2 opinions, 0 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted No preference, I like both.
1 vote
Sep 28, 2015

Not only do I have no preference, but these sorts of questions are really the wrong thing to ask.

It's really like asking, "What's a better board game: Monopoly, or Mouse Trap?"

There's nothing inherently superior about playing in a three-dimensional space. What's important is that the game use the presentation approach to its advantage. That means that the gameplay, the mechanics, the story, the art style, should all be appropriately calibrated for the specifics.

Tactics in two dimensions is very intuitive. Turn-based tactical games like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance 1 and 2 in two dimensions (even when they include "height" it's really not much of a variable) make a lot of sense and lets you make interesting decisions.

In contrast, I find a lot of 3-D games to gain a little in comparison in terms of immersion but lose a ton immediately in terms of "mushiness" to the experience and a reduction in tactical depth. I don't think it's a coincidence that you listed Fallout 3 and Skyrim, two very easy games. The From Games series, Demon's Souls to Bloodborne, are obviously counter-examples, and those games made the 3-D motion a crucial part of their difficulty.

subscribe
-1
User voted No preference, I like both.
1 vote
Jun 29, 2015

Depending on the game style it allows you to portray an effect to the audience. Say for example a shooter game, you wouldn't have the graphics of call of duty in a 2D world, meanwhile you wouldn't have pac-man with the look and 3D view of call of duty. The developer can use these to effect the way the audience perceive the entertainment.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: