NOTE:I recently watched half of the Shovel Knight QL, and intended the following to be a comment on it. But the post turned out longer and more reflective than originally intended so here it is:

I just realized another reason for my aversion to 2D platformers, or perhaps even 2D games in general. Since I grew up during the PS1 era, the first game that I really enjoyed was Final Fantasy 7. Before that, since I have older brothers, I played some games on the SNES and NES. But I guess in some sense 2D games felt more linear/restrictive, just in sense of movement. So playing FF7 was like expanding my mind in how I think about moving about the world. But at the same time I realize that all games have restrictions, and stories for RPGs are overall fairly linear, no matter how complicated character development or side quests can get. So I guess in a way, I have trained myself to think that 3D is the logical progression for video games after 2D, and even now I sometimes find myself thinking that VR is the next logical progression for video games.

But I know that it's not like 2D will ever go away, or that 3D or VR is necessarily better or worse than 2D. It was just interesting to reflect on how I think about 2D games. Somehow whenever I look at a 2D platformer I almost automatically think "there's no depth to this", and in a sense it's true (again only in terms of movement). But at the same time I enjoy playing SF4, which is sort of in between, and I see the complexity of fighting games. But at the same time when I see other 2D fighting games like Blazblue, Persona, KoF, Super Turbo, something is missing. Or maybe I just don't have time to play everything, which is normal.

Recently I've been thinking "I can't wait until people stop making these 8-bit 2D platformers, and devs start making polygonal 3D platforms to target the nostalgia of people like me who grew up during the PS1 era" (something like Spyro 1/2). But.. that's kind of weird because at that point, there is almost a kind of hidden expectation/assumption that IF a game is in 3D it's NOT retro, and that once it is in 3D it's expected to have HD graphics. This is relevant to me personally because over the past year I purchased both the Metal Gear Legacy Collection and the Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster.

After playing the Remaster, I can hardly imagine going back to play the PS2 versions. Somehow looking at old 3D games from PS2 era doesn't have nostalgia for me, but looking at some old 3D PS1 era (like Spyro 2) does. And when I look at old 2D games, I imagine what it might look like in 3D or with better graphics. Almost 90% of the time I don't find pixel art styles appealing. It just looks chunky. I know it's part of the aesthetic and it activates different associations for different people. It's hard to completely abandon the logic of progression when it comes to art. Hmm. Perhaps there is some sort of threshold or critical point that all these 8-bit 2D platformers will reach and we will start seeing VR remakes of old PS1 era games.. or something.

@auron570: We will start seeing N64/PS1 style indie games when the people who grew up with that start making games, but right now most indie devs grew up with the NES or SNES, maybe a Genesis if they had a shitty childhood.

Maybe but if so it will be about development tools, not nostalgia. Many indie developers are in their 20s and would have grown up with a PS1. (If you're 24 today you were around 5 when the PSX came out.) The issue is that it's much harder to design 3D games cheaply and well than 2D games. Many more art assets, a camera, tons of textures and polygons. You need AI routines that can move in 3D space. It's much harder to make even a crappy game, let alone a good one.

They could make a perfectly fine, nostalgic 3D platformer with cool concepts.

What burns me up inside is these 2D Retro platformers that instead of adding something from the almost limitless resources present today, instead choose to faithfully recreate the thing as it would have been in the early 90's. I just don't get it. Yah Shovel Knight sure looks like a game made in 1990 but why not add to it? All these capabilities with todays technology and you just make it a two button side scroller? And people applaud that, say it looks amazing? I just don't know man.. I loved Hotline Miami to death so maybe I'm guilty of this too but at least Hotline Miami was different.

As someone who never played games on the NES and, in general, finds old 2D games incredibly boring - I have to say that I think I can still tell the difference when a modern game does the aesthetic well. There's something truly magnificent about a 2D art-style that transcends the nostalgia, because I can really enjoy some of them (both mechanically and visually) and I have no nostalgia for the era.

That said, I still find it very hard to go back to games from the original era (or games made today that stick vehemently to the restrictions of the past). It's actually why I've never been able to get into the 2D Final Fantasy games, despite loving the battle-system, design and stories. There's just something missing that I'm used to in modern games that stops me enjoying them.

