IcyCalm is making a game..

[BryanM]

Any mechanic you add automatically adds complexity to new players. Rosewater (Magic the Gathering) goes on and on about how they try not to overwhelm newbs trying to learn what's already a fairly difficult game.

There's a big difference between things that you need to know, and things that are helpful to know. For example, in ET you need to be familiar with the Jedi powers that lay on the ground. You need to know to use the sonar, you need to know you have to find the Phone Home force power, and it really helps if you know to levitate before slamming into the bottom of a pit. You have to know these things before having a chance of winning.

While not knowing exactly what a frog or hammer brothers suit in SMB3 does doesn't hurt you at all.

I guess we all associate "complexity" with the ET example and "variety" with the Mario powerups. The only worthwhile observation I have here is that mechanics of MTGathering fall in between the two: Set mechanics aren't inscrutable obtuse bs since they explain what they do right there, but knowing more about them can help you make better decisions.

Folks aren't really big fans of the obtuse: The most popular fighting game is Smash Brothers and not Street Fucker 5,000 or whatever. As soon as you've got secret wizard movements to do special attacks you've pretty much lost everyone's mom.

But uh... no "meaningful complexity" isn't an Icy invention. We all know that Candyland isn't a game. Bingo isn't a game. They play themselves. The term itself just seems very popular with folks who like to talk about cognitive philosophy (go figure). The rest of us just think of it as a reductive concept.

I dunno. I think of anything that takes work to add as "complexity". By that measure you could spend hundreds of years adding polygons and pixels to some character's foot and we can all probably agree that doesn't objectively make it a better game, or even a better abstraction of a foot necessarily.

Damnit now I'm using some "this is not a pipe" type jargon. Time for bed.

[quash]

I also saw a quote somewhere (someone might be able to find it) where he suggested that 2D fighting games are only measured in time whereas 3D are measured in time and space, making them superior.

I believe he said that beatemups are primarily about controlling space, whereas fighters are primarily about controlling time. Which isn't an incorrect assertion, as far as I'm concerned. Seth Killian took that a step further and asserted that 2D fighters place more emphasis on spacing than 3D fighters, with the emphasis on time vice versa.

The spacing game in SF2 for example has some pretty timing intensive elements, but ultimately your decisions that factor in timing are being made on the basis of where your opponent is on screen. A basic example of this is choosing a faster or slower fireball depending on the distance between you and your opponent.

If anything 2D fighting games require measurement of space and time (timing) far more precisely than those that invoke a third dimension, where the developer has to build an engine that allows response time, thus slowing the action down.

Uh, what? Yeah, the animations are technically slower in 3D fighters, but it's not like you're reacting to 10 frame jabs or anything lol (twitch reaction notwithstanding).

If Tekken, Soul Calibur and VF, for example, weren't as slow as shit, there would be no opportunity to avoid blows or grapples if one party rolls around to flank the opposition. For that reason the pacing has to drop to allow reasonable opportunity for attack and defence.

Again, what? You must not have much experience with 3D fighters, because fighting purely on reaction is a good way to get killed. Conversely, most 2D games place a heavy emphasis on reaction based play (CVS2 being an extreme example) because you can't have the kind of neutral game that VF and Tekken have in 2D. You can, however, have a 2D-like neutral game in 3D; any 3D fighter pre-VF3 works as an example of that.

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.

Actually, it's pretty easy to call it inferior because many 2D fighters give you fuck all in terms of defensive options. The appeal of "anime" games is that they can somewhat replicate the superior aspects of 3D games (more options in terms of movement and defense) while retaining the superior aspects of 2D games (spacing and footsies).

[Skykid]

I believe he said that beatemups are primarily about controlling space, whereas fighters are primarily about controlling time.

I don't know, someone will have to find the quote.

Which isn't an incorrect assertion, as far as I'm concerned. Seth Killian took that a step further and asserted that 2D fighters place more emphasis on spacing than 3D fighters, with the emphasis on time vice versa.

Again, you'll need to find the quote to be sure. I'm quite confident it was a vague, near abitrary statement that didn't make sense. 2D fighters obviously place considerable emphasis on spacing because you're dealing with a more precise visual display that makes it easier to measure distance and gauge ranges/hitboxes. Timing is of course pivotal to victory.

The spacing game in SF2 for example has some pretty timing intensive elements, but ultimately your decisions that factor in timing are being made on the basis of where your opponent is on screen. A basic example of this is choosing a faster or slower fireball depending on the distance between you and your opponent.

