I couldn't agree more, a nice balance between the two would be great.
There is however an element in the gaming community that still seems to see less value in 2D games than 3D.
The position that every game would be better in 3D is indefensible. If you are talking in the theoretical speculative sense, then maybe, otherwise reality disagrees with you.
If its that persons opinion thats all that matters, its not like there are facts to back up that 2D gaming is superior to 3D gaming in anyway and vice versa, its all a matter of opinion. So reality disagrees with you
Sure, but what you're doing is kind of the same thing as saying "Every game could be better if it was a FPS".
So yeah, it makes very little sense. And you simply believe so. I mean, you can't even exemplify it when people ask you, like about Tetris or Minesweeper, so there's nothing to back your opinion. It may be be your opinion, but the notion that opinions are all equal makes no sense itself, so it's worth asking what the basis for someone's opinion are.
Also, I'm not gonna add to the 2.5D thing, as I believe it has already been made obvious what it means.
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?