The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When it comes down to it, 3-D beats 2-D every-time in this modern-day world of gaming. We all preffer the huge, fully-interactive, high-detailed enviroments of those epic adventures like The Legend Zelda, Final Fantasy, and especially the Mario games - including Super Mario SunShine. All those flat, 2-Dimensional 'oldies' from 10 years ago are now merely 'things of the past' we have done-away with, because games are now a whole-lot-better to look at today.
And it's not just all-about the graphics of games either. All other key aspects of computer and video games - including how well they play - have improved over the years since the days when controllers had only 2 buttons, and it was all so-much simpler as you could litterally just pick-up-and-play without having to read a manual.
The 3-D games of today are 'apparently' much-better than the 2-D titles of the past.
But why is this so? And can it really be true??
Unlike the majority of the younger gamers today, I grew-up with gaming back in the late 80's/early 90's when older games like the Super Mario Bros. series on the NES and Sonic the Hedgehog on the MegaDrive really meant something to you and were - and still are - some of the greatest games you could have ever played.
But because of their youth, they've missed-out on all this, and therefore cannot appreciate all these classics that have made Gaming what it is today. The GameBoy Advance may be bringing-back a few old memories, but they are ONLY Nintendo games. What about SEGA? What about all those Arcade and Atari Amiga classics aswell?? Without first-hand-experience of these games, they will never learn.
If you've played even one of those classic retro games from 10 years ago, whether it be Mario, Sonic, Zelda, and Arcade game, or even Doom or Wolfenstein 3-D on your PC, you'll know how important those games were to us, and how games just wouldn't be the same today without them.
Whether it was the original ideas in them or whatever, their simplicity meant nothing to-us as we played them knowing what we had was something great.
Aside from the time-zones, the one big thing that seems to seperate the 2-D from the 3-D is in it's appearence. Now we all know that the 3-D games of today look a whole-lot better-than the 2-D efforts of the past, but looks aren't all-everything. There's a whole-lot-more to games these days than what's just in their appearences - and that is something the games of yesterday showed-to-us time, after-time, after-time, and-again.
With all that in-mind, there has to be one winner between the 2.
Are 3-D games REALLY all that-much better than 2-D ones we know longer play??
I personally think that, althought many of us may have never touched even one of them for a good 7 years or-so now, the now retro 2-D side-scrolling classics of the past still beat the flashy 3-D revolutions of today's more-modern world.
Sure, they may have been simply created and much simpler to play, but the looks and appearences of a game don't make it quite the game it may actually come to be.
If we hadn't played all thos classics 10 years ago with only 2 or 3 buttons and maybe even a joystick, then we probably wouldn't have a clue today. Those games have helped-us onto the wonders of today's world, like stepping-stones, guiging-us along the right-lines. They have shown us the path to the potential that lies within. They opened-up all the door-ways to the future.
On that note, you could say that 2-Dimensional developments are what has made today's games a whole-lot better. And i'd agree with that, quite strongly too.
But I still do not believe that 3-D is better than 2-D 'full-stop'.
Those games were great for a reason, the same reason that has in-effect created a downfall in one main area of gameplay. What am I talking about? Originallity and Innovation in the Ideas.
Back in the day, during the 'Golden Age of Gaming', when the SNES and MegaDrive were battling-it-out for supremecy, very-few ideas had already been used-up by the developers making money at that time. And-so with the minds of Nintendo and SEGA and co., so-many possibillities and ideas were just floating-around, waiting to be used-up and put into good use and practice, making each new game different to the last.
In the world as it is today, there are very few - if any - new ideas just floating-around that have yet to have been toyed-with by the minds of Miyamoto and Suzuki alike.
And that is, in my view, the one main aspect and problem that has limited the games of today from being as 'great' and 'fantastic' to play as the ones we all once loved back in the day.
So then... I believe strongly that the 2-D games of yesterday still out-shine even the Mario SunShines and Resident Evil's of this world. And why exactly? Because of the lack of innovation and ideas available to make these games stand-out from the rest in the 'Sea of Simillarities'.
