| The Introduction |

It was the Spring of 1995. The 16-bit era was in its twilight as the SEGA Genesis

(or Mega-Drive depending if you lived outside of North America) was clarified dead

as the games just stopped going while the Super Nintendo was reeling in the cash

as it discovered the that the generation still had some life left in it. In the light of

the more casual gamer it was all about buying a SNES for the current and past hits

or a Genesis to try out all the games they missed on. As for the more serious

gamer? Well to most the 16-bit era was phasing out. The attention was no longer

towards the bulky gray box or the wide black one. The attention was towards the

upcoming console war from new systems that was already taking place in Japan.

Though what interested gamers the most wasn't simply "the processing power", or

"the amount of pixels that could be on the screen". No gamers were interested in

something that on paper was much more basic then that. What sparked more interest

then anything was the most unfamliar. The fact that most games were going to be

three-dimensional.

See right now this doesn't seem like anything big, but back then that was huge.

Nearly every single game game players have ever played were two-dimensional,

pixelated, and were either in a side-scrolling, over-head, or isometrical manner. The

only "3D" games the majority of console game players had expereinced were Star

Fox, Virtua Fighter, DOOM, and maybe some of those obscure wanna-be psuedo 3D

games (3D Ballz, Space Harrier II, 3D World Runner).

In perspective it would be

like if in the next generation it was announced that all consoles would focus in the

void of virtual reality as well as included HD visors and sensitive gloves. I mean it

would just blow everyones minds, for years we thought virtual reality was the future

and now it's really here. This is the experience that was equivilant during that time.

For years people always imagined what it would be like to travel and interact with

fully realized worlds and now it truly had come true. What reason would there be to

not be pumped?

The rest is pretty much history. SONY pulled in a new market as it struck gold with

marketing games for a young adult (literally) audience with very cinematic, mature,

and impressive looking games. The Playstation really showed what the whole 3D

thing was really about with games like Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, and Twisted

Metal and even later with games like Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid. Its

competitor, the Nintendo 64, was arguably even more 3D focused as it helmed the

term "64", which they marketed for more powerful 3D games due to it being 64

bits, as well as having features like the analog stick, camera controls, and a trigger

button which were designed specifically for use in 3D games. The system took 3D

towards a different approach compared to the Playstation as it focused more so on

interactivity, exploration, and transfering 2D formulas to the third-dimension as oppose

to the Playstation which mostly concentrated on giving the player a cinematic and

atmospheric experience.

Now this is really cool and all having all these new experiences...but what happened

to the 2D games? I mean games were built amongst this dimension and established

as well as built upon their formulas for practically two full decades at this time. With

something that was once so standard, how could the focus turn away in just a

matter of a few years? Well on console there were still a fair share amount of

developers still working with 2D. This was most obviously seen between RPG and

Fighting game developers. Though the market was changing and people wanted

something different then just over-head/isometric travel and firing hadokens. The

charts were totally 3D donimate and thus more and more developers (who haven't

already) started to shift into making 3D games.

2D gaming in general was in a crisis and the developers were forced to pick

between 4 options:

#1 To truly push 2D and show what 2D games can do that 3D games can't in a

then modern era

#2 To try and then "modernize" 2D games with the cinematic and atmospheric

philosophy gaming had taken in

#3 Ride the 2D train as far as it can take you

#4 Make 3D games instead

The majority of developers picked option 4 while the majority of the rest picked

option 3. And again the rest is all history, few developers on consoles continued to

make 2D games; and with the arcade scene in a continuing decline as well as

non-shooter PC developers finally moving on to make 3D games it became

increasingly obvious that 2D was on its way out. By the time the Playstation's

sucessor, the Playstation 2, came by it was set in stone that gamings philosophy

had changed. The market called for what it wanted and the publishers/developers

supplied those calls. And because the Playstation 2's purpose was solely to improve

those cinematic and atmospheric games anything that didn't fit that was widely called

into question and rarely given attention by the market or companies (I.E. 2D

Games, Arcade Type Games, Etc.). Since that time 2D was mostly focused on

handhelds due to the fact that they lacked horsepower to perform a satisfactory

three-dimensional experience and mostly took a backseat due to those systems being

weaker in horsepower compared to the previous systems 2D developers worked on as

well as the majority of developers working in that spectrum being string developers.

