off-topic. What I mean to say is that a simple game like Worms just shouldn't be confusing. Aku, games like Power Rangers are just the BORING kind of easy/simple. Simple dosen't necessarily mean easy, as the old school Pac-Man games have proved, as such with the old worms series. Like Othello's slogan, 'A minute to learn, a lifetime to master'. I like simple games that are hard to play. The sheer simplicity of them to learn added to the internal toughness of the game make it the ideal game to me and many (I hope) others.

double post edit

What about with games that have difficulty settings? They might appeal to both.Games that are set to the easy setting have basically no challenge to elite gamers. Games that are confusing set on easy don't make much difference. Games that are simple set on easy are easy, while on hard are actually hard, because of need of a good skill level and not because of figuring anything out, in any extremity, are funner to play.

Akuryou13

11 Jan 2005, 17:32

but worms3D isn't confusing. the controls are listed, and the game works the same as the other worms, you just have to worry about a 3rd dimension. adding the dimension just makes it work more like newer games out today, in that you can look in all directions while you play. the game still plays fairly similarly, and if you've played the old worms games, then you should be able to understand W3D easily enough, it just takes some time to get used to the physics of 3D. maybe if you explain why you consider it confusing it'll help, but right now, I honestly don't see how its more confusing than the other worms games.

and btw, for your othello quote. the game still only take a minute to learn and a lifetime to master. you can learn the controls and how the weapons work just as easily as with the old worms games.

Fwd. Adm.

12 Jan 2005, 17:44

dawnraid

12 Jan 2005, 17:59

AndrewTaylor

12 Jan 2005, 18:14

Let me clarify:
Say you were an expert sniper with the shotgun in the 2Dies. Now in 3D, you have a whole dimension thrown at you. You used to only have to aim up and down in 2D, but now there are four visual quadrants that you have to figure out to nail a worm. I meant visually harder, not harder because I fumble the controls.Equally, one might argue that more challenge is a good thing.

Akuryou13

12 Jan 2005, 18:17

I agree with both sides of the argument, because 3D is a good idea but they just didnt put it to the great effect it sounds like. About the shotgun thing, well that just adds a bit of a challenge, doesn't it? Now you have to aim it two ways, well its not hard.

But what could Team17 do? Theres not much more to add to a 2D Worms game, they have enough of those, and it just wont keep up with the modern games. I agree that the original worms3D wasn't a very well-made game, and there was a LOT left to reach for with it, but it wasn't enough to completely throw the idea of a 3D worms game out. look at the new Worms 4 announcement. its much more well made, and promises to make up for a lot W3D did wrong. wait till we get that game before making a judgement on the entire 3D worms thing. if W4 still sucks, then there's just no future for 3D worms.

dawnraid

12 Jan 2005, 19:18

Okay, yes your right there. So we just have to hope that Worms 4 is up to the standards :confused:

pilot62

12 Jan 2005, 19:28

I truly hope its more like W2 and WA personaly.

Fwd. Adm.

12 Jan 2005, 20:30

Equally, one might argue that more challenge is a good thing.Something challenging and something confusing are two very different things.

Akuryou13

12 Jan 2005, 21:15

Something challenging and something confusing are two very different things.
and your example of the shotgun wasn't a confusing thing in any way, it's merely more challenging.

AndrewTaylor

13 Jan 2005, 13:29

Something challenging and something confusing are two very different things.
That's true, but something that confuses me and something that confuses you are also two different things. Obviously there's an upper limit to how challenging you can reasonably make a game before it gets confusing, and different people would draw the line in different places. I think after getting to the point a lot of people did on W:A, where they could land a grenade wherever they liked, or else (if they weren't any good) could rope to anyone and then drop a grenade and then rope back, and then suddenly finding they have to start again from scratch on W3D as one of the newbies they hate so much it was more of a culture shock than anything, like when you leave school and start University and suddenly find that you've gone from knowing everything to knowing next to nothing, or gone from being one of the smart ones (or one of the dumb ones, or whatever) to being just one of the ones. Once you get back in the groove it's not so hard after all.

