View Full Version : 2D, or 3D?
My first post... Meh.
Anyway, so which style to you like your Worms games the best? Do you like 3D, or the 2D playing style? I'll have to say the 2D style. Its origanal, and its more easy and fun to play in.
What do you say?
AndrewTaylor
10 Nov 2006, 10:29
If I want a big, long strategic game, I'll play 2D. If I want to kill ten minutes with a friend before Scrubs is on, I'll play Mayhem. If Ihad to pick one, it'd have to be 2D, but that said I've been playing a lot more 3D lately.
Zonic_B
10 Nov 2006, 12:39
Definitely 3D !
Shockdude
10 Nov 2006, 17:11
2D
more customization...
more weapons...
more worms...
more missions...
I'd say 3D. My stance is the same as AT's.
I watch Scrubs a lot. :p
AndrewTaylor
10 Nov 2006, 18:42
2D
more customization...
more weapons...
more worms...
more missions...
None of those things are intrinsic to 2D worming. They're merely features of some of the 2D games. The poll is about which style you prefer, not which execution.
But we must arrive at that decision by some means.
Surely the execution of those 2D games lends some form of preference to some and that would result in said players leaning towards the 2D style in general.
We're not talking aesthetics here, are we?
Surely the execution of those 2D games lends some form of preference to some and that would result in said players leaning towards the 2D style in general.
Yes, but it itself isn't a reason to vote that the 2D style is better.
Yes, but it itself isn't a reason to vote that the 2D style is better.
Eh?
Shockdude prefers some of the 2D games for the reasons he listed. Therefore, he prefers the gameplay in those games. Therefore, he prefers the 2D games in general.
What's so hard to understand? I'll help you out:
2D
He voted 2D; he likes the 2D games.
more customization...
more weapons...
more worms...
more missions...
These are some of the reasons why he likes the 2D games.
Prefering some of the 2D games isn't a reason to vote for the 3D games, now is it?
Eh?
Shockdude prefers some of the 2D games for the reasons he listed. Therefore, he prefers the gameplay in those games. Therefore, he prefers the 2D games in general.
What's so hard to understand? I'll help you out:
He voted 2D; he likes the 2D games.
These are some of the reasons why he likes the 2D games.
Prefering some of the 2D games isn't a reason to vote for the 3D games, now is it?
Re-read the first post. Note the use of the word "style".
[UFP]Ghost
10 Nov 2006, 21:22
2D by far. if they could find a way to use a 2d style with a 3d playability that'd be sweet, doesn't sound possible but sweet.
Preasure
10 Nov 2006, 21:25
Definitely 2D. It's just the classic-ness, and the ease of control. Graphics don't come into it at all for me.
Its origanal, and its more easy and fun to play in. (sic)
This is from the original post. It has the words "fun to play in". Shockdude finds the 2D games more fun to play in, those are some of the reasons why.
Since he finds the games more fun to play in, the visuals are inherently more attractive to him. I for one find the look of 3D worms very nice but off-putting because I know what gameplay lies beneath.
What he said was valid.
This is from the original post. It has the words "fun to play in". Shockdude finds the 2D games more fun to play in, those are some of the reasons why.
Again, the poll was in regards to the style. Yes, you can say "the style was fun to play in".
You're either totally ignorant, obtusely stubborn, or a flaming troll.
You're either totally ignorant, obtusely stubborn, or a flaming troll.
Or using Game Maker to make a Worms clone.
Alien King
11 Nov 2006, 11:09
2D.
Plasma, Shockdude gave his answer and some reasons why he preferred the 2D style. If of course, the 3D style was improved to (in his view) meet the 2D standard, then obviously his answer would be different. He gave reasons why he preferred the 2D. Where's the problem?
Plasma, Shockdude gave his answer and some reasons why he preferred the 2D style.
I don't consider the points that Shockdude made to be about the 2D style. That's the problem.
GrimOswald
11 Nov 2006, 12:17
3D right now, but my opinion constantly shifts.
Edit: I made a long post, realised I was wrong, then completley annhilated it.
I agree with Plasma. The number of weapons is not inherit to the 2D style of games, those games just happen to have more of them. Same with the missions, and the worms...
So Shockdude is really saying which game he prefers, not which style of playing. The two are very different. And the style is the topic of this thread. Amen.
Site devs don't like gamemaker.
http://forums.abxy.org/p/10930/
Shockdude is really saying which game he prefers, not which style of playing. The two are very different. And the style is the topic of this thread. Amen.
Ugh. A style of playing is inherent to the game thereof. He prefers 2D.
Why is everyone getting so wound up over him preferring 2D?
AndrewTaylor
11 Nov 2006, 18:36
Why is everyone getting so wound up over him preferring 2D?
What? That's not it at all. Plasma is getting wound up about your inability to grasp simple concepts. Everyone is keeping out of it and apparently choosing to instead troll this thread with pointless GameMaker bashing.
