3d games.... 2d games....

[ninjarygar]

A while back... I got into a little arguement ONLINE. Yes, this is SERIOULS BUSINESS.
I was on a forum and I was trying to make a point and it was falling of deaf ears. Even though it was a long time ago, I'm still curious as to what people think on the subject, since all I got out of them was giant red letters that say "FAIL". (Of course, natrually, this is how most forums argue their points...)

Anyway, sombody suggested that Sega sucks. They claimed that they're a mediocre developer and are only living off of their past success. They became a shitty company as soon as they started making 3d games.

Now I started thinking about that bold statement and I said that many of Sega's past successes have actually been 3d.... just not the same 3d he was thinking of. Games like Super Hang on, Galaxy force 2, space harrier, after burner... you know the ones. I realize they're not polygonal... that they're just pixelated sprites being scaled to create an illusion... I'm not dumb. However, those games WERE 3d according to the standards created WHEN they were made. You see, now the illusion is weak because polygons are the norm, but then, BACK THEN, the perspective was 3d, the illusion was strong, so the effect in the end was a 3d game, just like the ones you play today.

(I also pointed out a few other things like Virtua Fighter being the first 3d fighter and many other things to try to point out that Sega can't be judged just by Sonic Team)

Of course nobody listens.

Here's a copy and past of the only arguement I got... "FAIL! Since when those games were 3D? All they did was scale different sprites to give a pseudo feeling of depth in the stage. It's just like what the SNES did with the mode 7 although using a different formula."

I tried to argue.... in that case... how are today's games 3d? All they do is shape together several polygons to give a pseudo feeling of depth in the stage. It's still just a 2d image on a screen... in that case there is no 3d game. Of course they're not 3d in today's terms. 20 years ago, if you went to an arcade, you'd call that a 3d game.... THAT was 3d. It was as 3d as it got. Polygons weren't standard yet, so Sega was using what technology they had to make great arcade games.

Of course the only arguement I got back was "FAIL*2"... and that was the end of it.

So I'm curious... do I really fail? Or is it because I was trying to argue with children... who just don't understand?

[kal]

Sonic 3d was called Sonic 3d and it didn't really even do that. I think I'd agree with you in that they're 3d in as much as can be defined by the term 3d..I mean to get anal all 3d really means is that you're able to move in three dimensions (X,Y, Z..yeah I know, no doi) in which case some modern 3d games aren't even that 3d at all.

Of course as english is a liquid language you're 100% right that at the time it would easily be considered 3d. I mean hell the early vector games like battle tank or what not with it's vector based engine...that's all 3d but it's all a gimmick.

I will say in their defence claiming the 3d then is the same level of 3d now would be a stretch but not really like with Wolfenstein 3D for example is that not 3d because it's a sprite based engine? You don't need a graphic card because all of the 3d effects are achieved through programming and playing with perspectives.

I think you could call the earlier games 2.5D or something but that's more for simplicity sakes..you could of course just call then Sprite based 3d and newer games Polygon based 3d.

And hell don't get me started on Ellipsoids and Voxels.

[kain]

I think 2D/3D can describe game design and game graphics independently of each other. The graphics part is obvious (polygons versus sprites) so I'll focus on the design part...

I've always thought that the lines between 2D and 3D in terms of game design were kind of blurry. At the end of the day, it is sort of a philosophical question that could be debated until the cows come home, but there is kind of a fuzzy separator in my mind between 2D and 3D game design.

As kal mentioned, 2D design focuses on movement within two axes and 3D design focuses on movement within three axes WITH a rotation component.

Related to this is a sort of litmus test I'm proposing to mark the difference between 2D and 3D design. 2D designs tend to have all immediately relevant game agents on the screen at one time; the player is always aware of any immediate threats. 3D designs tend to force the player to remember the status of their simulated world as they rotate their camera around in such a way that it is entirely possible to take damage in a game with 3D design without really being aware of the threat.

Even this can be debated, though, because it's basically philosophy, attempting to categorize amorphous truths. At the end of the day, it is all just a system of rules and mechanics with the intend of fun that may not necessarily be conducive to explicit categorizations such as 2D versus 3D.