The above was just a mere introduction of the transition of 2D to 3D games and at

a look with the path 2D games followed. I'm sure that some are still in question to

as of how 2D games were abandoned so fast, but one must remember some things.

Before the Playstation arrived unless the game was first party (this usually just

consisted of Nintendo and Sonic), by Squaresoft or Enix, or of an existing license,

the game more then likely sold poorly. I mean I'm sure that there are a few

exceptions that I have missed but the majority of games struggled to get past the

quarter million line. Despite what many old-school gamers say about "the good ol'

days" there was very little market for games outside of kids (even then it still

wasn't anything to jump about). SONY grabbed hold of a huge market and expanded

gaming in general with its philosophy and due to people getting bored or not

intrested with the old philosophy of gaming. Add this with what I've stated above and

it comes to no question why 2D's importance faded away from gaming so quickly.

|The Problem|

Now today we are seeing somewhat of a resurgence of 2D games. To me this is

due to a number of factors as handhelds are gaining a bigger piece of market

share, the rising independent development scene, 3D losing its awe factor do to it

being standard for so many years, a much bigger and ever growing market, as well

as Nintendo's new philosophy gaining ground.

Personally while I am looking forward to games like Wario for Wii, playing "Contra 4

"for my DS, and planning to eventually purchase "Noitu Love 2" for my PC, as well

as having my jaw drop over the impressive visuals of "King of Fighters XII", "Oboro

Muramasa Youtoden", and "The Whispered World" there is still something that makes

me feel unsettled. While I'm looking forward to playing these games as much as the

next game player what distrubs me from these games that are already out as well as

from the looks of the ones coming out is that they in no way push the

second-dimension.

No I'm not talking about graphics here but purely from a design, technical, and

presentational points. To put into words so that you, the reader, can understand (or

understand more clearly) I have never or very rarely ever seen 2D games since that

era truly push themselves to create or evolve a set design. Nor have I seen to

many games use modern technology to harnass things such as physics, A.I., and

other features. Dividing these points up seems to be the best solution in this topic.

|Create and Evolve|

Early I stated that one major problem is the fact that few of these games bother to

create or even evolve game design. Using examples Super Metroid would be a

showcase of a created formula. Yes while Metroid predated the up, down, right, left,

traveling design, but it  was far to limited to be used in other games due to the

NES allowing Intelligent Systems to experiment only so much. Super Metroid however

is where the design was able to truly flourish due to the extra horsepower behind

the SNES (I think the best comparison to this would be GTA III's whole

"free-roaming" and "sandbox" experience was so new and impressive for the first

time despite earlier games like "Body Harvester" digging their claws into the formula

first"). This was a major breakthrough due to at the time the only designs avaliable

for a side-scrolling game usually embodied set straight paths (Contra) or at most

large (for the time) non-linear paths that lead to the same end (Turrican). As

time past by Castlevania: Symphony of the Night would set in and make its landmark

in gaming. The biggest reason for this is because it evolved the current design set

in by Super Metroid and applied towards side-scrolling games, like the series itself,

and made the entire game one huge plaforming, whipping, boss fighting, epic

extravaganza.

Now here is a simple question. What was the last 2D game avaliable that has even

touched towards what these games have done? The game doesn't even have to be

an action-adventure game, the game actually doesn't even have to be in a

side-scrolling format. My question is when was the last time a 2D game took big

steps in terms of breaking walls to progress design that pushed the dimension? In

all honesty I have seen extremely few over the years (which I will come about in

due time).

To give this comparison towards 3D games of the previous generation; Grand Theft

Auto III introduced "sandboxism" as your choices were unlimited in a full explorable

non-linear 3D map, Games like KillSwitch and Resident Evil 4 introduced the 3rd

Person Over-the-Shoulder viewpoint along with the mechanics attached to it, Devil

May Cry greatly extended the arms of what was once known as "3D Action Game".

Now obviously there shouldn't be as many or as big breakthrough innovations with

2D then 3D of the previous generation due to the fact that 2D was far more

matured with it being concentrated on for 2 straight generations, but there is no

reason why there should be little to no progress.