A style of playing is inherent to the game thereof. He prefers 2D.
That's true, but the game is not inherrent to the style. The fact is that "I prefer the 2D games to the 3D games" is a very different statement to "I prefer 2D play to 3D play".
"Most of the 2D games I've played have been better than most of the 3D games I've played. Therefore 2D is the better play style" is roughly the same logic as "most of the films I've seen on DVD have been bad films, but most of the films I've seen on Betamax video tapes were excellent. Therefore Betamax is the superior format and should be adopted universally, post haste". It doesn't really work.
Ugh.
I couldn't agree more.
"Most of the 2D games I've played have been better than most of the 3D games I've played. Therefore 2D is the better play style" is roughly the same logic as "most of the films I've seen on DVD have been bad films, but most of the films I've seen on Betamax video tapes were excellent. Therefore Betamax is the superior format and should be adopted universally, post haste". It doesn't really work.
Hardly. You could have the same film on Betamax and on DVD but you can't play 2D worms in 3D or vice versa.
The visual style of 2D Worms games forces the player to play in a certain way. It's aesthetic has functional repercussions. Likewise for the 3D game; you have to play a certain way because the game is 3D.
Asking "which visual style do you prefer" is almost a null question. As a franchise, the visual style carries through all the games. Sure the graphics are different but the style is the same.
Shockdude
11 Nov 2006, 20:37
...
o-kaaay...
GrimOswald
11 Nov 2006, 22:27
Hardly. You could have the same film on Betamax and on DVD but you can't play 2D worms in 3D or vice versa.
The visual style of 2D Worms games forces the player to play in a certain way. It's aesthetic has functional repercussions. Likewise for the 3D game; you have to play a certain way because the game is 3D.
Asking "which visual style do you prefer" is almost a null question. As a franchise, the visual style carries through all the games. Sure the graphics are different but the style is the same.
But the question isn't which visual style you prefer, it's the differences in gameplay logic that result from that style. As I said before, the reasons Shockdude gave don't particularly apply to the 2D style of playing. Because the game is 2D doesn't force you to play with more of those things. By those answers, one could argue that if another 3D game came out with more maps, missions, worms, and customisation, (which are not limited to either style) then Shockdude would instantly prefer it, and hence the 3D style.
But I'm guessing that's not the case. He probably meant the 2D style as well as the games themselves. Though if you could confirm it for all us nit-pickers, that would be nice.
Shockdude
12 Nov 2006, 01:35
...
confirming
Oops... When I said which style, I meant which Dimension you like to play in best.... Not the actual game Worms 3D... Heh heh...
...
confirming
Thank you.
XXXWoody
12 Nov 2006, 04:31
Lol. That is the funniest argument I've seen in a long time. Anyway, I'm with Vader all the way, he is right in every one of his posts. I'd say he won the argument hands tied.
GrimOswald
12 Nov 2006, 08:02
I would be with him too if my reasoning wasn't so flawless.;)
And I've been in enough arguments to know this isn't one of them. No, this is a debate. Much friendlier things debates, the sort of thing you can discuss over a cup of tea and some biscuits.
Preasure
12 Nov 2006, 11:40
And I've been in enough arguments to know this isn't one of them. No, this is a debate. Much friendlier things debates, the sort of thing you can discuss over a cup of tea and some biscuits.
Indeed. Jaffa cake, anyone?
Besides, as the question mentions Worms games specificly, the comparison is between worms in 2D and worms in 3D, and given the limited number of games of each sort, it's more appropriate to go by game rather than style. Had there been dozens of each sort, then it would be a question of style rather than gameplay.
AndrewTaylor
12 Nov 2006, 12:03
Hardly. You could have the same film on Betamax and on DVD but you can't play 2D worms in 3D or vice versa.
No, but you could have more customisation and more weapons in a 3D game, just as you can in a 2D one. That's the point.
The visual style of 2D Worms games forces the player to play in a certain way. It's aesthetic has functional repercussions. Likewise for the 3D game; you have to play a certain way because the game is 3D.
Exactly! That's just it: you have to play a certain way because of the 2D/3D nature of the game. There are direct, intinsic advantages and disadvantages to both 2D and 3D, and they're things like "2D is more strategic", or "3D involves more skill with the weapons", or "it's easier to assimilate all the information in 2D", or whatever, but none of them are "2D has more weapons" or "2D has more customisation". "More weapons" is just an advantage of one particular game, and in no way linked to the number of dimensions the game is played in. If Team17 made a 3D worms game with a hundred weapons and acres of options screens those advantages would switch over to 3D; they're not advantages of 2D, but of the 2D games released thus far over the 3D games released thus far.
That's what I meant with the video analogy: the films you see on a format aren't intrinsic to it, just as the "features" available in a Worms game aren't intrinsic to the number of dimensions it's played in.
I'd say he won the argument hands tied.