That is only my opinion. What is yours?
And it's not just all-about the graphics of games either. All other key aspects of computer and video games - including how well they play - have improved over the years since the days when controllers had only 2 buttons, and it was all so-much simpler as you could litterally just pick-up-and-play without having to read a manual.
The 3-D games of today are 'apparently' much-better than the 2-D titles of the past.
But why is this so? And can it really be true??
Unlike the majority of the younger gamers today, I grew-up with gaming back in the late 80's/early 90's when older games like the Super Mario Bros. series on the NES and Sonic the Hedgehog on the MegaDrive really meant something to you and were - and still are - some of the greatest games you could have ever played.
But because of their youth, they've missed-out on all this, and therefore cannot appreciate all these classics that have made Gaming what it is today. The GameBoy Advance may be bringing-back a few old memories, but they are ONLY Nintendo games. What about SEGA? What about all those Arcade and Atari Amiga classics aswell?? Without first-hand-experience of these games, they will never learn.
If you've played even one of those classic retro games from 10 years ago, whether it be Mario, Sonic, Zelda, and Arcade game, or even Doom or Wolfenstein 3-D on your PC, you'll know how important those games were to us, and how games just wouldn't be the same today without them.
Whether it was the original ideas in them or whatever, their simplicity meant nothing to-us as we played them knowing what we had was something great.
Aside from the time-zones, the one big thing that seems to seperate the 2-D from the 3-D is in it's appearence. Now we all know that the 3-D games of today look a whole-lot better-than the 2-D efforts of the past, but looks aren't all-everything. There's a whole-lot-more to games these days than what's just in their appearences - and that is something the games of yesterday showed-to-us time, after-time, after-time, and-again.
With all that in-mind, there has to be one winner between the 2.
Are 3-D games REALLY all that-much better than 2-D ones we know longer play??
I personally think that, althought many of us may have never touched even one of them for a good 7 years or-so now, the now retro 2-D side-scrolling classics of the past still beat the flashy 3-D revolutions of today's more-modern world.
Sure, they may have been simply created and much simpler to play, but the looks and appearences of a game don't make it quite the game it may actually come to be.
If we hadn't played all thos classics 10 years ago with only 2 or 3 buttons and maybe even a joystick, then we probably wouldn't have a clue today. Those games have helped-us onto the wonders of today's world, like stepping-stones, guiging-us along the right-lines. They have shown us the path to the potential that lies within. They opened-up all the door-ways to the future.
On that note, you could say that 2-Dimensional developments are what has made today's games a whole-lot better. And i'd agree with that, quite strongly too.
But I still do not believe that 3-D is better than 2-D 'full-stop'.
Those games were great for a reason, the same reason that has in-effect created a downfall in one main area of gameplay. What am I talking about? Originallity and Innovation in the Ideas.
Back in the day, during the 'Golden Age of Gaming', when the SNES and MegaDrive were battling-it-out for supremecy, very-few ideas had already been used-up by the developers making money at that time. And-so with the minds of Nintendo and SEGA and co., so-many possibillities and ideas were just floating-around, waiting to be used-up and put into good use and practice, making each new game different to the last.
In the world as it is today, there are very few - if any - new ideas just floating-around that have yet to have been toyed-with by the minds of Miyamoto and Suzuki alike.
And that is, in my view, the one main aspect and problem that has limited the games of today from being as 'great' and 'fantastic' to play as the ones we all once loved back in the day.
So then... I believe strongly that the 2-D games of yesterday still out-shine even the Mario SunShines and Resident Evil's of this world. And why exactly? Because of the lack of innovation and ideas available to make these games stand-out from the rest in the 'Sea of Simillarities'.
That is only my opinion. What is yours?
I think that 3D has brung games to a new level.
however the only game i feel 3D can't beat 2D on is platform games.
Games like alex the kid and Streets of rage just wouldn't be done justice if put in 3D and that's how other platformers are like, 3D lets them down.
however the only game i feel 3D can't beat 2D on is platform games.