And?

If anything 2D fighting games require measurement of space and time (timing) far more precisely than those that invoke a third dimension, where the developer has to build an engine that allows response time, thus slowing the action down.

Uh, what? Yeah, the animations are technically slower in 3D fighters, but it's not like you're reacting to 10 frame jabs or anything lol (twitch reaction notwithstanding).

So you're agreeing with me then.

Again, what? You must not have much experience with 3D fighters

Some. I used to play Tekken 3 competitively in the arcade. I don't like them much. It doesn't really matter though because the discussion is (was, three pages ago) about FG's requiring both spacing and timing in both 3D and 2D with neither being restricted to one or the other.

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.

Actually, it's pretty easy to call it inferior because many 2D fighters give you fuck all in terms of defensive options.

Oh right, well then they're definitely inferior then. Thanks for setting that straight.

Think I'm done here.

[quash]

Again, you'll need to find the quote to be sure. I'm quite confident it was a vague, near abitrary statement that didn't make sense.

The pinnacle of analysis right here, people.

2D fighters obviously place considerable emphasis on spacing because you're dealing with a more precise visual display that makes it easier to measure distance and gauge ranges/hitboxes. Timing is of course pivotal to victory.

"More precise", lol. Yes, because hitboxes are always where the sprite makes them out to be.

Fun fact: did you know that VF doesn't use hitboxes at all? It actually uses model based collision detection, so what you see is actually what you get.

Who's "more precise" now?

So you're agreeing with me then.

I'm not agreeing to anything. If you think 3D games are slower because the animations are slower, then you've really missed the mark.

Some. I used to play Tekken 3 competitively in the arcade. I don't like them much. It doesn't really matter though because the discussion is (was, three pages ago) about FG's requiring both spacing and timing in both 3D and 2D with neither being restricted to one or the other.

Nobody ever said one was restricted to the other. All I've been trying to illustrate is where the emphasis is placed in different games.

Oh right, well then they're definitely inferior then. Thanks for setting that straight.

Missing the point as usual, I see. You didn't even respond to the most important part of my post.

It's not that 2D fighters are inferior, it's that certain aspects of them are.

Making a good 2D fighter in 2014 is a balancing act of implementing new ways to move and defend yourself (in other words, the things that 3D fighters have been doing since the beginning) along with keeping the superior elements of 2D fighters intact. For my money, Guilty Gear and Arcana Heart have done the best job at this. Games like Blazblue have missed the forest for the trees and implemented aspects of 3D fighters that don't translate well into 2D (attribute invincibility and directional ground techs, to name a few).

I doubt you'll make any sense of what I'm saying, because you're clearly unqualified for this discussion, anyways. Somebody else is reading this post and understanding every word of it though, which is all I can ask for.

[Skykid]

I'm quite confident it was a vague, near abitrary statement that didn't make sense.

The pinnacle of analysis right here, people.

We're talking about Icycalm right? I'd say that's bang on.

"More precise", lol. Yes, because hitboxes are always where the sprite makes them out to be.

How does this change the original point?

Fun fact: did you know that VF doesn't use hitboxes at all? It actually uses model based collision detection, so what you see is actually what you get.

Who's "more precise" now?

I did know that, yes. The comment was about the visual layout of a 2D landscape and what that affords the player, one that doesn't feature a camera or models roaming in 3D space.

I don't think you understand.

I doubt you'll make any sense of what I'm saying, because you're clearly unqualified for this discussion, anyways.

Care to remind us what discussion that is? Your entire post is basically off topic.

If you like I can remind you, or you can backtrack and see if you can figure it out before wasting any more time.

[quash]

Anyways, the larger point here is that 3D is indeed superior to 2D. That's not to say that 2D games all look or play like shit, or that a nice 2D game is inherently inferior to a shit 3D game, but the fact remains that 3D allows for more (and more refined) mechanics.

Some genres have struggled in 3D (platformers come to mind), but most have flourished, or at least done well enough to offer a distinct experience from their 2D counterparts. Who's to say that if 3D shooters like Panzer Dragoon had been given a fair chance at life, we wouldn't have an entire subgenre of awesome 3D shooters where you'd be all over the screen? Here's a hint: one such game already exists.