The difference is that with two dimensional wind and things it's probably not possible to get as good at W3D as people got in 2D, but I found that being that good took something away from the game. There was no more "that shot would be awesome but I might miss horribly" and it turned into "that shot would be awesome, so I'll do it and win". Obviously if you're playing another person of roughly equal skill other tactics come into play then, but I quite enjoyed going back to square one for a while.

Fwd. Adm.

13 Jan 2005, 20:21

and your example of the shotgun wasn't a confusing thing in any way, it's merely more challenging.That's the thing. Why, after all these years, make a complicated game when no one said that the 2D games were easy? In most cases, Worms isn't supposed to have anything to figure out, rather than wind resistance and distance. Now it's all of that, plus a whole new area of perception has come into play. Say that you threw a grenade. In the 2d games you only had to worry about it landing short or long of your target. Now you have to worry about centering your shot as well as getting distance in place.

Akuryou13

13 Jan 2005, 21:24

That's the thing. Why, after all these years, make a complicated game when no one said that the 2D games were easy? In most cases, Worms isn't supposed to have anything to figure out, rather than wind resistance and distance. Now it's all of that, plus a whole new area of perception has come into play. Say that you threw a grenade. In the 2d games you only had to worry about it landing short or long of your target. Now you have to worry about centering your shot as well as getting distance in place.
so you're not complaining about a flaw in W3D then. you're complaining that there is a 3D worms game. just go back into your hole, and keep out of this discussion if your only problem is that 3-dimensions is too complicated for you to play in.

MonkeyforaHead

14 Jan 2005, 00:01

I personally don't find 3 dimensions too complicated to play in, but so far they've been too complicated for Worms, I think. Judging by the looks of Worms 4 so far, it could well be a new demonstration of what the series is capable of in 3D, and I'll likely purchase it, but I still think that 2D is the tried-and-true "good Worms game" formula.

Akuryou13

14 Jan 2005, 03:15

but I still think that 2D is the tried-and-true "good Worms game" formula. I think almost all of us would agree that the original 2D worms are the best, but 3D can still be QUITE fun.

Fwd. Adm.

18 Jan 2005, 19:43

so you're not complaining about a flaw in W3D then. you're complaining that there is a 3D worms game. just go back into your hole, and keep out of this discussion if your only problem is that 3-dimensions is too complicated for you to play in.Of for the love of God! I'm saying that W3D shouldn't have been made as it's visually confusing, and there shouldn't be a hard-to-figure-out worms game as no one had said that the 2Dies were easy!

just go back into your holeWhat's that implying?

SuperBlob

18 Jan 2005, 20:08

beaver2009

18 Jan 2005, 20:12

Ah,but if W3D hadn't been made, then there wouldn't be WFUS, OR W4!
W3D was a neccesary stepping stone into the 3D world.

Akuryou13

18 Jan 2005, 20:15

Of for the love of God! I'm saying that W3D shouldn't have been made as it's visually confusing, and there shouldn't be a hard-to-figure-out worms game as no one had said that the 2Dies were easy!once again, the problem you have with the game is that it's too complicated for you. there's nothing wrong with the game, it's just too complex for you. as I said in my last post, your whole argument is that playing worms in a 3D environment is too complex for you, and you don't like to play it if it's complex.

What's that implying? that you're slightly technophobic in relation to 3D games.

Spadge

18 Jan 2005, 20:44

That's the thing. Why, after all these years, make a complicated game when no one said that the 2D games were easy? In most cases, Worms isn't supposed to have anything to figure out, rather than wind resistance and distance. Now it's all of that, plus a whole new area of perception has come into play. Say that you threw a grenade. In the 2d games you only had to worry about it landing short or long of your target. Now you have to worry about centering your shot as well as getting distance in place.

Using that kind of analogy I'm rather surprised you don't suggest we all bugger off and play pong.

I can imagine the outrage your grandfather must have felt when not only did they add sound to movies, but the dervious creatures added colour too.

Post note...

