I just pointed out with my reference to the salesfigures that Metal Gear was not 'killed'. Perhaps your overly romantic view of the 1987 original was killed, but that is something completely different. I seem to be the only one here that loved the two Metal Gear Solid games, and I also seem to be the only that is not bothered that the world around us actually changes. Go figure.

As for the music, if you would put a modern version of the Theme of Tara in Metal Gear Solid 1, it would not add the atmosphere needed, it would break it down completely. Kojima tried to make kids feel like they were a top secret agent in 1987 with the means available, in 1997 he tried to make (young) adults feel like a superspy with the means available. Those means had increased, so the game changes. It is still remarkable to me how well the essence of Metal Gear as a whole was preserved. 99.9% of new 3D games based on a classic 2D game fail...MGS didn't fail.

Oh and the people that in general say 'I don't like 3D games, they suck' should either play better 3D games (there are so many good ones) or stop playing at all. 2D games are ancient history, like it or not.

A perfect example of a 'daring' move was Abe's Oddysee in 1997 (PS1 and PC). It was a 2D game without sidescrolling in an era where 3D was 'the way to go'. For me it is a classic game that everybody should try. The 2D even served a purpose, as it resetted the screen. The sequel Abe's Exoddus was cool too, but like a lot of sequels, the first one was better...

Then in 2002, Munch' Oddysee was released for XBOX. Yes, 3D and yes, it sucked... The atmosphere was gone and so was the humor.

3D is cool, but don't forget 2D!!

I also liked both Metal Gear Solids! I'm playing Twin Snakes on my gamecube now!!

Fresh

Quote:

Now that is just as dumb as saying "all 3D games suck". The only reason there are not (many, coz they do still exist) 2D games out there (GBA and other portable stuff being the exception), is because the games industry has (d)evolved into a 'me too!'-industry.

No it's reality. 3D games suck! is just a biased opinion and quite a generalisation at best. 2D games are ancient history is looking at the market and seeing which way we are headed. The GBA's lifespan has been seriously diminished, the new generation of handhelds will be 3D (PSP, NDS), whereas the PC and Console games are already 3D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is the way I like it, or the way it should be, but it is the thing that's going to happen. There are so many things I don't like about where we are going, doesn't mean it's going to change because I don't like it.

The 'me too!' syndrome has nothing to do with 2D or 3D by the way, it has to do with commercial success, 10% of the games make money, so copying successful ideas is a safe bet. Not that it guarantees anything.

Bottomline is: if you didn't like MGS or MGS2 it has nothing to do with it being 3D, it's just not your type of game. Which is fine. It is for me, and it gets me a lot more drawn into the "I'm Solid Snake, the superspy, the tough guy...I can sneak into anything"-feeling than Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 did, the tension is much more present. Sure, Metal Gear did the same for me in 1987, but I was a kid back then...it seemed logical that a guard would freeze when hit once. instead of falling or trying to fight back.

You have a very limited view of the world, and of business, apparently...

Quote:

You have a very limited view of the world, and of business, apparently...

A limited view of the world I won't disagree with, although one could assume every individual has a limited view of the world. But might I ask what causes you to say my view of business is limited as well?

Well... this will a bit off topic, but...
I *usually* do not like 3D games... There are a few exceptions though: MGS is one of them... and long time ago I liked Tie Fighter and X-Wing a lot.
I just few dumb playing most 3D games with "2D controlers". Using two hands or dozens os scroll buttons just to "walk around" is ... "too complicated" for a casual player like me. I just want to sit, use my cursor keys and space to shoot. That's all.
Today, if you want to be happy playing, you have to be a professional player... You have to evolve and became a mysterious creature with twelve fingers on your hands... and of course, three arms will help too.
This is just why I usually do not like 3D games. MGS and MGS2 *do not* suffer from this problem. The playability is just ok. This is why I like them. But I *do* think original 2D ones were better. They gave me the same feeling and were easier to play (and yes, I do have a lot of imagination).
Other 3D games I really liked was those I had played with real helmet, when my look (and aim) was controled by my head and movements by the keyboard. *This* is nice 3D playing. Easy to play, true imersion and so on. Unfortunately, the market is not made for those like me, that plays less than 30 minutes per week. I'm not the kind of guy that buys 5 games a month.
In other words, the market is not worried about my interests.

