My Problem With 2D Games
Punk guess this one. Ptatforming like Mario. Shooting like Contra and item collectio like Zelda. Which game am I talking about?
Yay! Thanks.
So what you think about the topic gamingeek, agree, disagree?
So what you think about the topic gamingeek, agree, disagree?
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
What happend to the formatting. Anyway I read it and totally agree. There is still plenty of areas to explore in 2D games, for some reason people think we dont want to see it. There is no reason why every 2D game must play like every old 2D game, they can make a 2D game as complex as any 3d game today. As for MM9 I love the idea cause the concept of that is to go back to simplicity. But for say a new Zelda 2D game it should be as grand and epic as any of the 3D ones, but they just get shorter and easier.
Exactly. I mean why not the move to put the 2D Zelda series in an isometric type viewpoint with a splendid camera system? Have Link be able to interact with everything with destructable enviornments as well as a great physics system. Why isn't there more of an inclusion of different layers (yes they've been toying with this, but why not make it more standard?)
I could go on, but the things that would impress us the most are the things we couldn't think of (I mean isn't Nintendo known for that?).
I mean the DS is a full generation in specs over the GBA. Some games get this Apollo Justice/Phoenix Wright (though to be far this series was on the GBA but it was WAY ahead of its time), The World Ends With You, Hotel Dusk & Megaman ZX from talks, Lunar Knights, Yoshi's Island DS, and a few others do, but most just haven't taken a hint.
I mean the technology is there why not use it?
I could go on, but the things that would impress us the most are the things we couldn't think of (I mean isn't Nintendo known for that?).
I mean the DS is a full generation in specs over the GBA. Some games get this Apollo Justice/Phoenix Wright (though to be far this series was on the GBA but it was WAY ahead of its time), The World Ends With You, Hotel Dusk & Megaman ZX from talks, Lunar Knights, Yoshi's Island DS, and a few others do, but most just haven't taken a hint.
I mean the technology is there why not use it?
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
Anyway I just hope that the progression of the DS's games goes on as some are really breaking many molds in terms of production values.
I just really hope that with Nintendo's next handheld 2D won't fade away like it did with the N64. Then again the PSP has a steady list of 2D titles.
I just really hope that with Nintendo's next handheld 2D won't fade away like it did with the N64. Then again the PSP has a steady list of 2D titles.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
Yep Metroid is the correct answer. The reason castlevania is not evolving is because they fail in 3D and metroid has not evolved a lot in 2D, so they can't steal any ideas from there.
P.S. the most awesome 2D game I played, are the 2D gravity levels in Super Mario Galaxy. Platforming upside down FTW!
P.S. the most awesome 2D game I played, are the 2D gravity levels in Super Mario Galaxy. Platforming upside down FTW!
Gravity. I could see many 2D games using this.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
I agree that 2-D games could and should be as in depth and epic. But they just aren't commercial unless they are on portables these days.
I just can't express how much I'd like more 2D Zeldas and Metroids. My first GameBoy game was Link's Awakening DX and I absolutely LOVED it. Then I got the Oracles and loved them, as well. I find myself going back to Metroid: Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission about a billion times more often than I go back to the Primes. Then came Minish Cap--short, too easy, and too different from the previous GameBoy Zeldas.
I want more 2D Zeldas and Metroids, but I'd like things to be improved upon. And no, nothing like Phantom Hourglass... not at all.
I want more 2D Zeldas and Metroids, but I'd like things to be improved upon. And no, nothing like Phantom Hourglass... not at all.
No Iga I haven't heard your ideas.
In terms of why handhelds are the only commercial use for 2D games is handhelds, well it's as I've stated; the philosophy of consoles radically changed during the mid 90's. Console were no longer "pick up and play fun" they were all about "immersive expereinces". Of course this isn't a bad thing at all, just that left developers lost because the games they were making were all about pick up and play.
I mean it is easier to make a 3D game more immersive then a 2D game for obvious reasons. Though that doesn't mean it can't be done. I've been really immersed by Snatcher, Phoenix Wright, The World Ends With You, and Odin Sphere. I think the problem is with the developers in that spectrum.
Then again the Wii is taking on this whole "games are about just fun again" so I wouldn't be surprised to see 2D games viable again (just surprised to see developers actually take the risk in pushing them).
Oh and angry_beaver it seems that you are a huge 2D action-adventure buff. I really recomend that game "Aquaria" I was talking about in it. You can search that with the words "Bit-Blot" at the end to take you to the site. The demo itself is free.
