IcyCalm is making a game..

[Skykid]

Sorry sorry, my bad. Sarcasm detector not working today.

[Squire Grooktook]

It's aaaaallll good.

Also speaking of fighting games. I remember a long time ago, someone on the srk.forums linked to one of Icycalms articles. I had no idea who he was at the time, but it was an article about "instinct" and I remember agreeing with one of his conclusions at the end that bigger/more is better, and that more characters, more stages, etc. is always a good thing (in hindsight though, as one of my friends pointed out, a fighting game with 100+ characters would be incredibly frustrating to learn, even if they all somehow were balanced, as there would be far too many match ups to learn in order to compete reasonably well).

However I then went on to wander his blog/website/whatever, and found another article in which he furiously bashes, insults, and calls every name in the book some fellow "video game theorist". A bit nonplussed, I went on continue looking at articles only to run into page after page of fanboying over Nietzsche and philosophical wank, at which point I promplty left thinking "uhhh, okay maybe this guy isn't for me."

I had no idea until now that that guy was Icycalm.

[Skykid]

What's incredible is how ass backward the entire notion of complexity equalling superiority is. Complexity more often than not is a hindrance, especially where gaming is concerned. I'm sure most of the philosophers he admires would be seeking a purity of thought, not an eternally complex battle.

I can't be bothered to go through the whole thing again, so here's the thread where one of Icy's zealot outcasts put the man's misguided appropriation of 'complexity' to the forum, handled neatly by myself, drum, MX7 and some others.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=38677

And MX7 putting a fine point on it:

Yes, asserting that something can only be worthy of positive critical appraisal should it achieve an arbitrary (and clearly highly subjective) degree of complexity is, of course, mind-crushingly asinine.

[Squire Grooktook]

What's incredible is how ass backward the entire notion of complexity equalling superiority is. Complexity more often than not is a hindrance, especially where gaming is concerned. I'm sure most of the philosophers he admires would be seeking a purity of thought, not an eternally complex battle.

Yeah. My general feeling is that complexity is best when it doesn't come from the game itself, but rather the players and what they have to do in order to win. For example Street Fighter, and most fighting games, aren't all that complex or strange in their rules when you come down to it, but the matches of high level players can be very deep and complex. Similarly, shmups are probably the simplest genre in terms of controls, but the movements you have to make to dodge patterns are often very complex and involved.


Really, I think the whole concept of his blog is kinda stupid. Sure, it helps to think about game design a bit and take some advice and insight from people who have worked in the field, but by all accounts making a good video game isn't about writing five hundred thousand essays on the philosophy of playing and designing games: It comes down to common sense, planning, hard work, and putting critical thought into what you want to accomplish with your game and how best to accomplish it. And coding skill, obviously. Lots of coding skills.

Also lol at his "labyrinthine" game having a 4 page planning document. Kind of telling that he's able to write 1000 lengthy blog posts stroking his own ego and reiterating his own (bad) ideas over and over, but can't even get into any more thorough detail on the content of his apparently massive game than 4 pages.

[Skykid]

^ Indeed.

However, let's agree it's best never to lose sight of the fact we're discussing an individual suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder and a host of other mental health issues. That's not a sleight or defamation of character either, but a truth we need to take stock of if we're going to address his ramblings.

Fact of the matter is, owing to the above, it's not worth discussing these points in relation to what he says, but just between ourselves.

So on that note, yes, I agree completely. Simplicity coupled with depth by virtue of design, mechanics and coding prowess are far more powerful attributes than outright complexity. A game that allows anyone to play owing to its approachability, but also invites a handful to master to the nth degree is a playing field that's encouraging complexity of skill. I think some of the best games ever written revolve around these factors - the difficulty is getting the balance right.

3D games are complex on a purely technical level, they cost hundreds of millions to make and employ upward of a thousand staff. Icy reiterates over and over that these factors equal bigger is better. But the games? There's no depth of complexity in playing Call of Duty's campaign - a game he cites as AAA brilliance. It's been tweaked so you can barely miss an enemy, rarely die, and generally push the trigger button the whole way through while having plenty of time to stop and admire the show around you. In multiplayer skill is required, I'll agree with that, but that's a human element forcing tactics and skill levels from the player: how is that any different from a 2D fighting game?