You've got your nice 2d game, you like it. keep it that way. No problem - there's nothing for you here in the 3d incarnations. Somekind of 2d game may appear at some point, but i can't guarantee it'll be using sprites and simple bitmaps.

bonz

18 Jan 2005, 22:05

Somekind of 2d game may appear at some point, but i can't guarantee it'll be using sprites and simple bitmaps.
YES! :D
does that mean:
i'd like to see a "2d" worms game, but with a new 3d engine (no more sprites) and nice, up-to-date graphics!
and also all the new ideas, weapons, game modes that came up over the last few years
?

AndrewTaylor

19 Jan 2005, 12:41

does that mean:
i'd like to see a "2d" worms game, but with a new 3d engine (no more sprites) and nice, up-to-date graphics!
and also all the new ideas, weapons, game modes that came up over the last few years
?I do hope not. That would just make the game worse. The 3D engine is what made W3D so "blocky". Terrain deformation is what 2D is best at-- it makes no sense to me to put in a 3D engine unless you make a 3D game (or something like Smash Brothers with a very mobile camera and 50 objects wielded in 20 different ways by 20 characters). Also it would make life confusing because you'd never quite know whether that bit of tree you could see would reach into the plane your bazooka was flying in or if your missile could just sail in front of it. Vectors would be a better solution, to my mind.

Squirminator2k

19 Jan 2005, 13:21

What I would prefer for a new 2D Worms game is for there to be no pre-rendered 3D whatsoever, which is what people seem to be banging on about. I would very much like the animation style to be as smooth as W2/WA/WWP, but using the graphic style of the W3D/WFUS concept art.

Run

19 Jan 2005, 14:00

Also it would make life confusing because you'd never quite know whether that bit of tree you could see would reach into the plane your bazooka was flying in or if your missile could just sail in front of it.

But surely there's a difference between the mechanics of the game and the aesthetics, whereby 3D could be used for the latter and not the former? I imagine that there must be an easier way than creating thousands of sprites to create an animation (i.e. using polygons) without actualyl affecting the mechanics of the game whatsoever.

As long as the worms still looked 2D (unlike in Nim 2, which looked 3D despite actually being 2D images) I reckon that 3D would make animations much easier and smoother. Then again I have nothing against vectors if they achieve the same thing.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, by the way, so I'm pretty much expecting disagreement here :)

AndrewTaylor

19 Jan 2005, 14:05

But surely there's a difference between the mechanics of the game and the aesthetics, whereby 3D could be used for the latter and not the former? I imagine that there must be an easier way than creating thousands of sprites to create an animation (i.e. using polygons) without actualyl affecting the mechanics of the game whatsoever.

As long as the worms still looked 2D (unlike in Nim 2, which looked 3D despite actually being 2D images) I reckon that 3D would make animations much easier and smoother. Then again I have nothing against vectors if they achieve the same thing.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, by the way, so I'm pretty much expecting disagreement here :)
Yeah... I just really don't want to see a Worms game that looked like Smash Brothers. I think a 3D engine without a 3D game is usually a bad thing and never more so than it would be in Worms. I can't see how it would offer anything other than the worst of both worlds.

The levels in Smash brothers were cleverly designed, you could see what was and was not in plane, but random levels would either be unclear (which would play badly) or else they'd be ant-farm style 2D slices, with a little thickness so you could stand on it (which would look stupid).

The sprites in W2-WWP were sort of what you said, mind-- they were, by the look of them, all created using vector art, tweened for things like the directional aiming, and exported en-masse into bitmaps. You can have thousands of sprites at that size no problem, so I suppose there's no real reason to make home PCs render the vectors every time.

Fwd. Adm.

19 Jan 2005, 21:14

Using that kind of analogy I'm rather surprised you don't suggest we all bugger off and play pong.

I can imagine the outrage your grandfather must have felt when not only did they add sound to movies, but the dervious creatures added colour too.

Post note...

You've got your nice 2d game, you like it. keep it that way. No problem - there's nothing for you here in the 3d incarnations. Somekind of 2d game may appear at some point, but i can't guarantee it'll be using sprites and simple bitmaps.But pong was one great game. No need to abruptly change a perfectly good series.

beaver2009

19 Jan 2005, 21:18

But pong was one great game. No need to abruptly change a perfectly good series.
What, so you want it to stay in 2D.Don't you think WA perfected it?No more can be done in 2D(Don't, Run).

