2D vs 3D

This is a debate that has been raging for sometime, ever since the creation of the N64, which truly ushered in the age of 3D games. Basically, you have two factions: Those that prefer their game 2D and don't see what all the fuss is about 3D, and those that like 3D better.

2Ders look mostly at the old games, like Castlevania, Sonic, and such, and say "these 3D iterations of classic 2D games are awful and violate all that was great with the original series. They also blatantly ignore Mario 64, since, as in every great debate, anything that disproves your point doesn't exist.

3Ders are all caught up in the magic of multiple dimensions and cool new things that can be done, and feel "if it ain't broke (i.e., 2D) fix it anyway, cause heck, it can always be better in 3D." They realize stumbles may happen, like Castlevania 64, but prefer to keep optimistic.

It's a stupid debate. It's like pitting Christians and everyone else and saying "debate your point until you're blue in the face" (and anyone of you out there that think relating games to a religion is idiotic hasn't see true gamers). Both sides know they have good points, but all they ever want to do it prove themselves right.

Ah, the nature of humans.

So, I will try and setup a bridge here, cause I have nothing better to do and a couple pages of column to crank out.

Let's start with the 2D front. Arguably, every good game from before 1996 that came out was 2D, mostly cause every game that came out (barring 1st person shooters) was 2D. Their whole point is that all these great games are 2D, so why should we try something new when the formula is obviously working. Well, as logical as that may seem, everything thrives on innovation. I know if I played 6 games that were all like Mario 3, I'd get really tired of Mario 3 games. Heck, when you play enough of the first 6 Final Fantasy games, you kinda see how the same ideas over and again can get tedious.

Of course, the FFs are classics, so don't get on me about it. Taken one at a time, over the years, they are fine. But when you see some of the major innovations put into the later games, and other RPGs even more so (like Secret of Mana, and the oft mentioned Chrono Trigger), you kinda see how they get repetitive.

Back on track, repetitive is bad. 3Ders like the fact that 3D is a bold new world (or at least, was a couple years back... now it's a bold, mildly aged world) ripe for exploring, and that every game could stand a good burst of 3D to help shake off any dust.

But game companies have problems innovating. Besides some members at Nintendo who seem to know how to make new ideas work) most people are clueless and just stumble around trying to take what has been done before and make it work.

Look at Castlevania Lament of Innocence. That game screams "Devil May Cry" at the top of its lungs. DMC is a good game, but dang, even DMC2 was too much of the same to work twice.

And we're back to a lack of innovation. You get one game that does it right (Mario 64, DMC, Doom) and then everyone makes that game again and again (DK64, countless Doom clones, LoI). So there in lies a major flaw. We want new, but we want truly new. Sadly, most 2D games are retreads. It's hard to do a lot when everything's already been done. 3D falls into this problem cause not much has been done, so nothing new GETS done.

Vicious cycle. Course, all this is my opinion on the matter.

But let us take one more look at something. 2D and 3D can co-exist. with 3D consoles and 2D handhelds, we can get the best of both worlds. Heck, 2 Metroid game were released that were both fairly playable, and while Metroid Fusion felt a lot like Super Metroid, it at least did some new stuff, and helped to show 2D as a still viable entity.

My thought is just to embrace both, but then, it's hard to say that when two camps are screaming at the top of their lungs at each other.