In terms of why handhelds are the only commercial use for 2D games is handhelds, well it's as I've stated; the philosophy of consoles radically changed during the mid 90's. Console were no longer "pick up and play fun" they were all about "immersive expereinces". Of course this isn't a bad thing at all, just that left developers lost because the games they were making were all about pick up and play.
I mean it is easier to make a 3D game more immersive then a 2D game for obvious reasons. Though that doesn't mean it can't be done. I've been really immersed by Snatcher, Phoenix Wright, The World Ends With You, and Odin Sphere. I think the problem is with the developers in that spectrum.
Then again the Wii is taking on this whole "games are about just fun again" so I wouldn't be surprised to see 2D games viable again (just surprised to see developers actually take the risk in pushing them).
Oh and angry_beaver it seems that you are a huge 2D action-adventure buff. I really recomend that game "Aquaria" I was talking about in it. You can search that with the words "Bit-Blot" at the end to take you to the site. The demo itself is free.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
Not sure I'd say a huge 2D action/adventure buff, but the handheld Zeldas (minus Minish Cap) and Metroids left a big impression on me. Those are really the only games in 3D now that I'm dying to see return in 2D glory. And I really am saying that I'd like more Zeldas like the GameBoy ones--the first time I played more than a few minutes of A Link to the Past was when I got it for the GBA, and by that time the previous GameBoy iterations had already left their impressions on me.
And as much as I can't stand JRPGs these days due to my impatience and lack of skill with strategizing, I recently found myself interested in the Pokemon RPGs again. I sold my copies of Blue and Silver several years ago, but I'm thinking about purchasing some Pokemon games when I get some money.
So Zelda, Metroid, and Pokemon are what I love in 2D. Almost everything else in 2D can go to hell for all I care... except possibly Mario and Golden Sun (including its 3D-ish elements).
And as much as I can't stand JRPGs these days due to my impatience and lack of skill with strategizing, I recently found myself interested in the Pokemon RPGs again. I sold my copies of Blue and Silver several years ago, but I'm thinking about purchasing some Pokemon games when I get some money.
So Zelda, Metroid, and Pokemon are what I love in 2D. Almost everything else in 2D can go to hell for all I care... except possibly Mario and Golden Sun (including its 3D-ish elements).
^^^Possibly you aren't playing enough 2D games :angryface: (j/k)
Anyway I just recomended Aquaria because it sounded right up your alley from your talks.
But yeah thanks for the comments people. I was really worried that this would get few replys when I first wrote it.
Anyway I just recomended Aquaria because it sounded right up your alley from your talks.
But yeah thanks for the comments people. I was really worried that this would get few replys when I first wrote it.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
Punk this is what I wrote in GG weekly
....I briefly touched on the gravity mechanics of Galaxy in my previous comment. I just had a cool idea, why not use the bottom screen to draw a gravity vector. A gravity vector is an arrow showing the direction of the gravity. On earth is obviously always points down. So it bit like the 2D level in the Dreadnought Galaxy were you are able to change gravity, but you can do it whenever you want. Perhaps the game would be too easy, no wait have a better idea.
A new IP "Gravity"
You are a character that is not able to jump. You must overcome 2D levels my changing the gravity vector. For instance there is a hole in the ground, than you change the gravity vector and you walk on the ceiling. You can beat enemies this way too. Change the vector and the enemy "flies" to the ceiling filled with spikes. They can make a puzzle like platformer out of this....
....I briefly touched on the gravity mechanics of Galaxy in my previous comment. I just had a cool idea, why not use the bottom screen to draw a gravity vector. A gravity vector is an arrow showing the direction of the gravity. On earth is obviously always points down. So it bit like the 2D level in the Dreadnought Galaxy were you are able to change gravity, but you can do it whenever you want. Perhaps the game would be too easy, no wait have a better idea.
A new IP "Gravity"
You are a character that is not able to jump. You must overcome 2D levels my changing the gravity vector. For instance there is a hole in the ground, than you change the gravity vector and you walk on the ceiling. You can beat enemies this way too. Change the vector and the enemy "flies" to the ceiling filled with spikes. They can make a puzzle like platformer out of this....
Holy shit! That's a great idea.
But if a game happens like that it will more likely use it as a gimmick then adding it as a new feature if you know what I mean.
But if a game happens like that it will more likely use it as a gimmick then adding it as a new feature if you know what I mean.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
| 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.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!