Castlevania's Koji Igarashi: 2D games will never die!
Bringing his GDC presentation, "The Light and Dark Sides of 2D Game Production," to a flag-waving close, Konami's Koji Igarashi defiantly declared (via an enthusiastically projected slide) that "2D games will never die!" Though the Castlevania designer's train of thought seemed to switch several times during the talk -- no doubt exacerbated by the wonky on-the-fly translation -- his point eventually emerged as a light at the end of the tunnel.
Igarashi explained that as 3D games grow more complex and require greater effort from artists, 2D games provide an advantage by being easier and cheaper to design. Though he argued that the perspective generally allows players to better judge distance in action games, he was largely focused on the production side of things. Pixel art and backgrounds can be reused throughout multiple titles, he noted, allowing designers to spend more of their time on other aspects of the game.
A unique challenge for modern consoles, however, is adapting to the much higher display resolutions. More on-screen pixels means more detailed art, in which case drawing beautiful 2D assets might become just as strenuous and laborious as creating 3D character models. As such, Igarashi is treating the upcoming 2.5D Castlevania: Dracula X Chronicles as an experiment -- can the dynamic presentation of 3D titles and the cost-effective design of 2D gaming get along? We'll find out later this year.
Gallery: Koji Igarashi @ GDC
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Psaakyrn @ Mar 13th 2007 6:49AM
Or to solve the whole resolution problem, just create elements in vectors. This shouldn't be a problem now, and should be a good compromise between 2D and 3D, in that full 3D objects don't have to be created, but extra care has to be taken to ensure the detail scales well.
Note: Vector images doesn't mean creating 3D images then using them in 2D games. To give an example of 2D vector graphics, any conventional flash game uses them.
Kazi @ Mar 13th 2007 7:37AM
I'm waiting for some action-adventure sidescrollers with visuals like/better than Guilty Gear X2 or Street Fighter 3.
Pawsie @ Mar 13th 2007 7:40AM
I agree... 3d can be fun.. but 2D is fun too. I was a bit disappointed when nintendo went N64 on us.. That's one reason why I got a playstation, they had more 2D games.
Psaakyrn @ Mar 13th 2007 7:56AM
But at least a) Nintendo did GOOD 3D games, and b) their portable systems has always been a haven for 2D games.
Dark-Pen @ Mar 13th 2007 7:59AM
....what's the name of that one upcoming ps2 sidescrolling rpg-ish japanese game that's being localized, and has norse mythology? THAT looks -geewwwd-, so I don't see there being a sidescrolling problem in current gen.
Jack of No Trades @ Mar 13th 2007 8:17AM
If they would just make a 2D game with Guilty Gear X2 visuals and add ton an tons of game content it would be great. That is why I think Eternal Sonata for 360 looks so great. Go check it out if your a big RPG fan.
Ian @ Mar 13th 2007 8:27AM
I never understood why developers FORCE games into 3D when its clearly unwarranted. RTS's don't NEED to be 3D, side scrolling games don't need to be shoehorned into 3D... If anything, use 3D models and make the gameplay 2D, a la New Super Mario Brothers, and to a lesser extent Warcraft 3. I think that a Castlevania with true 3D models but with 2D gameplay would be hella sweet.
jay @ Mar 13th 2007 8:44AM
...Ian? no.
Castlvania has always been about beautiful pixel art. Aria, Dawn and PoR (barring Metal Slug) are examples of the best commercial pixel art (and barring the photoshopped backgrounds)in a video game.
I'm no fan of 2.5D. You lose the precision of 2D and keep the needless qualities of 3D, iin Mario's case the giant mushroom that didn't really add anything to the game. But they seem to entertain the brainless masses "becuz ets 3-D!". I love Mario and Sonic, but their respective 2.5D romps just didn't touch the quality of their earlier counterparts.
Pixel art is never going to die. Live Arcade, Virtual Console and certain DS titles will make sure of that.
Farseer @ Mar 13th 2007 9:29AM
Right on Jay - there's been a tragic divergence from pixel art in games lately. My DS has been a true savior in that department, and I've really grown to love it. Now that titles like AH and Worms are on XBL Arcade, I'm hoping they continue to push a re-emergence as well.
Todd @ Mar 13th 2007 9:33AM
I have always loved the Castlevania games. Face it though, since the games went 3D the games, while not going downhill in visuals and fun, have not done well in the market. I think Castlevania does much better in 2D and I still think 2D games are very viable.
The new Super Paper Mario should be interesting, swapping from 2D and 3D, and vice versa, for a different style of play.
32_Footsteps @ Mar 13th 2007 9:38AM
"Castlvania has always been about beautiful pixel art."
