Originally posted by Akira
Ahh 3D games...
What is SO important about 3D that every machine HAS to do it? Why does everyone think that a game in 3D automatically enhances the playability?
Obviously I would be more than happy if the stock A1200 could have been pushed farter, within is 2D capabilities. But 2D is so lame nowadays, isn't it?
Its all marketing. When pc games switched from 320x200 16 colors to VGA 640x480 nobody in their right mind would make a 320x200 game anymore. When 16 bit soundcards became popular everybody jumped on that, same with the first real 3d video cards (3dfx, rendition). This didnt mean all the games before these hardware changes sucked, it just meant that developers had moved on to better things. It happens in every industry, they change the eye candy and keep the same old slightly tweeked hardware under the hood.
I like 2d for rts games, going 3d limits you on how many units you can have on the screen because of computing power. 3D was nice for fps, but games like doom which had dozens of monsters on the screen (2d game) cant really be done in 3d these days unless you have a very high end machine. So the new doom 3 will have just a few monsters on at a time and use lighting and sound to spook you, not the same as going into a room with the double barreled shotgun and killing 2 dozen devil beasts.
2D was done to the point of perfection and the early 3d games were a step back in my opinion (except for a rare few) but sooner or later the hardware will be good enough that all 3d games will be as polished as the old 2d ones. There are only so many new features they can add to the graphics hardware until they run out of eye candy, then they will be back to where the best 2d games were concentrating on the gameplay.