So if single player 2D game campaigns historically offer more challenge and depth than the current 3D crop, multiplayer aside it's difficult to claim 3D is outright superior. I'm waiting for that to be proven.

[Volteccer_Jack]

My general feeling is that complexity is best when it doesn't come from the game itself, but rather the players and what they have to do in order to win.

This is a really silly way to look at it imo. All that complexity DOES come from the game itself. The potentiality of that complexity is built into the game from the start. Players have to draw it out for it to matter, granted, but they can't draw things out of the game that don't exist in the first place. The best character in the game is still the best even if the players haven't realized it yet. Nobody will ever be good enough to perform HPxRekka while playing as Guile.

What's incredible is how ass backward the entire notion of complexity equalling superiority is. Complexity more often than not is a hindrance, especially where gaming is concerned. I'm sure most of the philosophers he admires would be seeking a purity of thought, not an eternally complex battle.

In the first thing he wrote on the subject, he addressed this:

The distinction between "meaningful" and "meaningless" rules is simple: meaningless ones do not really make the game more complex -- they only seemingly do so

I wish people would put more effort into refuting icycalm.

So if single player 2D game campaigns historically offer more challenge and depth than the current 3D crop, multiplayer aside it's difficult to claim 3D is outright superior.

I don't think historical existing games are even necessary. 3D is obviously inherently superior. You can argue that it is never handled properly, but that is a really weak argument. I could be like icy and point out that a 2D world can easily be a small part of a larger 3D world while the reverse is impossible. That same article I mentioned above discusses the distance between the best and worst possible players, which is obviously much greater in Call of Duty, even if Contra has a higher minimum requirement for passing the story, which would seem to be entirely consistent with icycalm's opinion of those two games.

In multiplayer skill is required, I'll agree with that, but that's a human element forcing tactics and skill levels from the player: how is that any different from a 2D fighting game?

Obviously because there is more room to express those tactics/skills/mindgames/whathaveyou in a greater number of ways. Unless you honestly think SF2 is still the best fighting game, in which case I kind of doubt discussion can get anywhere.

But whoa I better stop agreeing with icy about anything before I get banned.

[Skykid]

Oh Jesus, you're one of them.

I really don't want to have this idiotic discussion. Suffice to say, seeing as you're completely and utterly wrong:

3D is obviously inherently superior.

Prove it.

[Udderdude]

.

[Teufel_in_Blau]

A-am I a-allowed to s-s-say that I find the discussion about complexity in games actually very interesting? Honestly, in this forum most users are way over 15 years old and we have many users here that played or are playing a wide array of different games from different genres. I think we COULD have a fruitful discussion without insulting each others intelligence.

I don't think historical existing games are even necessary. 3D is obviously inherently superior. You can argue that it is never handled properly, but that is a really weak argument. I could be like icy and point out that a 2D world can easily be a small part of a larger 3D world while the reverse is impossible. That same article I mentioned above discusses the distance between the best and worst possible players, which is obviously much greater in Call of Duty, even if Contra has a higher minimum requirement for passing the story, which would seem to be entirely consistent with icycalm's opinion of those two games.

I can't really speak about CoD since I never played enough to make a judgement, but let's not forget that the most complex games that you can play atm in the world of video games are actually 2D. I'm talking about the Grand Strategy genre, games like Distant Worlds: Universe, Hearts of Iron 3, Victoria 2 etc. are all in 2D and the instances where 3D was added, like in Sins of the Solar Empire, the 3D didn't add any complexity, only navigation problems. The 3D aspect was an annoyance and hindered the actual strategy part because you was constantly moving the camera in different directions to get a better view without any benefits. Homeworld series is another great example, while fighting sequences were nice to look at, the camera work that was involved was very annoying and didn't add any benefits to the tactical part.

