During a conversation between some college mates we somehow ended up having a discussion about the two main types of fighting games, 2D and 3D

We were never able to come to an agreement since we all had different opinons on the matter and we're all stubborn bastards :P

My Opinon:
3-D fighters tend to be slower, but use the extra 3rd dimension often in their engines, examples being Soul Calibur and Tekken. The number of dimensions in 3-D fighters allow more room for different stratergies like Side-Stepping attacks and countering the opponent. Moves not often availible in a number of 2-D type fighters (Except maybe GuiltyGear:Isuka and Onimusha: Blade Warriors)

I find that most 3-D fighters (Soul Calibur, Tekken, Bloody Roar, etc.) are better if you enjoy a more realalistic fight where you would have to stratergise your every move

2-D games on the tend to be faster then most 3-D fighters, but in all but a few cases lack side-stepping of any kind. 2-D fighters (GuiltyGear especilly) makes up for the lack of depth with more over the top moves then 3-D games normaly have. GG alone has Instant Kills, Dead Angle attacks, Roman Cancels, Overdrives, Dusts, False Roman Cancels and Burst Attacks. which is much more then something like SC, which only has Unblockables, Guard Break, Guard Impact, Stun and Attack Throws

I personaly think that 2-D fighters (GuiltyGear, MeltyBlood, any good King Of Fighters game*, etc.) are better if you prefer faster combat with plenty of varied and impressive moves at your disposal

I tend to play 2-D more then 3-D, mainly because I like fast / over-the-top battles like Melty Blood more then I do the more realalistic fights in Tekken

* i.e. NOT King Of Fighters: Maximum Impact or KOF:MI2

So what do you lot think? Fast-paced sprite-based scrapping, the more real-ish combat? Both?

(If this doesn't belong in the War Room and is more suited for the Games forum or something, whoever's in powah can move this thing if they wanna)

I prefer both, 3D fighters do tend to have a little more strategy because of the side-stepping and what not. And 2D fighters are a lot more faster. Personally I will say 2D games seem to have easier moves to pull. Like how Soul Calibur characters have different grab attacks, depending on where you grab them.

Some games do have more more speed then others, like Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and how by the press of a button, your partner comes out to attack for a minute.

So yeah.

I prefer 2D fighters myself. I guess I like the faster game play, and the less seriousness. But most 2d fighters tend to have many clone characters and that gets annoying, except for Guilty Gear where every character is awesome. 2D crossovers that mix sprite styles are not good either.

Too me there are two types of 3D fighters, Tekken and Virtua Fighter are much more realistic, while Dead or alive and soul calibur allow you to do stuff that would equal insta-death in a real fight.

and then there are games like Smash bros...

If it's fighting, it's all good.

3D is more realistic then 2D fighters, but then again 2D figters are faster and over the top as you say. Converting one to the other usually ends up bad. Ex. Street Fighter EX and Virtua Fighter for the Genesis.

There's no real reason why on should trump the other as both have aspects that the other does not. As many stated, 2-D fighters are faster and the combo's much easier to pull off, not to mention the supers and specials are flasher. 3-D fighters have better graphics, the ability to walk in and out of backgrounds, and show off more specia effects.

To choose one camp over the other is a rather unfair choice as many of us have grown up with both....to me, you have to find a even ground, somewhat respecting the good old classic 2-D's, while still having an open embrace for the coming 3-D's...

3d fighting games can be fast, an example is Rival Schools.

But yeah, I see what you mean. Both 3d and 2d games have it's flaws and it's not so flaws. I don't have one I prefer, though I do play more Tekken and Soul Calibur than Street Fighter.

Personally I prefer 2D games. They have a style, an appeal, their look just says class and it draws me in. An interesting fact is only Guilty Gear uses High Resolution sprites, games like Street Fighter Third Strike and KoF uses Low Res while still retaining that clean professional look and fluid animation.

While 3D games like Tekken push me away with their stiff motions and often bland characters. I still enjoy them but I like Street Fighter and KoF more for that appeal they bring with their mostly unique characters (Ken, Akuma and Ryu excluded.) and looser animations.

With a 3D Model you barely get the oppourtunity to see their personality flourish, mostly only in their win or intro animations. Then you take a game like Guilty Gear, every character has detail fine chizled into them, Slayer is lethargic and apathetic towards his foe and shows it the whole time, his crouch animation is sitting on his cape and drumming his fingers around while smoking his pipe and his lose Animation isn't "KNOCKED OUT" He lays on his side and drums his fingers on the floor while perching his head in his palm like he's bored. Slayer doesn't LOSE, he gets bored and stops or Faust, his eccentric nature and over the top physique show the whole time and in all of his moves. What do you get in 3D? mostly recycled animations motion wise, I have yet to see a 3D game with that same appeal of personality.

2D. Better and more eye candy - the older the better - however 3D does have it's advantages.

Main reason: MUGEN. >D

If its fun to play I won't complain, Marvel vs Capcom 2 is a great game as a 2-D and Super Smash Bros. Melee is a great 3-D/side scrolling fighter, and Soul Caliber 3 is just awesome.

This may be off topic, but one thing I'd like to see in the next gaming generation is a 3D fighter that's actually 3D, as in you aren't always facing your opponent at all times, no matter how many times you knock him to the side.

The 3D Fighters we have now are behaving as 2.5d almost. (3D Graphics, 2D gameplay. New Super Mario Bros is a good example)

Like DBZ Budokai Tenhachi(sp?) series?

I recall those fighting scenes requiring a lock-on to actually face the opponent.

The Bouncer was a fighting game in "true" 3D. That said, it had more in common with fighters like Streets of Rage than with ones like Street Fighter.

I really don't mind either way, since I don't even own any hardcore fighting games, just play them whenever friends have them.

But I would just like to note that the only fighting game to really use the second dimension is Super Smash Bros. With that kind of movement, a third dimension isn't even needed.

2-D...so many possibilities, like MUGEN for example. 3-D is cool, but I love my little HYPER STREET FIGHTER 2 ANNIVERSARY EDITION just the way it is, Ex3 can just suck it. Sometimes, 3-D games can be frustrating to play, like Soul Calibur 3. I try to get through normal, but can't tunafish without losing at least 10 rounds and trying to crush my PS2 controller with my bare hands...I think I broke a screw on the handle......None the less, 3-D fighting games are cool too, but if I have a choice, i'd go for 2-D ANYDAY. Most cases, 2-D is better than 3-D, especially when we are talking about old and famous francises, like Sonic the Hedgehog, awesome and fast games, but the 3-D didn't make him so fast, let alone the confusion in the story, and cut-scenes galore. So, there you have it, my opinion.

2D vs. 3D?
Rather bland for a debate don't you think?
When it all comes down to things, I'd say it just well depends on the games, a 2D game can be just as fun as a 3D depending on game play and all of that various shit. But you know other than that it's just you know... preference.

I like 3D games but I'll kick you in the face if you try and say Galaga sucks.

'Sup Church. Please don't gravedig. Hell, this topic was gravedigged/gravedug once before already.