NOTE again, those are remaks about "2D games are dead, 3D is the future" and so on... not about MGS. The statement about 3D x 2D looks like "Newspapers are dead, Internet is the future" or "Radio is dead, TV is the future"... a weird statement. Anyway, as long as I live, there will be 2D games. Even if I have to build them for myself.
I'll send a copy for Konamiman, of course. (^=

Quote:

A limited view of the world I won't disagree with, although one could assume every individual has a limited view of the world. But might I ask what causes you to say my view of business is limited as well?

"2D games are ancient history is looking at the market and seeing which way we are headed."
'The market' is what you, as a developer, make of it. Although you, as a developer, have no control over what a publisher wants (or thinks it wants).

"The GBA's lifespan has been seriously diminished, the new generation of handhelds will be 3D (PSP, NDS), whereas the PC and Console games are already 3D."
There is no reason you can't do 2D games on a 3D platform. In fact, textured quads make pretty nifty sprites.

"The 'me too!' syndrome has nothing to do with 2D or 3D by the way, it has to do with commercial success, 10% of the games make money, so copying successful ideas is a safe bet. Not that it guarantees anything."
At least you recognize it doesn't guarantee anything. But saying it has nothing to do with 2D or 3D, combined with the comments about 'where the market is headed' etc, doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I guess it's unfair for me to judge your views this way, as you're limited by what the publishers want. In other words, you don't make the market, the publishers do.

I for one am glad there are platforms for which you don't need a license.
<revolutionary mode>
Death to the publishers!
</revolutionary mode>

Quote:

"2D games are ancient history is looking at the market and seeing which way we are headed." 'The market' is what you, as a developer, make of it. Although you, as a developer, have no control over what a publisher wants (or thinks it wants). [..] Anyway, I guess it's unfair for me to judge your views this way, as you're limited by what the publishers want. In other words, you don't make the market, the publishers do.

Thanks for explaining! Let me see if I can add something to it. First, the market is not what I, nor the publisher makes of it. The market is what the consumer makes of it. Publishers look at the games that sell multi-million figures and decide that is the path to follow. Developers that like to do otherwise either get very, very lucky or simply do not get funding. In that way you are right that I unfortunately have nothing to say, I cannot decide by myself what to make, at least not commercially.

The publishers are overly powerful, I agree there too, but power is where the money is. Developers that can fund their own projects tend to release more creative games (and more than once go bankrupt since it doesn't sell). Face it: games are mainstream, and the mainstream consumer is dumb. They buy a game because it says "Matrix" or "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings" on the box, with this sidemark that the Lord of the Rings game actually was quite good.

Quote:

"The GBA's lifespan has been seriously diminished, the new generation of handhelds will be 3D (PSP, NDS), whereas the PC and Console games are already 3D." There is no reason you can't do 2D games on a 3D platform. In fact, textured quads make pretty nifty sprites.

There is no technical reason not to do 2D games! There are other reasons to do 3D though. First, 3D games sell hardware, so the hardware manufacturers want 3D games. Second, if I design a 2D game, no-one will pay for it, so that is basically suicide to do. Third, consumers look at a 2D game and say 'damn, how old is this game' and don't buy it. I actually got that remark when we released the trailer of our GBA shoot 'em up Xyanide, which was completely redesigned from a 3D X-Box game. Doing that game on GBA in 2D makes the game actually fun to play, where a 3D version would be no more than a techdemo. Still consumers nag that is not 3D. Frustrating really.

Now with Nintendo's bad businessmodel for GBA (high royalty, high production cost), the upcoming more powerful - aimed at 3D - handheld the Playstation Portable and the announcement of Nintendo themselves that they will release a new handheld soon (Project Nitro aka Nintendo DS) makes me say the GBA won't last long. We didn't start working on PSP because we wanted to do 3D, we started working on PSP since no-one would fund another GBA game...

Quote:

"The 'me too!' syndrome has nothing to do with 2D or 3D by the way, it has to do with commercial success, 10% of the games make money, so copying successful ideas is a safe bet. Not that it guarantees anything." At least you recognize it doesn't guarantee anything. But saying it has nothing to do with 2D or 3D, combined with the comments about 'where the market is headed' etc, doesn't make sense.