[Mischief Maker]

Everyone wants to defeat Khan with 3D thinking.

Now that we have a generation who thinks Khan is nothing more than the poor man's Hannibal Lector with superpowers, the demand for 3D strategy will see a steep decline.

[Skykid]

I can't really speak about CoD since I never played enough to make a judgement, but let's not forget that the most complex games that you can play atm in the world of video games are actually 2D. I'm talking about the Grand Strategy genre, games like Distant Worlds: Universe, Hearts of Iron 3, Victoria 2 etc. are all in 2D and the instances where 3D was added, like in Sins of the Solar Empire, the 3D didn't add any complexity, only navigation problems. The 3D aspect was an annoyance and hindered the actual strategy part because you was constantly moving the camera in different directions to get a better view without any benefits. Homeworld series is another great example, while fighting sequences were nice to look at, the camera work that was involved was very annoying and didn't add any benefits to the tactical part.

These issues were apparent in many games right at the start of 3D proper, when developers were trying to take existing game designs and genres and refashion them into 3D space. A lot of it was a lot worse before it was better, while select genres - though few - like racing, were suddenly right at home.

But this notion of complexity... everyone seems to have crossed wires as to what everyone else is talking about. 3D games offer 360 degree spatial dimensionality, but only a handful (Portal springs to mind) have used it to any great effect. Many use it as an opportunity to play set-piece theatrics around almost completely on-rails and simplistic action - the actual "game" part is fucking negligible at best. Even in many open worlds, the opportunities are wasted on template character abilities where you're required to press the same button a million times to make the character keep doing the same thing in different parts of the landscape. It's a case of having the technology to create vast and wonderful world, but not having the time to fill it with anything particularly radical, varied or of lasting interest. In games like Red Dead Redemption, which I enjoyed, endless repetition was the primary flaw. After a while it was like the paint had come off and you could see the tin underneath: there was no genuine complexity or challenge, just a series of staged checkpoints to work through.

1ccing 40 minutes of Dracula X recently gave me a hundred times more in the way of complexity. I had to learn it beat for beat and overcome its variations screen by screen, to utilise its weaponry to tactical advantage, and be precise in exercising strategy. It was more fulfilling in depth to fifty hours of Red Dead.

A good FPS I won't knock, they're games designed for a 3D environment and when they're well designed (Gears) they're good, and when they're poorly designed (Killzone) bad. But we had superb FPSes with Doom, and that was fucking 2D with actual level design to compliment the raw survival.

Not to lose sight of the discussion, I don't see how 3D has done anything to appoint itself "inherently superior" to 2D gaming. Strip all the visuals away and you're left with an object of interaction with a level of 'complexity' in-part defined by the skill of the player. For my money 2D has shown itself to be pretty darn good at this aspect of engagement - 3D often shirks the responsibility in favour of on-rails budget splurging.

[Damocles]

I'm with bloodflowers on this one. At this point he's just trolling.

ERMAGERD! THE INTERNET REACTION TO HIS POTENTIAL GAME IS THE ACTUAL GAME! WE'RE ALL PLAYING HIS GAME RIGHT NOW!

Well that was fun. I really do hope he's serious about this. We would finally get to see the quasi-intellectual masturbatory processes inside his head. Ya know, if that's what gets you off.

[BryanM]

complexity

For mass market appeal yeah your thing has to be simple or shiny as shit. There's always that niche that wants stuff like a wargame where the amount of water your troops require varies on by how much pasta they eat.

ET for the 2600 is a fair example. Thing is opaque as shit, and nobody reads the instruction manual. But once you learn all the jedi powers and to not allow your Yoda to slam into the bottom of a pit (300 hp worth of damage~) it becomes a decent game of hide and seek and tag.

It was kind of horrifying when I realized it's on the top ten list of joystick games for the 2600. That's not so much a compliment for ET and more of a slam of how awful games used to be in the beginning.

but by all accounts making a good video game isn't about writing five hundred thousand essays on the philosophy of playing and designing games

This reminds me of the guys on LessWrong that plan to develop AI by.... sitting around and talking about the philosophy of AI.