But of course, what of the 2D games that offer an experience that 3D ones can't? Those would be platformers, STG and fighters. They all have their place, to be sure. I don't think many people will argue that 3D platformers are superior to 2D platformers, but the failure of 3D platformers lies primarily with the developers of said games not implementing the best aspects of 2D platformers. It is possible to make a good 3D platformer (Mario 64), but the genre was bogged down by misguided attempts to reinvent the wheel (Sonic Adventure) and shovelware, which ultimately lead to its demise.

STG and fighters have gone through their own evolution, with the former being all but dead at this point, while the latter is experiencing something of a renaissance. What fighting game is currently the most popular in Japan? That would be Gundam Extreme Versus, which is a 3D game that implements 2D style zoning, along with a slew of mechanics that can only be done in 3D (multi directional sidesteps, half and full circular tracking, etc).

[Mischief Maker]

And am I wrong in assuming that 'possibility space' and 'meaningful complexity,' are Icycalm spawned concepts/terms?

That's just icy putting a top hat and monocle on "emergent gameplay" and "gameplay depth."

[Skykid]

Anyways, the larger point here is that 3D is indeed superior to 2D.

It sounds so credible when you put it that way.

Some genres have struggled in 3D (platformers come to mind), but most have flourished

I was under the impression most had been funnelled into a semi on-rails experience that ameliorates issues presented by 3D by affording the player a huge margin for error - and then disguising that margin with graphical opulence to trick you into feeling more involved in simple and repetitive events. 3D games are more often than not smartly streamlined to make it so you have to do very little to enjoy the ride. It's a formula: an evolution of the more chronic issues present when 3D was first emerging as the new dominant gaming tech. Bar a select few genres (racing, FG's, Strat, rhythm) the skill factor has been largely and purposely diminished - but holy fuck if we aren't going in circles here already.

It is possible to make a good 3D platformer (Mario 64), but the genre was bogged down by misguided attempts to reinvent the wheel (Sonic Adventure) and shovelware, which ultimately lead to its demise.

Mario 64 is your benchmark for a good 3D platformer? I was one of the few who had negative things to say about the game on release, criticisms I feel have been validated by Nintendo's far more successful attempts at 3D platforming in Mario 3D World and Galaxies.

Sonic Adventure was misguided indeed. It's crap.

What fighting game is currently the most popular in Japan? That would be Gundam Extreme Versus, which is a 3D game that implements 2D style zoning, along with a slew of mechanics that can only be done in 3D (multi directional sidesteps, half and full circular tracking, etc).

I've played plenty of Gundam Extreme Vs here. It's ok, reasonably fun, and the combat and mech configurations have some depth, but the bulk of your work revolves around trying to wrestle a cumbersome Gundam around a 3D arena with a very zoomed in camera obscuring nearly all peripheral vision, relying on auto locks, enemy tracking, HUD prompts to pinpoint the nearest threat and melee swipes to cover short distances. I'd hardly say being 3D is the best part of it: if anything it works damn hard to get around the problems it creates.

What's the purpose of this as an example of inherent 3D superiority?

[quash]

The reason the camera is that close is to make it easier to judge the angle of your shots, which matters because out of angle shots cost more boost.

The reason I chose that game as an example is pretty obvious, and I'm disappointed I even have to point it out: you can have fleshed out projectile zoning in 3D, but you can't have a 3D style sidestep in 2D. Gundam wasn't even the first game to bring 2D zoning to 3D, Virtual On was. And VOOT is lightning fast by any standard, which makes your earlier statement about 3D games even more bunk.

[Skykid]

The reason the camera is that close is to make it easier to judge the angle of your shots, which matters because out of angle shots cost more boost.

The reason I chose that game as an example is pretty obvious, and I'm disappointed I even have to point it out: you can have fleshed out projectile zoning in 3D, but you can't have a 3D style sidestep in 2D. Gundam wasn't even the first game to bring 2D zoning to 3D, Virtual On was.

Why does not being able to have a 3D "style" (whatever that means, it's either 3D or not) sidestep in 2D validate any aspect of your trite, uneducated and altogether pointless disinformation about the so-called inherent superiority of 3D videogaming?

The more you talk the more sure I am it's coming out of your ass.

And VOOT is lightning fast by any standard, which makes your earlier statement about 3D games even more bunk.

What statement was that? Animation frames? I think you'll find I never mentioned such a thing, you put words in my mouth with your earlier comment. I suggested 3D space and the animated flow of its occupying polygonal models need to allow the player a larger window for reaction time, which they do, because you're calculating action occurring on multiple degrees simultaneously, rather than just one plane.

