View Full Version : Why Do 2D Games Age Better Than 3D Games?
Young Avenger
03-02-2006, 07:40 PM
While I was cleaning out my closet today I found my old Sega Genesis in a create in the left corner of my closet. I decide to took it up and play some old school games. My copy of Shinobi III still worked and I got to playing. To my surpraise it was still fun as it as when I was a kid. I didn't mind the graphics at all and sound was still pretty good. After Shinobi I start to play my other Genesis games like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sonic 2, Golden Axe and Michael Jackson's Moonwalker (yep, I got that game) and I enjoyed them all and for a few of them still found graphically impressive.
Then when I fired up my Playstation for more old school goodness it just wasn't good. I popped in my copy of Spider-Man and I didn't find it enjoyable at all. Graphics were ugly, gameplay was meh and I got bored before I got the police chase. I threw in Bushino Blade and it had the same effect. I much couldn't stand playing any of my old 3D games. I found the 2D games much more enjoyable.
Is this the kind of effect 2D games have? They can stand the testament of time while 3D games can't?
xnef1025
03-02-2006, 08:25 PM
It's like the difference between riding a bike and driving a car. You can hop on a bike after not riding for years and be peddaling away with no hands again after a few minutes. Take a few years off from driving though, and you have to retrain your brain.
For me, at least, it seems like developers have changed their priorities. Games used to be about making a game that was fun to play and then worrying about the graphics. Today it seems like people are more concerned with how pretty a game is.
It's them 2D graphics. They're classic, and when done well, you never get tired of looking at them.
Effect
03-02-2006, 09:00 PM
For me, at least, it seems like developers have changed their priorities. Games used to be about making a game that was fun to play and then worrying about the graphics. Today it seems like people are more concerned with how pretty a game is.
I think that's the case and has been for a long time. So many games in recent years have been about looking the best but being fun isn't that big of a concern.
Then again I've always founds sprite graphics to be more enjoyable then 3D. Which is why I think games on the Genesis and SNES still hold up the way they do. Sure you have 3d and able to move in 360 degrees but I always thought PS1 and N64 graphics looked bad even with the freedom. Now Dreamcast and other systems is another story but after the Dreamcast (which I think found a decent middle ground in terms of graphics and fun/gameplay), the PS2 and Xbox seemed to take the more realistic graphics equals great game approach. Sure there are the standouts that are great like GTA, Final Fantasy, Halo, Knights of the Old Republic for example but I think there are more bad then good over the years (which is why I'm not even bothering with a PS3 or 360. Nintendo gets my business from now on only. I've never been disappointed with them other then finding out FF moved to Sony's PS1 but outside of that nothing but fun in console and handheld). Just my opinion on the situation. Someone could think the exact opposite.
Xero Kaiser
03-02-2006, 09:39 PM
While I was cleaning out my closet today I found my old Sega Genesis in a create in the left corner of my closet. I decide to took it up and play some old school games. My copy of Shinobi III still worked and I got to playing. To my surpraise it was still fun as it as when I was a kid. I didn't mind the graphics at all and sound was still pretty good. After Shinobi I start to play my other Genesis games like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sonic 2, Golden Axe and Michael Jackson's Moonwalker (yep, I got that game) and I enjoyed them all and for a few of them still found graphically impressive.
Then when I fired up my Playstation for more old school goodness it just wasn't good. I popped in my copy of Spider-Man and I didn't find it enjoyable at all. Graphics were ugly, gameplay was meh and I got bored before I got the police chase. I threw in Bushino Blade and it had the same effect. I much couldn't stand playing any of my old 3D games. I found the 2D games much more enjoyable.
Is this the kind of effect 2D games have? They can stand the testament of time while 3D games can't?
Do Atari and NES games age as well as SNES games? No. Early technology doesn't age well. That and the fact that 2D games haven't really made the same advancements that 3D has so the difference between an older 2d game and a newer one isn't as noticeable
For me, at least, it seems like developers have changed their priorities. Games used to be about making a game that was fun to play and then worrying about the graphics. Today it seems like people are more concerned with how pretty a game is.