Your opinions on matters of semantics might carry more weight if you could negotiate your way through a standard figure of speech without getting confused and ending up in a different one. You win arguments hands down, or with your hands tied behind your back. What you said is gibberish.
If Team17 made a 3D worms game with a hundred weapons and acres of options screens those advantages would switch over to 3D; they're not advantages of 2D, but of the 2D games released thus far over the 3D games released thus far.
Exactly. It wouldn't be right for him to prefer a game for its potential. The fact that the 2D games released thus far have those advantages and the 3D ones don't, I'd say it's fair to favour the 2D games released thus far as a result.
It wouldn't be fair to expect him to prefer either 2D or 3D based on games not released thus far/released in the future, would it?
Exactly. It wouldn't be right for him to prefer a game for its potential. The fact that the 2D games released thus far have those advantages and the 3D ones don't, I'd say it's fair to favour the 2D games released thus far as a result.
It wouldn't be fair to expect him to prefer either 2D or 3D based on games not released thus far/released in the future, would it?
What? That's the opposite to what he was saying!
What do you mean?
He was saying that it wouldn't be right to choose @D as the best just because of the extras in it.
AndrewTaylor
12 Nov 2006, 18:34
Exactly. ... The fact that the 2D games released thus far have those advantages and the 3D ones don't, I'd say it's fair to favour the 2D games released thus far as a result.
It does indeed. But it doesn't make 2D in and of itself better than 3D, even in anyone's subjective opinion.
It does indeed. But it doesn't make 2D in and of itself better than 3D, even in anyone's subjective opinion.
No but it does mean Shockdude prefers the 2D games.
That's all he said.
I don't consider the points that Shockdude made to be about the 2D style. That's the problem.
You sir, are an idiot.
Your reason is that you watch Scrubs a lot.
Which basically means that you prefer 3D because you can have a quick game.
A quick game of 10 minutes isn't a limitation to either styles, and that not only makes your reason senseless but also makes you a hypocrite.
By your argument, as stupid as it is, you could basically says that there is no reason to like one style over the other because you know "3D could have more weapons", or "3D could be more tactical" or whatever floats your boat, but facts are that 2d worms have more weapons and all his reasons are totally legit and valid.
Yet your reason is that you watch Scrubs a lot.
No, that was the explanation for my reason, not the reason itself.
No, that was the explanation for my reason, not the reason itself.
Yes, you basically like 3d more because you can have a 10 minute game is that it? Guess what, 2D also has that feature.
You sir, are an idiot.
Hey there! There's no reason for flaming!
Yes, you basically like 3d more because you can have a 10 minute game is that it? Guess what, 2D also has that feature.
A quick game of 10 minutes isn't a limitation to either styles,
Not a limitation, but the 3D games are generally shorter and less serous than the 2D games. It's a feature of the style; it's in all of the games.
By your argument, as stupid as it is, you could basically says[sic] that there is no reason to like one style over the other because you know "3D could have more weapons", or "3D could be more tactical" or whatever floats your boat,
?
What do you mean by that?
but facts are that 2d worms have more weapons and all his reasons are totally legit and valid.
I've just discussed this, and made all my points clear. I don't feel I need to go over them again.
Not a limitation, but the 3D games are generally shorter and less serous than the 2D games. It's a feature of the style; it's in all of the games.
How is a shorter game a feature of graphic dimension?
Three dimensions don't imply shorter games.
The same way 2d games don't imply more weapons.
But fact is, 2d games have more weapons and 3d games are generally shorter.
By your logic, the only valid reason to like 2d, based on what you call style, would be the fact that you can only move fowards and backwards.
How is a shorter game a feature of graphic dimension?
Three dimensions don't imply shorter games.
The same way 2d games don't imply more weapons.
But fact is, 2d games have more weapons and 3d games are generally shorter.
By your logic, the only valid reason to like 2d, based on what you call style, would be the fact that you can only move fowards and backwards.
...
Are you ignoring the context of the posts?
That isn't a good way to have a debate...
You claim that more weapons etc isn't a feature of the style, well guess what, shorter games isn't either.
Doesn't that make you hypocrital?
You claim that more weapons etc isn't a feature of the style, well guess what, shorter games isn't either.
Yes it is.
Here's a question then: what is the style?
There's no reason for flaming!
Pointing out the obvious != flaming. ;)
GrimOswald
13 Nov 2006, 02:34
Hmm, now this is starting to become an argument. And an awfully silly and pointless one at that.
No but it does mean Shockdude prefers the 2D games.
That's all he said.
But the thread isn't about the individual games, it's which gameplay variation you prefer caused by the number of dimensions.
Lets pretend a new 3D game came out with the same number of weapons, missions, worms, and customisations as, say, W:A, none of which were limited to either number of dimensions. Which game would you prefer? IMO that's the gist of the question asked by this thread. Shockdude has already answered it of course, but it's something the rest of you should bear in mind.
You claim that more weapons etc isn't a feature of the style, well guess what, shorter games isn't either.