Tangram might be quick for a Gundam game, but like Extreme Vs it still battles all the camera's shortcomings and reduces itself somewhat by giving the player manoeuvres to compensate for a lack of visibility and reaction to off screen elements. Nobody is saying these aren't good games, just trying to funnell into your brain that 2D and 3D are perfectly fine to coexist as gaming mediums, each offering something the other can't, each unable to offer something the other can.

Your outright superiority claims are just fucking dumb, as they have been with the other one person who tried to spout the same jazz.

[Ed Oscuro]

Stop the presses everyone! POSSIBILITY SPACE

(They still let Icy in to listen to lectures at the local university about art aesthetics?!)

[Udderdude]

.

[Specineff]

Icy should implement an algorithm that takes and mixes sample words of his list of insults for the game over screen.

"GAME OVER
YOU (Word 1)
(Word 2)"

[Mortificator]

Actually, it might be fun to plug various games into this mathematical calculation for complexity of his and see what comes out. You mentioned it, Marble, so could you provide it?

[Ko.oS]

[Mischief Maker]

Here's an interesting video I just watched talking about 2D vs. 3D mechanics in the Sonic franchise and the dangers of increasing complexity in gameplay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW-nMRZGpgA

[quash]

Why does not being able to have a 3D "style" (whatever that means, it's either 3D or not) sidestep in 2D validate any aspect of your trite, uneducated and altogether pointless disinformation about the so-called inherent superiority of 3D videogaming?

I had to make the distinction in case some asshole tried to point out that 2D fighters have had sidesteps in the past, ignoring the fact that switching between planes in 2D doesn't even begin to approach what 3D fighters have to offer on that front.

What statement was that? Animation frames? I think you'll find I never mentioned such a thing, you put words in my mouth with your earlier comment. I suggested 3D space and the animated flow of its occupying polygonal models need to allow the player a larger window for reaction time, which they do, because you're calculating action occurring on multiple degrees simultaneously, rather than just one plane.

backpedal.gif

Even if you revise your ignorant, inflammatory blanket statement about 3D games being "slow", it's still bullshit. Forget fighting games for a minute, even; you mean to tell me that Quake 3 is slow? Or that the extra five frames of animation in 3D fighters make them slower than 2D fighters? Again, your inexperience is showing through.

Tangram might be quick for a Gundam game, but like Extreme Vs it still battles all the camera's shortcomings and reduces itself somewhat by giving the player manoeuvres to compensate for a lack of visibility and reaction to off screen elements.

Locking on to enemies in mech fighters is not a bad thing at all, for the record. It's not about "battling the camera" or anything stupid like that, it's about keeping the games about the fighting. If they didn't have auto lock on, they would be third person shooters.

Fuck, by that logic having your character automatically face towards your opponent in a 2D fighter is "battling the limitations of 2D". But we both know that isn't true, don't we?

Nobody is saying these aren't good games, just trying to funnell into your brain that 2D and 3D are perfectly fine to coexist as gaming mediums, each offering something the other can't, each unable to offer something the other can.

There is nothing wrong with 2D games, but ultimately they can't and won't coexist. The issue is that there is an upper limit on what can be achieved in 2D, and STGs at least have reached that limit. Do you really think Cave can make a game better than SDOJ? Perhaps they can make some marginal improvements, but it's not like they're gonna blow you away with something you never thought was possible in 2D.

[nasty_wolverine]

There is nothing wrong with 2D games, but ultimately they can't and won't coexist.

They can and will, as long as we dont invent affordable and functional (read no extra glasses, view angle limits, eye strain, or neck strain with something like occulus rift). Even then, things are easier to visualize in 2D then 3D. We have been a paper based civilization for something like 5000 years or so, which is inherently 2D. The jump from 2D medium to 3D medium isnt going to be easy and fast.

The issue is that there is an upper limit on what can be achieved in 2D, and STGs at least have reached that limit.

No there is no upper limit to 2D. Its only limited by creativity of the devs. almost 30 years of good games that have been solely 2D. even now with all the fancy 3D games, there are still good and great 2D games around.

And stop staying shit like STG's have reached there limit. I am fedup of this. And its not just you. You are on a forum, that is dedicated to STG's, and look up the recent releases thread. There are still STG's being produced, by doujins (both east and west), both commercial and free, also commercial companies still outputting about 2-3 a year. I will agree its a niche market, but thats how niche markets function anyway. Tightly controlled supply of high quality for a dedicated consumer base.

