May not be in 3D but i reckon its still the best anyone else think so?

Are you daring to imply that 3D is fundamentally superior?

I'm disgusted.

Yes im saying 3D is better but in worms its not

Concurred (with Run). Obviously, 2D games are more fun, in general. Try Cave Story, Within A Deep Forest, Super Mario World, Jazz Jackrabbit, Commander Keen, Monster Bash, Duke Nukem, Hocus Pocus, Halloween Harry, etc! Maybe even Superfrog! ;D Yes, I know those are all platform games. They're still amazing.

Then, if you count adventure (RPGs) games which are pseudo-3D but mostly 2D, you've got Dragon Warrior IV, Dragon Quest V, Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, Lufia 2, Lufia, etc.

Civilization, Civilization 2, the whole Heroes Of Might And Magic series, etc. I could go on and on about how superior 2D is to 3D on a computer screen.

Yeh well im talking about 3D games is so much better but in worms case its so not thats what i think and thats what i will always think

If your me you will like 3D if you are yourself you will like old crappy 2D **** why settle with 2D when you can have a full scale 3D game?

Why 2D is Better than 3D (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/981115.html)

lol, but Grove4Life ur on of those people who just *think* 3d is better. u just assume that 3d would be better than 2d because 3d looks nicer, you see more and it opens more doors to do more in games.

but when it ocmes, down to it games 4 better in 2d

Yeh well im talking about 4D games is so much better but in worms case its so not thats what i think and thats what i will always think

If your me you will like 4D if you are yourself you will like old crappy 3D **** why settle with 3D when you can have a full scale 4D game?

*scnr*
Umm...
What are you trying to point out with this post?

Edit: Oh, I missed Ghost's post.

hes saying my point.

but when it ocmes, down to it games 4 better in 2d
It's wrong to class 2D games as always being better than 3D, just like it's wrong to class 3D games as always being better than 2D.

Yeh well im talking about 3D games is so much better but in worms case its so not thats what i think and thats what i will always think

If your me you will like 3D if you are yourself you will like old crappy 2D **** why settle with 2D when you can have a full scale 3D game?

The trouble with 3D, I find, is that all the faffing around with the camera detracts from actually playing the game. That said it has recently got a lot better - the camera options in RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 are phenomenal. It's almost as if there is a checkbox for "Faffing". Also, the epic scale of some games (example: Red Alert) is lost when computers can't cope with all the 3D graphics (example: Red Alert 2)

FPS's are of course awesome in 3D though. Probably because the camera moves itself intelligently.

i'm saying 2d ***s 3d now, many when they make even more advancements with cameras, controls and graphics and all that it will be better but for the time being 2d is better.

Ghost']i'm saying 2d ***s 3d now, many when they make even more advancements with cameras, controls and graphics and all that it will be better but for the time being 2d is better.
Look at your 3D games. Would you think that they'd ALL be better, including the FPSs that can't be put into 2D properly, if they were 2D?

And you can't say 2D games are better than 3D games either, because nearly all games at the top of the charts are 3D.

thats because 3d game r newer, i'm sure when worms came out it was top charts but not now, it's old. 3d is the new thing, 2d is now "out dated" technology like vhs, now everything is dvd, but i still buy and vhs, and sometimes i perfer it. for different reasons at different times, 1 being alot more has come out of vhs then dvd, of the stuff i'd want. and so on and so forth, many examples can be put in. like watching tv horror shows or listenign to a radio horror show, i'd say tv is better in that case, but i love radio storys too. but then radio storys arrn't played as much since tv.


Ur point is invalid you can't turn 3d games into 2d and reverse:
e.g. turning worms to 3d = bad
turning halo 2 into 2d = i doubt it would be very good, but playable at the least.

you can't just say turn this into 2d and look how bad it will be and think that proves ur arguement because worm is the oposite. lets say 2 new games halo 2d and worms 3d for example, lets assume no other of this series has been madew yet. worms 3d would probobly be a smash, no one would think of worms in 2d and down it because it isn't as good as wa. people would probobly like it. same goes for halo in 2d.

some games are better in 3d, and some in 2d depending on the game itself, but 3d still needs inprovements before it can out do 2d.


please give up, i got a new dresser, desk and bookcase to replace my old furnature, just build them and have to redo my room and this arguement is wasting my sorting time. so just give up. 3d is newer, but i wouldn't say better, yet.