But I do think the early Polygonal 3D games have aged the worst (I've still yet to go back and complete FFVII for instance). The clunky-ness of them seems to be more than just the visuals, but also in the movement and controls. Only towards the later PS1 games did they seem to get to a point where the tiny details weren't completely jarring to go back to.

It would be interesting to see if I end up with a deep nostalgia for the last era games (PS3, 360, etc...) further than the truly iconic/unique games that were important to me for various other reasons (Such as when I played them or whatever). I know this is probably because they are the most recent, but it does seem like the first generation where there isn't an inherent "feel" to the games - like the basics of design has been figured out, and it is all building on it or side-stepping it. It seems, to me, to be the source of that odd response I've had where games have never felt so consistently good, but also felt so lifeless and repetitive. The weirdest part about it is that, statistically, this generation should be the one that I feel the most nostalgia for due to it being when I was a mid-late teenager; and yet my nostalgia is split a lot more than that to specific games rather than to an era itself. I tend to find that I have the biggest and fondest memories of specific games than of a set of them - so I doubt that, in the future, games could be developed to prey on my nostalgia for the previous generation (or even post-N64 games) that would actually interest me. Games seem to have diversified so much that there isn't a blanket idea that links them in my mind - regardless of era or genre. It would be interesting to see if that changes (especially if VR takes off and we move into that being the default).

@humanity: I kind of feel the same way. The original developers of these 8-bit games made them look this way because they HAD to look that way due to limited technology, not by artistic choice necessarily. Part of me as a PC gamer thinks we should always be pushing the limits of our expensive hardware, and when developers make games like this I think they are holding themselves back for very flimsy reasons of "nostalgia" and "being retro". Then again, there's the possibility that they simply don't have the talent to make anything more complex than an 8-bit platformer, or they can turn it around for a quick buck. But I don't want to cast aspersions.

No offense intended at all, but I'll yet-again reiterate the misconception everyone seems to have about pixel-art games. People make SNES/NES/Genesis-inspired indie games because making pixel art is typically much easier than making a 3D game. You will see '64 and PS1-inspired games when development tools get a fuck-ton easier to use (although we're already at serious diminishing returns on that front, referring to Unity), because, let's face it, '64 and PS1 games look like total fucking trash, while SNES-era games are both gorgeous and easier to make, while also being much more iconic to many more people. And nope, "most current indie devs" didn't grow up in the SNES-era. It's 2014. There are a shitload of indie devs who grew up on PS1 and '64.

There are still indie devs that can make 3D games. No Man's Sky and Minecraft are examples of that. However, 2D games really are easier and cheaper to make, so I don't think they're going to go away anytime soon.

And there's nothing wrong with that, really. I don't think that every 2D retro-styled game has to be a throwback to older games. As they said in the Quick Look, Shovel Knight seems aware of its origins but it doesn't seem too concerned with throwing back to them all the time. I think there's a proper way to make 2D platformers, and I think 2D games in general (Mark of the Ninja, Dust: An Elysian Tail) are here to stay. And thank God for that, some of my favorite games are 2D.

Also, I'm 22 and I love the SNES era. I find it much easier to go back to SNES games than PS1 games. Actually, I find most PS1 games as unplayable as others do older 2D games. PS1 games, to me, always feel clunky and look muddy. I don't want throwbacks to those games because throwbacks to those games would end up feeling like PS2 games, which would just end up feeling like older versions of modern games.

Worth mentioning that my PS1 sometimes did and sometimes didn't work, whereas my SNES was incredibly dependable. But then, my SNES stayed plugged in and regularly used even after getting a Gamecube and a PS2.

@humanity:

2D will always be more precise and tight. That's what I like about it. My first console was a PS1 as well, but honestly by now I don't think Crash 2 was the best game ever, then again I don't think I ever did. Something like A Link to the Past or Super Mario World is much more well made and sophisticated. Also yeah, PS2 games don't look retro, just old, nothing more to it. Some PS1 games are still stellar and low-poly style 3D can still be charming, but looks best with all of the modern touch-ups to make it pristine but still minimal, jagged, and simple. Also I love 2D PS1 games like Alundra.

All in all I don't understand the severe prejudice.

