Gaming 78

Why Isometric 2.5D RPGs Should Have Never Come Back

Since around 2014, isometric RPGs, often referred to as “cRPGs”, have been making a comeback in PC gaming. Divinity: Original Sin may have been the one to start this trend, and Pillars of Eternity was another early adopter. These types of RPGs today are lower budget ones. Although the overwhelming majority of them are disappointing and designed to be nostalgic first and good games second, often shying away from role-playing and lacking in ambition and originality, not coming close to the great classics, that is not what I will be discussing in this article (although for more on this, read this article).

Instead, this article will explain why these isometric RPGs absolutely should not be 2.5D. Isometric 2.5D games primarily use static 2D graphics with just some 3D elements like characters, but the isometric perspective makes them appear 3D. This perspective mimics how you play a tabletop RPG… sort of. But even these RPGs need to be 3D. The game that perhaps resurrected this type of RPG, Divinity: Original Sin, even knew that since it was a 3D game. 2.5D brings nothing but drawbacks and with engines like Unity today or even Unreal Engine 4, I don’t think isometric 2.5D RPGs should be considered acceptable.

Why Not 2.5D?


2.5D was a 1990s technological limitation, not an art style choice. This fact is escaped on so many people, similar to pixellation being a limitation, not an art style choice. Those pushing for 1990s graphics in modern times are a new type of “graphics whore” who look past all other aspects of a game in favor of graphics, only instead of evolved graphics they want regressed graphics. Hence why every modern game with 1990s graphics gets called a modern classic by these people, just for their dated visual design.

Going back to when isometric 2.5D RPGs were mainstream in the late 1990s and very early 2000s, the only reason they were 2.5D was because 3D graphics weren’t advanced enough to convey the details that they wanted. Interplay/Black Isle Studios and BioWare didn’t want a world full of low polygon objects, so 2.5D made sense. 

But now we’re in the damn Vulkan/DirectX 12 ray tracing era, and in 2014 when the return of cRPGs began we were already in the DirectX 11 tessellation era. Obviously 3D graphics were more than capable, evident with both Divinity: Original Sin games and some others since then. There’s this thing called Unity engine, you might have heard of it. Plenty of these isometric 2.5D RPGs use it in fact, but so do some isometric 3D RPGs, like Wasteland 2 and Wasteland 3.

Choosing isometric 2.5D over 3D is just blindly choosing nostalgia over actual progression. Even the guys who brought isometric 2.5D RPGs to the forefront – Interplay with Fallout and BioWare with Baldur’s Gate – progressed to 3D graphics in the early 2000s because it’s simply better for reasons I’ll go over below (not that this should require explanation). If the creators of the first two Fallout games, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, and both Baldur’s Gate games thought that 3D graphics were good enough as early as 2002 then obviously 3D graphics in 2014 were more than sufficient! 

Back when 2.5D was prevalent due to limitations, you didn’t see people asking for Wasteland or Wizardry graphics in cRPGs, now did you? Even in the 2000s, you didn’t see people asking for Infinity Engine graphics. Why start now? Purely nostalgia.

BioWare moved to 3D graphics with their most ambitious game by far, Neverwinter Nights, in 2002, while Black Isle Studios was making both Fallout 3 (not Bethesda’s) and Baldur’s Gate III: The Black Hound with 3D isometric graphics around the same time. Troika moved on to 3D graphics with Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. Obsidian made their debut with a 3D RPG, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – The Sith Lords, in 2004, and kept making only 3D RPGs until 2015 when they went backwards and made Pillars of Eternity which is both 2.5D and arguably their first stinker (between this and Alpha Protocol). Literally all of the industry leading isometric 2.5D RPG creators unanimously moved to 3D graphics in the early to mid 2000s, but today’s game studios like Obsidian and others bank on you not realizing this and selling you minimal effort 2.5D games.


Don’t give me budget as an excuse. Larian Games with the 3D Divinity: Original Sin games throws that argument right back at you, as does Owlcat Games with Pathfinder: Kingmaker and inXile with Wasteland 2. All similarly low budget games to most of the 2010s isometric 2.5D RPGs, even lower budget in some cases, yet those are all 3D. Pillars of Eternity, which is a 2.5D game, made around $1 million more than Wasteland 2 on Kickstarter (the primary source of both games’ budgets), and Wasteland 2 is a 3D game and a bigger and longer game.

An even worse argument is “it’s like the tabletop perspective!” We perceive reality as three dimensions, not two, so isometric 3D is more lifelike. When playing a tabletop RPG, you can move around the table to get a better view of things, like an isometric 3D RPG and unlike an isometric 2.5D RPG.

And why all the fuss, you ask? Not just because 2.5D looks so outdated compared to 3D, but more importantly it’s just functionally so inferior and prevents gameplay from evolving. You can’t have flying enemies like dragons actually fly in an isometric perspective, and you can’t even have creatures with many legs like bugs/insects effectively traverse walls or ceiling in an isometric perspective. Obviously by limiting a game to 1990s technology, gameplay remains forever limited and stagnated too. You can’t have Divinity: Original Sin’s physics based gameplay (or better yet something truly innovative like Exanima) in 2.5D.