Games like alex the kid and Streets of rage just wouldn't be done justice if put in 3D and that's how other platformers are like, 3D lets them down.
When it comes down to it, 3-D beats 2-D every-time in this modern-day world of gaming. We all preffer the huge, fully-interactive, high-detailed enviroments of those epic adventures like The Legend Zelda, Final Fantasy, and especially the Mario games - including Super Mario SunShine. All those flat, 2-Dimensional 'oldies' from 10 years ago are now merely 'things of the past' we have done-away with, because games are now a whole-lot-better to look at today.
And it's not just all-about the graphics of games either. All other key aspects of computer and video games - including how well they play - have improved over the years since the days when controllers had only 2 buttons, and it was all so-much simpler as you could litterally just pick-up-and-play without having to read a manual.
The 3-D games of today are 'apparently' much-better than the 2-D titles of the past.
But why is this so? And can it really be true??
Unlike the majority of the younger gamers today, I grew-up with gaming back in the late 80's/early 90's when older games like the Super Mario Bros. series on the NES and Sonic the Hedgehog on the MegaDrive really meant something to you and were - and still are - some of the greatest games you could have ever played.
But because of their youth, they've missed-out on all this, and therefore cannot appreciate all these classics that have made Gaming what it is today. The GameBoy Advance may be bringing-back a few old memories, but they are ONLY Nintendo games. What about SEGA? What about all those Arcade and Atari Amiga classics aswell?? Without first-hand-experience of these games, they will never learn.
If you've played even one of those classic retro games from 10 years ago, whether it be Mario, Sonic, Zelda, and Arcade game, or even Doom or Wolfenstein 3-D on your PC, you'll know how important those games were to us, and how games just wouldn't be the same today without them.
Whether it was the original ideas in them or whatever, their simplicity meant nothing to-us as we played them knowing what we had was something great.
Aside from the time-zones, the one big thing that seems to seperate the 2-D from the 3-D is in it's appearence. Now we all know that the 3-D games of today look a whole-lot better-than the 2-D efforts of the past, but looks aren't all-everything. There's a whole-lot-more to games these days than what's just in their appearences - and that is something the games of yesterday showed-to-us time, after-time, after-time, and-again.
With all that in-mind, there has to be one winner between the 2.
Are 3-D games REALLY all that-much better than 2-D ones we know longer play??
I personally think that, althought many of us may have never touched even one of them for a good 7 years or-so now, the now retro 2-D side-scrolling classics of the past still beat the flashy 3-D revolutions of today's more-modern world.
Sure, they may have been simply created and much simpler to play, but the looks and appearences of a game don't make it quite the game it may actually come to be.
If we hadn't played all thos classics 10 years ago with only 2 or 3 buttons and maybe even a joystick, then we probably wouldn't have a clue today. Those games have helped-us onto the wonders of today's world, like stepping-stones, guiging-us along the right-lines. They have shown us the path to the potential that lies within. They opened-up all the door-ways to the future.
On that note, you could say that 2-Dimensional developments are what has made today's games a whole-lot better. And i'd agree with that, quite strongly too.
But I still do not believe that 3-D is better than 2-D 'full-stop'.
Those games were great for a reason, the same reason that has in-effect created a downfall in one main area of gameplay. What am I talking about? Originallity and Innovation in the Ideas.
Back in the day, during the 'Golden Age of Gaming', when the SNES and MegaDrive were battling-it-out for supremecy, very-few ideas had already been used-up by the developers making money at that time. And-so with the minds of Nintendo and SEGA and co., so-many possibillities and ideas were just floating-around, waiting to be used-up and put into good use and practice, making each new game different to the last.
In the world as it is today, there are very few - if any - new ideas just floating-around that have yet to have been toyed-with by the minds of Miyamoto and Suzuki alike.
And that is, in my view, the one main aspect and problem that has limited the games of today from being as 'great' and 'fantastic' to play as the ones we all once loved back in the day.
So then... I believe strongly that the 2-D games of yesterday still out-shine even the Mario SunShines and Resident Evil's of this world. And why exactly? Because of the lack of innovation and ideas available to make these games stand-out from the rest in the 'Sea of Simillarities'.
That is only my opinion. What is yours?
And it's not just all-about the graphics of games either. All other key aspects of computer and video games - including how well they play - have improved over the years since the days when controllers had only 2 buttons, and it was all so-much simpler as you could litterally just pick-up-and-play without having to read a manual.
The 3-D games of today are 'apparently' much-better than the 2-D titles of the past.
But why is this so? And can it really be true??
Unlike the majority of the younger gamers today, I grew-up with gaming back in the late 80's/early 90's when older games like the Super Mario Bros. series on the NES and Sonic the Hedgehog on the MegaDrive really meant something to you and were - and still are - some of the greatest games you could have ever played.
But because of their youth, they've missed-out on all this, and therefore cannot appreciate all these classics that have made Gaming what it is today. The GameBoy Advance may be bringing-back a few old memories, but they are ONLY Nintendo games. What about SEGA? What about all those Arcade and Atari Amiga classics aswell?? Without first-hand-experience of these games, they will never learn.
If you've played even one of those classic retro games from 10 years ago, whether it be Mario, Sonic, Zelda, and Arcade game, or even Doom or Wolfenstein 3-D on your PC, you'll know how important those games were to us, and how games just wouldn't be the same today without them.
Whether it was the original ideas in them or whatever, their simplicity meant nothing to-us as we played them knowing what we had was something great.
Aside from the time-zones, the one big thing that seems to seperate the 2-D from the 3-D is in it's appearence. Now we all know that the 3-D games of today look a whole-lot better-than the 2-D efforts of the past, but looks aren't all-everything. There's a whole-lot-more to games these days than what's just in their appearences - and that is something the games of yesterday showed-to-us time, after-time, after-time, and-again.
With all that in-mind, there has to be one winner between the 2.
Are 3-D games REALLY all that-much better than 2-D ones we know longer play??
I personally think that, althought many of us may have never touched even one of them for a good 7 years or-so now, the now retro 2-D side-scrolling classics of the past still beat the flashy 3-D revolutions of today's more-modern world.
Sure, they may have been simply created and much simpler to play, but the looks and appearences of a game don't make it quite the game it may actually come to be.
If we hadn't played all thos classics 10 years ago with only 2 or 3 buttons and maybe even a joystick, then we probably wouldn't have a clue today. Those games have helped-us onto the wonders of today's world, like stepping-stones, guiging-us along the right-lines. They have shown us the path to the potential that lies within. They opened-up all the door-ways to the future.
On that note, you could say that 2-Dimensional developments are what has made today's games a whole-lot better. And i'd agree with that, quite strongly too.
But I still do not believe that 3-D is better than 2-D 'full-stop'.
Those games were great for a reason, the same reason that has in-effect created a downfall in one main area of gameplay. What am I talking about? Originallity and Innovation in the Ideas.
Back in the day, during the 'Golden Age of Gaming', when the SNES and MegaDrive were battling-it-out for supremecy, very-few ideas had already been used-up by the developers making money at that time. And-so with the minds of Nintendo and SEGA and co., so-many possibillities and ideas were just floating-around, waiting to be used-up and put into good use and practice, making each new game different to the last.
In the world as it is today, there are very few - if any - new ideas just floating-around that have yet to have been toyed-with by the minds of Miyamoto and Suzuki alike.
And that is, in my view, the one main aspect and problem that has limited the games of today from being as 'great' and 'fantastic' to play as the ones we all once loved back in the day.
So then... I believe strongly that the 2-D games of yesterday still out-shine even the Mario SunShines and Resident Evil's of this world. And why exactly? Because of the lack of innovation and ideas available to make these games stand-out from the rest in the 'Sea of Simillarities'.
That is only my opinion. What is yours?