Depends on whether you mean moving on in the context of graphics or gameplay. 2D means the gameplay is going to be like a lot of other games. 
Has a really good full 3D fighting game actually been made yet? I'm not really a follower of the genre. By full 3D I mean an entirely 3D fighting arena with a full range of movement, not just the use of polygons.
Quote from ThrikDepends on whether you mean moving on in the context of graphics or gameplay. 2D means the gameplay is going to be like a lot of other games.
The soul calibur series made use of the third dimension pretty well. Nothing revolutionary, but I don't think those games would be quite the same in 2D.
Quote from m8nkeyI don't think it needs to be 3D to move on (which unfortunately, is what happens in remakes or new additions to old games).What about using beautifully animated, high resolution sprites along with partical effects and other post production effects typical of a 3d game? Another awesome effect would be slow motion on the final killing blow (like peggle)
I can see what your getting at, and if, for ONCE, they actually did that, it would be cool. Truth is though, most 2D beat-em-ups are essentially using the same animation sets they always have. Maybe with some slightly nicer redraws, but they use the same number of frames and the same unimpressive resolution. They could make really impressive 2D fighters these days, but they just choose to do pointless re-releases with slightly tweaked game mechanics or character rosters instead. 3D fighters on the other hand actually make use of the technology. I'm not gonna make out they're perfect, but I'd far rather spend my time with Soul Calibur 2 than MvC and the like, simply because the former actually feels like it doesn't come from my childhood.
I can see why there are comments about 3D fighters not using the third dimension effectively, as many do play like 2D fighters. That said, Soul Calibur does use it fairly effectively. Maybe not perfectly, or in a great deal of depth, but in the hands of a skiller player it becomes an essential part of the strategy. Many moves for example require movement in and out of the arena to trigger, and using those movements to avoid certain moves is more effective than blocking.
Oh yeah, I did play Soul Calibre 2 but I recall it being more like side-stepping.
I guess what I was thinking of is something that'd pretty much necessitate a split-screen view, with you having absolute control over your guy in the arena, maybe similar-looking to Assassin's Creed. That or some very clever camera work that only splits off when absolutely necessary (ie: very far apart).
I realise this stretches the definition of what a beat 'em up actually is, but it seems like it'd be a really interesting under-explored direction.
Yeah, there are certainly games that have done it, but with very limited success. If you played the likes of Tobal or Ehrgeiz you had free movement, but they puts limitations on the move sets because it made it harder to interpret what moves your directional input would result in. I'm sure there is potential to make a good beat-em-up with full 3D movement by default, but I can't think of any off the top of my head, and there is a lot of sense in using the currently standard "relative" movement model that most employ given the generally 1vs1 gameplay.
Quote from ThrikI guess what I was thinking of is something that'd pretty much necessitate a split-screen view, with you having absolute control over your guy in the arena, maybe similar-looking to Assassin's Creed. That or some very clever camera work that only splits off when absolutely necessary (ie: very far apart).
I'm getting flashes of Power Stone with that description. 
Not really fighters in the classic sense but they did some interesting things. Smash Bros. steps close to diving over that line between fighter & beat-em up as well, but they still have something of a move set for their characters. And they're basically 2D.
I’d be really sceptical if this was 3D, because it’s the kind of title they really can’t afford to mess up. Though if anyone is going to do it right – it’s Capcom.
As for the debate: When you press punch on Street Fighter your character goes from standing to an outstretched hand instantly, and this is true even in SSFIITHDR (heh). If there was a delay for a punch animation, you’re completely changing the gameplay mechanics*, making it slower, adding a vulnerabilty phase, more warning for blocks, dodges, parries and counters.
In a 3D world there's no way you'd be able to do the former without reviewers foaming at the mouths. 2D fighters and 3D fighters are completely different. And I don’t think 2D fighters should simply cease existence because people deem sprites aren’t as attractive, or marketable, as 3D models. It's a very hard transition and you're alientating your older audience hoping you get a more profitable new one.
* Okay, some have wind-up animations. But still too unrealistic for a 3D game. Kasumi's grab in DoA is like 3 seconds long!
It'll be shit, just look at the 3D Mortal Kombat games...
Quote from D3adsIt'll be shit, just look at the 3D Mortal Kombat games...
But was Mortal Kombat ever really that good in the first place? II was ok, the rest were pretty bad.
The later 3d mk games weren't that bad at all - and they used the 3d environment well, there was one level set in a kind of lab that allowed you to smash the shit out of all the equipment using your fists or your opponent - all they need to do is make interaction more prominent to make it feel more alive. MK was not a shit game btw, the franchise lost a little momentum after number 2 and the 3d versions weren't seminal master pieces or anything but they are hardly 'instant bargain-bin' games.
I also don't believe that saying if SF is 3d then it will be like MK, and therefore shit - that is an incredibly narrow viewpoint and frankly unfair to both series.
Also, take a look at Dead or Alive, they did 3d very well and there was a fair amount if interaction with the levels (more or less the same as MK).
In fact there's plenty of fighters that use 3d, not sure what a lot of you are looking for in a 3d fighter - the ability to run through large levels while fighting people? Or just the ability to jump around on the environment and destroy things whilst fighting? The latter has been around for a long time - maybe you guys should stop playing WoW or SC long enough to see it 
Quote from ErraticBut was Mortal Kombat ever really that good in the first place? II was ok, the rest were pretty bad.
Pffft, Mortal Kombat I & II are the best beat-em-ups ever.
The appeal in Mortal Kombat is upper-cutting your opponent into a spiked roof, the actual combat system is pretty lacklustre.
And it's also not hard to carry over "gore" into the 3rd dimension.
Freaking cool I'd say! (Why didn't they use parallax mapping on the floor texture :x)
[Blocked Image: http://i4.tinypic.com/71p6mht.jpg]
Oh god, why? I can't unsee it!
I totally agree with some earlier sentiments about 3D not ruining a beat-em-up. Tekken's always been solid, some of the 3D Street Fighters were cool (the first EX game was awesome, sequels less so due to lack of progress), Dead or Alive is a little TOO accessible and shallow for tech fans but still fun if you want some pick-up-and-play excitement, and the Soul Calibur series is fabulous on all accounts. I'm a lot more excited about the prospect of SFIV now than I would be if it were 2D.
oh man that looks tits
plzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplz no cameras movements while playiiing
I don't think 3D 'ruins' a fighter, but it certainly is a completely different kettle of fish, and Street Fighter is the 2D fighter. I hope they try to include the previous mechanics instead of just conforming to the 3D model – twitch, specials, supers, no hardcoded combos, etc.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