Except when it's been about really awkward 3D art, like the N64 and the PS2 Castlevania games.
Trust me, I love the 2D Castlevania games - but I'm of the belief that Igarashi is taking this stance because the flagship series he stewarts has never worked in 3D thus far - which isn't to say someone could make it work in the future.
Still, the point is worth making - it shouldn't be about graphics, but gameplay. Don't include 3D graphics if the gameplay isn't going to be there.
Evan @ Mar 13th 2007 9:51AM
Why I feel that pure-2D is better than 2.5D and 3D... In 2D, a good animator can assure the viewer sees the optimal view and pose of the character at all times. In 2D, a good animator can follow the "line of action" principle and stretch and warp the character to create dramatic motion and flowing silhouettes. And, in 2D, the art is pixel-perfect!
FSK405K @ Mar 13th 2007 9:52AM
There's rarely a game whose versions I like more in 3D than 2D. Mario, Zelda, Bomberman, Metroid, Worms, etc...better flat. I suppose Soul Caliber was a good improvement over its predecessors, though.
Jack of No Trades @ Mar 13th 2007 10:07AM
3D opens up more doors than 2D in gameplay.
Psaakyrn @ Mar 13th 2007 11:27AM
to #15 Jack of No Trades
Conversely, it opens up too many doors. In fact, I'll go ahead and state that most of your 3D games, are actually using 2.5D gameplay.
True 3D gaming would involve/require:
a) All 3 axis of rotation. Currently all 3D games except some flight sims uses only 2 axis of rotation.
b) Being able to perceive in complete 3D: Not just the faces we see, but those that we don't. It's a little hard to explain here, but it essentially boils down to how we can see the full 2D world on a screen. It's the reason why Worms in 3D can't work out properly once you start introducing tunnels, caves, and other underground areas.
c) In relation to the above: having a proper 3D display, and not a flat 2D one. Of cause, whether we can percieve it is a different matter (we can't); remember that our eyes only take in 2D information, than translates it into 3D information: but it's NOT complete 3D information. Now, if we had sonar capabilities like bats or dolphins this might be different..
Sorry if it does sound nickpicky, but it brings to my next point: Not everything works in 2.5D.
Once you see how 2D and 3D gameplay actually works, you should realise one crucial element in 2D that isn't found in 3D: full picture detail. In 2D, you can see what's behind that wall, in 2.5D you can't (or if you could, you essentially have to either remove wall details, or use a 2D map, which again doesn't show full detail anyway). No matter what, there'll always be missing detail in 2.5D games. (which incidently, is why horror games will always perform better in 3D than 2D)
My point is, 2.5D opens some doors (you have full frontal view) but closes others too (you lose detail).
Games that benefit from 2D gameplay:
Strategy/Tactical (all kinds)
Construction
Fighting/Brawling (jumping in brawlers is not considered 2.5D, it's essentially a temporary "different element" status)
Games that benefit from 2.5D gameplay:
Horror/Suspense
Speed-based games (ironically, this includes Sonic)
Shooters (essentially the difference between Casthe Wolfenstein and Doom) (this includes spellcasting, but not melee combat)
Games that have no considerable benefit irregardless:
Platformers (simply because there's so many elements you can put in them)
Any game that can be converted into a text-based game without losing gameplay elements (including all RPGs, all Adventure games, all Exploration games, unless they contain elements from previous areas)
Slaziman @ Mar 13th 2007 12:06PM
When you view weapons in the menu of Dawn of Sorrow, man they look ugly. What the fuck happened there?
coyotej @ Mar 13th 2007 12:32PM
#18: In Dawn of Sorrow (and Portrait of Ruin, too), they didn't make scaled-up images of weapons in the game, they just reuse the same size bitmap you see when initially picking it up. Is there enough space on the cart to give us higher-res bitmaps just for the menu? Probably . . . but I guess they figured it wasn't a priority.
Vidikron @ Mar 13th 2007 1:50PM
@17
[a) All 3 axis of rotation. Currently all 3D games except some flight sims uses only 2 axis of rotation.]
That's not really true. Most FPS/action/sandbox games these days involve quite a bit of vertical combat (even flying vehicles in some). You don't just walk through hallways and fight on one plane.
Data @ Mar 13th 2007 2:08PM
Quality pixel art will always have a place. Clean placed picture elements can convey so much more information than something rastered from a 3d model.
See Cortex Command as an example - www . datarealms . com
SmilingAssassin @ Mar 13th 2007 3:28PM
WORMS are fun!!!
jchensor @ Mar 13th 2007 4:47PM
@32_footsteps:
"Trust me, I love the 2D Castlevania games - but I'm of the belief that Igarashi is taking this stance because the flagship series he stewarts has never worked in 3D thus far - which isn't to say someone could make it work in the future."