Call of Duty

I have to love the invisible invincible Gauntlet style monster generators that poop out an infinite swarm of terrorists. Especially when you're standing right next to one, glance away and .5 microseconds later a guy spawns on top of you. Like you're not going to notice that.

When I realized the campaign was just a series of sprinting past invisible touchdown lines, and that it had more in common with NFL Blitz than DOOM... mind was blown how this... THIS somehow sells millions of copies. I don't know how it works in these other universes, but there's a fundamental rule of reality and video games being violated, badly, here:

[Some-Mist]

complexity

For mass market appeal yeah your thing has to be simple or shiny as shit. There's always that niche that wants stuff like a wargame where the amount of water your troops require varies on by how much pasta they eat.

which is why TF2 took off and became insanely popular while TFC struggled to grab new players. once they removed everything that made TFC difficult, added hats, and critical damage hits, the game became "fun" for a much larger demographic as opposed to designed for those who enjoyed steep/difficult learning curves.

valve noticed this right away - new players don't want to have to take years and years to master mechanics like sharking, bunnyhopping, rampsliding, hand-held conc jumping, conc-aim, etc. while getting wrecked by seasoned players.. so they removed grenades completely, slowed the game down, and introduced different personalities for each of the characters and made it more appealing to those who couldn't get into the original.

and TF2 has done outrageously good for valve, but it's the complete opposite (almost feels like a bare bones version) of quakeworld team fortress and team fortress classic.

[system11]

3D is obviously inherently superior.

Name a 3D platform game which wasn't:

1) Mostly on rails
2) Frustrating and glitchy or plagued with camera issues
3) Heavily assisted

I think the best 3D platformer I've ever played is Tomb Raider Anniversary - but it ticks points 3 and 2 to a certain degree. 3D is obviously superior for certain types of game, but others have proven ... problematic. You know this because you're registered on this forum, the statement is preposterous.

There's no point putting much effort into debunking Icycalm anymore, because he's become a caricature of the flawed mess he turned into. It's like making fun of a mumbling old vagrant pushing a trolley full of tin cans.

[jepjepjep]

3D is obviously inherently superior.

Prove it.

Zaxxon >>> 2D shmups

[jepjepjep]

I think there needs to be a distinction between 3D graphics (polygons, etc.) and 3D gameplay (three spatial dimensions).

Double Dragon had fighting in three dimensions back in 1987. Wolfenstein 3D had 3D-gameplay with sprite graphics (3D is in the name even!).

[Udderdude]

.

[Squire Grooktook]

My general feeling is that complexity is best when it doesn't come from the game itself, but rather the players and what they have to do in order to win.

This is a really silly way to look at it imo. All that complexity DOES come from the game itself. The potentiality of that complexity is built into the game from the start. Players have to draw it out for it to matter, granted, but they can't draw things out of the game that don't exist in the first place. The best character in the game is still the best even if the players haven't realized it yet. Nobody will ever be good enough to perform HPxRekka while playing as Guile.

There's a difference between a game that outright demands you abide by complex and arbitrary rules (imagine if, in a shmup, you had to piano a 6 button combination with a directional input every time you wanted to fire your basic shot), and a game that is inherently simple but has potential for complex play. What I mean is that complexity shouldn't come from, or be enforced by, the basic rules of the game.

I'm also not so sure that such complexity is always "built into the game from the start". There are many competitive games that were not intended as such, or were taken to a level beyond what the developers originally thought would be possible. It's just that the system allowed players the freedom to do so.

Besides, the most truly deep thing about any fighting games IMO, is the reading and mind games, something which exists in almost any game that has a rock/paper/scissors strategic factor and is applied to the game purely by the players. Street Fighter 2 itself is, as I said, a very simple game and almost everything that goes on in it is very intuitive and understandable even for intermediate and casual players, it's the mind games and reads and "yomi" that goes on in players heads as they attempt to analyze and predict the other player that is mindbogglingly complex. It's not that those mind games were built into the game, but that they are made possible by a simple rule set.