SargeMcCluck

19 Jan 2005, 21:35

What, so you want it to stay in 2D.Don't you think WA perfected it?No more can be done in 2D(Don't, Run).

Run won't - I will!

Lots more can be done. Click here (www.wormiverse.com/wormtech/) for details! :D

beaver2009

19 Jan 2005, 21:40

Run won't - I will!

Lots more can be done. Click here (www.wormiverse.com/wormtech/) for details! :D
What, stuff it full of terrible weapons?Incorporate real time worms?Neither of those sound good to me.
Out of all the wormtech wepons, less than half are in any way sensible and most could be incorporated into W3D

SargeMcCluck

19 Jan 2005, 22:46

What, stuff it full of terrible weapons?Incorporate real time worms?Neither of those sound good to me.
Out of all the wormtech wepons, less than half are in any way sensible and most could be incorporated into W3D

So you completely ignore the "other ideas" page, and just say "terrible weapons" without stating what reasons you have. And I'm supposed to listen to your opinion?

Call me when you have some actual constructive things to say other than "that's a bad idea because i think they're terrible". :)

Glenn

20 Jan 2005, 00:09

Yeah... I just really don't want to see a Worms game that looked like Smash Brothers. I think a 3D engine without a 3D game is usually a bad thing and never more so than it would be in Worms. I can't see how it would offer anything other than the worst of both worlds..
Mega Man X8 managed to do it quite well. It actually managed to double it's score with most gaming magazines over X7 (which actually DID have 3d areas). It might be comparing apples to oranges, but the fact remains that you can pull it off.

AndrewTaylor

20 Jan 2005, 14:01

Yes, but again Mega Man has predefined levels, does it not? (I've never seen this game or heard of it up until right now, so I'm going to assume that like all other megaman games I've ever seen it is a 2D platformer.) The developers can spend time tweaking them and making it very clear what is and is not accessible. Besides which the megaman games I've seen have all had mostly either interior levels or levels on cityscapes that are artificial, and usually quite flat and make sense to navigate. You can do some nice efefcts in 3D that just won't go into 2D, but I think when you start doing it with something like Worms it won't take. I can't imagine I could look at a 3D landscape with Worms lined up along the front of it without thinking "If I want to get past that tree, why the hell can't I just go round the damned thing?" In 2D it's clear-- there is no "round". In 3D there's a clear path to the other side that you arbitrarily can't use. And if you want a generated terrain it would be even harder to do. And then if you want to deform it it would be low-res like W3D, because there's really no other way to do it in 3D, at least with today's consoles, when the shiny, pixel-perfect W:A-style deformation would have been easier to make and ultimately better looking and better to play as well.

Besides which a 3D engine would pretty much stop users making levels. In 2D you had only to draw a picture. In 3D you have to model something, make textures, map them to it, all while keeping the polycount low enough that it'll run. If you want to do it all in poxels then probably it's harder still. And it'll push up the system requirements quite a long way for no reason at all.

Run

20 Jan 2005, 14:16

Heh. 3D maps as I'm imagining them would look awful in Worms, I would not want to see that. People still get confused with psuedo-3D maps though, like my colour city map >>http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17611

And the WA missions are full of psuedo-3D maps like that. 3D-looking maps like what you're thinking of would make the problem worse. Especially with background images enabled.

double post edit

To be honest I'm a little confused by these people who want 3D graphics in 2D worms.

For a start, if the map is going to end up 2D, then it can be made to look 3D anyway - just draw an object in Paint that looks 3D. Or use a 3D program to make the 3D image if you want, then screenshot and move in into Paint. What's the deal?

AndrewTaylor

20 Jan 2005, 14:18

The other thing that bothers me is that the deforming terrain would make it painfully clear where the action was. The key to a good 3D-graphics-2D-play is making sure the user doesn't notice he's in a 2D plane. Smash brothers managed it by using narrow levels and fast action. I expect MegaMan did it by having rooves and corridors and things that you wouldn't expect to move backwards in. Worms would fail to do it by having huge craters in a very neat line along the level.

War Worm

27 Jan 2005, 04:49

I dunno about everyone else, but Worms in a graphics dimension such as paper mario would be interesting. Though haven't a clue as to how half the stuff would work.

