Why modern gaming sucks.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I don't think so; 3d games are just less twitch-oriented than 2d ones. A lot of times, you can't even have fast gameplay because the complexity of 3d controls and cameras is so much greater (e.g. could you imagine playing something as fast as Defender in 3d when you've got enemies behind you? I sure can't)

Have you seen those bonkers Shinobi (PS2) runs on YouTube? There's also Virtual-On, as twitchy as human beings can handle (maybe not the compromised Saturn port). On PCs, I'd say Quake (maybe not on your average rig back in 1996), UT and Tribes came close. It can be done in 3D. ZOE2 tried, but ended up being button mashy in a wrong way and didn't really have good enough performance to supply pure twitch gameplay (Special Edition, not released in the US, allegedly fixed the latter).
As for the enemies where you can't see them, in Twisted Metal: Black you HEAR what you need to know about situation in your blind spot. Worked like a charm, and did so before Dolby Pro Logic II featured in PS2 games.

Yeah, and I seem to remember a buggy and slow game called GTA taking top honors on that system somehow. And popping on random PS2 games like Silent Scope at friends' houses revealed plenty of bad framerates. If I wanted to dig through the library of top games, I'm sure I could find a bunch (I'd expect those WWII FPS games to all be pretty jumpy, for example.. haven't played them on that particular system myself; I remember one of the CoD games on GameCube being pretty choppy).

Heh, I'm still able to enjoy The Getaway. Runs like dogshit and is largely a driving game, which on paper is a recipe for disaster, but I find it entertaining.
Couldn't care less about console first person shooters, though, unless they have some hook like multiplayer on one telly, or do something unique like Urban Chaos: Riot Response but don't have a PC version.

Anyway, there was plenty wrong with the previous generation that I could go on about, but maybe just the games you wanted to play were unusually well-executed.

Aye, got myself a PS2 when the amount of stuff appealing to me on it was irresistible. I'm not sure if people more fond of this gen standards would consider Ōkami​ and Blood Will Tell - two of my favourite darlings - unusually well executed as framerates in those are scattered all over the shop, but what matters to me is that they at least tried to muster as many frames per second as possible and turned out all the more playable for it. Those games were obviously made by people who knew my desires and kept giving. If Naughty Dog games were like super professional hookers, Ōkami​ and Blood Will Tell were like a pair of horny virgins, not even jealous of each other.
When I think of this gen mainstream console games, such metaphors don't come to mind. Admittedly, as far as I am concerned, Wii slowly approaches the PS2 level of desirability (and happens to be backwards compatible as well).

And then there's the stuff by Midway (D:)

I'd say Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy was good, but played it on a PC.

[louisg]

Have you seen those bonkers Shinobi (PS2) runs on YouTube? There's also Virtual-On, as twitchy as human beings can handle (maybe not the compromised Saturn port). On PCs, I'd say Quake (maybe not on your average rig back in 1996), UT and Tribes came close. It can be done in 3D. ZOE2 tried, but ended up being button mashy in a wrong way and didn't really have good enough performance to supply pure twitch gameplay (Special Edition, not released in the US, allegedly fixed the latter).
As for the enemies where you can't see them, in Twisted Metal: Black you HEAR what you need to know about situation in your blind spot. Worked like a charm, and did so before Dolby Pro Logic II featured in PS2 games.

But in Virtual On, you're always facing your opponent. And Quake plays way slower than Doom, plus all the animations are uninterpolated and about 15 fps which makes me think nobody thought you'd be running it full rate. There's almost nothing in 3d that needs reflexes the way fighting games and shmups do, unless it's a one-on-one game (though Q3 arena was quick; that's one exception to the rule).

[Zaarock]

But in Virtual On, you're always facing your opponent.

Not really, you can't just use attacks that make you face your opponent or jump cancel all the time if you want to do well.

example of twitchiness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd3_Oe1LdQ

I've always thought Cypher vs Bal-Bados looks like a 3D shmup (cypher being the player), and it's my favorite matchup partially because of that.

[louisg]

But in Virtual On, you're always facing your opponent.

Not really, you can't just use attacks that make you face your opponent or jump cancel all the time if you want to do well.

example of twitchiness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd3_Oe1LdQ

I've always thought Cypher vs Bal-Bados looks like a 3D shmup (cypher being the player), and it's my favorite matchup partially because of that.

Err, is that an example of not always facing your opponent? Because I think there might be only about 2 seconds in that entire video where that's not the case. Anyway, in most 3d action games, in the time it takes to turn, a ton of time (relative to 2d games) has elapsed. You just don't see stuff paced like Mercs with 3d gameplay because there's no real way they could make it fair. In a 2d game, you see the entire playing field, you turn instantaneously, and the controls are generally very straightforward and precise. These are the reasons the gameplay can generally be faster.

[Obiwanshinobi]

But in Virtual On, you're always facing your opponent.

More like if you lose sight of you opponent, you jump (take a risk of being shot down like a pigeon) and lock on again. That's how I recall things (it's been a while).

And Quake plays way slower than Doom, plus all the animations are uninterpolated and about 15 fps which makes me think nobody thought you'd be running it full rate.

Dunno, this surely takes a lot of precision and reflexes, as well as frequent updates.

There's almost nothing in 3d that needs reflexes the way fighting games and shmups do, unless it's a one-on-one game (though Q3 arena was quick; that's one exception to the rule).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbS8dXTg8w
More 3D games should be fast paced, but it requires arcade-solid performance (which won't necessarily make for best looking screenshots out there) and great deal of work on the field of actual game design. If the gameplay mechanics have yet to be invented, make it happen, somebody. My respect for Sega greatly increased when I realised they actually put some serious thought into it. Shinobi for the PS2 and Virtual-On play like nothing else out there once you get to know them. It's pretty obvious to me that the potential of dash and lock on remains to a great extent dormant as far as 3D gets. Tere's still plenty of room for improvement.
Silent Bomber I keep banging on about is also rather fast if you play it properly for the score and that. Unsurprisingly, dashing and locking on things features prominently in that game too. Wall jumping is underused, but certainly doesn't break anything.

You just don't see stuff paced like Mercs with 3d gameplay because there's no real way they could make it fair.

Apocalypse (starring Bruce Willis) almost made it (provided you played it with analogue sticks). Almost, because the performance wasn't always great, but the controls were phenomenal. Doesn't look that hot on videos, but still plays well.