VBGamer

Not his direct point, no. But it just seems like a silly reason not to like 3D graphics if you ask me. Are 2D graphics excempt from the reality requirement? Of course not. Modeling reality is the point of a lot of games. However, games at this point in time are not expected to be photorealistic whether they be 2D or 3D. So what's the point of giving up on 3D altogether if you don't hold 2D to the same standard? Why not just enjoy both as they both become more realistic with increasing hardware speed? Oh, and in response to the posts below, 3D sells. Graphics sell. As much as we'd all like to believe that everyone buys games for gameplay, it's a fantasy. After a game is sold, that's it. It's all the same to the publisher/developer if the player plays it till the eye candy wears off and chucks it in the garbage, or if they devote 3 months of sleepless nights to playing it. Either way, the company has made it's money and tallies one "sold" in it's books. Only us hardcore gamers care about whether the game is still fun and engaging a year later. The VAST majority of the game buying public could care less. As long as the target market is after graphics, it's graphics they'll get. Developers that want to stay in business add cool features to their games only AFTER the graphics requirements are met. Unfortunate, but that's business for ya.