I've never understood the hate some people have towards pixel art games. The designer or artist chose an art style for a reason, it could have been that it was cheaper or easier, it could have been that they were trying to evoke some kind of nostalgia, or it could have been that they simply just like the way it looked. You may not have grown up with games of that look and/or style, but it should still be recognized when that style is well executed. The games that manage to build a consistent and good looking pixel art style should be praised since there are so many others that come out and clearly don't have their heart in it.

I've been going through Crash 2 on and off for the past month. It's still completely incredible. The gameplay, the design, the art, the music... I keep a top 25 list of games, and after playing again it improved by a couple spots. Which is nice, because going back to old games sometimes makes me take them off my list entirely. Crash 2 is still very precise and very tight.

I was thinking that although it's simple by today's standards, putting together a game that well-made still takes a talented team. I don't think we'll have one man 3D games at the quality of say... Dust: An Elysium Tale did in 2D. But get a small team together and we can have PSX-style games come back (just with smoother, cleaner graphics). We just need a few extremely excellent games like that to kickstart a new wave of them.

I don't know about others but for me personally it's not a hate for pixel art in of itself. What bothers me is not doing anything new with it. Some might say that side scrollers were perfected in the early 90's as we had some of the best 8/16 bit platformers ever made. It's 2014 now. I would hope that making a game that adheres to those standards is the least we can do at this point, with all the progress and technology we have at our disposal. With all knowledge and experience we gained through seeing platformers get better and better in those older days, and knowing what works and what doesn't. So when I see a game that comes out now, and it's a wonderful evocation of a game from the 90's, but it fails to add anything significantly new to that tried and true formula I thinks it's a real shame.

So in relation to Shovel Knight: I'm not hating it because it's a retro platformer. I'm just a little baffled by this overflowing enthusiasm, especially from game press, for a game that does nothing new - especially when the major complaint levied against modern releases is that they do too little to change up the formula. It looks like a wonderful representation of what a Castlevania type game might have looked like back then - but seriously this is it?

I just expect a little more I guess. Developers back then took risks and tried to break away from the formula. Thats how we got a game like the office beloved Vib-Ribbon - because those guys decided they're not just going to create another solid side scroller, and they certainly had the tools by that point, they were going to try something different. This is why I completely respect upcoming games like Below, Cuphead, Hyper Light Drifter, Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime, A.N.N.E and many others. Games that are inspired by retro visuals that do something new.

So for me no, this isn't just hating on pixel graphics. It's being frustrated that a modern developer doesn't have the imagination to do anything new with them, and on top of it are getting applauded for it.

@humanity: I wouldn't say that the developer is lacking the imagination to create something new. It seems more like they found an older style of game endearing and wanted to make one for a new audience that might not have a chance to experience those older games. There are tons of 2D platformers nowadays and most don't have the quality feel or heart that Shovel Knight seems to have. Games don't necessarily need to innovate; if they can refine and execute on a genre that is almost as old as video games as a whole I think they're doing just fine. That isn't to say though that I don't want to see new and impressive games that carry over older sensibilities, I am eagerly awaiting Below and Hyper Light Drifter, I just think that older genres still have their place, they were successful for a reason afterall.

Saying that developers back then took risk seems to like a vast overstatement, to me at least. Games have always copied each other, genres becoming full of look-a-likes isn't exactly a new thing. The Mario Brothers of the world have always had their Giana Sisters and even a Pandamar here and there. It just means you have to make a game that stands out from the rest. That can be done the way you want to see, through new ideas or a combination of old ideas that haven't been mixed before, or it can be done the way Shovel Knight does it, by creating a game that exceeds what is already out there by executing on older ideas on a higher level than the average. The problem with Shovel Knight's way is that it is harder to see from the outside, and can simply be passed off without playing it.

And all of that is true. It just doesn't mean that every 3D game is better than every 2D game, or indeed even that the possibilities of 3D game design has been explored to a degree where a 2D game can't be made that ranks up there with the very best 3D games currently available.

We will reach that point though, just as we will inevitably reach a point in VR game design where non-VR games not only aren't as good, but can't be as good.

3D games are way harder to make than 2D.

I'd love to see some good, simple 3D platformers come along for something other than the WiiU. With modern controls and really nice hand-painted or even pixel art textures - more or less Nintendo's style.