You're insane or have a selective memory if you think it hasn't always been this way. You think old-school games/consoles weren't pimping how many bits they had? Or how many colors were being displayed? Or how well they animated? Mode 7 anyone? Blast processing? 3D renders? Digitized actors? You think there weren't crappy movie-based games or licensed games trying to make a quick buck? You think people weren't copying successful games back then? How many mario, street fighter, doom, or mortal kombat knockoffs were there, again? Please, priorities haven't changed one damn bit. It's the same deal it's always been. Maybe it doesn't seem as obvious now since you aren't impressed by those graphics anymore or buzz words anymore. But they were there, and it was just as bad then
It's like people just remember the Chrono Triggers or Super Mario Worlds and ignore the thousand pieces of crap in between that weren't worth a damn
Sanagi
03-02-2006, 10:42 PM
Even good 3D games tend to have awkward controls, due to the ubiquitous issues with camera control and the confusion of how directions on the joystick correspond to the character in the game. The few that are truly joyful just to play, like Super Mario 64, have aged just fine. A lot of other games stopped being impressive once the standard of 3D graphics raised beyond their level. Bushido Blade is a good example - what once seemed a novel and realistic experience now just seems like a clunky fighting game.
Beyond that, as has been pointed out, the ones you remember from the old days are the really good ones.
I know that for me, oddly enough, 2d graphics age better in a lot of cases.
When you look at a Chrono Trigger, or more recently, Symphony of the night, that hand drawn art style is still impressive looking.
If you go back to early 3d games, say....Battle Arena Toshiden,or Virtua Fighter, it's ass ugly. Maybe because we are use to the way cartoons or comics look, so the 2d stuff we can handle, it seems right too us, and the early 3d stuff, i guess we have no point of referance for something that was "A Good start"
But if the game is good, it's good. Super Mario 64 is still a fun game, i can't say it as much for some others....Resident Evil Springs too mind (But then, is that really 3d?) but when Resident Evil came out, most of us loved it, the backgrounds were gorgeous, but now, they look static.
Xero had it right, i think, when he pointed out 2d games didn't grow by leaps and bounds, we can't compare them to the new 2d games, because they don't really exsist.
Astonishing X-Fan
03-02-2006, 11:06 PM
"the PS2 and Xbox seemed to take the more realistic graphics equals great game approach. Sure there are the standouts that are great like GTA, Final Fantasy, Halo, Knights of the Old Republic for example but I think there are more bad then good over the years (which is why I'm not even bothering with a PS3 or 360. Nintendo gets my business from now on only."
I love how you say that with PS2 and X-Box, there's more bad than good, then praise Nintendo. The Gamecube had/has a AAA game maybe once every six months. While the PS2/X-Box had/have them coming out all the time.
Mike Pothier
03-02-2006, 11:45 PM
Do Atari and NES games age as well as SNES games? No. Early technology doesn't age well. That and the fact that 2D games haven't really made the same advancements that 3D has so the difference between an older 2d game and a newer one isn't as noticeable
I really think this cuts to the heart of the matter. When you compare the later 2D games to early 3D games, of course the 2D games will still look better. 3D games in the early PSX/N64 days were still in their infancy, so they're just gonna look ugly. We're only just now reaching the time when 3D games will still look good even several generations from now.
Mike Pothier
03-02-2006, 11:48 PM
I love how you say that with PS2 and X-Box, there's more bad than good, then praise Nintendo. The Gamecube had/has a AAA game maybe once every six months. While the PS2/X-Box had/have them coming out all the time.
That could have something to do with the fact that notable GC games only came out once or twice a year.
cactusmaac
03-03-2006, 04:19 AM
Is this the kind of effect 2D games have? They can stand the testament of time while 3D games can't?
You were playing some good 2D games and some crappy 3D ones.
Tish-the-Scorpion
03-03-2006, 05:00 AM
GAWD i love 2D games,its the reason why i went out and haunted down a snes system...
Tish-the-Scorpion
03-03-2006, 05:02 AM
Michael Jackson's Moonwalker (yep, I got that game)
HELL YEAH!!!!... :D
Bloopinator
03-03-2006, 12:08 PM
You know I just realized something, 3D games aren't gonna be like 2D games till we go through another decade or two. I know for a fact that excluding pong the early 2D games were pretty sh**** and no one is gonna go complementing them. But as time went on they got better and they got almost perfect and the games were amazing. The golden age for 2D gaming was the end of 2D gaming, and I believe once we get better at perfecting the art of 3D gaming we'll enjoy them like we do 2D gaming from the later days. I mean come on you cannot say Adventure was a great game, and Adventure is truely old school. So it's not that 2D games can stand the test of time it's that 3D games haven't made it there yet.
