The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
2D Gaming: The Final Calling?
People always say that you should stay true to your roots. Well if the art of videogaming had to stay true to its roots, every single game that found its way onto our screens today would be 2D, believe it or not. Yes, I know, this is an absurd insinuation, but flip it on its head and what you’re left with not only something quite different, but frighteningly, quite possible.
Two-dimensional gaming is fizzling out. Sure, there’s always going to be the opportunity to check back and re-live golden oldies, but how many entirely new 2D concepts have we seen in the past year or so? I’d hazard a guess at about two or three. Ikaruga and Viewtiful Joe being the ones to spring directly to mind. When you consider the origins of videogaming, and what fabulous games have been created using two dimensions such as Tetris, Mario Bros and many more besides, you can only worry.
Lets look at the facts. How many widespread releases across the three next generation consoles in the remainder of this year would be considered to be 2D? The answer, incredibly, is just two. No, your eyes do not betray you, two. Paper Mario 2, and Viewtiful Joe 2; both splendid looking prospects in their own right, but amongst a sea of regurgitated 3D shoot-em-ups, RPG’s and Adventure games, they don’t stand a chance of catching major sales this Christmas.
And why? Well, firstly it’s because of the amount of new interest being shown in gaming that has bloomed recently. If you were to go out and ask five random teenage lads whether they owned one of the current three home consoles, the resounding answer would be a ‘yes’, probably followed by some sort of ‘whassit to you?’
But the failure of these 2D titles isn’t just down to the ‘casual’ gaming public, who don’t have a huge opinion on the whole industry, its also down to a lot of people that would consider themselves avid gaming fans. I’ve discovered that so many people, who often should know better, not only don’t buy these superbly entertaining games, but without even playing them they suddenly have the magical ability to tell me they’re rubbish. I kid you not. Despite reading magazines that sing their praises and seeing them in the shops, the 3D alternative always seems to lure these people in a separate direction; people that I'd normally regard as prime targets for a 2D outing.
Surely with more potential customers nowadays, these games should still sell. Nope. More buyers means more competition, more three-dimensional competition anyway. And what is it that the latest 3D titles do that 2D ones can’t? ‘Da grafix’, perhaps? Well if so, some people need to be setting aside time to experience the likes of Ikaruga, the likes of Viewtiful Joe, and the likes of Paper Mario. It honestly doesn’t take long to realise that the graphical limitations set by 2D games are being surpassed and surpassed all the time.
I don’t think it is the visuals, though. But I picked on that because, well, what else can it be? If it’s an issue of gameplay then I can’t understand it either. Some of the greatest and most critically acclaimed titles in history have been 2D, like I said earlier. Even when taken out of their time, and plonked into a new era, people still seem to sing their praises, but then it comes into the shops, and sells like cold, soggy cakes; wanted by nobody except the more adventurous or true gamers. Is it just me that can’t understand why 2D is a put-off?
Admittedly, so far I’ve mainly been talking about home consoles here. But even when looking on the handheld side of things, it ain’t looking rosy for 2D. With pocket graphics being absolutely blown out of the water by the PSP, which is now also looking at blending entertainment with games, 2D doesn’t look likely to grace Sony’s new handheld much either. In fact, of all the games I know in development for it, none are two-dimensional. The DS is a little different, yes, but with touch screen and double screen features sculpted into the new portable Nintendo hardware, true 2D gameplay doesn’t look set to make regular appearances on that front either.
So, is this the end for 2D games? No. Even with the odds firmly stacked against it, there are some people out there, thank goodness, that will want to make two-dimensional games. Developers like Treasure, developers like Nintendo who don’t just care about bringing in the money in this greedy industry. So I say get behind these companies, get behind the only ones who care even a shred for the origins of gaming, not that you need to be told; the upcoming and past 2D offerings of late have been astounding, if just far, far too rare in amount.
And, sadly, just too many people care about newly advanced 3D hardware, with newly advanced 3D graphics, and a newly advanced level of realism. I can accept this; I can accept it’s all very exciting. All that it means for any two-dimensional lovers is a horrible lack of the games they love.
To anyone who plays down the significance and brilliance of 2D videogames, I say this; "open your eyes". Just because a game lacks a dimension does NOT mean that it lacks the quality to entertain you for weeks, months and years on end.
Thanks for reading.
People always say that you should stay true to your roots. Well if the art of videogaming had to stay true to its roots, every single game that found its way onto our screens today would be 2D, believe it or not. Yes, I know, this is an absurd insinuation, but flip it on its head and what you’re left with not only something quite different, but frighteningly, quite possible.
