Oh, I won''t argue that 2D was just as much about graphical advances as 3D was, that''s a given. Hey, after all, weren''t we all amazed at how awsome, say, Chrono Trigger looked when compared to an older RPG like... I dunno, FF4?

What I''m saying, though, is that 3D has lost its charm nowadays. Before, 2D was the norm, and the occasional 3D game came out (Doom, Star Fox, etc..). Those games were awsome and truly impressive because they were different. Now 3D has become the norm. Like Goragoth said, any game can be made into 3D. It''s nothing too impressive anymore to say you''ve constructed a 3D engine or to buy a 3D game, it''s just the norm and anything under is... well, under the norm. In other words, games have to be better and better to be considered the norm. Granted, technology is progressing and making nicer-looking games is getting easier and easier, but nostalgy aside, would you play the original Pong? Even though it was hailed as one of the best games of its time back then?

I guess it''s a question of giving the player what the player wants. Players want realism, total immersion in a game, basically they want it to be as realistic as possible. Personally, that simply isn''t want I want. I want the good ''ol sprites again, dang it And I suppose that''s what makes me dislike 3D so much: it''s oriented towards a group I''m not part of. Naw, I''m not saying 3D sucks, I''m just saying I dislike it and justifying why I feel that way.

In any event, there''s no way to turn things back now. I guess people like me can let themselves be satisfied by games that still used sprites, like the MMX series, GBA games, and RPGs like Xenogears.

Ah, yes, for the record and to answer Goragoth''s question, I have an ATI RAGE 128, which I never bothered upgrading. But I also have access to a PS2 on a 30" TV at my friend''s house and the PCs at college are pretty damn nice (forgot what they have, though). Kinda makes you wonder what the technicians do in their spare time. ;P

I''m with you, RuneLancer. Maybe it''s just that we''re too old and don''t like the complexity of an added dimension in gameplay, or maybe we can''t get over the stupidity of 3D on a 2D surface. Maybe it''s because we feel that the relentless persuit of realism has removed the fun factor--as all that we have now is, as I''d said before, are the precursors to holodeck simulations. Yippy skippy. "Immersive" will never replace "fun" for me.

What by definition constitutes simple or complex game design?

And how does one or the other affect "gameplay"?. Does "gameplay" even relate to these two concepts? or through the miss-use of words and a lack of study into game design and user response has the real meaning of "gameplay" been lost?

I was just thinking about this in relation to sports, and games we played as children (Tag,hide''n''go seek etc.) Most sports are simple in their objectives and many are no more complex in their execution. Yet sports have captivated the nation for hundreds of years and will no doubt continue to do so.

The fact that sports continue draw such appeal despite or inspite of their "simplicity" surley nullifies the theory that simplicity fails to hold a users/players attention over time?
So what is it with sport that continues to attract people? What is the "gameplay" of say football?

Conversely relatively complex games such as chess continue to appeal despite the fact that it''s once historically "realistic" style has lost much of it''s meaning in our modern world.

If both games of complexity, and sports of simplicity continue to attract people then surely "gameplay" is something far far deeper than the complexity or repetition of the task at hand?

Well, yes. Gameplay relates to those concepts.
Gameplay can be simple, like in Tag or something, or it can be very complex like in wargames. But it seems to me that neither is superior. They are just two different ways of making a fun game.

Sports are a very different experience from computer games, so I don''t think you can say that because simplicity doesn''t get boring there then it won''t in games. Actually, sports games are rather complex in my experience, but oh well.

I don''t think we can judge it on such a general basis. You have to consider it for a specific game or target audience, I think. If I want to target the casual gamer, I make a simple webgame. If I want hard-core gamers to shell out the dough for my game, I make a realistic shooter or complex simulation.

But based on interviews I''ve read and conversations that I''ve had, I don''t think that designers are looking down on simple games. Publishers are.