One can easily engineer a game in 2D to be long or short, depending on the map, scheme, etc. A game in 3D is almost impossible to engineer to be long. (Not a proper, fun one anyway) So short games may not be inherit to 3D, but long ones are to 2D.
But the thread isn't about the individual games, it's which gameplay variation you prefer caused by the number of dimensions.
Lets pretend a new 3D game came out with the same number of weapons, missions, worms, and customisations as, say, W:A, none of which were limited to either number of dimensions. Which game would you prefer?
We're not discussing which style we prefer in theory.
Since these fictional games everyone keeps talking about don't exist (you know, 3D ones with good elements), they cannot be counted.
We can only base our opinions on what we have experienced. Since there are no 3D Worms games which offer the same gameplay as the 2D games, his point is valid.
Let's pretend only the games which have been released thus far have been released thus far and that we have only experienced those games thus far and that our opinion is based on past experience (thus far). Where does "Worms 3D could be as good as 2D Worms games, it just isn't so that point is invalid" come into it? I'm not sure but I'll tell you where it came from: the mouth of an idiot.
GrimOswald
13 Nov 2006, 11:42
We're not discussing which style we prefer in theory.
Since these fictional games everyone keeps talking about don't exist (you know, 3D ones with good elements), they cannot be counted.
We can only base our opinions on what we have experienced. Since there are no 3D Worms games which offer the same gameplay as the 2D games, his point is valid.
Let's pretend only the games which have been released thus far have been released thus far and that we have only experienced those games thus far and that our opinion is based on past experience (thus far). Where does "Worms 3D could be as good as 2D Worms games, it just isn't so that point is invalid" come into it? I'm not sure but I'll tell you where it came from: the mouth of an idiot.
Firstly, please don't call me an idiot. I have not insulted you, and have not provoked such a response except for the possible reason of not agreeing with you. (Unless you weren't referring to me, but I find that hard to believe)
Secondly, ok, here's another analogy (I think that's the word). Take W:A and W4. Set both to the Intermediate schemes. (No special options for either) Have four teams of four worms on each. Select a map for each that provides a balanced match. Play a round from both. Which do you prefer, gameplay wise; the one in W:A, or the one in W4?
Happy? Now we're talking about real games (The best of their kind) and virtually all the differences, such as game-specific weapons, are generally inherit to the styles (In terms of usefulness anyway. e.g. a blowtorch in W4 would be pretty stupid.)
AndrewTaylor
13 Nov 2006, 15:55
This is one of those irritating arguments that are very difficult to settle because everybody agrees. A violent agreement, if you will.
We're not discussing which style we prefer in theory.
Er, yes we are. Or at least, some of us are. You are not and I am, so of course we disagree (aside from the fact that we seem to be pre-programmed to disagree about everything for reasons I've yet to work out).
The original question wasn't massively clear on this point, but I took "2D or 3D" to mean "which is better? 2D or 3D?" and you took it to mean "which games are better: the 2D ones or the 3D ones?" and that's a very different question. The former does not depend on things like which games have more weapons or more customisablity, and the latter does.
Personally, I think you explained your position rather poorly, treating me as if I'd taken your view and got it hopelessly wrong rather than as if I'd got the other end of the stick, which I think is partly because you had misinterpreted my view, and (if) when you did get it the conversation had gained enough momentum of its own that it just ploughed on regardless. But that's by the by.
There are two wholly separate questions here: which play modality is best and which games are best, and personally I think the first is a far more interesting question. But really the thread poster ought to arbitrate here. Which is it?
What i do not understand is why 'shorter games' is a valid reason concerning 3d, i don't see the connection between them two that differs any from 'more weapons' and 2d.
for instance, being able to move in only two directions would seem like a more valid reason if we take your argument as true.
What i do not understand is why 'shorter games' is a valid reason concerning 3d
It isn't. You can make very short games in the 2D games too.
Heck, you can even make a game in W:A so short that it instantly ends.
Firstly, please don't call me an idiot. I have not insulted you, and have not provoked such a response except for the possible reason of not agreeing with you. (Unless you weren't referring to me, but I find that hard to believe)
Don't worry, I have no idea who you are so I wasn't insulting you. I was calling Plasma an idiot.
Secondly, ok, here's another analogy (I think that's the word). Take W:A and W4. Set both to the Intermediate schemes. (No special options for either) Have four teams of four worms on each. Select a map for each that provides a balanced match. Play a round from both. Which do you prefer, gameplay wise; the one in W:A, or the one in W4?
Good analogy. Personally, I would prefer the 2D. The visual style has limitations on the gameplay and it's that gameplay I pine for most. Granted, the reasons Shockdude specified are implementable in the 3D games but the fact that they're not makes his post entirely valid.
Er, yes we are. Or at least, some of us are. You are not and I am, so of course we disagree (aside from the fact that we seem to be pre-programmed to disagree about everything for reasons I've yet to work out).
I think you know why.