The best of both worlds exists – 3D, a camera that can be third person, isometric, and everything in between, best exhibited by Neverwinter Nights 2 in which the isometric camera can lock onto characters or be set to free roam, edge scrolling enabled/disabled, a normal third person view like KOTOR can be used. I personally use a Total War type battle camera in that game.

3D lets you rotate the camera and zoom it far more dynamically, 2.5D forbids that. Moving the camera is pretty damn important for combat, or just to see important things in the world that might be obscured in a 2.5D game. So often in these distant isometric 2.5D RPGs with their fixed cameras you or enemies in combat or both will be obscured by walls, and you’ll be at the mercy of the game making those walls translucent so you can sort of see what’s going on but it’ll still be partially obscured. Unacceptable. It’s also nice to be able to explore in a more traditional third person view like in Neverwinter Nights 2 shown above for greater immersion.

It is true that isometric 3D RPGs like Divinity: Original Sin series and probably most others save on time and resources by not rendering things like ceilings that will always be out of view but hey, this is still infinitely better for both looks, functionality and practicality than isometric 2.5D. But really most of these games, which are NOT hugely ambitious (the exact opposite for most) and not rushed by big publishers, can afford to implement skies and ceilings like the Neverwinter Nights games do, which allow for both isometric and third person gameplay and a lot in between. And being able to rotate and zoom the camera so dynamically is just so damn useful and hard to live without, especially in combat.


On that note, it should of course go without saying that if you’re going to make an isometric 3D RPG, then you better be able to rotate and zoom and pan the camera. The aforementioned Pathfinder: Kingmaker doesn’t let you rotate it for some damn reason even though it’s 3D. And it shouldn’t just be fixed XCOM style rotation, it should be fluid, infinite rotation. Learn from early 2000s games like Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2…

Really the best “budget” argument you can make is for games with spectacular environments full of unique objects and models, in which case making them all in 3D would take longer than making them 2D. But that only applies to one modern isometric RPG that I know of, Torment: Tides of Numenera, and at least that game, as weak as it is, has much prettier than average isometric 2.5D graphics. But even then it’s a short game, compared to the massive 3D games in Wasteland 2 and Divinity: Original Sin 2, so that’s not an entirely convincing argument.

We’re in the 2020s. If a few cRPGs are going to exclusively use outdated technology, then whatever. But where are the ones using the latest and greatest technology? Imagine a D&D or Pathfinder cRPG with spells such as Vortex, Whirlwind, Control Weather, Wandering Weather, Curse of Fell Seasons, Tsunami using Unreal Engine 5 and FluidNinja LIVE with its physics based weather simulation, and on a planetary scale for an open world game. Imagine a physics based Passwall spell, or spells such as Earthquake, Meteor Swarm, or World Wave making use of fully deformable voxel based terrain. There’s so much from tabletop RPGs that can’t work with outdated technology, but does work with the latest and greatest.

The Bigger Issue

Gloomwood demo from 2020 pictured above.

Modded Thief, a 1998 game. Gloomwood tries to copy Thief textures but my Thief is using higher resolution, much better looking ones, so this modded 1998 game is leaving the 2020 demo in the dust in that regard while otherwise looking similar.

The Dark Mod, an open source spiritual successor to Thief made on id Tech 4 engine which was first used in DOOM 3 in 2004. Obliterates Gloomwood visuals in every way.

The issue here isn’t just the existence of isometric 2.5D RPGs, it’s games being built for nostalgia first, quality and originality second if you’re lucky. The issue is backwards thinking, the issue is laziness. This issue has reached virtually every genre today. The responsible game studios bank on you not realizing that all those classic games, if being made today, would be made using today’s technology, not yesterday’s technology. They bank on you not remembering that back then, all gamers dreamed of those classic games made with 2020 technology.

An example of this issue outside of RPGs can be seen in platformers or the upcoming game Gloomwood; there is no excuse for this game to have very similar graphics quality to Thief: The Dark Project as shown above, which had subpar graphics quality by 1998 standards and people complained about it back then. Now they realize most of their audience wasn’t around for that so they won’t complain.

No, stop it. Making a spiritual successor is cool, making a ripoff isn’t. Take Thief’s incredible atmosphere and remake it in Unity or Unreal engines without shoving 1998 graphics into it, taking advantage of modern rendering technology all the way. Have some standards. If the creators of these classic masterpieces were instead making those games today, they wouldn’t be using 1990s graphics, they’d be using what’s available to them today just like they did back then.

The Dark Mod, which is an open source spiritual successor to the Thief games made on id Tech 4, tries a proper spiritual successor to Thief unlike Gloomwood, and as a result it has far better visual quality than the upcoming Gloomwood in every way. How embarrassing! This open source mod takes the better approach than the paid game. Furthermore, the Gloomwood demo doesn’t even support surround sound, while Thief and Thief II have some of the best surround sound in the history of gaming! If the full game doesn’t have it then boy will I rip them a new one in my review. 