Fwd. Adm.

28 Jan 2005, 18:55

I dunno about everyone else, but Worms in a graphics dimension such as paper mario would be interesting. Though haven't a clue as to how half the stuff would work.What the hell? That's basically the entire 2D series! The only difference that I could see is when they turn around.

pieman280

12 Jul 2007, 01:23

To all You 3D haters out there all I have to say is STOP COMPLAINING!!! bottom line (in my opinion) the worms are 20 times better in 3D. I have played a 2D worms game before and it is Heck. the graphics are terrible so is the gamplay and team creator you can not custimise anything. your teams are to limited, the schemes are to limited, there are no pre-built levels, the levels are to small, and the weapons both look terrible and fire terrible. oh, and also the effectes are terrible. all this talk about the 3D stuff ending becouse of nothing left to put in is non-sense you people make me SICK!:mad: here is a rating of worm games

Worms 3D: ****
Worms forts:***
Worms mayhem:*****
All the 2D games put together:**

Thats what I think
In the worms 3D sieries you can custimise how your crates fall, how your worms look (except worms 3D) creat your own weapon, make tons of schemes and teams, worms will also do goofy cartoon stuff and react to what your doing, the effects are fantastic ,and much much more.

One more thing: you people say worms 3D is slow so slow I think your wrong on that BIG TIME it is your computer that is slow don't blame the worms if your computer can't handle their greatness. my worms 4 mayhem game runs at a regular game speed (actually it's faster than most of my computer games).

You 3D haters are wrong in ways that make me MAD:mad::mad::mad:

Edit: sorry if I seemed to mad it was kind of late and I just didn't have anything else to say
maybe I should change the rate of all 2D games put together into a 3 star W:A demo was about as much fun as worms forts

Squirminator2k

12 Jul 2007, 01:27

You are entitled to your opinion, pieman. It's wrong, but you're entitled to it all the same. Keep on truckin'.

Metal Alex

12 Jul 2007, 15:23

I can bid anything that you NEVER played any other 2D game other than a portable version, or an OLD one... try any of the following:

worms 2
worms world party
worms armageddon (the best in my opinion)

then, you MIGHT realise that the 3rd dimension is not always perfection... Go play a PROPER 2D game, and you'll notice that the only thing that lacks, is the HATS... (yes, I have worms 4, and still enjoy more Worms armageddon)

more scheme options, more weapons to chose from (if you don't like the idea, disable them from the scheme), you can draw your own map, with colors and stuff, and even decide if you want it massive in the last worms armaggedon patch... try to make a proper rope race in 3D, or a shopper... just try to customize as the 2D games... just not possible, man.

A last question: what 2D game did you play?

let me guess... Worms open warfare for the DS?

_Kilburn

12 Jul 2007, 22:20

I like both 2D and 3D games. Each have their own advantages and inconvenients, that's all.

Btw, I had an interesting suggestion about a highly moddable Worms 3D game, but I still can't post it because I don't know how to say it in English.

farazparsa

13 Jul 2007, 00:59

Back before 2003 (W3D) I used to have little WWP tournoments with my friends. Oh man it was fun! You'd always miss by a little and the AI would always own you with a bazooka and you'd just laugh as you missed the water by only a pixel.

Then, I tried the same with W4M a few years later. It wasn't funny when you missed with the bazooka because the other players did too. It was annoying when you would hit the enemy worm but the game wouldn't register it. It just wasn't fun.

pilot62

13 Jul 2007, 15:01

I have to say, when I go back and play W2 and W3D, I like the former more, but I enjoy W4M much more than both. I still love W2, and tend to play it more often, largely because W4M takes an age to load, but I've always found the 3d games more enjoyable.

That's not to say they're without their problems. There was a huge lack of strategy in W3D, for one thing, and often the outcome of the game depended on who got to go first, and there was rarely anything other than a one shot kill with those infamous tiny islands. W4M addressed this issue (although there were still too many water deaths for my liking) and although the strategy was nothing like the 2d games, the height-map, lack of floating islands and weapons like the bubble trouble made it a much better game than W3D.

