I think the real problem you guys are having with these 3D games is not the 3D itself, but the "dumbing down" of the gaming experience to suit the masses. Using 3D to add "pizazz" at the expense of depth of gameplay is what's happening to a large majority of releases recently.
In my case, this is not true. In my case, it is strictly about being able to see more/better in 2D than 3D, i.e., being restricted to a single viewing angle. It's why I like Worms better in 2D than 3D. It's why I like Lemmings better in 2D than 3D. Etc.
The reason why I like my Super Mario games better in 2D than 3D is because I get lost in the 3D ones. There's too much to do, too many places to go. I like the "restriction" in 2D.
The other factor is as you say, a 3D game is typically different than a 2D one. A 3D Mario is a different game than a 2D Mario. A 3D Metroid is different than a 2D Metroid. A 3D Castlevania is different than a 2D one (they've never been able to make a good version of the former).
I guess the MAIN point is, at least in SOME of the cases, some games have been created in 3D for the sake of creating them in 3D. There's also the factor of playing games on a monitor versus a television. Even with a big HD TV (in my case, 50" at roughly 10 feet away), there are certain game types that I struggle with playing (RTS) versus a monitor where you're close up, simply because the pieces become too small and the screen too cluttered. What would mitigate that would be having a clear 2D playfield with larger pieces. Even many board games suffer from going 3D when they really should just be 2D. They can be tough to see. My favorite example of this (though old at this point) is Wrath Unleashed, which was a spiritual successor to Archon, but very much a disaster because the board - which should have been in 2D (the 3D battles could have stayed, push come to shove) - was impossible to make out what was what (again, at least for me).
It's an old argument and one I've (and we've) certainly made before. Just like deciding what art style to go with, what engine to use, etc., deciding on the perspective is critically important. Sometimes restricting your game - even if it's made entirely of polygons - to a 2D plane is the best way to go. Like I said, I do see this trend becoming more and more frequent, where it's not the whiz-bang tech that's driving design (after all, we haven't had a technological breakthrough the equivalent of the transition from sprites to polygons in ages, so it's only natural that things would start to settle down), but what works best for the game. You can still have something look amazing and look state-of-the-art.
The only time I can think of the experience being "dumbed down" is in the case of today's RPG's versus classic RPG's, but it's arguable that that's more streamlining than dumbing down. I'd be hard pressed to call a game like say, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, or Fable II, dumbed down (depth-wise) in any way from what came before. They're just different.
*************************** Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
I think the real problem you guys are having with these 3D games is not the 3D itself, but the "dumbing down" of the gaming experience to suit the masses. Using 3D to add "pizazz" at the expense of depth of gameplay is what's happening to a large majority of releases recently.
In my case, this is not true. In my case, it is strictly about being able to see more/better in 2D than 3D, i.e., being restricted to a single viewing angle. It's why I like Worms better in 2D than 3D. It's why I like Lemmings better in 2D than 3D. Etc.
The reason why I like my Super Mario games better in 2D than 3D is because I get lost in the 3D ones. There's too much to do, too many places to go. I like the "restriction" in 2D.
The other factor is as you say, a 3D game is typically different than a 2D one. A 3D Mario is a different game than a 2D Mario. A 3D Metroid is different than a 2D Metroid. A 3D Castlevania is different than a 2D one (they've never been able to make a good version of the former).
I guess the MAIN point is, at least in SOME of the cases, some games have been created in 3D for the sake of creating them in 3D. There's also the factor of playing games on a monitor versus a television. Even with a big HD TV (in my case, 50" at roughly 10 feet away), there are certain game types that I struggle with playing (RTS) versus a monitor where you're close up, simply because the pieces become too small and the screen too cluttered. What would mitigate that would be having a clear 2D playfield with larger pieces. Even many board games suffer from going 3D when they really should just be 2D. They can be tough to see. My favorite example of this (though old at this point) is Wrath Unleashed, which was a spiritual successor to Archon, but very much a disaster because the board - which should have been in 2D (the 3D battles could have stayed, push come to shove) - was impossible to make out what was what (again, at least for me).
It's an old argument and one I've (and we've) certainly made before. Just like deciding what art style to go with, what engine to use, etc., deciding on the perspective is critically important. Sometimes restricting your game - even if it's made entirely of polygons - to a 2D plane is the best way to go. Like I said, I do see this trend becoming more and more frequent, where it's not the whiz-bang tech that's driving design (after all, we haven't had a technological breakthrough the equivalent of the transition from sprites to polygons in ages, so it's only natural that things would start to settle down), but what works best for the game. You can still have something look amazing and look state-of-the-art.
The only time I can think of the experience being "dumbed down" is in the case of today's RPG's versus classic RPG's, but it's arguable that that's more streamlining than dumbing down. I'd be hard pressed to call a game like say, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, or Fable II, dumbed down (depth-wise) in any way from what came before. They're just different.
***************************
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.