3D Or Not 3D
I'm sorry to disappoint many people here, but 3D is to games nowadays what scrolling was to the Amiga.
The trend in games has been to head towards a more lifelike representation of reality. At the start of gaming, mostly games had abstract images (e.g. Pacman or the Space Invaders) and anything more lifelike was still pretty basic (Battlezone or Star Wars). The wireframe polygons were filled in and textures were later added. Sprites changed from a few pixels of a single colour to become more detailed and with more colours.
With texture mapping there was a 3D explosion of games, which saw many Doom-clones. Most of these didn't make the grade and won't be remembered, in the same way that CD-ROMs meant a whole host of rubbish interactive movies. Also, the Amiga saw a plethora of similar platformers and shoot-'em-ups. Perhaps we have blocked out the bad Amiga games and only fondly remember the good ones, whereas the bad 3D games are still in our memory.
Even though many games utilise 3D these days, there is a great deal of different genres within the 3D umbrella. There are first-person shoot-'em-ups (Serious Sam, Soldier Of Fortune), stealth games (Thief 1&2), action adventures (Deus Ex), soldier sims (Hidden And Dangerous, Rainbow Six), space simulations (X-Wing Alliance), basic shoot-'em-ups (Rogue Squadron), simulations (European Air War), RPGs (Ultima Underworld, Ultima Ascension), god games (Black and White), racing (Motocross Madness, Carmageddon)...
To dismiss all these genres because they are 3D is silly, as that would be a complete generalisation. I've played many PC games and while I don't like the PC and Windows, the games have nothing to do with these.