W4M still lacks an official editor, unfortunately, and you can no longer edit soundbanks, but in the end it comes down to me preferring the fun W4M presents me over the strategy and skill present in the 2d games. Ignoring the more aesthetic issues like the better graphics, sounds, hats, etc, the AI in W4M is excellent IMO, and although you don't get the chain reactions you did in 2d, I find the worms and the weapons and the game much funnier than I ever found W2. Although some weapons were cut, more were added, and team weapons were something I loved in W4M. There are different game types like fort mode, and frankly that it's 3d *does* add to the game, as it's a whole other dimension for the weapons and worms, etc.

But, in the end, it's a matter of personal preference

PsychoFrea

13 Jul 2007, 17:57

WillyBoy

13 Jul 2007, 18:41

Best 2D Game ;)

Worms Armegeddon :D

3D.....<Put It 2 Sleep. :) .... i just give them respect for trying.

2D Lovers....UNITE :cool:

Marx=)

13 Jul 2007, 22:56

I would say that W2D is better than W3D. I have played WWP and W4M. I liked both. I kept playing WWP more than W4M, because it looked much better for me and funnier.

Pieman280, have you ever played WWP or W:A? Those two are good examples. And if you ever find a WWP/W:A manual you can understand, please read it.

pieman280

15 Jul 2007, 01:14

I must admit W:A is a good game and that one was good with custimization (favorite part being level drawing and 8 worms per team) but, yet I will always play and love 3D worms 10 times more. the landscape is better and so are graphics Example: the sheep in 2D looks like some type of cloudbut in 3D it actually looks sheep-ish and the grenade in 2D looks like... well... it's a mystery what that looks like but in 3D it looks more like a grenade (still not because it has a big red button on it). I have played some classics like W:A and i've played the the new one WOW (The worste of all). another thing about 3D there is better commedy like those subtitles in story mode movies thoes can often be funny and in W4 when you leave dynamite or a HHG the worms will sometimes scream in the most hilarious ways. worms 3D had bad graphics (yet still better than 2D) and wasn't as organized. worms forts was a Huge change and one I don't think fans where ready for yet had some of the most destructive weapons ever like napalm strike and i'm sure everyone loved mine strike and that rhino (except when it lost controll and became a compleat waste of a good turn). and my favorite W4 where they wore actual hats and more reactions and endless weapons plus a new and amzing feature called the weapon factory (it was to limeted though) and the graphics were to die for. 3D #1:)

PS: The thing I think I really want to make a point in on my last message was all you people saying the games were slow I think they just have slow or out of date computers and then blaming worms on it. think about it the reason why you people say it's slow is because the 2D games are old so it will run good on an old computer but new games require more stuff that an old computer isn't use to think about it and i'm not saying 2D is bad but if you compare it then it just comes to you as... 3D worms RULE:D

pieman280

15 Jul 2007, 01:16

Squirminator2k

15 Jul 2007, 01:20

PS: The thing I think I really want to make a point in on my last message was all you people saying the games were slow I think they just have slow or out of date computers and then blaming worms on it. think about it the reason why you people say it's slow is because the 2D games are old so it will run good on an old computer but new games require more stuff that an old computer isn't use to think about it and i'm not saying 2D is bad but if you compare it then it just comes to you as... 3D worms RULE:D

Maybe, just maybe, they meant "slow" as in the pace of the game, not the framerate. W3D and W4M may have nicer animations but the strategy element doesn't seem as strong. Sometimes, 3D Worms games feel like a turn-based third-person shoot 'em up.

I don't want to say "Worms doesn't work in 3D," because that's wrong. It clearly does work. It just doesn't work as well.

pieman280

15 Jul 2007, 01:28

I respect everyones opinion about 2D or 3D but some of the things in my messages are facts such as: your computer is the problem to gamplay speed. I have used the same CD on other computers and they were slower and so was the gameplay but when I play on my up to date computer it is actually faster than most PC games I own even though I don't own much for the PC most of my games are for PS2 wich currently dosn't work right now:( and that is why I am on this forum right now. but Thats a diffrent subject (I like getting off task)

Maybe, just maybe, they meant "slow" as in the pace of the game, not the framerate. W3D and W4M may have nicer animations but the strategy element doesn't seem as strong. Sometimes, 3D Worms games feel like a turn-based third-person shoot 'em up.