I agree in a way, but will take that step further: Castelvania will never work in 3-D... ever. You can make a game that feels similar, but it would work because the main weapon is a whip. And the whip has no place being in a 3-D world when it is your primary weapon for 95% of the games.
In all 2-D Castlevania games, you have to be relatively close to kill monsters because of the whip. In 3-D games, you can't fight in similar fashion. Games like God of War work because your weapon reaches so far. Plus, precision isn't necessary because Kratos's blades swing, hitting more area. A whip is straight and hits only in a tiny area, making it impractical to use in all current 3-D platforming environments. Only in a 2-D game is it okay to force you to have to fight a monster so close, because that distance is the only one you have to concern yourself with. There is no up and down aiming nor making sure you are facing the right way.
If they can come up with a different system for 3-D where whipping doesn't require intense aiming, then maybe Castlevania will finally work on a 3-D game.
ackmondual @ Mar 13th 2007 5:06PM
@ #23
They could make it so that the whip is new and improved. He fights with a morning star whip with similar effect. Or, just give him a longer whip to compensate for the vast gamefield. I'm sure they didn't do that in all the other Castlevania games since it would've been too easy.
Point is, like how Mario has undergone some changes moving into 3d, so can it be done w/Castlevania. But no pressure either. If Konoma feels Castlevania is better off in 2d, I will certainly repect that
Psaakyrn @ Mar 13th 2007 5:47PM
to #17 Vidikron
The 3 axis of rotation:
1) Yaw: The most obvious, found in Castle Wolfenstein. Turning left and right.
2) Pitch: The one made famous in Doom: Looking up and down. However in most "3D" games, the angle is usually limited to slightly less than 180 degrees. (why not the full 180 degrees? When the object is looking directly up, the Pitch angle is 0, which leads to division by 0 errors if there isn't error handling. Easier to just limit the player.)
3) Roll: The one generally only found when flight is concerned. Imagine a line drawing from the back to the front of an object, then spinning along that line.
Abscissa @ Mar 13th 2007 7:10PM
If Konami is so big on 2D games, then why do they only release them on portable systems? When was the last time you could play a new 2D Castlevania on an actual television instead of some mini-screen? Symphony of the Night, yea, that's what I thought.
Abscissa @ Mar 13th 2007 7:15PM
@#25: Doom didn't have look up/down, unless you count later games like Strife, Hexen (and Heretic?) that were merely based on an enhanced Doom engine.
An easier way to explain the "roll" rotation, would be to just imagine the screen rotating, or tilting your head sideways.
umm.....hello?? @ Mar 13th 2007 8:51PM
This is the one major thing that I thought sucked when the newer consoles came out back then (the original PS and whatever version of Nintendo was out then)...finally, systems that could do 2D games in arcade-quality graphics, and what do they do? they switch to crappy-graphic 3D games (granted, some really AWESOME 3D games (TwistedMetal, 007 GoldenEye, etc)....maybe its just me being nostalgic, but my Commodore64 games and Atari2600 games, and even the original NES (back when developers HAD to focus on gameplay and NOT graphics) contain a huge catalog of the best 2D games to date...can I get them on XBLA or Nintendo's online store please?? (I'd say PS3 online store but I think it sucks that Sony will only allow you to buy PS1 games for their PSP--maybe its because they feel we can still buy PS1 games for our PS3's with their 100% backward compatibility promise?).
Jim @ Mar 13th 2007 9:26PM
There will always be a place for great 2D games such as Castlevania!
JB0 @ Mar 14th 2007 4:17AM
@28:
The "version of Nintendo" that was out when the PlayStation hit was the SNES. It would be Nintendo's primary system until the Nintendo 64 hit over a year later. At which point it was painfully clear the market had pretty much dumped sprite gaming in a ditch on the side of the road.
Sega's Saturn was the system that launched alongside the PS1, and the broken promises of THAT system are the stuff of legends. Interestingly, it HAD a strong sprite game market(at least as much as ANY Saturn market could be called strong).
I agree with the sentiment, though.
The sprite work that appeared in that era was breathtaking. Even moreso when it was placed next to the sheer awfulness of the PS1's attempts at polygon graphics.
Games like Symphony of the Night, Tales of Destiny, and Megaman 8(remember when he wasn't JUST a bad joke?) hold up well a decade later, and remind me exactly how much we lost in the move to polygons.
Rico @ Mar 25th 2007 5:00PM
Worms is perhaps the best example of a forced 3D gameplay dynamic in response to market pressure. And it ruined a great series. Although, in Team 17's defense, WWP and WA offered little over Worms 2 and the series was heading into the trash heap anyway.