The original question wasn't massively clear on this point, but I took "2D or 3D" to mean "which is better? 2D or 3D?" and you took it to mean "which games are better: the 2D ones or the 3D ones?" and that's a very different question. The former does not depend on things like which games have more weapons or more customisablity, and the latter does.
I think his post implied the Worms franchise as the games in question. Sure, he does neglect to mention the word "Worms" but still.
Personally, I think you explained your position rather poorly, treating me as if I'd taken your view and got it hopelessly wrong rather than as if I'd got the other end of the stick, which I think is partly because you had misinterpreted my view, and (if) when you did get it the conversation had gained enough momentum of its own that it just ploughed on regardless. But that's by the by.
I've been discussing this with Plasma for the main part. Nevertheless, contrary to your belief I do think you've got the other end of the stick. The wrong end.
There are two wholly separate questions here: which play modality is best and which games are best, and personally I think the first is a far more interesting question.
I agree but I think the first question was implied to relate to the Worms franchise. Since the two modalities (2D and 3D) are so different in their style (as I've said before, I'd say they are all in the same visual style but with different drawing methods; here the word style really only applies to functional style or style of play) he is fair in saying what he has said.
If the question's not uniquely related to Worms and simply questions who prefers 2D games or 3D games as a whole then my entire reason for arguing is null and void.
So, I'm either correct or N/A.
But really the thread poster ought to arbitrate here.
Sure.
Don't worry, I have no idea who you are so I wasn't insulting you. I was calling Plasma an idiot.
HAHAHA! :D That made my day.
This could well lead to a second Plasma running gag.
AndrewTaylor
13 Nov 2006, 22:39
I agree but I think the first question was implied to relate to the Worms franchise. Since the two modalities (2D and 3D) are so different in their style (as I've said before, I'd say they are all in the same visual style but with different drawing methods; here the word style really only applies to functional style or style of play) he is fair in saying what he has said.
If the question's not uniquely related to Worms and simply questions who prefers 2D games or 3D games as a whole then my entire reason for arguing is null and void.
So, I'm either correct or N/A.
Perhaps I wasn't clear there. When I said "2D" and "3D", I meant for playing Worms in. I meant the tactics, like inconveniently placed mines, and bouncing grenades off girders, that just aren't practical in 3D, compared to the horizontally curled shots and side-impacts that just aren't possible in 2D. Which is obviously different to things like the bungee cord or the option for booby trapped crates that are perfectly possible in 3D but aren't there in the games we have. I didn't expect there'd be a discussion about whether 2D or 3D is better for gaming in general, because obviously that depends purely on the game being played.
Shockdude
14 Nov 2006, 00:41
...
what now?
XXXWoody
14 Nov 2006, 05:49
Your opinions on matters of semantics might carry more weight if you could negotiate your way through a standard figure of speech without getting confused and ending up in a different one. You win arguments hands down, or with your hands tied behind your back. What you said is gibberish.
No, actually, i shortened "having your hands tied behind your back". anyway this agrument/debate is starting to get boring. by the way, 2D is better. shockdude just thinks the style of 2D is better and that is that ok, jez. i know exactly where he's coming from. amen
Perhaps I wasn't clear there. When I said "2D" and "3D", I meant for playing Worms in. I meant the tactics, like inconveniently placed mines, and bouncing grenades off girders, that just aren't practical in 3D, compared to the horizontally curled shots and side-impacts that just aren't possible in 2D. Which is obviously different to things like the bungee cord or the option for booby trapped crates that are perfectly possible in 3D but aren't there in the games we have. I didn't expect there'd be a discussion about whether 2D or 3D is better for gaming in general, because obviously that depends purely on the game being played.
So I am correct.
gg
Paul.Power
14 Nov 2006, 09:42
So I am correct.
ggNot as I'm reading it.
We have "Is the concept of playing Worms in 2D or 3D better, in terms of generic strategies?" vs. "Which are actually better, the 2D or 3D games?"
AndrewTaylor
14 Nov 2006, 10:34
So I am correct.
gg
That's an interesting new debating technique you've got there.
The question is "Which style do you prefer".
The 2D Worms games have the features Shockdude mentioned.
The 3D Worms games don't.
Shockdude prefers the 2D style. This is weighted by the features therein.
Are we now debating whether the question was in relation to Worms games or not? If so, I think we should just wait for fliez to reply.
[Things] that are perfectly possible in 3D but aren't there in the games we have.
Right, that's the point. We are being asked what we like, not what we might like if it were implemented.
The possibilities in either 2D or 3D are pretty limitless; you could have bump-mapped, realistic looking 3D worms with tanks, fighter jets, 1-up mushrooms and stealth missions. Similarly you could have a 2D worms game which has flying pigs which poo atom bombs, mega-mushroom-a-likes which make you worm 50ft tall and land made of jelly which things inherently bounce more on.
It's completely ridiculous to suggest that someone should base their opinion on the potential merits of a modality rather than what they have experienced.
