You overestimate the market''s demand for 3D. The Baldur''s Gate games are 2D and sold very well because they were good games. Starcraft was released in 1998, not that long ago, and back then everyone was trying to make their products 3D. Total Annhiliation had already been released, for example. But SC did amazingly well.

The best thing about 3D is that it expands the gameplay possibilities, but often those possibilities are not taken advantage of so it really doesn''t matter. Warcraft III uses 3D graphics but has 2D gameplay, so the 3D engine isn''t really that important for that game.

As for realism, I wouldn''t say games are becoming too real. I would say too many games are becoming realistic. I''m all for 3D as long as the system requirements are reasonable, but I hate the flood of stupid WW2 games.

~CGameProgrammer( );

I agree with you. As much as I love the beauty to certain realistic games these days, I will usually pick up any game with graphics that mimic that of Final Fantasy Tactics and so forth. I love the "toonier" models of games. It just seems more fun to me. I don''t think games are becoming too realistic graphic-wise so much as emotional wise...

-Mac

And through all this, we have to look at games like Doom III...

I mean, who didn''t drool?

Exactly: No one.

Perhaps it is the gamer''s opinion that is really important...

I see many people who buy games solely because the graphics kick ass, and I know but a few people who will still play those old DOS VGA games...

But still, I think it''s gameplay (you all are correct). Because throughout all of this 3D madness, I can always logon to battleNet and play SC with lots of people

~Dwarf