Two-dimensional gaming is fizzling out. Sure, there’s always going to be the opportunity to check back and re-live golden oldies, but how many entirely new 2D concepts have we seen in the past year or so? I’d hazard a guess at about two or three. Ikaruga and Viewtiful Joe being the ones to spring directly to mind. When you consider the origins of videogaming, and what fabulous games have been created using two dimensions such as Tetris, Mario Bros and many more besides, you can only worry.
Lets look at the facts. How many widespread releases across the three next generation consoles in the remainder of this year would be considered to be 2D? The answer, incredibly, is just two. No, your eyes do not betray you, two. Paper Mario 2, and Viewtiful Joe 2; both splendid looking prospects in their own right, but amongst a sea of regurgitated 3D shoot-em-ups, RPG’s and Adventure games, they don’t stand a chance of catching major sales this Christmas.
And why? Well, firstly it’s because of the amount of new interest being shown in gaming that has bloomed recently. If you were to go out and ask five random teenage lads whether they owned one of the current three home consoles, the resounding answer would be a ‘yes’, probably followed by some sort of ‘whassit to you?’
But the failure of these 2D titles isn’t just down to the ‘casual’ gaming public, who don’t have a huge opinion on the whole industry, its also down to a lot of people that would consider themselves avid gaming fans. I’ve discovered that so many people, who often should know better, not only don’t buy these superbly entertaining games, but without even playing them they suddenly have the magical ability to tell me they’re rubbish. I kid you not. Despite reading magazines that sing their praises and seeing them in the shops, the 3D alternative always seems to lure these people in a separate direction; people that I'd normally regard as prime targets for a 2D outing.
Surely with more potential customers nowadays, these games should still sell. Nope. More buyers means more competition, more three-dimensional competition anyway. And what is it that the latest 3D titles do that 2D ones can’t? ‘Da grafix’, perhaps? Well if so, some people need to be setting aside time to experience the likes of Ikaruga, the likes of Viewtiful Joe, and the likes of Paper Mario. It honestly doesn’t take long to realise that the graphical limitations set by 2D games are being surpassed and surpassed all the time.
I don’t think it is the visuals, though. But I picked on that because, well, what else can it be? If it’s an issue of gameplay then I can’t understand it either. Some of the greatest and most critically acclaimed titles in history have been 2D, like I said earlier. Even when taken out of their time, and plonked into a new era, people still seem to sing their praises, but then it comes into the shops, and sells like cold, soggy cakes; wanted by nobody except the more adventurous or true gamers. Is it just me that can’t understand why 2D is a put-off?
Admittedly, so far I’ve mainly been talking about home consoles here. But even when looking on the handheld side of things, it ain’t looking rosy for 2D. With pocket graphics being absolutely blown out of the water by the PSP, which is now also looking at blending entertainment with games, 2D doesn’t look likely to grace Sony’s new handheld much either. In fact, of all the games I know in development for it, none are two-dimensional. The DS is a little different, yes, but with touch screen and double screen features sculpted into the new portable Nintendo hardware, true 2D gameplay doesn’t look set to make regular appearances on that front either.
So, is this the end for 2D games? No. Even with the odds firmly stacked against it, there are some people out there, thank goodness, that will want to make two-dimensional games. Developers like Treasure, developers like Nintendo who don’t just care about bringing in the money in this greedy industry. So I say get behind these companies, get behind the only ones who care even a shred for the origins of gaming, not that you need to be told; the upcoming and past 2D offerings of late have been astounding, if just far, far too rare in amount.
And, sadly, just too many people care about newly advanced 3D hardware, with newly advanced 3D graphics, and a newly advanced level of realism. I can accept this; I can accept it’s all very exciting. All that it means for any two-dimensional lovers is a horrible lack of the games they love.
To anyone who plays down the significance and brilliance of 2D videogames, I say this; "open your eyes". Just because a game lacks a dimension does NOT mean that it lacks the quality to entertain you for weeks, months and years on end.
Thanks for reading.
Page:
The Hibernator wrote:
> AND SUPERFROG!!!
Superfrog still is the biggest advertisement campaighn for Lucosade. It was so good *Boing* "LUCOSADE!"
> AND SUPERFROG!!!
Superfrog still is the biggest advertisement campaighn for Lucosade. It was so good *Boing* "LUCOSADE!"