[Volteccer_Jack]

Oh Jesus, you're one of them.

One of what? You're not gonna tear down the guy by making the same kinds of dumb generalizations he makes. The fact that people have such extreme reaction to him only makes me think there's something important about what he says. As long as people keeping saying what amounts to "I don't have to refute him because he is subhuman trash", I feel like I have to take him seriously. And he likes DmC, so I promise I don't enjoy taking him seriously.

3D is obviously inherently superior.

Prove it.

In a 3D space you can do more things. Pretty simple. Your argument appears to be, "a good 2D game is more tightly designed" which at best sidesteps my point, and at worst implies that tight design is impossible in a 3D space.

Name a 3D platform game which wasn't:

1) Mostly on rails
2) Frustrating and glitchy or plagued with camera issues
3) Heavily assisted

I didn't say 3D games are better than 2D games. I said 3D is better than 2D. It's a conceptual argument. No matter how nice your apartment is, I still want to live in a house (and before anybody jumps on me, preferring one does not preclude enjoying the other).

I further think that you have cherry-picked the most lopsided possible genre for this comparison. 2D platformers have been broken down to absolute science to the point where even talentless hacks can put together something solid and fun by following classic formulas. Meanwhile even the masters of platforming are fairly amateurish about 3D games. Better comparisons would be brawlers or action RPGs. Bayonetta or Battle Circuit? Sorry, as much as I love Battle Circuit, I'm taking Bayonetta to the desert island.

But ignoring all that I don't like your challenge criteria. Almost no 3D platformers have camera issues, especially not since dual-analog controls became commonplace. They demand good spacial awareness, which makes them different from 2D platformers, but that's not the same as a problem. "On rails" is in the same boat; I think every single 2D Mario game is more "on rails" than the 3D Mario games. I don't understand what you mean by "heavily assisted". I really love platformers, but I don't see where you are coming from at all.

[ACSeraph]

3D is obviously inherently superior.

Prove it.

In a 3D space you can do more things. Pretty simple. Your argument appears to be, "a good 2D game is more tightly designed" which at best sidesteps my point, and at worst implies that tight design is impossible in a 3D space.

A percieved potential for superiority does not equal actual superiority.

And what's the point in debating superiority anyhow? Isn't is just relative to the demands of the user? I like flight combat, but for my tastes extreme speed and relentless unending action = superior flight combat. So sure 3D flight combat games are more complex and realistic and allow me to do more, but in order to give the player a realistic time frame to work with all those options they have to be slower. Do you think a 3D flight combat game running at the speed of Strikers 1942 could ever possibly work? Therefore relative to my needs as a gamer, 2D is absolutely superior in this case. But for someone looking for realism 3D would be superior. There are also cases where I would find 3D superior for my own needs (horror for example).

Point is, claiming something is inheritly superior is dumb, because it's all relative to the user.

[Squire Grooktook]

The fact that people have such extreme reaction to him only makes me think there's something important about what he says.

People have "extreme reactions" to the writing of neo nazi's, kkk members, and Holocaust deniers. That doesn't mean that those guys have any kind of valid points. Not that Icy is on par with those kind of people, though seeing as he seems to be a narcissist and possibly sociopath who lied to and stole money from people and later laughed about it saying "crime is challenging and fun", who knows what he'd be capable of under the right circumstances..

Anyway, occasionally Icycalm seems to make a fairly reasonable claim in his thousands of thousands of blog entries, but it's hidden amongst:

-Violent hatred of anyone who disagrees with him

-Passing off subjective tastes as objective fact

-Thoughts on game design that are outright wrong

-Complete nonsense

Factor in the pure venom he spews out at pretty much everyone, and you have a pretty good reason why he is a laughing stock, not because there's secretly true game design wisdom hidden within his teachings that will revolutionize the industry (as he believes).

In a 3D space you can do more things. Pretty simple.