Do you really think Cave can make a game better than SDOJ?

SDOJ is caves swan song, not its pinnacle. Its a good game, I wouldnt consider it there best from the rest. DOJ and the original DDP still do better.

Perhaps they can make some marginal improvements, but it's not like they're gonna blow you away with something you never thought was possible in 2D.

Limitations of a medium give rise to creativity and ingenuity. Think of it this way, the physical canvas is very old outdated and so are oil paints. But masterpieces are still created on canvas than on photoshop.


hey, skykid how am i doing with the whole multipost-multiquote thingie /jk

[Skykid]

hey, skykid how am i doing with the whole multipost-multiquote thingie /jk

Very well and I'm glad you stepped in to talk some sense. This guy's argument is so full of shit you could open lavatory chain.

[Ed Oscuro]

Icy should implement an algorithm that takes and mixes sample words of his list of insults for the game over screen.

"GAME OVER
YOU (Word 1)
(Word 2)"

Icy won't make a game until somebody makes a BASIC that parses psuedo-philosophical gibberish.

[quash]

They can and will, as long as we dont invent affordable and functional (read no extra glasses, view angle limits, eye strain, or neck strain with something like occulus rift).

Hate to break it to you, but 2D games already have a foot out the door. If you ever take a trip to Japan, you won't be able to help but notice the games people are playing in arcades; STG may very well be the least popular genre. And this is where the genre flourished!

If not for 2D fighters, you'd be hard pressed to find an arcade here that even has 2D games at all.

Even then, things are easier to visualize in 2D then 3D. We have been a paper based civilization for something like 5000 years or so, which is inherently 2D. The jump from 2D medium to 3D medium isnt going to be easy and fast.

No disagreement here. The transition to 3D ended up killing some genres before they were even given a chance to develop.

No there is no upper limit to 2D.

Except for... all the things I've pointed out that are impossible to do in 2D? And then some?

almost 30 years of good games that have been solely 2D.

Yu Suzuki, John Carmack, Cliffy B, Hideo Kojima, Shigeru Miyamoto and everyone at Platinum Games all say "Hi".

even now with all the fancy 3D games, there are still good and great 2D games around.

Again, no disagreement. But that was never what I was arguing.

And stop staying shit like STG's have reached there limit. I am fedup of this. And its not just you. You are on a forum, that is dedicated to STG's, and look up the recent releases thread. There are still STG's being produced, by doujins (both east and west), both commercial and free, also commercial companies still outputting about 2-3 a year. I will agree its a niche market, but thats how niche markets function anyway. Tightly controlled supply of high quality for a dedicated consumer base.

Never said there were no more STG being released. I did say that the genre is at or near its limit. Are these doujin games really pushing the genre to new heights? I like Crimzon Clover quite a bit, but it certainly isn't going to be the basis upon which all STG are judged or anything.

SDOJ is caves swan song, not its pinnacle. Its a good game, I wouldnt consider it there best from the rest. DOJ and the original DDP still do better.

By that logic, the genre reached its limits years ago.

I fail to see what's so hard about understanding that 3D allows for more possibilities than 2D. Just because most game developers have failed to tap in to that potential doesn't make it untrue.

[nasty_wolverine]

Hate to break it to you, but 2D games already have a foot out the door. If you ever take a trip to Japan, you won't be able to help but notice the games people are playing in arcades; STG may very well be the least popular genre. And this is where the genre flourished!

If not for 2D fighters, you'd be hard pressed to find an arcade here that even has 2D games at all.

Oh man, I hate to break it to you, but arcades have been dead for a while. Most gamers (including casuals, maybe even exceptionably casuals) play on phones, portables and PC's, while maybe half of them own consoles. And i think most popular games now arent the 3D AAA titles, but 2D mobile games. Theres a limited crowd going "Owww 3D graphics... boobs so real... fap fap fap" or "2D tits is the shit... fap fap fap", while most are looking to play games that are actually fun to play, or..... its interwoven with social platforms.

And i do hope you understand the difference between 3D graphics and 3D gameplay. Most of the mmorpgs and the likes are 3D graphics with still 2D gameplay.

Except for... all the things I've pointed out that are impossible to do in 2D? And then some?