AndrewTaylor
14 Nov 2006, 15:08
No, I'm not talking about features that could potentially be implemented. I'm talking about facets of the game which are intrinsic to the number of dimensions it is played in. It would be impossible to allow, say, 3D curled bazooka shots in 2D, and it is impossible to allow, say, the same kind of precision grenade bouncing that 2D offers in 3D. There are intrinsic differences between 2D and 3D worming which are utterly independant of the game itself or its feature list. 2D and 3D worming are two quite different game mechanics, and we have all experienced them both, and it is perfectly reasonable to prefer one over the other purely for itself and not for the games that use it.
For example, let's say I prefer poker to chess, but the PC chess games I've played are much, much better than the poker games. The AI is more human, the graphics are better, and you don't lose as much information about your opponent's game by not seeing their face. Are you suggesting that if someone burned all the playing cards and chess boards in the world that my preference would suddenly shift to chess because it would be impossible for me to play poker to its maximum? Of course it wouldn't. Poker is a better game than chess (for the sake of argument). The features that various implementations of them have are immaterial. What I'm talking about here is equivalent to if I'd never owned a pack of cards or a chessboard. Are you suggesting I couldn't still prefer poker as a game, even though every version of it I'd played was flawed? And if not, why couldn't I prefer 3D worms as a game, but consider the 3D worms games made so far to be so badly flawed that I prefered the 2D ones.
No, I'm not talking about features that could potentially be implemented. I'm talking about facets of the game which are intrinsic to the number of dimensions it is played in. It would be impossible to allow, say, 3D curled bazooka shots in 2D, and it is impossible to allow, say, the same kind of precision grenade bouncing that 2D offers in 3D. There are intrinsic differences between 2D and 3D worming which are utterly independant of the game itself or its feature list. 2D and 3D worming are two quite different game mechanics, and we have all experienced them both, and it is perfectly reasonable to prefer one over the other purely for itself and not for the games that use it.
For example, let's say I prefer poker to chess, but the PC chess games I've played are much, much better than the poker games. The AI is more human, the graphics are better, and you don't lose as much information about your opponent's game by not seeing their face. Are you suggesting that if someone burned all the playing cards and chess boards in the world that my preference would suddenly shift to chess because it would be impossible for me to play poker to its maximum? Of course it wouldn't. Poker is a better game than chess (for the sake of argument). The features that various implementations of them have are immaterial. What I'm talking about here is equivalent to if I'd never owned a pack of cards or a chessboard. Are you suggesting I couldn't still prefer poker as a game, even though every version of it I'd played was flawed? And if not, why couldn't I prefer 3D worms as a game, but consider the 3D worms games made so far to be so badly flawed that I prefered the 2D ones.
No.
I am saying Shockdude likes the 2D games.
Why did anyone at any point try to argue that his opinion wasn't valid? I don't know.
AndrewTaylor
14 Nov 2006, 15:36
Why did anyone at any point try to argue that his opinion wasn't valid?
Nobody did. But a few people argued that he hadn't answered the specific question that had been asked. (Whatever that may have been.)
Nobody did. But a few people argued that he hadn't answered the specific question that had been asked. (Whatever that may have been.)
Well yeah but he did answer it. Validly.
AndrewTaylor
14 Nov 2006, 16:17
Well yeah but he did answer it. Validly.
He answered the question as you interpreted it. He didn't answer the question I inferred from the original post. This is my point. the original post could have been asking any one of at least two questions. He answered one, and roughly half of the respondants had thought that rather unhelpful because as far as they're conerned he'd been asked the other one.
Why are you having so much trouble accepting this? Is the idea that we might both be victims of an ambiguous question really that galling, or do you just desperately want me to be wrong and you to be right, even if it means utterly missing the truth of the situation?
I'm happy to admit that the post is open to interpretation.
I was the first to reply and since I interpreted the question as regarding Worms, the balance had already been weighted that way.
From what I understand, Plasma was saying that Shockdude's opinion wasn't valid not because he missed the point of the question but because he answered it badly (note the subtle difference there).
I've already said we should wait for Fliez (about 3 times) as we are both victims.
Besides which, Andrew, when it comes to you and me, I am always right and you are always wrong.
You know that.
it is impossible to allow the same kind of precision grenade bouncing that 2D offers in 3D
This is where your argument loses all credibility.
AndrewTaylor
14 Nov 2006, 16:33
From what I understand, Plasma was saying that Shockdude's opinion wasn't valid not because he missed the point of the question but because he answered it badly (note the subtle difference there).
Well, that changes things slightly. Maybe it was because I'd interpreted the question the same way as him, but I didn't read his posts that way. And I expect that had knock on effects for how I read your responses.
I think we should ban the internet. It's the only way to end this madness.
I think we should ban the internet. It's the only way to end this madness.
Internet is a proper noun, n00b.
AndrewTaylor
14 Nov 2006, 16:43
I think I'm going to start inserting errors into post's to you, so you argue with those instead of the point I'm trying to make.