[vysethebold]

I guess they were trying to say that the games weren't rendered in 3D so they weren't 3D but you count out a lot of games that we call 3D if you say that or call at least call them into question. I mean even the racers in Mariokart 64 were 2D sprites with a 3D environment moving around them (yeah I know it sounds backwards but that's how racers work). Also, you can't label those games 2.5D because that term was coined around when Yoshi's Story came out on the N64 as a game with 3D rendered graphics but with 2D gameplay. I think the only way you can label the Sega games is "pseudo 3D." At any rate, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with those people. It's pretty much a pointless argument. Don't forget that the people on the internet are seldom as intelligent, reasonable, or well-spoken as the people on these forums (well most of us anyway).

[zzz]

I have considered writing about this for HG101, but have not found a game or series to write it around that could demonstrate this point. Ahem...

Smash Bros is a fully rendered game, but is recognized as a 2-D fighter. This is accurate as it has a 2-D playing field.

Doom is sprite based, but is recognized as a 3-D FPS. This is accurate as it has a 3-D playing field.

Wolfenstein 3-D, Faceball 2000 (a FPS from 1985), and Battlezone are 2-D games. Why? Movement is exclusively on two planes. In and out. Left and right. Those games lack any up or down movement.

Both 2-D and 3-D are defined by their playing fields. Otherwise why is Mario on NES not 3-D? There are backgrounds that mario can walk in front of. So technically there is depth at a strictly cosmetic level. Remember Mario 3 where Mario could enter the background to get the warp whistle?

Hell, technically any beat-em-up with jumping is a 3-D game. While the genre's death might be blamed on 3-D in general, I would say it is because of the influence it has had on 3-D action games. Games like 3-D Ninja Gaiden or 3-D Shinobi have more in common with Final Fight than 2-D Shinobi or 2-D Ninja Gaiden. As a result of this, the often greater monotony of beat-em-ups is difficult to sell.

Look at Mario for DS. Where is it at? Ten million in sales?

So why is a 2-D platformer (that is often argued to be a horrible game) that was released for a portable console on the verge of outselling any 3-D platformer ever made, while the gameplay elements of beat-em-ups have been absorbed into 3-D action games and the genre has been pretty much phased out of existence?

While the up and down movement of a beat-em-up is more or less irrelevent, the same is true in 3-D action games. They are based around movement in and out of the screen and to the left and right on the screen. So these elements can live on elsewhere ard be, at least financially, "replaced" within the industry. Platformers are a different matter. They where created for a playing field of up, down, left, and right. So changing the playing field will eliminate the context their gameplay elements were created in and that allowed them to work to begin with. This playing field DEFINES how the "game pieces" are even capable of relating to each other. How the "game pieces" relate to each other IS the game.

Imagine chess played on a 3-D playing field. Or basketball if the ball could only be moved along the ground. Or pool/billiards if the ball had to be shot straight up and down as well as across the table. The games would be incapable of not changing, even if they were played with the same game pieces. They would become completely different games. This is what happens to video games.

Consider how video games evolved during the 2-D era. Many, many, many genres were made with many, many, many kinds of gameplay. What genres have been invented during the 3-D era (roughly PS and on)? Rhthym games existed for the NES. Stealth games existed for the NES and MSX. Survial Horror existed for the NES and SNES. FPSes existed in some form or other as far back as 1985 with the afore mentioned Faceball 2000, or perhaps even earlier with Battlezone. The only genre of it's own that reasonably has been created during the 3-D era has been arcade vehicle games and calling that a seperate kind of gameplay is questionable. The industry for whatever reason has prevented change in general game design.

My point? The failure of certain genres or series to translate to 3-D and the lack of innovation in the 3-D era are due to the same phenomenom. WE ARE PLAYING 2-D GAMES IN A 3-D PLAYING FIELD.

When the industry made the transition to 3-D as rule, why did they not "reinvent the wheel"? EVERY kind of game out there was created for a 2-D playing field. Except maybe flight simulators, and that could be contended. Why are we exclusively playing the same games we played twenty years ago?

Where is the 3-D Pong? The game that could have introduced people to a kind of game as different to them as a 2-D video game was in 1972. Why have different kinds of gameplay that are impossible in 2-D not been created to co-exist with the old kinds of games?

For a example go back to 3-D action games. The up and down plane is ignored in these games. When do you need to move your character diagnolly up and toward the screen along a straight and lengthy path? Yet if there was a decent amount of reliance on how the character relates to the other "game pieces" within a 3-D playing field and control of the character's movement along a 3-D playing field that would be a option. Designers are adhering to this kind of design because of dogma. THEY ARE SIMPLY MAKING 2-D GAMES TRANSPLANTED INTO A 3-D PLAYING FIELD. We are not playing "real" 3-D games, as they are not really dependent on three planes and could be recreated in and have previously existed in 2-D.