Black Atom
03-03-2006, 12:44 PM
It's not the fact that it's 3D versus 2D, necessarily, just an evolution of gaming. Oldschool games, in general, challenge your reflexes and stuff and are constant action. Even the ones with sh**** graphics. Much more open to the "pick-up-and-play" attitude. That's why Pac Man will never, ever get old.
More recent games have strive to be more cinematic, with cutscenes and plot development. Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil and Ocarina of Time are some of my favorite games ever but, you know what? Not high on the replay value (OOT's graphics are also horrifically bad, in retro). OTOH, I pick up and play PN03 all the time, because it's basically a 3D shooter.
You're insane or have a selective memory if you think it hasn't always been this way. You think old-school games/consoles weren't pimping how many bits they had? Or how many colors were being displayed? Or how well they animated? Mode 7 anyone? Blast processing? 3D renders? Digitized actors? You think there weren't crappy movie-based games or licensed games trying to make a quick buck? You think people weren't copying successful games back then? How many mario, street fighter, doom, or mortal kombat knockoffs were there, again? Please, priorities haven't changed one damn bit. It's the same deal it's always been. Maybe it doesn't seem as obvious now since you aren't impressed by those graphics anymore or buzz words anymore. But they were there, and it was just as bad then
I wasn't saying they didn't care about graphics. I think they made a game first then figured out a way to present it. Today they seem to pick a presentation and then build a game around that. The amount of knockoffs doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying and neither do games based on movies.
Oh, and I agree with what Black Atom said.
Xero Kaiser
03-03-2006, 04:03 PM
I wasn't saying they didn't care about graphics. I think they made a game first then figured out a way to present it. Today they seem to pick a presentation and then build a game around that.
What? You don't do one before the other. That's what concept/planning stages are for. How do you even make a game without knowing how to present it?
The amount of knockoffs doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying and neither do games based on movies.
That wasn't aimed at your post specifically. Just the general idea that everything was roses and butterflies in the pre-32 bit era.
What? You don't do one before the other. That's what concept/planning stages are for. How do you even make a game without knowing how to present it?
I'm sucking at wording in this thread. What I mean is priority-wise, not necessarily that they actually did one before the other. I think the looks of a game have become more important today, in alot of cases to the detriment of the games. And that's not to say they weren't an issue with earlier games/systems or that graphics are the only thing that have gained importance in the developers' eyes. I think gameplay and "fun factor" should always be the top priorities. Was it always like that on earlier gen games? No, but it seems like today it's taking a backseat even more.
If that doesn't make sense then I give up, because this really isn't that important. I'd rather be playing NHL 2K6.
cactusmaac
03-04-2006, 04:48 AM
Naah, graphics were a much bigger factor in earlier years. That's how stuff like Rise Of The Robots sold loads of copies, even though it was widely recognised as being sh*t.
Nowadays it's pretty rare for a game to sell based on graphics alone.
Sadyv
03-05-2006, 12:10 AM
I think its mainly because of the greater imagination in art styles used in 2-d games.
With less power and other factors to make a difference in games graphics, developers had to focus on a unique look, a art and world design style that was appealing and was able to fire the imagination of the player with limited animations.
WIth 3-d, sadly, the only goal most developers have is to try and make it photo realistic, and the same drab, boring pseudo hard sci fi art style is used again and again.
Thats why Wind Waker, Viewtiful joe, Ninja Gaiden, God of War, stand out. Other games may match or best them in terms of polygons pushed or characters on screen, but all those games possessed an art and design sense that had their own strong voice, that helped them stand out from the crowd.
Metaphysician
03-05-2006, 12:32 PM
Might also be a side effect of the fact there is no "intuitive" model for 3D animation aside from photorealism. As opposed to 2D, which can draw material from animation styles and tricks.