Glod, you're so chlidish.
Andrew, when it comes to you and me, I am always right and you are always wrong.
*sig'd*
From what I understand, Plasma was saying that Shockdude's opinion wasn't valid not because he missed the point of the question but because he answered it badly (note the subtle difference there)
No, I considered him to have missed the point.
Sorry to intrude this private debate, but I'm still wondering how is it true that theoretically 3D games can have more weapons but they can't have grenade bouncing precision.
No, I considered him to have missed the point.
I still think you're wrong.
Sorry to intrude this private debate, but I'm still wondering how is it true that theoretically 3D games can have more weapons but they can't have grenade bouncing precision.
It's because on 2D you can see the pixels on the terrain, so you can see the slope of the surface very easily. On 3D, you can't do that.
Although yes, it is possible to have just as good grenade shots on 3d as on 2D, I think he was speaking in general.
This could well lead to a second Plasma running gag.
I'm sorry Bonz, but you're no longer up to date with the forum. That running joke already exists...
2D/3D arguments - serious business. Personally, I've had just as much fun with the 2D games as I've had with W3D/Mayhem. Though I tend to choose WWP or W:A when looking for a challenge and W3D when looking for some mindless, straightforward turn-based gameplay.
GrimOswald
15 Nov 2006, 11:50
I still think I'm wrong.
I couldn't agree more.
AndrewTaylor
15 Nov 2006, 12:21
I couldn't agree more.
Vader, can we at least agree I'm not the most childish person in this thread?
GrimOswald
15 Nov 2006, 12:33
Vader, can we at least agree I'm not the most childish person in this thread?
Hahaha. I prefer to think of it as "lightening up"
And the point is he can't actually think of anything else to add to his argument.:rolleyes:
AndrewTaylor
15 Nov 2006, 12:55
And the point is he can't actually think of anything else to add to his argument.:rolleyes:
Don't imagine that will stop him.
Hahaha. I prefer to think of it as "lightening up"
Me? Lighten up? But I am in a permanent state of being serious. I'm a cartoonist; it should be obvious.
And the point is he can't actually think of anything else to add to his argument.:rolleyes:
That's because there's nothing to add. It's simple, I'm either right or wrong. Since Fliez doesn't appear to be coming back I think it is safe to assume that I am right (as usual).
Nah, I definitely think AT is the most childish person ever!
Everevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverever times infinity.
Shockdude
15 Nov 2006, 22:09
...
wow...
all within eighteen hours...
philby4000
16 Nov 2006, 00:23
Sorry to intrude this private debate, but I'm still wondering how is it true that theoretically 3D games can have more weapons but they can't have grenade bouncing precision.
That's a very good point.
Andrew's argument is that the question concerns the mechanics of the game, rather than the features. Yet surely the mechanics of the game are largely affected by the features.
GrimOswald
16 Nov 2006, 03:29
Me? Lighten up? But I am in a permanent state of being serious. I'm a cartoonist; it should be obvious.
Actually, I've always seen you as a rather lightened up person, but if you say so...
That's because there's nothing to add. It's simple, I'm either right or wrong. Since Fliez doesn't appear to be coming back I think it is safe to assume that I am right (as usual).
I'm intrigued as to how you arrived at that conclusion.:eek:
Nah, I definitely think AT is the most childish person ever!
Amen.
That's because there's nothing to add. It's simple, I'm either right or wrong. Since Fliez doesn't appear to be coming back I think it is safe to assume that I am right (as usual).
Don't get your hopes up dude. I still lurk around.
Andrew's argument is that the question concerns the mechanics of the game, rather than the features. Yet surely the mechanics of the game are largely affected by the features.
And the style of the game is largely affected by the mechanics.
Actually, I've always seen you as a rather lightened up person, but if you say so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Don't get your hopes up dude. I still lurk around.
I'm right anyway. Just answer the question.
AndrewTaylor
16 Nov 2006, 10:20
I'm right anyway. Just answer the question.
The result of a coin toss does not determine who was most wise to bet on it.
GrimOswald
16 Nov 2006, 10:27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Ah, you were being sarcastic! Why didn't you say so sooner? Then this entire misunderstanding could have been avoided.
The result of a coin toss does not determine who was most wise to bet on it.
I quite like that...
Who said anything about wisdom?
I'm talking common sense, baby. Yeah!
DexxaWorm2
24 Nov 2006, 21:00
If I want a big, long strategic game, I'll play 2D. If I want to kill ten minutes with a friend before Scrubs is on, I'll play Mayhem. If Ihad to pick one, it'd have to be 2D, but that said I've been playing a lot more 3D lately.
I just couldn't decide which one. I like the fun of the 2D worms, but I also enjoy the fun open full 360 landscapes of 3D. But... I have actually been playing more Worms 2 than any other Worms game I own. Heck, some amount of weeks ago (I can't remember how many) I got Addiction Pinball. I like Scrubs. I've got season 1 and season 3 on DVD. Hmmm.....that gives me an idea!
wow...