So the future as I hope to see it? That afore mentioned "3-D Pong". Games that are equally reliant on all three planes. Games that equally depend on their relation to other "game pieces" along all three planes. That "reinvention of the wheel".

Or if you would like a briefer response? FAIL! 3-D SONIC BLOWS!

[Weasel]

By this logic, the only games that are truly 3D are flight sim games...and the Descent series.

[Chris B]

zzz said:

Hell, technically any beat-em-up with jumping is a 3-D game. While the genre's death might be blamed on 3-D in general, I would say it is because of the influence it has had on 3-D action games. Games like 3-D Ninja Gaiden or 3-D Shinobi have more in common with Final Fight than 2-D Shinobi or 2-D Ninja Gaiden. As a result of this, the often greater monotony of beat-em-ups is difficult to sell.

Look at Mario for DS. Where is it at? Ten million in sales?

So why is a 2-D platformer (that is often argued to be a horrible game) that was released for a portable console on the verge of outselling any 3-D platformer ever made, while the gameplay elements of beat-em-ups have been absorbed into 3-D action games and the genre has been pretty much phased out of existence?

While the up and down movement of a beat-em-up is more or less irrelevent, the same is true in 3-D action games. They are based around movement in and out of the screen and to the left and right on the screen. So these elements can live on elsewhere ard be, at least financially, "replaced" within the industry. Platformers are a different matter. They where created for a playing field of up, down, left, and right. So changing the playing field will eliminate the context their gameplay elements were created in and that allowed them to work to begin with. This playing field DEFINES how the "game pieces" are even capable of relating to each other. How the "game pieces" relate to each other IS the game.

You're right imo, but I was a little confused at first how you used the term beat 'em up, as you're only referring to sidescrolling beat 'em ups that aren't "played in one plane", though it's only a fraction of the whole beat 'em up genre.
Btw I think that New SUPER MARIO BROS is selling like crazy cause .. you guessed it.. the licence and the prestige of the Mario Bros franchise. It's like Final Fantasy, and the fact that the installed userbase is enormous, also helps a lot.

Consider how video games evolved during the 2-D era. Many, many, many genres were made with many, many, many kinds of gameplay. What genres have been invented during the 3-D era (roughly PS and on)? Rhthym games existed for the NES. Stealth games existed for the NES and MSX. Survial Horror existed for the NES and SNES. FPSes existed in some form or other as far back as 1985 with the afore mentioned Faceball 2000, or perhaps even earlier with Battlezone. The only genre of it's own that reasonably has been created during the 3-D era has been arcade vehicle games and calling that a seperate kind of gameplay is questionable. The industry for whatever reason has prevented change in general game design.

That's simply because it was the beginning. There weren't any genres to speak of and over the decades many inventive people tried many, many things. Genres aren't necessarily bound to be realised within three dimensions. Most (if not all) genres are happy with only two dimensions and so they have been invented way before the 32Bit genration.

My point? The failure of certain genres or series to translate to 3-D and the lack of innovation in the 3-D era are due to the same phenomenom. WE ARE PLAYING 2-D GAMES IN A 3-D PLAYING FIELD.
When the industry made the transition to 3-D as rule, why did they not "reinvent the wheel"? EVERY kind of game out there was created for a 2-D playing field. Except maybe flight simulators, and that could be contended. Why are we exclusively playing the same games we played twenty years ago?

The step from 2D to 3D is extremely different from the step from "nothing" to 2D. It's more of an evolutionary process. Generally the old genres lose and gain something with the translation to 3D and besides it's just not that easy to reinvent the wheel.
I also think that saying 'we are playing the sames games' is a bit rough. There are many games like Katamari Damacy or Shadow of the Colossus, which are profitting in a great way from the 3rd dimension and would lose many if not all their appeal in 2D.

Where is the 3-D Pong? The game that could have introduced people to a kind of game as different to them as a 2-D video game was in 1972. Why have different kinds of gameplay that are impossible in 2-D not been created to co-exist with the old kinds of games?