I don't want to say "Worms doesn't work in 3D," because that's wrong. It clearly does work. It just doesn't work as well.

in some cases thats true (worms forts) and in other cases I see it as a big and necessary step in worms history

Squirminator2k

15 Jul 2007, 01:53

I respect everyones opinion about 2D or 3D but some of the things in my messages are facts such as: your computer is the problem to gamplay speed.

So people like me, who have really fancy gaming rigs, who can run games like FEAR and Fable and such at really high settings... our computers aren't fast enough to run Worms 3D or Worms 3 Mayhem? The game is decidedly slower in the 3D games, Yes, Forts is a specific case, but it's also true (although to a lesser extent) of Worms 3D and Worms 4. They just don't have the pace that the 2D games have.

Ultimately debating this with you is rather pointless. It's like trying to have a rational conversation with a Sony Fanboy - it's not happening.

pieman280

15 Jul 2007, 02:04

I ask you people: do you want the subject of this to end because this is pointless, mostly opinions, and we are getting nowhere (also i'm kind of tired of comming back and typing things and wasting pieces of my life on somthing pointless.) the only point of this is to convince team17 to either end 3D or keep it coming (I'll go with keep it coming). anyone want to end this or should I keep replying about how great 3D. if we end it I won't reply unless somone says somthing Entirly wrong or I just feel like typing somthing in that somehow relates to the subject. I am looking foward to WOW2 it sounds better than the last one even though it's 2D it still sounds fun I'm looking foward to the syntry gun

MY final opinion (unless you people want this to keep going): team17 should make both type of worm games.

people love 2D a lot and 3D unfortunetly I think 3D fans like me are fighting a war they've already lost:( because 2D has a lot more fans and 3D fans aren't doing much to suport it. I see it as kind of sad.

Idea for team17: if you guys do make another 3D game try including vehicles for worms. how funny would it be to see a sky diving worm or a worm in some hummer. just an idea to think about

Maybe I could turn this into another Thread 3D v.s 2D a piece of me still wants to continue this maybe a poll or somthing

Squirminator2k

15 Jul 2007, 02:09

This debate is pretty stupid. It's one group of people saying "I like green apples!" and another group saying "I like red apples!". Ultimately we both like apples, so what the Hell are we arguing about?

pieman280

15 Jul 2007, 02:13

KRD

15 Jul 2007, 13:58

Pieman, if you think Napalm and Mine Strikes are new weapons, you did not play WA. Which basically cancels any point you may be making.

In fact, your irrational love for shiny 3D graphics and hilarious animation will not make T17 want to create more 3D Worms games. No matter how hard you spam these forums with expressions of it. It will just prove to them it were the 2D games in the series that had enough strategic depth to make people overlook the simple exterior. And I don't hear anyone praising the strategic side of W4M.

But that's just how I see it.

pieman280

15 Jul 2007, 16:39

I've only played a short demo on W:A so I never saw the mine strike but I do remember the napalm strike now that you've reminded me of it and I have to admit it was better in 2D but I never saw a mine strike (the demo wasn't very long) I would like to get the full version.

and i'm not spaming, the main topic is no future for 3D and i'm trying to convince people otherwise so it is on topic but I'm not debating this matter any more KRD.

I guess the reason why I like 3D so much is because I grew up playing Games like that (I'm only 13 years old) My first worms game was Worm forts and I was used to that style of play and when I got worms 3D I loved it even more:D

AndrewTaylor

15 Jul 2007, 20:07

In fact, your irrational love for shiny 3D graphics and hilarious animation will not make T17 want to create more 3D Worms games. No matter how hard you spam these forums with expressions of it. It will just prove to them it were the 2D games in the series that had enough strategic depth to make people overlook the simple exterior. And I don't hear anyone praising the strategic side of W4M.

Yeah, but equally there are things about Mayhem you couldn't praise about Armageddon. Where you stand after a shot is rather more complex in 3D, as is finding a route from one spot to another, and hitting a target on a windy day.