3D games need very good planning... A 3D game requires a much different interface, as both input and output need to be 3D. A 2D game can't be turned into a 3D game, because the 2D one was designed to be 2D.
That being said, W:A is so good because it is 2D. The ideas which made W:A would not work in 3D.
</rant>

Ghost']some games are better in 3d, and some in 2d depending on the game itself
That is all that needed to be said in this thread. Neither is "better", any more than metal is "better" than glass. You pick whichever is better for your purposes. You couldn't make a window out of metal or a hammer out of glass. And you couldn't make an FPS in 2D or Bomberman in 3D (though of course you could make a 2D Bomberman game with 3D graphics and call it "Bomberman 3D").

Some games, like Worms, or fighting games, or platformers, can be made in any arbitrary number of dimensions you like. Then you just have to pick whichever you think will play best. And that's generally purely subjective. But it's not subjective which will sell best, so they almost invariably end up 3D.

And you can't say 2D games are better than 3D games either, because nearly all games at the top of the charts are 3D.
Well now you're assuming that sales figures are a good indication of game quality, and that's patently untrue.

I bring you... a glass hammer! http://www.worth1000.com/entries/205000/205498kPSO_w.jpg

Had to be done, Mr Taylor.

all i have to say is that worms shouldn't be 3d, boo.

I bring you... a glass hammer! http://www.worth1000.com/entries/205000/205498kPSO_w.jpg

Had to be done, Mr Taylor.
beat me too it...

Well now you're assuming that sales figures are a good indication of game quality, and that's patently untrue.
First, charts are not always based off of sales figures, and is what I meant when I said it.
Second, what I said had nothing to do with game quality. You must be thinking of something else.

And you couldn't make an FPS in 2D or Bomberman in 3D (though of course you could make a 2D Bomberman game with 3D graphics and call it "Bomberman 3D").Lol! Have you ever played Bomberman Hero or Bomberman 64!?

Graphics have replaced gameplay over the years... sad.

I remember having a blast playing even crappy black and white 2D games growing up because they had good gameplay. However, there are a few games out there that were better 3D than they ever could be 2D. (Super Mario 64)

Really it all comes down to what you like. I play 2D worms, not because I don't like 3D, but because the 2D games are all I have. And I'm quite happy with that. But on the other had I like 3D FPS's as well, really it doesn't matter about dimensions as long as you enjoy the game and can control the interface easily.

I was actually quite impressed with the 3D gameplay of worms mayhem. The game itself is very good. Control is easy once you play it longer than an hour. The rope logic was vastly improved from worms 3D, and it is actually possible to do some cool rope moves. There is a method to get to any point on the terrain within about 15 seconds using a rope and a parachute.

My big beefs with the game are:
-The network play is a disaster. So many games do not work due to bugs or because of ignorant players. There is a lack of players online. The ones that are there generally do not speak English and are very immature.
-There is no good editors! Something, anything; all worms games need good editors. Even the built in scheme editor is missing many of the options that a scheme can have. They made this same mistake with w:a and wwp, which they have not learned from.

If these two main issues were fixed, the 3D series would actually be pretty decent.

If these two main issues were fixed, the 3D series would actually be pretty decent.
playable maybe, decent i don't know.

Lol! Have you ever played Bomberman Hero or Bomberman 64!?
No. Why would I want to do a thing like that to myself?
First, charts are not always based off of sales figures, and is what I meant when I said it.
No, but when people say "charts", they do usually mean sales charts.
Second, what I said had nothing to do with game quality. You must be thinking of something else.
Well, you used the word "better", which means "having more quality", and you used it about games. So yes, you were talking about game quality.
I bring you... a glass hammer! http://www.worth1000.com/entries/205000/205498kPSO_w.jpg

Had to be done, Mr Taylor.
Huh. I'm going to claim Plasma's defence and say that's not the kind of glass I meant.

Huh. I'm going to claim Plasma's defence and say that's not the kind of glass I meant.

glass was a metaphore for pig's feet.

I was actually quite impressed with the 3D gameplay of worms mayhem. The game itself is very good. Control is easy once you play it longer than an hour. The rope logic was vastly improved from worms 3D, and it is actually possible to do some cool rope moves. There is a method to get to any point on the terrain within about 15 seconds using a rope and a parachute.

My big beefs with the game are:
-The network play is a disaster. So many games do not work due to bugs or because of ignorant players. There is a lack of players online. The ones that are there generally do not speak English and are very immature.
-There is no good editors! Something, anything; all worms games need good editors. Even the built in scheme editor is missing many of the options that a scheme can have. They made this same mistake with w:a and wwp, which they have not learned from.