We got 3D Tetris and it wasn't that good, but you're right if you think that that's a bit of a lousy comparison ^_-
Imo a 3D Pong game would suffer mainly because of the controls. The control devices haven't kept up at the same pace as the grafical evolution. I mean you could control your Pong paddle with the mouse, so you could freely move it in a 2D plane, but that wouldn't be a real 3D Pong, would it? (I mean, Shufflepucks on the old amiga offered this back in the 80's).
So you'd still need a way to control the third axis, which ideally should also be handled by an analog device if you'd want spot-on and highly accurate and precise controls.
To bad that the mouse isn't registering anything, when you lift it up. That's exactly were new control devices like the Nintendo Wiimote could come into play.
Besides I'm not too sure if a third dimension would be such a fundamental change for the principles of the game and the perspective could be problematic in that it could become more difficult to judge the position of the ball, if you'd view the game from behind the paddle for example.

We won't ever see such a huge amount of new genre ideas like at the birth of the medium, but that's just natural. Now we see the evolution and the alteration of those genres (and the melting of them).

Designers are adhering to this kind of design because of dogma. THEY ARE SIMPLY MAKING 2-D GAMES TRANSPLANTED INTO A 3-D PLAYING FIELD. We are not playing "real" 3-D games, as they are not really dependent on three planes and could be recreated in and have previously existed in 2-D.

So the future as I hope to see it? That afore mentioned "3-D Pong". Games that are equally reliant on all three planes. Games that equally depend on their relation to other "game pieces" along all three planes. That "reinvention of the wheel".

While there are many designers that do a lousy job of using the 3rd dimension in their games, this can't be sad for all of 'em.
There have been many "reinventions" so to speak, many of them quite early in the pioneering times of 3D worlds. Take Sentinel, Stunt Car Racer or Elite for example and there you have your "real" 3D games.

I think it's just that not all genres do gain soo much when tossed in a 3D environment, in fact many genres don't need a third dimension or are so specialised that they're even better without it.
On the other side we have Ego Shooters like Battlefield 1942 which just wouldn't work in 2D.

Regarding your 3D Pong.. I bet it will be done quite soon, at least if Nintendo gets out some development kits to all those indie developers ^_-

[zzz]

I believe a few of my points were misinterpreted.

The first comment was about Sonic being crappola in 3-D and how this related to 3-D vs. 2-D. So I responded with comments about 3-D vs. 2-D to explain my view on the matter.

First off, I never claimed the games we are playing in the 3-D playing field are not 3-D games. I said we are playing games that are designed without regard to the flaws that translating some of them to a 3-D playing field causes. I was simply trying to establish the difference between 3-D and 2-D as being defined by the playing field and not by rendering. Any game with three planes is 3-D, and any games with two planes is 2-D.

About there being more kinds of games created at "the beginning": A game is simply a game. Poker and chess and monopoly are games no more or less or any differently than a video game. What came before game designs realized with computer technology and displayed digitally on a screen (VIDEO GAMES), has no less limit on modern game design than other video games.

I would argue that the greatest innovation of the video game is real time play. In a fighter, for example, both players are competing in real time. This is the only real mechanical or physical difference between a video game and chess or go or dominoes or poker, in the kind of games that they each are.

The 3-D playing field allows for game pieces to relate to each other in a manner that I firmly believe designers are not utilizing. I completely believe there is as much room for change as ever, and that as much or more can be invented today, that is as completely different from anything that precedes it as any other kind of video game ever was, with the 3-D playing field and perhaps other elements. There is nothing besides dogmatic game design philosophies (whether or not this is the industry's fault) keeping even more of those "creative people" from trying and inventing "many, many" MORE things.

All video games are 2-D, technically. Being displayed on a television screen they obviously do not possess three actual dimensions. The difference, like I said is simply in the playing field that the game pieces can be moved over and relate to other game pieces within. Because 3-D is a different playing field it allows, potentially, for different kinds of games to be created in it. As a example, back to my "real world" games analogy. The difference between 2-D and 3-D is like the difference between basketball and air hockey.

EXISTING genres are "happy with only two dimensions". Like I said, they were invented in it. There is a whole other world of possiblities and kinds of games that have not been glimpsed at yet. I can not cite any video games as examples of this because I do not believe there are any.

The step to 2-D was not from nothing. It was from chess, and go, and dominoes, and poker, and other "real world" games. As far as what I meant by "we are playing the same games", imagine that we are trying to play chess or air hockey, or any of those others, transplanted into a 3-D playing field and trying to play them the exact same way, despite this being impossible. The difference between 2-D and 3-D can be as extreme as the difference between the kinds of "real world" games that take place over two planes and those that take place over three planes. Say, the difference between a sport and a table game or board game. Basketball vs. chess, go, billiards/pool, monopoly, and air hockey as examples.

