The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
[URL]http://articles.filefront.com/131[/URL]
Oh right, yeah - 2D ememies in a 3D world. But not Quake.
Doom had 3D levels but 2D enemies and weapons and effects, etc.
Wasn't that the same with Quake?
Wasn't that the same with Quake?
I say proper because Doom had pseudo-3D btw.
Proper? Quake.
What was the first game to go in to the world of 3d gaming?
Ashman wrote:
> I take your point and agree with you in some ways, but surely if you
> really enjoyed the likes of these old 2D games, then you are
> admitting that 2D is a great part of videogaming.
Indeed i am but the way the market is being taken over by the casual gamers *cough*Scum*cough* 2-D will be ignored by the technophiles(Is that the right word ?)
> That, at the end of the day, deserves to be exploited more by the likes of top delevopers; developers that should want to make new franchises that you might enjoy even moreso than Road Rash, or Streets of Rage.
Yep it would be nice but 3-D offers the developers far greater freedom to show off, no one working in the industry wants to be working with a format thats not new for fear of missing out on new things, for such a progressive industry, living in the past is just not a good idea.
> I take your point and agree with you in some ways, but surely if you
> really enjoyed the likes of these old 2D games, then you are
> admitting that 2D is a great part of videogaming.
Indeed i am but the way the market is being taken over by the casual gamers *cough*Scum*cough* 2-D will be ignored by the technophiles(Is that the right word ?)
> That, at the end of the day, deserves to be exploited more by the likes of top delevopers; developers that should want to make new franchises that you might enjoy even moreso than Road Rash, or Streets of Rage.
Yep it would be nice but 3-D offers the developers far greater freedom to show off, no one working in the industry wants to be working with a format thats not new for fear of missing out on new things, for such a progressive industry, living in the past is just not a good idea.
I take your point and agree with you in some ways, but surely if you really enjoyed the likes of these old 2D games, then you are admitting that 2D is a great part of videogaming. That, at the end of the day, deserves to be exploited more by the likes of top delevopers; developers that should want to make new franchises that you might enjoy even moreso than Road Rash, or Streets of Rage.
Ashman wrote:
> what i'm more interested in is getting to play the games i was
> 10 years ago, i miss Streets of Rage and Road Rash and i dont want
> new versions with souped-up graphics and extras because it never
> works, i want the original, if it was a great game then it'll be a
> great game now.
>
> And if it was a great game then, why exactly won't it still be great
> with extra content. You see it all the time with 3D titles and it
> works. Sequel after sequel, re-make after re-make. Only the other
> week Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow came out, basically the same game but
> with a handful of extra modes and levels; so many people have bought
> it and are fidiing it to be great.
I dont want extra's because they usually f**k things right up, nor do i want spanky new graphics or a conversion to 3-D, not quite specific to this arguement but a good example would be Destruction Derby, the original was fantastic, it looked right, handled right and was fun to play, i played the latest one not long ago, i was not impressed, they've brought in all sorts of crap like flippers and boosters and other such nonsense, the handling was heavy and it looked too clean, not the dirty, grainy original, why do we need all this crap ?
> what i'm more interested in is getting to play the games i was
> 10 years ago, i miss Streets of Rage and Road Rash and i dont want
> new versions with souped-up graphics and extras because it never
> works, i want the original, if it was a great game then it'll be a
> great game now.
>
> And if it was a great game then, why exactly won't it still be great
> with extra content. You see it all the time with 3D titles and it
> works. Sequel after sequel, re-make after re-make. Only the other
> week Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow came out, basically the same game but
> with a handful of extra modes and levels; so many people have bought
> it and are fidiing it to be great.
I dont want extra's because they usually f**k things right up, nor do i want spanky new graphics or a conversion to 3-D, not quite specific to this arguement but a good example would be Destruction Derby, the original was fantastic, it looked right, handled right and was fun to play, i played the latest one not long ago, i was not impressed, they've brought in all sorts of crap like flippers and boosters and other such nonsense, the handling was heavy and it looked too clean, not the dirty, grainy original, why do we need all this crap ?
Flockhart wrote:
> The most blatant GAD attempt i've seen in ages, anyway....
A lot of things I write could be regarded as "blatant GAD attempts", but truth be told I wouldn't "attempt" at all if I didn't love writing creatively to death.
> It was inevitable that as technology progressed so would graphics,
> adding an extra dimension to a game does exactly that, it's gives you
> more freedom unfortuantly it also gives you more opportunity to bodge
> it up
True, but 2D still has the right to take up its own sizable genre, which these days is completely outnumbered by most other game types. As with the progression of graphics. Ikaruga is one of the best-looking Nintendo titles ever created.
> what i'm more interested in is getting to play the games i was
> 10 years ago, i miss Streets of Rage and Road Rash and i dont want
> new versions with souped-up graphics and extras because it never
> works, i want the original, if it was a great game then it'll be a
> great game now.
And if it was a great game then, why exactly won't it still be great with extra content. You see it all the time with 3D titles and it works. Sequel after sequel, re-make after re-make. Only the other week Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow came out, basically the same game but with a handful of extra modes and levels; so many people have bought it and are fidiing it to be great.
> Why are the originals never ported over to the new consoles ?
They are. And they're ported to handhelds. Why don't we get sequels, or more whole new 2D franchises? Ikaruga and Viewtiful Joe are the only two new 2D franchises in the last three or four years, and they are both top quality games.
> The most blatant GAD attempt i've seen in ages, anyway....
A lot of things I write could be regarded as "blatant GAD attempts", but truth be told I wouldn't "attempt" at all if I didn't love writing creatively to death.
> It was inevitable that as technology progressed so would graphics,
> adding an extra dimension to a game does exactly that, it's gives you
> more freedom unfortuantly it also gives you more opportunity to bodge
> it up
True, but 2D still has the right to take up its own sizable genre, which these days is completely outnumbered by most other game types. As with the progression of graphics. Ikaruga is one of the best-looking Nintendo titles ever created.
> what i'm more interested in is getting to play the games i was
> 10 years ago, i miss Streets of Rage and Road Rash and i dont want
> new versions with souped-up graphics and extras because it never
> works, i want the original, if it was a great game then it'll be a
> great game now.
And if it was a great game then, why exactly won't it still be great with extra content. You see it all the time with 3D titles and it works. Sequel after sequel, re-make after re-make. Only the other week Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow came out, basically the same game but with a handful of extra modes and levels; so many people have bought it and are fidiing it to be great.
> Why are the originals never ported over to the new consoles ?
They are. And they're ported to handhelds. Why don't we get sequels, or more whole new 2D franchises? Ikaruga and Viewtiful Joe are the only two new 2D franchises in the last three or four years, and they are both top quality games.
The most blatant GAD attempt i've seen in ages, anyway....
It was inevitable that as technology progressed so would graphics, adding an extra dimension to a game does exactly that, it's gives you more freedom unfortuantly it also gives you more opportunity to bodge it up, what i'm more interested in is getting to play the games i was 10 years ago, i miss Streets of Rage and Road Rash and i dont want new versions with souped-up graphics and extras because it never works, i want the original, if it was a great game then it'll be a great game now.
Why are the originals never ported over to the new consoles ?
It was inevitable that as technology progressed so would graphics, adding an extra dimension to a game does exactly that, it's gives you more freedom unfortuantly it also gives you more opportunity to bodge it up, what i'm more interested in is getting to play the games i was 10 years ago, i miss Streets of Rage and Road Rash and i dont want new versions with souped-up graphics and extras because it never works, i want the original, if it was a great game then it'll be a great game now.
Why are the originals never ported over to the new consoles ?
Page: