Slashdot Mirror
Do Next-Gen Games Have to be 3D?
sudnshok asks: "Last week, an article was posted where an EA executive discussed the high cost involved with next-gen game development. While I agree that sports games do benefit from a high-resolution 3D environment, do all games have to be developed that way? Why can't game companies develop 2D games for these systems? I would assume the development cost would be much lower. As a gamer who grew up on the NES, I'd love to see a new 2D side-scrolling installment of Castlevania or Zelda. I'm curious if other gamers would buy 2D games for next-gen systems."
Heck, I remember when 3D meant isometric.
c++;
A pox on your graphical tomfoolery I say! I'd rather stick to my text based gaming for true quality. While I may dabble in 2D or even 3D entertainment on occaision with my console systems I still return more often to Discworld MUD than any other game. It's totally free, has no graphics at all and has a level of detail and depth that would make the average game developer blush and make excuses. Graphics maketh not the game! Gameplay is not measured by frame rate or polygon count and you can ram your vertex shaded gouroud lightsourcing where nothing but the lightsourcing shines.
These developer chappies should damn well consider gameplay first and consider presentation later. It is an add-on; window dressing and nothing more. If a game would be poor without its graphics then it is a poor game that has been disguised in a deceitful mantle of polygonal lies!
*fumes*
There's also Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon for the Philips CD-i.
Circumcision is child abuse.