What reason is there for 2D games not to introduce similar things. The formula left

by Super Metroid could greately benefit from seemingly transition maps. With an

exception of Castlevania (and from what I've heard Megaman ZX) I can't think of

any games that have done similar things. Imagine a 2D platformer like Donkey Kong

Country or Sonic having similar design. How interesting does it sound to have one

full non-linear area to explore as you jump or glide across platforms choosing your

path? Imagine Contra or Gunstar Heroes as one huge non-linear map? And the

thing is that these are all series that were designed for linearity, one could only

imagine how much full effect of these designs could be harnassed with new IP's

geared towards them.

Though evolving isn't the only factor here. There are such things that need to be

establish and set in. Something that many 2D games have been tickering around with

but haven't set in is Z-Axis Travel. Ever play a game in side-scrolling format where

the end of the map is reached and you see a door with an arrow pointing down on

it saying "Exit" and the only way to continue is to press up on the D-PAD to

transfer to the next map? Yes that is what is being refered to here. If more recent

examples are needed then look no further then Super Paper Mario or Odin Sphere

for a memory refresher. To me this is much like how map transitions were tinkered

with pre-Super Metroid with games like the Wonderboy Series, but it wasn't until

Super Metroid where the formula was set through. Just think how cool it would be if

the current Castlevania's offered slick Z-Axis travel?The possiblities of how other

franchises could use this could give a huge benefit to what many of these games

are trying to achieve.

Level design isn't the only key here. There are plenty of other things that these

games haven't taking note of. Why are most games still limited to one type of

attacking? I can always either attack physically, with a gun, or with a blade. In 3D

games I can attack in various ways like in Metal Gear Solid, Splinter Cell, and

Grand Theft Auto. Though I've played few 2D games that offer this choice. Just

imagine a side-scrolling action game that had the aiming Super Metroid, the sword

play of Samurai Shodown, and the fighting of Street Fighter III.

Truth be told I could go on with the examples like object interaction, changing

angles, more deals with map explorations (in other ways then previously listed),

and what not, new viewpoints and perspectives, but I just wanted to give the reader

a little insight of how much is left unexplored in this dimension.

|Mix and Match|

"Let's mix this genre with this genre and see what we get." "Hey let's see if we

can do this in 3D!" Consistently we see developers experiment by taking what

they've seen and applying it to something else. Retro Studios took on the brave task

of not only applying the Super Metroid formula to 3D but applying it to the first

person viewpoint as well. Games like Portal mix puzzle and first person shooter.

Personally I can't even remember a 2D game doing such things.

Why the lack mixing of genres? How cool would it be to mix up the formulas of the

fighting, beat-em-up, and action-adventure genre to create a game as deep as King

of Fighters, feels as fluent as Turtles in Time, and is as epic as Zelda? This is

just one example though. Shoot-em-up meets RPG in an overhead perspective?

Adventure meets Light Gun Rail Shooters (Snatcher oh so teases)? Examples could

constantly be given, but I would imagine that those reading this can think of their

own awesome mix ups.

Another thing that gives me an itch is that few 2D games try to attempt the formulas

left from 2D. Imagine if a 2D platformer took on the route of the N64 platformers

(such as Banjo Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64). Imagine a 2D-Sidescrolling taking

in the fast past action left in from Devil May Cry. The best attempts I've seen are

the half-assed ones from the Gameboy era.

|Modernize|

At times I really do question if the games I am playing on the DS are on hardware

that is (arguably) more powerful the Playstation and the Nintendo 64. Because most

of them certainly don't feel like it. This is probably due to the fact that during the

time those two consoles reigned interaction and presentation went through the roof. In

terms of interaction these games seem no more interactive then a SNES game. I still

can't climb and scale trees and/or buildings (especially in platformers), nor can I

pick up things objects laying in the street or damage my surroundings. Let's not

even mention things such as physics or A.I. Though Little Big Planet is focusing on

the former it doesn't really seem like a..."full game", but I'll still give it credit

regardless, A.I. however is at the complete opposite spectrum. Most games still work

around the whole "enemy come straight to you and attack" or "enemy come and

then stops and shoots" or the classic "enemy stays in the same spot as he appears

in the screen and shoots". Expectations would lead to believe that these games

would at least go past of what has been set up since the 8-Bit era.

