I absolutely agree with Miyamoto-san. Here's my list.

1. Not every game needs to be 3-D.
2. Not every game needs to have multiplayer.
3. Not every Wii game needs to have motion control.
4. Not every game needs a sequel/prequel.
5. Not every game should cost full price.
6. Not every movie needs a game tie-in.

yeah...I agree (with the title of this thread)...and not everything needs to be MULTIPLAYER either!!!!

how would miyamoto know, he ruined one of my favorite games as a kid when they took metroid 3d. I really liked super paper mario though, and street fighter IV was basically 2d.

How was it ruined?

No thats not what I am saying,  changing everything to an FPS would change the core gameplay to something it isnt.  Making a 2D Platformer into 3D is just adding a 3rd dimension of travel, not adding guns and changing what you are supposed to do in a game.  Thats stupid to think there are the same thing.

How many damn reasons would you like me to come up with before my f***ing opinion pleases everyone?  I could give examples but then people would disagree with them. So what would the point be in that? 

I never said that 2D games were bad,  all I said was that I think games are more fun in 3D.

Also, isnt Mario 64 considered to be the greatest Mario game ever?   Which just so happens to be its first venture into the 3D world?  

@Vetteman The problem with that logic is, when you change a 2d platfomer to a 3d one, you are not only changing the genre, but you are changing the core gameplay. That extra dimension changes the way you can play the game at the core, and in that matter it is the same thing as changing the genre to an FPS, or how about I reword it. It is the same thing as making "Contra" or "Super Turrican" an FPS or TPS. Another example is making a 2d fighter 3d. They play different because of that extra dimension alone, not additional gameplay is necessary for it to change.

Yes, changing everything into a FPS would change the gameplay of many games.  But this is also the case when you add another dimension to a 2D platformer.  Mario in 2D plays fundamentally different from Mario in 3D.

As for Mario 64, it had traditionally been considered the greatest 3D Mario ever, but that seems to have changed somewhat with the release of Galaxy.  It is rarely compared to the 2D Marios because as I said before, these are fundamentally different games.

This is why Miyamoto needs to retire he's making the industry go backwards! lol

Actually I love the notion of more 2D games, SNES/Gen was the height of 2D gaming and with stronger consoles you can do some amazing stuff in 2D now. I believe everyone jumped on board with 3D games cause it was new and you could do different things with it vs 2D but this gen has proven 2D has a lot more love to give still.

There was this article I liked, I believe it was in game informer (yes they actually made one article somewhat reasonable) talking about studies showing not many core gamers are opposed to new 2D retail console games, and that more of them, especially on the PS3 and 360 would bring development costs down significantly and quite possibly raise profits all around.

I am actually pretty sure its considered the greatest Mario Game ever.

Well I will have to disagree with you both, adding a 3rd dimension to a platformer does not make it another genre of game, its still a platformer. And a fighting game no matter 2D or 3D is still a fighting game.

I'm done here.

yeah I think he did a good job of summing it up....we need variety in out games, and 2d and 3d can easily live together