I think this is an outdated way of looking at the world. The N64 is 18 years old. People who were 6 when the N64 came out are out are 24 now. Six years ago you'd be right.

We're already seeing some retro 3D games. A few Banjo-Kazooie styled platformers have hit Kickstarter in the last year or two. Plus minimalist 3D type stuff.

Keep in mind that SF4 is NOT in between 2D and 3D; it IS played on a 2D plane. Graphically it certainly appears to be 3D but it shares far more with its 2D forbear and with the likes of Blazblue, than say Tekken.

This an extremely subjective topic, but I think that 2D art reached a far better level, faster, than 3D art, due to technical limitations. Like from 8 bit games such as Mega Man, to the 2D masterpiece that is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, these games looked good then, and still hold up great now graphically.

Whereas the early 3D games definitely IMO look TERRIBLE now, they have not aged as well, at least judging by looks. With old 2D games I go "oh look the game's got pretty good 2D graphics" and with old 3D games I go "I just want it to be better 3D already." For example, for me now the characters in FFVII just kinda remind me of lego characters, though they were meant to be state of the art graphics at the time.

What I really want is low-poly indie games that look like PS1 titles, like down to the 32x32 pixel textures and 16-bit color spaces with dithering and no filtering.

The 3D platformer is alive and never went away. That's why you don't see many "Retro re-imaginings" of them like you see for the 8 and 16-bit era games. I can't speak for games like Spyro having never played it, but the recent Mario and Sonic games come immediately to mind. Plus every Lego game can be considered a platformer following some of the old-school formula. There was also a game released not too long ago where the dev said it was in the vein of the N64 Rare platformers - and that short list is off the top of my head.

The thing is, unlike a 2D 8 or 16-bit game, you can't recreate an early PS1 game and make it look the same and also look good. Making all the characters blocky with painted faces and bland environments isn't something most people would consider a good art style. So these games come out looking like modern games, as they should. I'm not sure if you really think you want a low-poly, low-res 3D-platformer, but I really don't think you do.

Keep in mind that the 2D game fell off because of the movement of 3D games. The 3D movement never ended, and likely never will. Those games just evolved with technology.

This is the best answer here. How does one make a nostalgia-fied 3D platformer when the genre has been alive and kicking since the days of Super Mario 64? It's never really gone away or fallen out of favor like what happened to 2D platformers following the transition to the PS1/N64 era. And unlike the old days of 2D sprite artwork, it's much more difficult to create a 3D model that evokes the PS1 era without looking completely antiquated.

2D and 3D are two separate styles. One isn't necessarily better than the other; both are rife with plenty of examples of both high and low quality.

A nostalgic 3D platformer would have mock-low-polygon characters with beautifully blown up pixely textures. It honestly wouldn't take that much to make a platformer that felt like Mario 64, except now it would have super responsive control and better level design. The entire point of such a game would be to look antiquated - unless were trying to make some sort of clear distinction between a "retro" 2D platformer and an "antiquated" 3D platformer which is just silly.

Guilty Gear Xrd is the best looking 2D art around... in 3D.

You know 2D sprite work has hit a ceiling when 3D models start doing a better job of representing it.

I think you have to go for mechanics and gameplay over graphics when trying to evoke the feeling of PS1/N64 games. That whole era makes me remember how they had great ideas, but were held back by pretty strict hardware restrictions. I suppose its ironic that the "revolutionary 3D graphics" era is remembered for its gameplay.

Working within those constraints was a big part of what made the games great, but also why their graphics have aged so badly.

I really hope not. That era of games looks fucking terrible.

Wait, are you saying that Super Mario 64's controls aren't responsive? Because that game's controls were one of the key points that set it apart from nearly every also-ran 3D platformer of its era.

I think high quality pre rendered backgrounds and low poly character models could be cool again. I don't know about low-quality polygonal everything being a thing again though.

There's kind of a painterly quality to FFVII and other games like it that I personally still find appealing/interesting. The way they have characters express themselves without any form of facial animation is also kind of funny, they're basically puppets during cutscenes.

Pretty much this. Early pixel and 3D have important places in gaming history for what they ultimately ushered in, but I wouldn't think either are in much need of nostalgia driven revivals. IP's from the era sure, maybe even the gameplay, but not the art itself.