Within the realm of presentation, well it is as it sounds. Most of these games just

don't present themselves as well as the traditional console game. Though this is

pretty obvious due to the fact that they are taken less seriously since they are

usually found in handhelds and downloadable services, this is still a problem whether

or not their is a logical excuse.

The best way to address my point is to compare it to a game that has fufilled what

I am talking about. The World Ends With You was a recent game that was released

for the Nintendo DS that just blew me away. Despite the pixelated sprites and the

less then stellar animation, production values led the game to have a strong

presentation. The cutscenes, the backgrounds, the soundtrack, the setting, the plot,

the characters, all of it came together much like the lastest blockbuster console

game. It truly felt light years beyond the majority of handheld games I've played and

did many things right. If only other games in its dimension would take note of what

it had done.

|Final Thoughts|

Well it's all as I've been saying, to me games in this dimension just haven't taken

any reconizable steps. Actually saying that isn't entirely true. 3 recent games (2 out

the other still in development) definately have taken some steps. Super Paper Mario

took the term "2.5D" to a literal gameplay idea as it was possible to flip between

dimensions. The upcoming indie game Fez looks to improve upon this formula by

adding a full rotating camera and the use of "trixels". The recently released Aquaria

brought the free-roaming action-adventure formula from the NES Zelda and took it to

a side-scrolling perspective, put it in an underwater setting, used tunnel level design

(think of the underwater levels from Donkey Kong Country but far more flourished),

and used huge interconnectable maps. Now the botherable thing about this is that 2

out of these 3 games are by independent developers. I mean Aquaria was made by

2 people in 2 years and truly did something new and phenomenal with the

action-adventure genre in the 2D spectrum. However IGA can barely change the

Castlevania formula as every new entry to the series has been riding on Symphony

of the Night's tailcoat save Portrait of Ruin (even then it didn't really do too much

new).

Now please don't think of me as some 2D fanatic who only plays 2D games and

hates 3D games. The think of me as of that would be ridiculous. I love games like

the Metal Gear Solid series, Half-Life series, Team Fortress 2, and what not. Hell

I'm not different then any other gamer you see posting in the forums, I mean if I

didn't like 3D games then why would I even own recent consoles? Wouldn't I just

game on handhelds as well as only play retro games? Sorry if this sounded too

forced and out-of-the-blue but I don't want anybody to get the wrong idea here.

Sorry if this sounded too forced and out-of-the-blue but I don't want anybody to get

the wrong idea here.

Also I in no way am belittling games that still use the tried and true design. After

all if it's still fun and entertaining then there can't be too much wrong with it.

Though I am just being bothered by such very little games over the past years

taking a step up from those designs.

When I started writing this article it I noticed a recent resurge of production valued

2D games. This was in the effect of handhelds being taken more seriously, the

upbringing of the Fighting genre, and titles like Starcraft II and Warioland Wii being

shown. Very little time has past since then and more huge hitters like Megaman 9

and Diablo III get confirmed and revealed to be in tradional 2D design. Though I am

excited to play these games, I am somewhat disapointed. Take Megaman 9 for

instace, why I applaud Capcom with the awesome retro throwback, a part of me

wished for the game to use the Wii remote for 360 degree shooting. As for Diablo

III well Blizzard hasn't shown everything about it yet however Blizzard knows how

rough around the edges their fans are so I doubt they'll take too many risks (I

mean hell they are pentioning against the game being too colorful...). And just

think about it, the examples I gave were just some things 2D games could do.

Could you imagine if a game where to came out that used Z-Axis travel, huge

map design, combined multiple genres together, had spectacular presentation,

used good physics and great A.I., and its design was matured? Personally I doubt

that anyone could imagine what sort of game that would be like.

Developers and publishers usually avoid retail for consoles and PC's when releasing

games in the 2nd dimension. When asked why the mostly give the hint that too

many people think that because the games are in 2D that they assume that they will

play like Super Nintendo games and therefore won't buy them. The funny thing is that most of these games

essentially do.