Personally, I like the strategy in Worms. The 2D games offer a richer strategic game so I prefer them. But if someone else likes an aiming challenge, or a platform-game-with-shooting experience then the 3D incarnations of Worms could well be exactly what they want. Which particular game is your favourite is as much a function of who you are as it is of the games themselves. I like strategy and 2D Worms offers that in hooves, but that doesn't make 2D Worms intrinsically better. It's a matter of preference. And bear in mind you're comparing v3 and v4 of 2D worms with v1 and v2 of 3D.

MtlAngelus

16 Jul 2007, 10:19

Well people who like the 3d games more is usually just because it's easier to play. On W:4 you can usually get away just shooting straight at your oponent, whereas in W:A you'll usually end up in a position where you require some skill at throwing at distance to be able to hit your oponent. That's pretty much why my 10yr old cousin loved W4:M and hated W:A.

But you'll never get chain reactions as fun as the 2d ones in the 3d games. NEVER.

MonkeyforaHead

25 Jul 2007, 11:17

blah blah blah snark snark 3D is awesome shut up okay :mad:

A two-and-a-half-year-dead thread has been revived for this.

:cool::cool:

gloworm

25 Jul 2007, 12:23

well if team17 will make a 3d game (make one for ps2!)
you should add it with
1.2D shell for it to look good and smooth (if you dont know what 2d shell is take "musashi legend samurai"as an example cause it uses 2d shell)
2.customizable worms not only hats but skin color clothes multiple voices specialties (like the worms is good at using a accurately)
3.add more living creatures when war in the jungle (i like elephants chasing of worms)
4.vehicles(if you want to)
5.and more crazy weapons!

pieman280

25 Jul 2007, 16:57

A two-and-a-half-year-dead thread has been revived for this.

:cool::cool:

it says you quoted me saying somthing I never put in and never will. I'd never tell somone to shut up. stop making it seem like I said somthing that I never said

MonkeyforaHead

25 Jul 2007, 19:47

STOP COMPLAINING!!! [...] the [2D] graphics are terrible so is the gamplay and team creator [...] you people make me SICK!:mad: [...] I think your wrong on that BIG TIME [...] You 3D haters are wrong in ways that make me MAD:mad::mad::mad:

One, It's possible to be plenty rude without having to use "shut up". Two, people can quite readily see that that is not actually what you said. Three, that wasn't really my point to begin with. Four, learn to take a joke. Five, it's fun!
I ATE A SQUIRREL
beer
dental plan

agrajxabulas

Metal Alex

27 Jul 2007, 01:19

agrajxabulas

That's the correct definition of this thread. And it's a bit sad :(

Shadowmoon

26 Apr 2008, 19:12

Squirminator2k

26 Apr 2008, 19:27

You're angry that people prefer the better option.

yakuza

26 Apr 2008, 19:57

Well, i've just read the whole thread, and here's my opinion....

Personally, i like 3D better, as i feel that the landscapes seem more open. The graphics also look much better than the 2D graphics.

I loved W4M, best worms game ever in my opinion. It was great, i love customizing my team, the missions were fun.... Totally loved it. If they released another 3D game, i would be so happy!

The only thing i don't like about 3D, is that its harder to find your opponents, and its also harder to shoot. But i love 3D!:D

2D, on the other hand, its ok, but for me 3D rules. I don't find the graphics as good in 2D, the online play is good in 2D, and there are more weapons. (WA had over 50 Weapons)

Personally, i'm angry because people seem to like 2D more. And if people don't like 3D much.... then there won't be another game, i suppose.

I hope there is one though, but i doubt it. No 3D worms game has been released for 2 years... i'm hoping for a new one though.

Did you just bump a 4 year old thread to post this thing?

First and foremost, why are you saying W4 is the best worms game ever when you've said the same thing about WA hundreds of times, in different threads? If you change your opinion from day to day no one will take you seriously. Doesn't mean they will if you don't.

About people here being majorly against the 3D series and thinking that will cause Team17 not to release more 3D games. Well, I suggest you read AT's posts in the first page of this half a decade old thread, were he talks about idiot consumers. See? There's still hope for a new 3D games, we just need enough people like you (preferably with money).