Rob has found the time to type a hell of a rant on the state of computer gaming as we know it. Igore him as he still plays Jet Set Willy. So do you? Oh all right then!....

Well, it’s time to write another article on computing in general. Graphics and Gameplay.

I've followed computing and gaming ever since my family owned one of those 6-in-one video games consoles. These were probably responsible for more deaths (of televisions) than any other system since. The graphics consisted of a number of white lines and a white square (or 'ball' as it was usually referred to as). The graphics were awful and the gameplay rudimentary but they were fun. Can you start to see where I'm going here.

Modern games suck big time! There, I've said it and yes, I'm generalising a little. There seems to be some sort of hardware snobbery around meaning that every new game, instead of pushing your gaming experience to the limit, asks more and more PC or console power. This isn't really a new thing, many Amiga owners wouldn't play ST ports and many Amstrad owners wouldn't play Speccy ports but there's a difference here. We're subjected to extra graphics for flashiness to hide the lack of gameplay within the game. Games nowadays (as a rule) look flashier and flashier and far more often than not, it's at the expense of the gameplay, which hasn't really changed since the previous version in the genre.

Look at the huge following that emulation has. Here is a huge library of systems and games which, instead of relying on flashy graphics (although I like them and in some cases, were perfect!), they have a gameplay hook designed to keep you playing. Mame is incredibly popular and yet, doesn't contain a single texture mapped, light sourced polygon. Out Run is still a classic and so is Bomb Jack. Commando is great and no 3D game could recreate half of the gameplay involved in these emulators. Some of this gameplay is now lost forever unless things change.

Quake III on the PC look gorgeous, but after a fortnight, I was back playing Battle Squadron and Mega-Lo-Mania. Once the initial game has hit you and the graphics wowed you into submission, there really was very little gameplay change from the deathmatches in the original Quake. This doesn't mean that the game is bad (my mistake was reviewing it after 3 days), it's just frustrating that after the graphics wore off, there was very little new. There are games like Populous, Cannon Fodder and even Manic Miner that I have been playing and enjoying, in some cases, for over fifteen years. There are very few games that have come out in the last five years that I can honestly say that about.

It's a shame as there are some great games out there. Thief's first level had some truly engrossing hide and thief (!) gameplay and was helped by the 3D. Unfortunately, level two had the old 'we can't think of more gameplay so we'll chuck zombies at you' approach which really knackered it. I've only played it twice since reviewing it and I won't be going back. Some games have virtually no gameplay and some have no new gameplay. Look at all the beat-em-ups and driving games (which admittedly do play better as a rule in 3D) there are now, not to mention football games. How many of these are really different without mentioning the graphics. Whoopee-doo. Gran Turismo looked gorgeous but was just Ridge Racer whearas Driver and Grand Theft Auto proved that crime does pay. And in the case of Grand Theft Auto, 2D (buildings excepted) does still work. You don't always have to play a game from a foot behind the hero's head/vehicle or through their eyes. Which leads me to my next point.

This hardware snobbery has almost totally led to the death of the 2D-Sprite game. Now, I know that with the amount of years involved (about 20) in creating 2D games, there must be so many advances that could be made in true gameplay not yet explored. This is why the Game Boy and it's colour brother do so well still. In more powerful machines, 3D should not be added just because it's unheard of to do 2D anymore. It should be a choice based purely on the gameplay. In film, animated 2D films have been around for almost a century and yet 3D ones can be counted on your fingertips. You can sometimes tell a tale better in 2D, sometimes 3D. Sometimes, like in Disney films, they use both as in the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast.

Nintendo are, once sales of the current Game Boy range drop (my point proved), planning to release the Game Boy Advance handheld console. This, according to sources, will have no 3D capability but the 2D power of an N64. This isn't going to be out for a while but I can't wait. Nintendo games have always been incredibly playable (Metroid, Mario, Zelda) and to play new games from these authors is a mouth watering prospect.

Don't think for one moment that I hate all things with that 3rd dimension. Some games work better in true 3D and that's that. Simulations (including Flight, Driving Space and some sports) need that extra realism, beat em ups have improved gameplay thanks to 3D although I'm still waiting for a decent 3D Double Dragon clone, Fighting Force after the first levels was rank! Doom clones (first person shooters) are also much more tense and engrossing in 3D, I just wish that there was a difference in gameplay between them all. Doom is a 3D military/Hades version of Gauntlet and I still play Gauntlet too. Tomb Raider is only Prince of Persia or Flashback in 3D but here, 2D variants are still improving, Abes Odyssey and OnEscapee on the Amiga proved that the 2D version of the Genre isn't dead yet.

Eventually, Tomb Raider XXI will never be written and this bubble will burst. It will have no choice as real gamers are already fed up with endless sequels and minimal gameplay graphics demos. Hardware will reach a point where any more polygons will be impossible so gameplay will again be worked on. This backlash has begun and I apologise for getting stuck on my soap box but come the revolution, I'll be stood next to the flag bearer holding my Game Boy Advance. Onward, to great games (not just great looking ones).

Coagulus / Rob