To further elaborate on "we are playing the same games": I mostly meant that we are playing the exact kind of gameplay we have been since the 2-D era. My point to all that was to emphasize the failure of game designers to utilize the 3-D playing field any way other than to transplant ideas from a previous time that we invented within and for the 2-D playing field, and were reliant on the 2-D playing field to work in the manner intended.

About this quote of yours: "Besides I'm not too sure if a third dimension would be such a fundamental change for the principles of the game and the perspective could be problematic in that it could become more difficult to judge the position of the ball, if you'd view the game from behind the paddle for example."

The above comments should explain fairly well why and how I believe the playing field completely defines the kinds of games that are possible. It changes how the game pieces are capable of relating to each other and thus changes the kinds of games that a designer is potentially capable of designing within that playing field.

About "3-D Pong", I meant figuratively. As in going back to zero and starting over again. That is what I would like to see. The existing kinds of games continuing to get support, and other kinds of games being created both in 2-D and 3-D, with the 3-D games taking advantage of their playing field to create kinds of games that are impossible in 2-D.

And, yes, depth judgement is impossible in video games. That is another matter.

About your examples, it has been a while since I played any of those, but I do not remeber Elite having movement into the screen that could be properly controled? I would not call any of those reinventions of anything (opinions, etc.).

My concept of "real" 3-D games, was that of games that equally apply all three planes. I do not believe we have seen that (at least much). If designers both equally apply all three planes and disregard existing dogma about what a video game is and what it is capable of being, I believe they can find completely different ways for game pieces to relate to each other. Allowing for that "reinvention of the wheel".

[Chris B]

zzz said:

First off, I never claimed the games we are playing in the 3-D playing field are not 3-D games. I said we are playing games that are designed without regard to the flaws that translating some of them to a 3-D playing field causes. I was simply trying to establish the difference between 3-D and 2-D as being defined by the playing field and not by rendering. Any game with three planes is 3-D, and any games with two planes is 2-D.

I think that it's totally vaild to see the difference between 2D and 3D from this point of view, but the part about that they're designed without regards to the flaws of this translation between 2D and 3D is only true for a fraction of all 3D videogames.

About there being more kinds of games created at "the beginning": A game is simply a game. Poker and chess and monopoly are games no more or less or any differently than a video game. What came before game designs realized with computer technology and displayed digitally on a screen (VIDEO GAMES), has no less limit on modern game design than other video games.

So you're not talking about genres, but more about game ideas in general (cause you used the term genre)?
Of course it's also a question what a genre is for you. In regards to a videogame, Chess isn't but "Boardgames" could be named as the genre here.
I think you're right in terms of new game ideas. Videogames are tied to hardware, which is constantly evolving. So maybe in a few decades, hardware won't be a drawback anymore.
What comes after something like Virtual Reality? Is that even the next inevatible logical step to which videogames will evolve?
But yeah, there's nearly an endless amount of possible new gaming ideas, even more so, when the hardware barrier isn't anymore.

I would argue that the greatest innovation of the video game is real time play. In a fighter, for example, both players are competing in real time. This is the only real mechanical or physical difference between a video game and chess or go or dominoes or poker, in the kind of games that they each are.

I'd agree, but I also think that it's very important, that a good videogame couldn't be realised better in any other media (for example not as a boardgame or a movie), otherwise it would be pointless to realise it as a videogame. So it's obvious that the given strengths of the medium should be used to their greatest extend.
One of these strengths is "real time play", but as said I agree with you, cause there are many more strengths than just this one and you don't need to necessarily utilise all of them.

The 3-D playing field allows for game pieces to relate to each other in a manner that I firmly believe designers are not utilizing. I completely believe there is as much room for change as ever, and that as much or more can be invented today, that is as completely different from anything that precedes it as any other kind of video game ever was, with the 3-D playing field and perhaps other elements. There is nothing besides dogmatic game design philosophies (whether or not this is the industry's fault) keeping even more of those "creative people" from trying and inventing "many, many" MORE things.

