Subject: [GD] 2D vs. 3D

Hi, we would like to know what are your preferences about match view.
We've heard a large group of fans of 2D player - but could you be more precise, and give us more details about it? what exactly is most important in 2D, that so many of you choose that one instead of 3D?
And from the other hand, please share your opinions about 3D too, what's main problem of it, and what are advantages?

You could have added a poll here, this one is simple.

I will not be objective in this discussion much, because i haven't seen a match for almost 2 years, with flash being disabled.
But in the days i was watching matches i preferred 2D, it showed me all the things i needed to see. Where my tactic is good, where it fails. 3D was not enough to watch, so unless its as realistic as FIFA engine, there is no need for it (for me). Or at least it should show us with animations where the player skills are good, with the goal of us being able to improve our tactics or squad. For example how an attacker with superdivine technique overcomes an defender with incredible defending with a rainbow flick :D.

2D just looks cleaner, animations are more fluid.

+1 (2D)

3D is ugly and weird.

2D is simple, the players got some skill moves and the movements don't look so robotic.

Every tactics decision I make I can see in 2D match.

Can you do this in 3D and make it to look like best football games? If not, dont do the same mistake again. Put the effort on improving what works and what people prefer.

No doubt about it, 2D is better even though it may not look modern. In terms of tactics and analyzing your opponents, 2D offers you everything. 3D is just for fun, it has never given me any interest.

+1

I really believe that an improved 3d is necessary for sokker, I agree that 2d is necessary, both for PCs that do not work with a good 3d, and to maintain the essence of sokker, but I think that a 3d that is well achieved will give more Visibility to the game for new users, will make the game more realistic since also in the 3d options could be given such as customizing the colors of your own stadium, having the possibility of seeing your team play in your stadium, in a unique place in the game. This is simply one more option, be it good or bad, but nobody can deny that a 3d well done would add more customization to the game, which is much sought today in any game.
Tell me it wouldn't be nice to see your team play in their own stadium.
The current 3d does not have anything 3d and we all know that with a small investment you can get to make one more option so that watching the matches is even more exciting.
For me it is necessary that the 3d is developed well for a good future of the game for all the new options that it could give you.

---

2D gives full transparency about what you doing in the tactic so definitely 2D as it is

I prefer 2D. 2D allows you to see objectively everything that is tactically important in the game.

I believe that 3D could increase the level of engagement in matches if it were always improved. Currently, 3D is full of aspects that do not make games more interesting. For example: today, what is the legal part of seeing the crowd at the stadium? Now, imagine if we could see our fans and the opposing fans reserved in some sector of the stadium. The home crowd celebrating whenever the team was winning, booing possession of the opponent's ball. Feel like the crowd is really going along with the team. None of this occurs. Today the crowd is just a dead element in the broadcast that takes people out of focus.

My opinion: keep the options of 2D and 3D (promoting constant improvements in 3D).

I agree +1

---

On the contrary 3D is really confuse to follow moves and tactic. And battery is consuming.

Of course, the 2D / false 3D of sensible soccer is still unbeatable for years.

(edited)

A survey should have been started on this.

Well, I'm for 2D, because I can analyze my tactics better and also the opponent's tactics. It's practically impossible with 3D.