Icarus mk2 wrote:
> Na, Quake was the first with proper 3D levels. Doom employed some
> technical trickery for that 3D illusion that we all crave:
>
> [URL]http://articles.filefront.com/131[/URL]
>
> Oh right, yeah - 2D ememies in a 3D world. But not Quake.
Eleven years later, Doom 3 is raising the bar for graphics standards in much the same way that the original Doom did. The system requirements have changed a bit in eleven years though; here are the minimum specs necessary to play Doom 3:
.A 1.5-gigahertz Intel Pentium 4 chip or AMD Athlon 1500.
.384 megabytes of memory.
.Two gigabytes of hard drive space.
.An nVidia GeForce 3 graphics card or better; or an ATI Technologies 8500 or better.
Doom 3 11 years ago?
> Na, Quake was the first with proper 3D levels. Doom employed some
> technical trickery for that 3D illusion that we all crave:
>
> [URL]http://articles.filefront.com/131[/URL]
>
> Oh right, yeah - 2D ememies in a 3D world. But not Quake.
Eleven years later, Doom 3 is raising the bar for graphics standards in much the same way that the original Doom did. The system requirements have changed a bit in eleven years though; here are the minimum specs necessary to play Doom 3:
.A 1.5-gigahertz Intel Pentium 4 chip or AMD Athlon 1500.
.384 megabytes of memory.
.Two gigabytes of hard drive space.
.An nVidia GeForce 3 graphics card or better; or an ATI Technologies 8500 or better.
Doom 3 11 years ago?
AND SUPERFROG!!!
What a game!
What a game!
A good 2D game I always loved was the original "Simon The Sorcerer".
2D games can be fun, certainly adictive - if you get a good one. But things have moved on. Today the only place you might find a few 2D games is on those very cheap consoles that are built into the handset, or on some mobile phones.
With 2D you are much more limited in what you can do, or where you can go. 3D has much better potential for players to "explore" - you can move in any number of directions, not just left/right/up/down.
But this doesnt mean, all 3D games are better than all 2D games. Certainly not. But its a bit like black & white films Vs Color films. You can get good and bad films in both, but nobody wants to return to using only black & white. The color system is more life like, and so are 3D games compared with 2D games.
Sorry to disapoint all 2D game fans, but I cant see a big 2D game come back any time soon.
With 2D you are much more limited in what you can do, or where you can go. 3D has much better potential for players to "explore" - you can move in any number of directions, not just left/right/up/down.
But this doesnt mean, all 3D games are better than all 2D games. Certainly not. But its a bit like black & white films Vs Color films. You can get good and bad films in both, but nobody wants to return to using only black & white. The color system is more life like, and so are 3D games compared with 2D games.
Sorry to disapoint all 2D game fans, but I cant see a big 2D game come back any time soon.
they ruined worms with that naff 3D version! to complicated for an after pub session, you can barely find your tinny, never mind those sneaky gits!
2D, or not 2D? that was the question, i think..
2D, or not 2D? that was the question, i think..
Stunt Race FX, it must be 10 years old now, is Quake actually that old?
i love 2d games i still have my saturn and my neogeo in otherwords i al a hardcore 2d gamer or at least i think of myself that way. (ofcourse i do think i am a pirate and i ran for king of america in teh recent elections)
that aside, i'm a huge 2d fighter fan, nothings better than a few hours of king of fioghters or streetfighter, and for ages all was good, then came these so called '3d' fighting games, these funk me right off i hate them. they are ment to be 3d but they are played as 2d games cause moving around the other character is pointless most of the time cause you locked on to each other, (whats the fecking point) you mite get a hit or a throw in before their character turns around and hits you.
why don't they just keep perfecting 2d fighting games the 3d ones are slow and lame and don't really work in a 3d world.
just my view adn people can disagree but they are wrong :)
that aside, i'm a huge 2d fighter fan, nothings better than a few hours of king of fioghters or streetfighter, and for ages all was good, then came these so called '3d' fighting games, these funk me right off i hate them. they are ment to be 3d but they are played as 2d games cause moving around the other character is pointless most of the time cause you locked on to each other, (whats the fecking point) you mite get a hit or a throw in before their character turns around and hits you.
why don't they just keep perfecting 2d fighting games the 3d ones are slow and lame and don't really work in a 3d world.
just my view adn people can disagree but they are wrong :)
Just get a GBA - the bona fide home of 2D games.
I can see what you're saying, Ashman. It's good to keep the originals in. But what you're saying is: What do you like better? Excitebike or Burnout 3. Can you see what I'm getting at?
Page: