|
Editorials 
Gimmicks, Crap, Money, and the Third Dimension
- By Kevlar
Gorilla
The last thing I want to write is a pointless description of how the world of video games is today. The following editorial is to contemplate on what the main differences between 2D and 3D are, speculate why we prefer one method over the other, see what’s at the root of this discrepancy, and then formulate a solution.
We should realize that we, as gamers and members of the video game media, cannot impact the industry so much as to ban one type of game style simply because another is ‘cutting-edge’ or even ‘classic’.
We all know that all the newest games are in 3D, or 3D ‘do-overs’ of all of our favourite games (Pac-Man World comes to mind). But why? Has there been some meeting between all the big-cheeses of the industry declaring that all things must be in 3D? Has there been some sort of cataclysmal occurrence that resulted in the banning all 2D games? I don’t think so. I think the question is not ‘Why?’ but more ‘Why not?’.
2D games came out first because the mediums they came out on were limited. Also, a monitor or TV screen is a 2D surface. It just made sense to create 2D games, because there was no room for variety or choice.
The early ‘quasi-3D’ games were treated more like a gimmick than a real attempt of fun 3D goodness. 3D elements (scrolling backgrounds, sprite scaling and rotation) have been around since the 16-bit generation and even earlier in PCs (3D Tetris, 3D Pong) and arcades (Battle Zone). We all live in a 3D world, so it may be reasonable to believe that if we were given more graphical power earlier on, we would never had had to make the 2D games.
Most of us, the grown up kids of yesterday, believe that the 2D games were best because sprites simulated emotion and they were simpler. After several minutes of contemplating such a fact, I concluded that it was because we were kids back then and we didn’t know any better.
We still don’t.
If we really wanted 2D games, don’t you think people who want to make money would realize that? The truth is, we don’t really want 2D games. We want quality games, regardless of the number of dimensions it may or may not have. Just because a game can be done in 3D, doesn’t mean it should.
It’s a real shame when a company dismisses quality just to cash in on a gimmick such as ‘3D’. This type of thinking is also present today with other nifty things such as cel-shading (Cel-Damage), being one the first ‘next-gen’ games (Batman Vengeance), or even still more quasi-3D contraptions (Iridion 3D). Cel-shading has a lot of promise as Cel-Damage looks absolutely great, but the game play is weak. Same with Iridion. I have come up with a nifty flow-chart that sums up this situation quite nicely:
Tis a pity really; all this talent that goes to waste.
So now what? What can we do?
The most important thing to do is to break the flowchart at one of the earliest links... don’t judge a game a certain way because of its technology before it’s released; you may be surprised at what you find.
Quality 2D games are good. Quality 3D games are good. If there’s one thing that we as gamers and members of the video game media should do, it would simply be to encourage more good games to be made. Good games are good games. The end.
Agree with what I'm saying? Disagree? Let us know your thoughts on this issue in our mail bag. The views of Kevlar Gorilla are not necessarily the views of NGenres.com or its affiliates.
|
 |
|
QUOTE: |
| "Tis a pity really; all this talent that goes to waste." |
|