Why don't you guys leave it as a "I prefer []D because..."?
I prefer 2D btw :)
Paul.Power
25 Nov 2006, 22:34
wow...
Why don't you guys leave it as a "I prefer []D because..."?
I prefer 2D btw :)Where would be the fun in that?
GrimOswald
25 Nov 2006, 23:37
Exactly.
And now I prefer 2D. You see...[Insert ten lines of gibberish to annoy Kurrus]
3D worms lacked ragdoll physics. Nuff said.
AndrewTaylor
1 Dec 2006, 23:50
3D worms lacked ragdoll physics. Nuff said.
Oh, God I hope you're joking.
No way. A game with ragdoll physics can be lacking in every other aspect and it still scores a perfect 10/10.
Here's a Haiku:
A game with raggdoll
Flawless all of the time
Makes me happy whole day
How could game with small, stumpy worms benefit from ragdoll physics?
Paul.Power
2 Dec 2006, 09:29
How could game with small, stumpy worms benefit from ragdoll physics?Not to mention small, stumpy worms with hands that are unattached to their bodies.
I wasn't serious about the fact that ragdoll physics makes a game signifigantly better, but It would look far more convincing than having the worms fall flat on their faces and then stand up to die.
Paul.Power
2 Dec 2006, 10:52
I wasn't serious about the fact that ragdoll physics makes a game signifigantly better, but It would look far more convincing than having the worms fall flat on their faces and then stand up to die.Well, except for the fact that it's funny.
AndrewTaylor
2 Dec 2006, 14:55
You know, the 2D games don't have ragdoll physics either.
And the worms even had the time to get out a box of dynamite and push the lever to blast themselves.
That's because 2D sprites don't have bones.
That's because 2D sprites don't have bones.
Annelids don't have bones either.
Besides, you can make ragdoll physics in a 2D environment too.
Not to mention small, stumpy worms with hands that are unattached to their bodies.
It would be cool to have their hands attached by arms represented by a sort of string between their hands and bodies which gave no support and merely flapped around as they moved their hands.
Long sentence, that.
AndrewTaylor
2 Dec 2006, 20:46
That's because 2D sprites don't have bones.
But they could. Well, sprites couldn't, but who says you have to use sprites?
But they could. Well, sprites couldn't, but who says you have to use sprites?
Concidering when Worms 2 and that the folloups are based on that engine it doesn't make sense to expect ragdoll from it. However, by todays standard it's almost strange that Worms Mayhem doesn't use it. And for what? To preserve that tiersome timeconsuming death animation?
Where is the sense of power if you blast a worm across the map into a wall with explosives and he still has the energy to stand up and smile before he dies?
AndrewTaylor
2 Dec 2006, 23:26
It's really not strange.
Very few games from small developers use ragdoll physics, because they simply haven't got the resources to fritter away on complex and computationally expensive things that don't matter. Not when they can ask Luther to knock up a spinning worm animation one afternoon instead.
Especally given the collision detection in Worms 4.
Very few games from small developers use ragdoll physics, because they simply haven't got the resources to fritter away on complex and computationally expensive things that don't matter. Not when they can ask Luther to knock up a spinning worm animation one afternoon instead.
They also probably don't have the money to license a 3rd party physics engine which could easily do this.
Besides that, guys like Luther can probably be persuaded with a few beers.
Preasure
7 Dec 2006, 20:31
Besides, IMO it doesn't really matter. If I shoot someone in the head on a top end FPS with wonderful, detailed graphics and they go spinning end over end like a thrown pencil, I'm going to be a little annoyed. But with worms, it's part of the experience, and fits in well with the cartoony style.
Paul.Power
7 Dec 2006, 23:41
Besides, IMO it doesn't really matter. If I shoot someone in the head on a top end FPS with wonderful, detailed graphics and they go spinning end over end like a thrown pencil, I'm going to be a little annoyed.Really? I'd laugh like a drain.
Well, the first time, anyway. Might grate after a while.
Xinos, worms do not need ragdoll physics.
IcePacks
10 Dec 2006, 19:30
I'd go for 3D immediatly if it featured the same hilarity as the first 2D worms game I ever played: Worms World Party. But seeing as Worms 3D started it all for me, I like both quite alot.
Xinos, worms do not need ragdoll physics.
No? Well, you know what it DOES need?
Firesnails.
AndrewTaylor
10 Dec 2006, 23:03
Oh, what a great post. I was worried about this thread until then.
Metal Alex
11 Dec 2006, 16:24
by todays standard
not really, only most of the games that want to look as real as possible.
I mean, there are very good games without ragdolls out there... and in 3D :p
Smash bros or Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, for example.
Paul.Power
11 Dec 2006, 22:29
Oh, what a great post. I was worried about this thread until then.Any thread that stays focused for this long is not healthy.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.