Maleficentogre
03-05-2006, 12:52 PM
3D games (save for the beautiful works of games like wind waker and killer 7) are trying to be "realistic" in their appearance. on the psx, saturn and 64 we had games that looked great then because they were 3D, but they were really just a bunch of blocks stacked on each other. no we actually have rounded textures and they look realistic. Project Gotham 3 looks a million times better than automobili lamburgini. As beautiful as Ikaruga is (and it's a beautiful game) it's not that much better looking than 19XX. 2D games are more about the artwork that goes into it than polygon count. Okami is going to look gorgeous years down the road because the art is amazing. GWAR is gonna look like crap a week after it comesout.
Xero Kaiser
03-05-2006, 01:12 PM
Okami is going to look gorgeous years down the road because the art is amazing. GWAR is gonna look like crap a week after it comesout.
Only if you came from the future
Putting the exaggerations aside, we're past the point where 3D games look like crap a year after they're released
Maleficentogre
03-05-2006, 01:20 PM
actually looking at fight night 3 and looking at condemned or superman I'm guessing that GWAR is going to get knocked out relatively soon in the looks department. once people realize that plastic and latex aren't the only things the 360 can do well the games are going to look much better.
Headhunter
03-05-2006, 01:31 PM
Powerful mix of nostalgia and wishful thinking, I reckon. We all want to remember our childhood in a positive light...
Tish-the-Scorpion
03-05-2006, 01:33 PM
3D games (save for the beautiful works of games like wind waker and killer 7) are trying to be "realistic" in their appearance. on the psx, saturn and 64 we had games that looked great then because they were 3D, but they were really just a bunch of blocks stacked on each other. .LMAO true so true... :)
Tish-the-Scorpion
03-05-2006, 01:39 PM
Powerful mix of nostalgia and wishful thinking, I reckon. We all want to remember our childhood in a positive light...NAH...i think its more than that.if that was the case then i would consider primal rage the best game in the world.
Sanagi
03-05-2006, 01:58 PM
Wind Waker is the rare counterexample. It will always be a beautiful game. It looks better than the next generation so far. I wonder if the next Zelda game will age as well.
Xero Kaiser
03-05-2006, 04:20 PM
NAH...i think its more than that.if that was the case then i would consider primal rage the best game in the world.
If a game was crap when it came out, it'll be crap 10 years down the road. A better example would be people still worshipping SF2
actually looking at fight night 3 and looking at condemned or superman I'm guessing that GWAR is going to get knocked out relatively soon in the looks department. once people realize that plastic and latex aren't the only things the 360 can do well the games are going to look much better.
Never said it was the greatest looking game ever. But it's not going to be considered "crap" anytime soon
BlairH
03-05-2006, 06:10 PM
They age better because "painting" 2d sprites/raster graphics is as easy as painting a painting. It's easier to paint a reproduction of the Mona Lisa than it is to sculpt it AND paint the resulting sculpture.
Sabrinaset
03-05-2006, 08:25 PM
I dunno about this, but Daddy introduced me to Bards Tale, and I had a lot more fun playing that than I did some of the newer 3D games, and I think BT came out around the time I was born...
SAMAS
03-05-2006, 10:32 PM
I think its mainly because of the greater imagination in art styles used in 2-d games.
With less power and other factors to make a difference in games graphics, developers had to focus on a unique look, a art and world design style that was appealing and was able to fire the imagination of the player with limited animations.
WIth 3-d, sadly, the only goal most developers have is to try and make it photo realistic, and the same drab, boring pseudo hard sci fi art style is used again and again.
Thats why Wind Waker, Viewtiful joe, Ninja Gaiden, God of War, stand out. Other games may match or best them in terms of polygons pushed or characters on screen, but all those games possessed an art and design sense that had their own strong voice, that helped them stand out from the crowd.
I think that may be it. 2D games usually went for a visual style, and if they didn't, they usually had one anyway. 3D games have been mostly pushing towards photorealism almost to the exclusion of art.
The problem is, we're getting very close to that ceiling. The 360's Graphics have already begun to enter what many people refer to as the "Uncanny Valley." That's when a resemblance gets so close to the real thing that the differences really stand out and look kind of creepy.