You cannot, cannot pull off a shmup bullet hell experience in 3d. You can do it with 3d graphics and 2d gameplay, but the moment you turn the gameplay actually 3d, you will start to have to deal with the camera, and depth perception, and a shit ton of other things. There is nothing in the realm of 3d that would make shmups better (not counting Eschatos style alternate viewpoints, which are technically 2d based movement anyway), and the things that 3d would add to such gameplay would only harm the precision.

You could do something that feels similar, but it wouldn't actually play or be the same.

[drauch]

I didn't say 3D games are better than 2D games. I said 3D is better than 2D. It's a conceptual argument. No matter how nice your apartment is, I still want to live in a house.

5th grade philosophy is down the hall.

[GaijinPunch]

If Tekken, Soul Calibur and VF, for example, weren't as slow as shit

Er, what?

Okay, VF is snappy, but comparatively speaking to 2D FGs, 3D are inherently slower by nature of accommodating the third dimension into the action and the flow required for animated 3D models.

Ummm... okay. You have really, really missed the boat on VF.

Descent was a pretty innovative use of 3D for it's time, too bad nobody ever picked up the concept and ran further with it.

Descent 2 and 3.
I played the shit out of 3.

[Skykid]

Descent was a pretty innovative use of 3D for it's time, too bad nobody ever picked up the concept and ran further with it.

I enjoyed Descent. Tension in that exit window.

You're not gonna tear down the guy by making the same kinds of dumb generalizations he makes. The fact that people have such extreme reaction to him only makes me think there's something important about what he says.

I'm going to tear the guy down because he's a moron who talks shit, and where did I make dumb generalisations? That seems to be your job at the moment.

People having an extreme reaction to toxic mental patients spewing bile about being overlords makes you think there's "something" important in what he says? For real? Weirdly enough I feel as though I'm experiencing a microcosm of how cults come into being. Don't be disingenuous to your intellect, Icycalm offers nothing of value. He's an idiot.

In a 3D space you can do more things. Pretty simple. Your argument appears to be, "a good 2D game is more tightly designed" which at best sidesteps my point, and at worst implies that tight design is impossible in a 3D space.

I didn't say or imply anything of the sort. Did you read my post?

In 3D space you "can do more things"...? Weren't we having a conversation about the idea that 3D equals complexity and complexity equals an inherently better gaming experience. This is like a grade school argument, Icy would throw a lightning bolt through your heart for such terrible representation. If you want to join the discussion, I pray that you try to understand it first.

I didn't say 3D games are better than 2D games. I said 3D is better than 2D. It's a conceptual argument. No matter how nice your apartment is, I still want to live in a house

Dude what in the fuck are you talking about. You play games, you get a feedback from them - a response that triggers your brain and delivers a fun factor. You don't stand around admiring the wallpaper all day.

So sure 3D flight combat games are more complex and realistic and allow me to do more, but in order to give the player a realistic time frame to work with all those options they have to be slower. D

Exactly what I said about FGs a few posts up. They have to be slower to allow the player to react within a 3D environment. There's nothing wrong with this if the game is designed well, but the feedback is different and different people respond more favourably to a different tempo and rhythm. Icycalm trying to sideline 2D as inherently inferior simply by virtue of a game operating in 2D space simply sounds like someone who doesn't understand anything about games - which is a rather funny thought, considering the circumstances, and brightens my whole day.

[Marble]

In 2D there's no real change, it just allows the player to work their spacing and timing management at a faster speed: it's impossible to call it inferior.

But then is there any point in debating with an idiot who thinks 3D equals complexity, even though the dumbing down of gaming has proven just the opposite?

Hmmmmnnnn.

I don't believe there's a direct link between 3D and the 'dumbing down' of gaming, but rather that gaming was already 'dumbed down' by the time we actually had the technology to make half-decent 3D games. Hence why there's never been a 3D platformer that isn't a collect-a-thon; it's not that 3D games are inherently inferior, it's just that no one has bothered to make a good one. If arcade style design was still the trend by the time games like Super Mario 64 came around, things may have turned out very differently.

