|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
State of the Game Industry: October 26th, 2003 (SPECIAL!)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Jack G.
What is Left for the Small Developer?
As one of the last classic two dimensional games forsakes its roots in lieu of the third dimension, I wonder what happened to the game industry. No more can games be simple and fun. No more can they have hand drawn characters or environments. No more can a game be made by just a handful of people. No more can a game exist in only two dimensions.
As someone who grew up with the early systems, I've never really understood this huge drive for everything to be 3D. A large percentage of my favorite games are 2D. Not only that, but there are entire genres of games that only exist properly in 2D, yet are being phased out. Or are already dead. Platformers just aren't the same in 3D. One of the cornerstones of adventure games was the art. Sure, there are still some of both, but they are few and far between, and they don't live up to the classics.
But... why have they been forsaken? Anyone who has enjoyed Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, or perhaps Curse of Monkey Island realizes that these games still hold up to this very day. It's not a matter of nostalgia. They are good, quality games. Aria of Sorrow for the Gameboy Advance proves that the Castlevania 2D gameplay holds up even in today's market. Yet instead of making a 2D version for the PS2 (or preferably the XBOX, a system with more potential for 2D graphics) which could have been a concept artist's wet dream, they decided to go with the 3D route. Now, I'm not about to denounce Lament of Innocence as a bad game before I play it. Metroid Prime turned out to be one of the best games of last year, even though it did the same thing.
But you can't argue that they are the same game. The gameplay is different, how you interact with the world is different. As similar as the content may end up being, a genre of game gets left by the wayside every time this happens. It isn't like games suddenly become more fun when they are tossed in to 3D. A lot of the time the inclusion of the third dimension leads to a loss of fun. For all of Metroid Prime's greatness, most of the boss battles I found to be frustrating and annoying, mostly because the limited view didn't allow you to see what you needed to see in order to do something right. In 2D, this was never a problem, because you could always see your environment.
Which is another thing I don't like about the transition to 3D. While you gain a dimension, you actually lose an awareness of your surroundings, for you can only see in a given direction in most 3D platformers. It makes the player less powerful, gives him less control over the game. That precise control and awareness is a large part of the reason why I love 2D platformer games. The ability to see that attacking coming from behind, and avoid it while killing another two enemies, gives me a sense of exhilaration that most 3D games can't.
Now, be sure to realize that I'm not claiming that 3D games are bad, or inferior. They are not. I am just saying that a 3D game and a 2D game are completely different beasts, even if they are in the same 'genre'. So I wonder why these games are being left high and dry, in favor of high budget 3D titles which take absurd amounts of manpower and money to make. Games that cost more to make, yet are arguably not more fun. Just a different kind of fun.
Seems to me like there is pressure to drop 2D in favor of 3D, but I don't really understand where it is coming from. Is it market pressure? It could be. Gamers tend to go where they are led, and they are led to believe that 3D is the greatest thing ever made, and the audiences themselves might be biased against 2D. But I think all gamers want are fun games. Is it publishers? It's true that publishers don't like taking risks, and they like exploiting new technology. But considering some of the biggest 2D franchises come from juggernaut publishers (Capcom, Konami), I don't think risk factors in. Is it the developers themselves? I think perhaps this is where the trouble lies. Developers don't believe in 2D anymore. They want to use the latest toys. They want to show off their skill. They want to make games as complete and detailed as possible. They have forgotten their roots.
And indeed, this self indulgent nature has led the industry to the brink of collapse. With projects taking upwards of three years and six million dollars per title (at a minimum), and climbing fast, soon the industry won't be able to properly sustain itself. Some games take five years, or cost fifty million dollars. Team size ranges from twenty on a small project, to hundreds on some of the more ambitious ones. This has led to a bad situation; smaller projects and developers can't keep up with the production values. So more and more games get left by the wayside when they don't live up to the visual standards set by the larger titles.
In fact, the smaller developers can't compete at all. They end up gobbled up by publishers, and put to work making licensed titles that are average at best, with no real chance of getting anywhere. The only developers left standing are the powerhouses who managed to prove themselves before the drive for technology ate everything in its path. The ones who established themselves before technology became the cornerstone for gaming.