I think you're greatly underestimating the enormous amount of forward thinking designers (especially in the indie development scene) out there, which are coming up with new ideas everyday (and have done so sinc the beginnings).
I find it kinda puzzling what you mean with "allowing for game pieces to relate to each other in a manner that I firmly believe designers are not utilizing"?
If I'm flying through space in a three dimensional space sim, I can relate to other objects as I please, also thx to the physic engine.
What more could you want?
Of course that was just one example and not all genres are quite up to the potential that a 3D playfield offers, but many are already there or on a good way. (there are some black sheeps of course, but that's the minority imo). I also think that the problem relies heavily on the insufficiant interface and therefore the input devices used, in genres that aren't quite there (which are not the majority imo).
But in general I think you seem to hold on to something very vague and lofty, like a holy grail that hasn't been touched nor seen by anyone and is only waiting to be uncovered.
I just don't think that that's the case actually, I say we're already right underway and have already laid our fingers on this "holy grail" thing (stupid analogies^^').

All video games are 2-D, technically. Being displayed on a television screen they obviously do not possess three actual dimensions. The difference, like I said is simply in the playing field that the game pieces can be moved over and relate to other game pieces within. Because 3-D is a different playing field it allows, potentially, for different kinds of games to be created in it. As a example, back to my "real world" games analogy. The difference between 2-D and 3-D is like the difference between basketball and air hockey.

What you're not seeing imo is, that we already have these kind of videogames, cause we already have ones that were designed from the ground up to be played and experienced in three playfields, rather than in two.

EXISTING genres are "happy with only two dimensions". Like I said, they were invented in it. There is a whole other world of possiblities and kinds of games that have not been glimpsed at yet. I can not cite any video games as examples of this because I do not believe there are any.

As said, developers already thought of these "whole other world of possibilites", and realised many of these new ideas long before the rise of polygonal 3D grafics.

The step to 2-D was not from nothing. It was from chess, and go, and dominoes, and poker, and other "real world" games.

You're right, the step was not from nothing, but I meant it in relation to videogame genres. At first there just was no single genre whatsoever. Then they created the first games and these automatically had such a defining impact, that genres have been created practically instantly. With Pong the Sports game was born and with Spacewar, the Shoot 'em up. It was a whole new medium with whole new rules to be uncovered.

As far as what I meant by "we are playing the same games", imagine that we are trying to play chess or air hockey, or any of those others, transplanted into a 3-D playing field and trying to play them the exact same way, despite this being impossible. The difference between 2-D and 3-D can be as extreme as the difference between the kinds of "real world" games that take place over two planes and those that take place over three planes. Say, the difference between a sport and a table game or board game. Basketball vs. chess, go, billiards/pool, monopoly, and air hockey as examples.

The fact alone that many "real world" games, that require threedimensional playfields to work, have been very accurately modeled and recreated in videgames, leads to the assumption, that your argumentation is at least partially invalid., if you're referring to all 3D videogames.

To further elaborate on "we are playing the same games": I mostly meant that we are playing the exact kind of gameplay we have been since the 2-D era. My point to all that was to emphasize the failure of game designers to utilize the 3-D playing field any way other than to transplant ideas from a previous time that we invented within and for the 2-D playing field, and were reliant on the 2-D playing field to work in the manner intended.

You should play some of the games I mentioned. Ever played Descent btw? They all rely heavily on the threedimensional playfield and couldn't be realised in 2D, without losing essential gameplay characteristics.

About your examples, it has been a while since I played any of those, but I do not remeber Elite having movement into the screen that could be properly controled?

What do you mean by "movement into the screen"? The surroundings are moving around the ship, so yeah, you get the impression, that you're moving "into the screen" and yes, you can adjust the speed and direction of your ship at will.


So in conclusion, I agree that many genres aren't up to the theoretical potential that 3D offers (many "socalled" 3D fighters revolve mainly around two playfields, especially in terms of controls), all that while other genres are quite in the middle of utilising and broadening this newfound freedom and the new ways ingame objects can relate to each other. There are also genres that did this for decades (many Space Sims) and last we have of course some genres left to be invented. But many of those genres are not only confined to the twodimensional plane cause of the unimaginativeness of developers, but as mantioned earlier, also cause they're heavily linked with the hardware and therefore the interface and possibilities in which to interact with the game.

So we've already started this process and are happily uncovering new possibilites of the third dimension. There could be the "3D Pong" you're imagining, but for now I guess we'll rather see more "Dooms" or "Wii Sports" that are taking the next steps.
I for example think, that the Wii could very well be the next step towards Virtual Reality (yeah, that term was all the rage a decade ago^^') in that it greatly widens the possibilities of threedimensional interaction, all while offering a more intuitive way to influence such games and yes, your 3D Pong example (not a Pong in 3D, but what it stands for) would make perfect sense on the Wii. The Wiimote encourages new ways of thinking about those already established 3D genres.