So with that it makes sense that one could come to the conclusion that 2D fighters are better than 3D fighters, when looking at games that already exist (Which I would agree with). It's even plausible that the current deepest 2D fighter is more complex than the current deepest 3D fighter (I'm not qualified to say), but the 3D model still has more potential for complexity. I mean, there is literally a whole 'nother dimension of strategy to consider. I have a fetish for sprites and will always love them over polygons, but if there ever was an 'ubergame' it would surely be 3D by definition.

I've no interest in discussing whether or not this game will ever come or if it will be as good as Icy thinks it will be, though. But I'd love to hear more about Icy's alleged fraud, out of pure curiosity. (Can someone PM me some links regarding this? I wouldn't want to derail the thread.)

[Skykid]

Again, people are getting quickly sidetracked from the actual topic: complexity and whether or not 3D equals greater 'complexity' and whether or not that in turn equals a superior gaming experience.

The passage you quoted Marble is suggesting that 3D hasn't done anything particularly complex. We have to suffer thousands of games built on exactly the same templates that largely offer an on-rails experience with negligible skill or input required by the player.

That said I agree with most of what you said, except:

it's not that 3D games are inherently inferior, it's just that no one has bothered to make a good one.

There are hundreds (maybe) of great 3D games that are only really possible because of 3D. The best of recent FPSes, Mario Galaxies and 3D Worlds, Portals and racing games and flight simulators, etc etc.

Again, the question is why does Icy and one lone minion believe 3D automatically offers an inherently superior gaming experience to 2D, just because it exists in 3D space.

That's nonsense, and I don't want to hear any more shit about living in different sized homes.

[BryanM]

Well there's nothing really limiting 3D art to have a crappy correlation to its bounding box, such as the infamous plesiosaur "phantom hipcheck" of Monster Hunter fame. You can have choppy Street Fighter 2 sprite-type animation with it. Along with accurate, tight, hit boxes.

It merely requires a desire to do it from the powers that fund.

Things like Orioto's screen redraws do make me think sometimes. What was the last high budget game that tried to use modern traditional art? Dragon's Crown? How many stages was that? How many millions of dollars would an Orioto style Super Mario 3 artset cost? Each screen would basically be its own painting - could a similar effect be achieved more cheaply with flattened 3d models?

I guess I have to agree that 3D rendering systems can do everything 2D can do and more. DirectX 8 didn't even bother to include a 2d mode.

IcyCalm's claim that 2d is for peasants is still a bucket of cat dongs though.

Hence why there's never been a 3D platformer that isn't a collect-a-thon

It's actually to my understanding that the Super Mario 3D World series is a 3d platformer heavily in the classic obstacle course style, where you only _have_ to play through a linear course once.

Unless their advertising and youtube videos have lied to me?

[Marble]

Again, people are getting quickly sidetracked from the actual topic: complexity and whether or not 3D equals greater 'complexity' and whether or not that in turn equals a superior gaming experience.

The passage you quoted Marble is suggesting that 3D hasn't done anything particularly complex. We have to suffer thousands of games built on exactly the same templates that largely offer an on-rails experience with negligible skill or input required by the player.

And if there are that many shitty 3D games out there it's purely because of the incompetency of game developers. When only thinking about the maximum potential for complexity, 3D is superior.

The 'actual topic' seems kinda pointless since everyone already knows there's more to a great game than making it as complex as possible.

There are hundreds (maybe) of great 3D games that are only really possible because of 3D. The best of recent FPSes, Mario Galaxies and 3D Worlds, Portals and racing games and flight simulators, etc etc.

Well you got my point but the part about there never being any good 3D games wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

[Skykid]

Well you got my point but the part about there never being any good 3D games wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

I wouldn't have thought so, but you wrote it pretty straight up.

We're singing from the same sheet mostly, anyway, and I agree the scope for complexity is bound to he broader in 3D space. I'm just waiting for a dev with enough money to save impoverished continents to actually make something that meets the potential. An open world perhaps not entirely based around repetition of the same acts would be a good start. Then we might witness some 'complexity'.