Well, yesterday in the evening I was lying in bed - half sleeping, half awake - and this genius idea appeared in my head!

What about if Team17 developed the next Worms title with an option/control to alternate between 2D and 3D? This way, the fans could set up the game and play it the way they'd prefer: in 2D or 3D.

This is already used in other games, like Football Manager, for example, as there are always many people who don't react well to the evolution to 3D.

I know it's probably a not very easy thing to do, but this way you would please both Greeks and Trojans, if you get my point.

I personally prefer the 3D games and this way you could keep developing them without fearing the 2D lovers' reaction.

Think about that!

And to all the Worms fans: if you agree with this idea, please say something. The more people supporting for this idea, the bigger the chances of it happening!

How exactly do you expect that sort of thing to work?

I mean... Just... urgh.

There is no way to convert a 2d map into 3d and vice versa.

Why make (pretty much) two games just to "fans can switch between their options". More people prefer 2D Worms and T17 won't be changing their mind anytime soon.

Like I said, it wouldn't be the easiest thing to do.

But it's perfectly possible to convert 2D maps into 3D - and the opposite. They could have a few different details between each other in order to get a better result but it would still be possible.

And I've never understood why in the world you people don't like 3D. It's undoubtedly better than 2D!

You just have to make an effort in order to adapt to it! I'm sure that nowadays, in 2010, a 3D Worms game would be much better than Worms 4 Mayhem, which was released five years ago, in 2005.

Just give up from 2D!

And I've never understood why in the world you people don't like 3D. It's undoubtedly better than 2D!

Just give up from 2D!

There's no "3D's better than 2D" or the other way round. It depends on the game and on the player who likes either 2D or 3D better.

As for Worms, 2D is the better option because it's more strategic. That's all. I'm not against another go for 3D but it's absolutely unlikely because it wouldn't make any sense!

3D Worms - Higher costs, less players
2D Worms - Lower costs, more players
2D/3D Worms - Even higher costs, probably the same amount of players as for 2D Worms

But it's perfectly possible to convert 2D maps into 3D
Yyyyup, yeah, it certainly is. Just draw a picture, run it through the Dimensionifier, and voilà! A picture-perfect 3D model!


Anyway, the problem here is that you're thinking of games that are, graphically, 3D but gameplay-wise only 2D, such as football games - a football pitch doesn't have multiple vertical layers, after all. Whereas 3D Worms games are actually 3D, gameplay-wise, so you can't just convert them to 2D like that.

Who said the landscapes had to be the same?

Yyyyup, yeah, it certainly is. Just draw a picture, run it through the Dimensionifier, and voilà! A picture-perfect 3D model!


Anyway, the problem here is that you're thinking of games that are, graphically, 3D but gameplay-wise only 2D, such as football games - a football pitch doesn't have multiple vertical layers, after all. Whereas 3D Worms games are actually 3D, gameplay-wise, so you can't just convert them to 2D like that.

I think his idea was rather a 2 in 1 game, as if you put Worms Armageddon together with Worms 3D and the player's able to set the game up and THEN chose a landscape which's either 3D or 2D (thus the levels didn't have to be the same either)

A genius idea... delivered with a pronounced lack of it.

I mean little offense, but the topic post was very nearly unintelligable and the gist of what I took from it seemed pretty silly to me.

Then turbo comes along and presents the same idea, an option to choose between generating a 3d or 2d map, and it sounds pretty reasonable.

Personally I would only ever choose 2d, but there is not a single example anywhere of an additional option hurting a game, although the opposite occurs with disturbing frequency.

Not possible.

The past 3D Worms games allowed for 4 degrees of freedom (forwards/backwards, up/down, left/right, rotating), the 2D Worms games only allow for 2 degrees of freedom (left/right, up/down).
If you want to seamlessly switch from one to the other, the 3 degrees of the 2D view will always be the limiting factor.

In a football game you mentioned, both views would still have the same 2 degrees of freedom (forwards/backwards, left/right), because a football player can't fly and the game is always played on the grass, regardless if the player avatar is a 3D polygon model or only a dot.

Not possible.

The past 3D Worms games allowed for 4 degrees of freedom (forwards/backwards, up/down, left/right, rotating), the 2D Worms games only allow for 2 degrees of freedom (left/right, up/down).
If you want to seamlessly switch from one to the other, the 3 degrees of the 2D view will always be the limiting factor.

In a football game you mentioned, both views would still have the same 2 degrees of freedom (forwards/backwards, left/right), because a football player can't fly and the game is always played on the grass, regardless if the player avatar is a 3D polygon model or only a dot.

Again, I really don't think that's the idea. Of course that doesn't work.

I rather think he wanted a game that combines 2D and 3D by having an option in the scheme menu or something similar: Is this a scheme for 3D or 2D matches? Or maybe the map generator allows you to switch from 2D to 3D.

But switching 2D/3D perspectives in-game? Nonsense. :D

Again, I really don't think that's the idea. Of course that doesn't work.

I rather think he wanted a game that combines 2D and 3D by having an option in the scheme menu or something similar: Is this a scheme for 3D or 2D matches? Or maybe the map generator allows you to switch from 2D to 3D.
But that would basically mean two completely different games packed into one, which would also mean that the community would be split.
(And my guess is, the majority on the 2D side.)

But that would basically mean two completely different games packed into one, which would also mean that the community would be split.
(And my guess is, the majority on the 2D side.)

So let's make a game that combines two graphically different games? It would split the community but hey, even the different schemes in 2D split communities. There's no real solution to that.

But let me make a suggestion, that somewhat differs from the original idea: Let's make a program that let's you host a game, and in the game options you could actually choose between different games, say, worms armageddon and worms 4. Fast and painless switching between games. All of this game hosting would obviously be on the same network.

Another solution to this idea is to simply split the network into different game lobbies (each game having it's own).

And yes of course you would need to have the game installed you wanna play. I don't know about the cd-checking stuff but I bet everything's got a solution.

This really has no monetary point (or then it does... but that's got nothing to do with me), because it's more like some freeware stuff you can download from the team17 homepage, but it beats this topic's original idea (except for the let's-make-money-part) :D