Yet, this is all based on the assumption that has been baked in to the industry, that they must compete on a 3D landscape. I don't believe this is true, and I believe as soon as smaller developers begin to realize this, the industry will take an upturn. See, it doesn't take an art team of thirty people to make a quality game. It doesn't take a licensed 3D engine. It doesn't take the latest pixel shaders.
For instance, take Divine Divinity. Poor name aside, it was easily one of the best games of last year. It came out of nowhere, from a development team I'd never heard of, from a publisher not particularly known for quality software, from Europe no less, and blew everyone away. And to top it off, it was sold for a reasonable amount cheaper than other games. This certainly isn't something you'd expect to happen if 2D really was dead.
So now it's obvious what the industry needs: People need to start making 2D games again. Smaller developers can still make great games, without the added overhead that 3D inherently requires; gamers like myself can get a good dose of quality games that are otherwise not made; and it can bring some balance back to a tech crazy industry. Maybe even convince some of the bigger developers to remember 2D, and how good it is.
I'd really love to see a full fledged 2D product nowadays. Current 3D tech can be utilized to draw 2D sprites at a speed that people could have only imagined some years back. And it'll allow high resolutions that weren't possible before either. I'd love to see a 2D game completely hand drawn, with painted backgrounds. No 3D renders, no 3D models. A few of the later Playstation games heralded what 2D could have become. Legend of Mana comes to mind. With games like that on such limited hardware, I'd expect nothing short of breathtaking on modern systems.
For the record, Divine Divinity took seventeen developers two and a half years to complete. By modern 3D standards, that is an absolutely tiny team, and considering the size of the game itself, a reasonably short development time as well. I would made an educated guess that the total cost of development was most likely around three million dollars. This should be a wake up call to established developers burning absurd amounts of money and manpower on new games, or new developers thinking of trying to compete on the 3D side.
Developers should take note of Larian Studios' accomplishment. Gamers should take note of Larian Studios' accomplishment. Everyone as a whole should realize that 2D is still viable, still entertaining, and still as solid as ever. 2D isn't dead, people just need to ask for it again.
Posted by: uh...ok
I couldn't agree with you more.
Through the past several years I have been finding myself more and more unwilling to purchase games. The last game I bought was Neverwinter Nights, and the last game before that was Half-Life. I always walk into a computer gaming store whenever I'm at a mall - more out of habit and ritual than anything else - hoping "Today, I will find something that really strikes my interest enough to justify a purchase." And I always walk out disappointed.
Reading your article has given me an idea - a possibility. Perhaps one of the reasons why I been unable to buy any games lately is because I am, like you, the type of person who prefers the 2D kind of fun over the 3D kind of fun. Taking quick stock of the games I currently own reveals that I have a much higher concentration of 2D games than I do 3D games. To me, it seems that if you've played 1 FPS extensively, you've played them all. The only difference is in the story and the tiny variations in execution. But that's for a different discussion, since we're not talking exclusively about FPS's, but the 3D genre as a whole.
I think that if 2D games starting coming back out again, I would definitely be more interested in purchasing games and playing them. 
That said, however, I'm still intent on buying FFXI when it comes out, were it not for the fact that I'd have practically no time to play it without sacrificing games and sleep. But then there's always winter break. 
Posted by: Jack G.
Do you own a Gameboy Advance yet? There is still a nice selection of quality 2D titles to be had on the GBA. I've made it a habit to take my GBA with me whereever I go, and I keep a good selection of games with me. There are two worthwhile Castlevania titles (Aria of Sorrow and Harmony of Dissonance), Metroid Fusion is a pretty good game, and there are plenty of old classics. I just picked up Super Mario 3 the other day, and it's taking me back.
Posted by: Cinderno4
I love 2D games. I feel that the main reason there is so little development of 2D games is the fact that many people buy their games based on the eye candy shown on the box or in screenshots. I'm not saying that 2D games can't be really pretty, but for what you usually see on the boxes (explosions, snow, water, dirt, lights, ray traced vehicles/weapons), nothing beats how 3D looks. Like you implied, looks don't make a game. Sadly, though, looks is how many choose what games to buy.
|
|
|
|
|
