JMT’s Retro Games

Gameplay Style Trends (2D vs. 3D part II)

Posted on December 8th, 2008 by JMT.
Categories: Articles.

I think this debate hits on the definition of a video game. Or more properly, what do you want to get out of a video game? And there has been a large shift in what people want to get out of their video games over the last few decades, though it’s unclear if it’s driven by the gamers or the industry (for example, is top-40 music the top-40 because the majority of people independently chose that music as their favorite out of the full spectrum of available music, or is it the top-40 because that’s the only thing they play on the radio?)

In the 70’s/80’s, people generaly wanted the arcade experience. Gameplay that would be intense or difficult for a short period of time, but was fun or addictive enough to keep bringing you back for more. This was the era of gaming when you could just plug in a game, play it for 5 minutes, and then go do something else, having obtained a complete, fullfilling gaming experience within those 5 minutes. Some of those games were by definition repetitive. Most had only one level that just got more difficult with each wave. But the simple gameplay created the addictive style that makes many of those games still fun today. Sure I’m not going to spend hours playing them. But every once in a while, I still get a craving for 5 minutes of Kaboom, Breakout, Millipede, Jr. Pac-Man, BurgerTime, Moon Patrol, Joust, Dig-Dug, Tetris, etc.

In the 80’s/90’s, people generally wanted levels. They wanted games with a goal, and you had to go through stages to reach the goal. Platformers, RPGs, Shooters, all met this definition. They evolved to have more stages, more types of enemies, more types of spells/attacks, etc.

In the 90’s/00’s, people started wanted a cinema experience. They didn’t want to pop in a game for 5 minutes and have fun. That’s “old-skool” gaming. Modern games are more like interactive movies. Generally a 3rd person view so you can see the whole scene like a movie. Lots of story and cutscenes and orchestral music. Gameplay is more like following a movie script than addictive action.

The funny thing is that this style of gameplay that is popular now is really inherited from early 90’s FMV gaming. Even though most people make fun of the simple gameplay of FMV gaming, where the gameplay was locked on rails. But in reality, most of the new 3rd person games are just as much locked on rails. Left, right, up, down, moves you around the screen. Hit a button at the right time and a pre-scripted action takes place (talk to someone, hijack a car, whatever). Only difference is that instead of FMV, it’s 3D graphics.

Where does that leave platforming? Basically the best platform games of past had steady action balanced with deliberate movements, and were paced by relatively short levels. Now, you either get all action (hack’n’slash style), or all deliberate with long levels (RPG style). They just don’t make games anymore that use the gameplay mechanic of short levels with steady action.

Personally, I’ve never been a fan of any RPGs. I want my video games to be something I can have a fullfilling, fun experience in 5 to 30 minutes. Not something I have to invest 100 hours into, and do tedious tasks like get jobs, talk to people, and kill the same regenerating baddie 500 times to up my experience once level. So you can see why the styles of games that I prefer just aren’t being made anymore.

Also, I think that the best 2D platformers, the ones I consider excellent, weren’t as repetitive. They offered up something different every few levels to keep it interesting. For instance SMB3 had a very good variety of stages. That game is probably the epitome of 2D platforming. Also, EWJ mixed up a lot of weird and different levels, keeping it from getting too reptitive. And some games conjured up bonus levels to mix up the game a bit, like the different bonus levels in Sonic, or the 7-up bottle levels in cool spot. Even contra had the into-the-screen style and the side-scrolling style every other level. But Battletoads probably takes the cake with it’s insane collection of level ideas. It’s hard to even define that in a strict platform sense.

I do agree that some older game styles could be static or repetitive. Alone a beat-em-up can quickly get repetitive. However, I think that the beauty in beat-em-ups is the fun 2-player experience. Which is also something that’s generally lacking. In atari and NES days, nearly every game had 2-player options (and even if it wasn’t simultaneous, since the game lives and levels were short, trading-off was still fun). But even starting in the 16-bit days, I noticed 2-player starting to disappear from games that would have definitely benefited. Especially in shooters, though it’s likely they just couldn’t render 1 more sprite on-screen anymore. The beat-em-ups usually don’t rank as “exellent” on my list above. I only included SOR because the music is legendary, and TMNT2 for the aforementioned kick-ass 2-player experience.

But even with fighters, 3D or 2D, the quest to keep “improving” them is driving them into insanity. I liked the old days when you could memorize a list of 6 special moves and 3 combos and a fatality in an hour and then kick butt with the character. But nowadays between the list of 50 normal moves, counter moves, blocks, reflections, partner attacks, etc just overwhelms. It’s like the new-style shooters that just saturate the screen with stuff and bullets so you can’t tell what’s going on anymore. Sometimes “more” isn’t always “better”.

In response to assumptions that enjoying 2D games is entirely “nostalgia”, I say it’s my view that 2D (platform, shooter, driving, etc) is a completely different gameplay mechanic, and that it can provide a valid gaming experience different from 3D game styles. I enjoy 3D games. I just wish that the 2D styles could continue to live on home consoles, so we don’t have these kids questioning your virility for being able to find enjoyment out of a simpler game of yesterday.

At one point in my life, I even sold all my 2D games and only bought new games that had 3D in them. I was obsessed with 3D, because it was new. The genesis couldn’t do it, but the new systems could. I’d say even now I probably own more 3D games and play more 3D games than 2D games. It’s just that usually, once I finish a 3D game, I’m done with it. The graphics are greata nd the gameplay fun enough to play through. But rarely does it have that addictivity that makes me want to keep picking it up months later to play a little. However, the 2D games I have tend to have more addictive properties and more replayability. That’s why I tend to collect 2D more. They last in my collection longer, even after I complete them. While I enjoy playing though the fancy 3D games on my projector, but keep rotating in the next one once completed.

Of course the majority of the 3D games that I find to be the best are either driving or flying styles. A solid 3D engine can make these games extremely fun.

But even when it comes to driving games, where I prefer a good 3D engine, the fanboys still can’t let me be. If the gameplay is good, the gameplay is good and I still enjoy playing it. That means I still enjoy the first need for speeds on the PS1, and thunderstrike on the sega CD, X-wing and Tie Fighter on the PC, and even virtua racing. But some people will make fun of you for bothering to play yesterdays 3D driving game when the PS3s 3D driving games have such superior graphics and realistic physics. But to me, fun gameplay is fun gameplay, whether the physics are as realistic or the graphics as high-def.

2 comments.