If these two main issues were fixed, the 3D series would actually be pretty decent.This was a very informative post for me. Thanks a lot, Etho. :)

Let's reacha concensus here. If the game was originally designed for 2D then 2D will be better, hell armageddon is much better than the rest. Halo wouldn't be any good in 2D

Sonic is better in 2D, 3D butchered it.

It is all about the gametype, in worms, 2D is the way and the best.

Let's reacha concensus here. If the game was originally designed for 2D then 2D will be better,
Not always. Sometimes the game was desigend and made in 2D because 2D was all that was available. Later, 3D became available and could do the job better. No examples spring to mind, but I'm sure there are some. Some driving game, probably.

good point i like some 2d driving games but i generaly would play a 3d one.

Not always. Sometimes the game was desigend and made in 2D because 2D was all that was available. Later, 3D became available and could do the job better. No examples spring to mind, but I'm sure there are some. Some driving game, probably.

Granted, Although micro machines seems to work on both...I still liked the 2d better i suppose especially '96 for the megadrive, where you could create own courses.

The 3d one still rocks;)

As for other racing games, yes of course, they were always intended for 3D but technology wouldn't allow at the time. But some seem only to work in 2d, sonic the hedgehog, worms are 2....then again Mario 64 was pretty cool as was zelda...so I guess it really all depends on the game....worms...I stick by my statement, that works far better on 2d

you could create own courses
You can do that in V4 too.

You can do that in V4 too.

excellent

:)

-The network play is a disaster. So many games do not work due to bugs or because of ignorant players. There is a lack of players online. The ones that are there generally do not speak English and are very immature.
The people do not count as part of the game. And I didn't notice any bugs while playing online.

-There is no good editors! Something, anything; all worms games need good editors. Even the built in scheme editor is missing many of the options that a scheme can have. They made this same mistake with w:a and wwp, which they have not learned from.
1: There's a large folder called "Tweak" in the W4M directory. Anything there can be easily edited.
2: No, the sheme editor not having all weapons was not a mistake.

Well perhaps you didn't notice that at least 50% of the games hosted do not work. There is a bug that prevents a 4th person from joining a game unless people join in a certain way. Games frequently crash during play for various reasons. One reason is if you are making too much movement during your turn. A second reason is because the games have a very short lag buffer. If a player lags behind about 20 seconds, he is automatically dropped. Another annoyance is your game can get choppy if you move to much during your turn. The 2D series prevents this from happening by keeping a small buffer for sending the information.

I did not say the players are part of the game. I said the network play was a disaster because of them. Most do not speak english. Most are very poorly skilled and only like to play games with lots of big weapons available. A lot of them will quit if you are winning. If you do find a good player, they usually quit playing the game within a few days.

1. A hex editor is a good editor, but it is not user friendly. There is no way to easily create your own custom maps. Even editting schemes is a hassle. Flags and graves cannot be added.

2. I'm not saying they made a mistake of forgetting to add these options in the built in scheme editor. I know very well that they intended not to. People like to customize things, and they should be allowed to. It was a mistake not to include them.

a gree, most popular games end in having alot of customization, look at halo for example, halo has a ton of maps. what about half-life, counter strike, trackmania series and wa. One thing everygame should have is available customization, the only thing thats missing in wa which i think isn't good, is the ability to hear other people soundbanks and fan-fares.

That ability isn't missing. Both players are able to hear the customized sound bank or fanfare if they both have it. Otherwise the game plays a default soundbank if it can't find the custom one. These are not automatically sent to players who do not have them because that would make loading times way too long.

so why not used compressed soundbanks? (certain types of files have very small compression for such small sounds.) as per my understanding.

Unfortunately, audio files to not compress very well. Worms uses .wav files which take up a lot of space. Audio files like .mp3 files require a lot less space because they leave out sounds that are not distinguishable by the human ear. Even if worms used .mp3 files for speech banks, they would still require at least 1MB of space. Custom sound banks usually have longer sounds which would make them even larger.

If 5 people with custom sound banks join a host, he will need to receive about 5 - 10 MBs of data and then send another 5 - 10 MBs of data to the players. That's a lot of data, and a lot of waiting. Custom Fanfares would make it take even longer.

i'm sure theres a way or method of compression acceptable.

