The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.

Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: 2D vs. 3D

Written By: Ryan112390 on 06/04/09 at 11:48 am

This thread is about 2D vs 3D--in both games and animated films.
Personally, I much prefer 2D for both. As far as video games, while 3D offers more photorealistic realism, 2D tends to be more artistic and stylished. Also, IMO, 2D ages much better than 3D. We look at 3D games now from say 1996 or 1998, which were state of the art in our time and look horribly blocky and dated--whereas 2D games from the same period look just as good now as then. 3D ages very fast, whereas 2D, particularly cartoon or painting based 2D, ages very well imo.

As for animated movies, I think 2D is better--while 3D is more realistic, 2D is again more artistic; also, 3D to me feels fake--It's not as immersive as 2D and while it seems to be good for rendering creatures, 3D doesn't seem so well when rendering human beings--humans look silly in 3D, such as in WALLE or Finding Nemo.

Subject: Re: 2D vs. 3D

Written By: woops on 06/04/09 at 1:07 pm


One could express more in hand drawn animation, which many could tell the differences from different animators.

Subject: Re: 2D vs. 3D

Written By: whistledog on 06/04/09 at 8:16 pm

2-D gaming all the way.  All these popular 3-D games, though some of them are cool, most of them are the same old crap that is super boring.  I miss the days of side scrolling games like Super MArio, or even sidescrolling 3-D like Double Dragon.

Games from a first person perspective are totally boring

Subject: Re: 2D vs. 3D

Written By: 90steen on 06/05/09 at 7:21 pm

Nintendo 64 3D was fun, but after that it got old.

Check for new replies or respond here...