Well, that impossibility helped brew some solid mechanics in the past. Isnt a video game more about mechanics and rules and limitations, then freedom to do stuff. Its like in football you have the ability to hold down the goalkeeper, while your team mate scores a goal, perfectly possible isnt it. But suddenly it isnt football anymore. It becomes a brawl. Rules and Limitations are what makes a game a game, not freedom to do whatever. Its the creativity to bend the rules that makes a game fun.

Yu Suzuki, John Carmack, Cliffy B, Hideo Kojima, Shigeru Miyamoto and everyone at Platinum Games all say "Hi".D

All the facebook mobile game company says "Hi" back. Guess who makes more money a year.

Never said there were no more STG being released. I did say that the genre is at or near its limit. Are these doujin games really pushing the genre to new heights? I like Crimzon Clover quite a bit, but it certainly isn't going to be the basis upon which all STG are judged or anything.

Are you really expecting genre redefining/changing games to happen every year. Look at FPS's, how often does a game come around that redefines it.

By that logic, the genre reached its limits years ago.

By that logic, films reached there limits when 2001: Space Oddysey was released. Do you think they should stop making films?

I fail to see what's so hard about understanding that 3D allows for more possibilities than 2D. Just because most game developers have failed to tap in to that potential doesn't make it untrue.

I fail to see how you dont see all are technology is still projecting any kind of image on to a 2D plane. Its hard to make sense of a 3D scene without proper depth perception in a 32inch rectangular window.

[quash]

2001 doesn't have shit on Blade Runner.

The rest of your post is just too asinine to even humor.

Shrug, I tried.

[nasty_wolverine]

2001 doesn't have shit on Blade Runner.

which version?

The rest of your post is just too asinine to even humor.

Shrug, I tried.

[KAI]

very zoomed in camera obscuring nearly all peripheral vision, relying on auto locks, enemy tracking, HUD prompts to pinpoint the nearest threat and melee swipes to cover short distances.

Those have been the basis of the mecha arena fighter genre since the begining, just play VO, Zoids Infinity or any game of the Gundam VS series and you will see they all have the same "problems" you are pointing out. Why changing the mechanics of a winner formula?

[Ed Oscuro]

I like the part of the thread where Wolverine pointed out that there's financial success in 2D even to this day, and for his trouble all he got was a lame t-shirt.

I don't want to be that guy who's not welcoming.

But Cripes, quash, if you don't like 2D games, what on Earth are you doing here?

[quash]

I don't recall ever stating a distaste for 2D games.

I've been playing Guilty Gear for seven years, I consider Batrider to be one of the best games ever made, and I have a deep appreciation for the aesthetic of sprites.

In spite of that (or more accurately, because of that), I can still readily acknowledge that 3D games have more potential than 2D games. Even things that people previously thought were only achievable in 2D have been done in 3D; look at Zato's model in GGXrd and tell me it doesn't capture the transforming attacks even better than the reference GGXX sprite does. I recall hearing more than a few people saying that it couldn't be done in 3D, and yet here we are.

I don't see how any of this can be considered bashing 2D games; it's simply acknowledging the limitations of working within a 2D space. 2D still has its place to be sure, and I still love 2D games, but it's getting harder and harder for 2D games to offer something we haven't seen before.

There's a quote from Yu Suzuki that pertains to this subject specifically, but I can't find it at the moment. He basically said that he's always conceptualized his games in 3D, and that working within the limitations of 2D hardware was always a challenge for him and his team. If someone else could find it, that'd be great.

[Ed Oscuro]

"More potential." OK, here's something maybe we can work with.

Out of all the possibilities in 2D space, how much do you think has been exhausted?

[quash]

I feel like I'm being baited here. Nonetheless...

Damn near all of it. We haven't seen a new, worthwhile 2D genre since Senko no Ronde. While STG and fighters continue to push the limits of what's possible in 2D, they've definitely hit something of a speed bump in recent years.

Of course, this is because so much of the heavy lifting was done in the early 00's. 2D still had a lot of room to grow back then, and we saw some truly revolutionary 2D games as a result. Guilty Gear XX was amazing because there was literally no other game like it at that point. It's difficult to say that there will ever be another 2D fighter like that, because a lot of what the genre had been missing has since become a staple.

(As an aside, I'm currently writing a piece on why Guilty Gear kicks so much ass. You'll find that on my blog in the near future.)

[KAI]

Nice, looking forward to reading that quash.