If 5 people with custom sound banks join a host, he will need to receive about 5 - 10 MBs of data and then send another 5 - 10 MBs of data to the players. That's a lot of data, and a lot of waiting. Custom Fanfares would make it take even longer.
Well, this would of course need to be an option which is disabled by default with a warning if turned on.
Then people with high bandwidth connections can turn it on.

i remmeber someone telling my one i just have to think of the file extension he used, (maybe .ogs, .oga, og_).

Ghost']i remmeber someone telling my one i just have to think of the file extension he used, (maybe .ogs, .oga, og_).
You're thinking of the Ogg Vorbis compression method.
This one has actually been suggested & discussed with Deadcode.
Check the wishlist thread.

does that mean it's possible?

ogg is good but its not THAT much better thsn mp3. Ok so it alot better than WAV but its still not good for 56kers.

ogg is good but its not THAT much better thsn mp3.

It is.

Why artists should be using Ogg Vorbis (http://mondodesigno.com/music/ogg.html)

OGG is indeed better than MP3, as you have to pay license fees to Thompson and/or Fraunhofer for the use of the decoder.

Just for the fun of nitpicking:
Its real name is Ogg/Vorbis.
Whoever said ogg was not that much better was probably talking about compression.
I expect you probably meant to say "ogg is better, because you don't have to pay the royalties.
:p
Anyway I wouldn't expect custom soundbanks to work online for quite a long time yet (actually I just realised that may work if it could run on some sort of P2P system).

Whoever said ogg was not that much better was probably talking about compression.
I expect you probably meant to say "ogg is better, because you don't have to pay the royalties.
Well, it also sounds better for the same filesize (which in turn means it's a smaller file at the same quality, more-or-less). So it's hard to say if it's "not that much better [at] compression", because that's not how it's usually used.

Besides, it matters not how much better it is: it's better so it should be used instead.

OGG outperforms all other formats in tests to determine accuracy to the orginal at a given bitrate.

However, at 224-320 MP3, my ear cannot tell the difference 1 bit, and OGG does have 1 disadvantage....hardly any devices use it, like Ipods etc.

MP3 is still great if you know what you are doing

does have 1 disadvantage....hardly any devices use it, like Ipods etc.

and you want to put ur soundbanks on ur ipod?

However, at 224-320 MP3, my ear cannot tell the difference 1 bit,
What speakers do you have? If you're using laptop speakers, or the tinny metal ones that tend to come wioth new PCs, then they're probably the bottleneck.

I expect you probably meant to say "ogg is better, because you don't have to pay the royalties.
Of course. :p
What speakers do you have? If you're using laptop speakers, or the tinny metal ones that tend to come wioth new PCs, then they're probably the bottleneck.
To get the best sound, you would need to have every audio recorded binaurally with a dummy head modeled after your own, anyway.

What speakers do you have? If you're using laptop speakers, or the tinny metal ones that tend to come wioth new PCs, then they're probably the bottleneck.

I use full stereo speakers through an amplifier from Audigy 2, the sound difference between mp3 and the original is not noticible.:)

I use full stereo speakers through an amplifier from Audigy 2, the sound difference between mp3 and the original is not noticible.:)
What you actually mean there is that you don't notice it. Perhaps your soundcard is the bottleneck there, or perhaps your CDs are poorly recorded. Or maybe you're using high-bitrate MP3s -- you can make an mp3 file that's higher quality than a CD if you don't care about filesize. Perhaps you just don't have good enough/well enough trained hearing to notice it. But there is a difference, and it is noticable. MP3 is good enough for a lot of applications, but it's still a very long way from perfect.

If we could compress music 10:1 without losing any quality I don't think anyone would quibble much over algorithm royalties. That would be fantastic at almost any price.

Soundcard is no bottleneck, its one of the best. The difference of course exists but it is negligable. At high bitrate the difference is so small it is no worry. Unless you have a super amplifier and super speakers you really aren't gonna hear the difference...

Same with metal Vinyls, from what I hear they are superior to the CD since they are the original analogue, but again, you need the system and euipment. I doubt 95% of people can tell the difference between the Mp3's I recorded from original CD.

Maybe if you have the ear and equipment, but even then, the difference doesn't warrent bothering about it. Plus also, it depends on the decoder and encoder and the encoding options, most people have no clue what they are doing and ruin the MP3.

In anycase we have to weigh up the negligible difference against the huge decrease in space...and MP3 wins that battle every time;) well in my opinion anyway:p