Taltos
03-06-2006, 08:07 AM
While I was cleaning out my closet today I found my old Sega Genesis in a create in the left corner of my closet. I decide to took it up and play some old school games. My copy of Shinobi III still worked and I got to playing. To my surpraise it was still fun as it as when I was a kid. I didn't mind the graphics at all and sound was still pretty good. After Shinobi I start to play my other Genesis games like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sonic 2, Golden Axe and Michael Jackson's Moonwalker (yep, I got that game) and I enjoyed them all and for a few of them still found graphically impressive.
I loved Moonwalker!
JDogindy
03-09-2006, 07:46 AM
This also works on 2D RPGs.
With 2D RPGs, you don't have to play them for a long time, but when you return, you know what to do.
3D RPGs need a little more memory since they are more complex.
Gargus
03-09-2006, 04:56 PM
On the whole to me newer games are throw away experinces. You play it and people go "wow......pretty graphics....hu hu hu..../drool" and thats it.
Technology is largely to blame and so is the consumer for being taken in by the promise of awesomely good graphics and new tricks for special effects and such. In which case the games need to cost alot of money to make and when you invest alot of money you need to sell alot to make it back, which means you market your product to the lowest common denominator.
In the days of nes games new things were always being done and such it made things more heartfelt in being geniune products and not cookie cutter copies of newer stuff.
Hell now everyone is so convinced they need the most powerfull machine and such to play games or the newest console, they been tricked. Back in the day of snes and genesis both being out there werent any fanboys of the systems it was like "man can I come over and play your genesis sword of vermillion and Ill let you borrow my super punchout", we cared about the games and thats it.
Nintendo DS (and psp to some extent to) might be our last bastions of truly unique quality games before we all are destroyed underneath the tidle wave of EA games as they gobble up devleopers to crank out more mindless trash.
BlairH
03-09-2006, 05:43 PM
there werent any fanboys of the systems it was like "man can I come over and play your genesis sword of vermillion and Ill let you borrow my super punchout", we cared about the games and thats it.
Rose tinted glasses. The Genesis v SNES spectacle was probably the most heated battle of the fanboys EVER.
Rose tinted glasses. The Genesis v SNES spectacle was probably the most heated battle of the fanboys EVER.
Agreed, i almost punched a kid for saying his genesis was better then my snes.
He was wrong for the record, and i could still kick his ass.
Jagatai_Khan
03-09-2006, 06:47 PM
It's because sprites and cartoon-style graphics and character never really get old. They aren't trying to look realistic to begin with, so they don't look like ass comparatively when something newer comes out.
3D games, in contrast, are continually superseded by newer 3D games that have even more photorealistic graphics.
I think it's worth noting, though, that there are a few 3D games that are still just as fun now as they were when they first came out. Final Fantasy 7 comes to mind.
Leslie Lee III
03-09-2006, 08:25 PM
I'm not entirely sure I agree. I know I'd rather play Metal Gear Solid for the 12th time than Metal Gear. I still love popping in Resident Evil and Tomb Raider. There are only a handful of older 2D games I really have patience for, and most are RPG's.
Metaphysician
03-10-2006, 08:30 AM
OTOH, is that because of graphics, or play control??
Admittedly, 3D games often have issues, especially with camera control. . . but for alot of 2D games, it feels like your trying to drive a car with two pinkies.
Xero Kaiser
03-10-2006, 09:40 AM
Back in the day of snes and genesis both being out there werent any fanboys of the systems...
LAWLhttp://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/images/smilies/custom/lol.gifhttp://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/images/smilies/custom/lol.gif
Nostalgia is one hell of a hallucinogen
Black Atom
03-10-2006, 11:42 AM
On the whole to me newer games are throw away experinces. You play it and people go "wow......pretty graphics....hu hu hu..../drool" and thats it.
I agree with this part, at least. Even 3D versions of 2D games, like Sonic Adventure, don't hold up as well as their 2D counterparts. A lot of it has to do with the simplicity of the play mechanics...the "riding a bike" metaphor someone else used. That's how you can spam the market with 6 Megaman games that have negligible difference in graphics. The one-upping nature of this generations games does hurt, too. If you have the most real-looking FPS/fighter/racer, then it makes anything else on the market, and your collection, utterly superfluous (provided the gameplay holdsup), doesn't it?
xnef1025
03-10-2006, 12:44 PM
Someone said Adventure was a bad game and I totally disagree. I'd love to get my hands on an old 2600 and pop that sucker in again :D
As a matter of fact, I could go for some Combat and some Atari Bowling for that matter.