Ermm..right...I did put that in a fuzzy way. What I meant to say was "If a 2D game would sell really, really well...other developers would make 2D games as well" ergo: the "me too!" syndrome is mainly initiated by sales, not 3D game technology.

Quote:

I for one am glad there are platforms for which you don't need a license. <revolutionary mode> Death to the publishers! </revolutionary mode>

I wish again, if developers had the money to develop a game by themselves and then HIRE a publisher only to put it in the stores....now THAT would be great! Where do I sign up?

ps. the PC is also a platform for which you don't need a license, I don't see too many 2D games appearing there either. I am not sure what other systems you had in mind, but I don't know of any systems that promote the creation of 2D games and are commercially interesting.

Maybe that's because PC has never -really- been a gamers platform. If you exclude all console ports and standard First Person Shooters.. how many 'PC Only' or at least... 'First on PC' games do you end up with that actually sold well?

Only games that need huge resources and a keyboard

Simulation games, Real-Time strategy games...

I don't like the PC as a gaming platform that much either

Well, I liked Diablo2 on PC that's not really 3d.. but 2d used in a semi-3d way .. and I liked it just because of that!

Blizzard can do whatever they want, they've tons of fans who buy their stuff anyway..

Quote:

First, the market is not what I, nor the publisher makes of it. The market is what the consumer makes of it. {...} Face it: games are mainstream, and the mainstream consumer is dumb.

Exactly, the mainstream consumer is dumb. So it's the publishers that make the market by publishing games that appeal to dumb people. (Your movie license example)
If the publishers would only publish quality titles (and they can be movie-licensed if it really serves a purpose), the market would be a lot different. But instead, publishers rather publish a bad game with 'Batman' on it, than a good game without a license.
The publishers themselves are responsible for the situation the game industry is in right now; Do not blame this on the consumers.

About that commercially viable platform, there are some which could be commercially viable right now. It all depends on the development costs, ofcourse. Not having to buy a devkit or make other investments beforehand makes a difference.
Open platforms, and yes I'll dare say it, like the one-chip-MSX will have the future, IMO.

Quote:

Exactly, the mainstream consumer is dumb. So it's the publishers that make the market by publishing games that appeal to dumb people. (Your movie license example) If the publishers would only publish quality titles (and they can be movie-licensed if it really serves a purpose), the market would be a lot different. But instead, publishers rather publish a bad game with 'Batman' on it, than a good game without a license. The publishers themselves are responsible for the situation the game industry is in right now; Do not blame this on the consumers.

Hmm I tend to agree, since the average publisher is not my best friend either but isn't this a bit of the chicken or the egg story? If the consumers wouldn't buy the lousy games, no-one would make them anymore. But yeah, the amount of publishers that actuually care about if the game is good or not is low. I had first hand experience btw with your Batman example. We worked on a Powerrangers game where the publisher literaly said that "it doesn't matter, it will sell anyway, it's powerrangers". Worst project I worked on...it's not satisfying.

Quote:

About that commercially viable platform, there are some which could be commercially viable right now. It all depends on the development costs, ofcourse. Not having to buy a devkit or make other investments beforehand makes a difference. Open platforms, and yes I'll dare say it, like the one-chip-MSX will have the future, IMO.

Well 90% of the development cost is labour, not hardware or licenses. I would cheer for more open platforms instead of the overly protected console platforms there are now (although we don't pay for our Sony license). We've worked on smaller - 2D - platforms that were open like the Pocket PC for example...but really, the amount of money you make with it is perhaps enough to pay two people for one or two months work. I don't call that viable. Before a platform like the one-chip-MSX becomes commercially interesting...it's a long road to travel I think. With which I am not saying it's impossible.

Quote:

Maybe that's because PC has never -really- been a gamers platform. If you exclude all console ports and standard First Person Shooters.. how many 'PC Only' or at least... 'First on PC' games do you end up with that actually sold well?

]

mostly terms like 'online playing' or 'multi player' sell good on PC. If I'm not mistaken
Battlefield 1942 sold pretty well, as well as Battlefield Vietnam as Unreal tounrament.

But then again. If it comes to gameplay I'd rather play behind a gameconsole then a PC.