Xero Kaiser
03-10-2006, 02:42 PM
That's how you can spam the market with 6 Megaman games that have negligible difference in graphics
Yeah, but who wants that? Megaman is gonna end up like SF
Black Atom
03-10-2006, 04:40 PM
Yeah, but who wants that? Megaman is gonna end up like SF
I think Megaman has actually surpassed SF on that front. I'm reminded of the old cartoon with the guinea pigs, where the kid buys two and by the time he gets home, there's like 8 in the cage. I'm not saying it's a good thing, just an advantage that 2D games apparently have.
For me, at least, it seems like developers have changed their priorities. Games used to be about making a game that was fun to play and then worrying about the graphics. Today it seems like people are more concerned with how pretty a game is.
Pretty much. There's exceptions, obviously, I can play Ocarina of Time, GTA3, or GoldenEye now and they're still great.
Xero Kaiser
03-10-2006, 05:05 PM
I think Megaman has actually surpassed SF on that front. I'm reminded of the old cartoon with the guinea pigs, where the kid buys two and by the time he gets home, there's like 8 in the cage. I'm not saying it's a good thing, just an advantage that 2D games apparently have.
When I said it's gonna wind up like SF, I meant Capcom is gonna run it into the ground eventually :(
I hope it doesn't happen, I've been a MM fan since I was 6. But, aside from the MMZ games, it feels like they're just crapping the games out ever since X6
SAMAS
03-10-2006, 06:57 PM
When I said it's gonna wind up like SF, I meant Capcom is gonna run it into the ground eventually :(
Like he said: Already surpassed SF on that front.
Xero Kaiser
03-10-2006, 07:08 PM
Series can't be that dead if they're still pumping them out at this rate
Series can't be that dead if they're still pumping them out at this rate
Its gotten worse lately, they have spin offs and they just keep making them.
How many identical battle network games are there now? 5?
Xero Kaiser
03-10-2006, 08:33 PM
I believe they're up to six...seven if you count Network Transmission (a spinoff of a spinoff? At least it kicked ass)
They come in multiple colors now too
Young Avenger
03-10-2006, 09:14 PM
I believe they're up to six...seven if you count Network Transmission (a spinoff of a spinoff? At least it kicked ass)
They come in multiple colors now too
Battle Network is up to five right now. Unless you're counting Battle Chip Challenge as the sixth game.
Xero Kaiser
03-11-2006, 12:38 AM
No, they're up to six (http://www.gamespot.com/gba/rpg/megamanbattlenetwork6faltzerversion/index.html). I forgot about chip challenge though. Guess that makes 8
They come in multiple colors now too
Even street fighter 2 never offered Street Fighter 2 Red and Blue!
Black Atom
03-13-2006, 10:51 AM
There haven't been any completely throwaway SF sequels. SF3, for example, is a great game that still gets play in arcades. OTOH, I haven't bothered with the Megaman X series since Capcom pretty much decided they weren't taking it seriously anymore by incorporating a maverick named "Duff McWhalen".
Tish-the-Scorpion
03-13-2006, 10:59 AM
i like 3d games but 2d games seem to have a longer shelf life.and i don't think its graphics related.though i do agree with what someone said earlier about 2d games having simpler
controls and are not as complicated as 3d games.
Chevan
03-13-2006, 11:08 AM
This is a little off-topic, but has anyone here played Cave Story (http://agtp.romhack.net/doukutsu.html)?
If you haven't, I recommend it. It's an amazing 2D side-scroller. I don't think I'd do it justice describing it, but there's a pretty good write-up on that link.
Xero Kaiser
03-13-2006, 01:32 PM
There haven't been any completely throwaway SF sequels. SF3, for example, is a great game that still gets play in arcades.
Third Strike does. Nobody touches the first two SF3 games
Black Atom
03-13-2006, 03:11 PM
Third Strike does. Nobody touches the first two SF3 games
That's because it's more or less considered the pinnacle of the series. It makes the others obsolete. The same can be said of Alpha3 and SSFIITurbo, both of which are still played, which is awesome. Megaman games hit their peak sometime long ago, unfortunately, so they've effectively "jumped the shark". But, like the Simpsons, they keep making them.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.