Arx Fatalis is another proper spiritual successor rather than a lazy ripoff: it is a spiritual successor to the Ultima Underworld games – in fact the original goal was to make it a direct sequel but they couldn’t get the rights. Arx Fatalis was released in 2002 and had top notch visual quality for its time; they didn’t copy the ancient, archaic Ultima Underworld first person graphics. Arx Fatalis also draws some inspiration from Thief (which was made by the same studio that created Ultima Underworld) yet it didn’t have Thief’s 1990s graphics. And if you play Arx Fatalis today with the necessary source port, Arx Libertatis, it too far surpasses Gloomwood’s graphics in most ways which is embarrassing.

And of course there’s that new Baldur’s Gate game that is literally built on Infinity Engine, the same 1990s engine used for the first two games which even the original Baldur’s Gate III: The Black Hound left behind in favor of 3D graphics in the early 2000s. Unacceptable.

Where does it end? Is this nostalgia-first, quality-afterthought at best design also going to bring us a Pong rerelease for $70 plus a season pass or battlepass and microtransactions? 

It’s 2020 and it’s time to catch up with the times. Your game can be nostalgic without lazily using 1990s technology. Wasteland 2 is nostalgic and 3D, so are the Divinity: Original Sin games, so is XCOM 2, so is Fallout: New Vegas, so is Arkane’s Prey (better referred to as Preyshock), so is DOOM Eternal which I’d say is the most technologically advanced game overall at the time of this writing.

The devout “retro graphics” crowd are of course largely representative of gamers using very outdated, low end PCs, and they shun modern graphics because they can’t run them. How many of these people do you imagine have a modern PC supporting the latest feature versions of Vulkan and DirectX 12 Ultimate? You don’t see this mindset for this sort of thing otherwise – you don’t see people asking for 1960s special effects (not practical effects, which are often preferable) in films.

Luckily there are less isometric 2.5D RPGs in the horizon and more 3D RPGs, but the lame nostalgia-first quality-afterthought games are not stopping yet. And of course, it’s not like 3D automatically makes an RPG good, as the aforementioned Divinity: Original Sin and Wasteland 2 or especially The Outer Worlds will remind you.

Never forget: almost every game considered an all time great, including the cRPGs, were technological pioneers and very forward thinking. No, they are not all time greats entirely because of that, but it helped tremendously as they used it to not only bolster presentation but gameplay as well. Until we do that again, games will only stagnate and regress.

Thanks for reading! How did you like this post?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (230 votes, average: 1.26 out of 5)


You Might Also Like

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
your article sucks shit

i literally cannot describe how idiotic this article is and im not even going to try and unpack the fact that you’re calling 2.5d “lazy” and saying they shouldn’t exist just because we’re capable of making 3D games. this “article” sucks, and you should shut the fuck up

stop writing articles

“we should stop using any practical effects in any movie whatsoever because it’s imitation CG, only used because CG wasn’t good enough at the time”

that’s how dumb you sound.

Josh Saunders

you’re wrong. lol.

He's right, your article sucks shit.

God you’re such a fucking man-child. What “arguments” are you making in this shitheap of an article? Where are they? I’d love to see a single one, instead of your ridiculous unsubstantiated claims rooted purely in your own bias and preference. You claim that today, if RPGs were being made as in the past, they would be made using “today’s technology.” Nevermind that all the games you critique ARE made using today’s technology, clearly you just mean 3D with a rotatable camera. Now obviously this is a false claim. Afterall, look at the vast swathes of successful indie/retro games made… Read more »

Your article and your writing really do suck shit

“Truthful articles like this” Bruh, you just LOVE the smell of your own farts, don’t you? Here’s a pro tip: next time you sit your uneducated ass down to write another “article”, check your ego first, mkay? Because every word you put down just screams “frustrated pseudo-intellectual blogger”. As for your “truthful article”; by your BRILLIANT flawless logic that only the latest “technology” should be used to make games, we should also get rid of all text-based rpgs, pixel graphics games, anything that uses a top-down perspective, mobile games and so on. What you perceive as simple “laziness” is more… Read more »

Post Mabruh

Don’t you think that 2.5D could be an artistic choice. Let’s look at games like Ion Fury or Project Warlock. Those games are 2.5D and yet they are visually gorgeous. Ion Fury makes up in personality and humor while Project Warlock looks incredible. they are both really detailed in their spritework and environments. You present no actual evidence as to how this is lazy. Boomer shooters are a thing now. Gloomwood is obviously an homage to Thief, but graphics don’t mean that something is lazy. Style is important. It might look simple, but it still accomplishes what it is trying… Read more »

Why are you writing articles

Have you ever spent any significant amount of time making art assets for a game? Do you realize how expensive it is to sketch, model, retopologize, UV map, texture, rig, and animate each character model? 2.5D is a great approach for small studios, and a lot of people love this art style.

Julian Maria

This article just screams “Misinformed writer” so much


Respectfully disagree, you’re seeming to operate on the assumption that 3 dimensions automatically create a better looking picture. A more realistic picture, more detailed picture, but those aren’t objective metrics for quality. True in any medium, not just games. That boils down to art style, and the preference of the viewer. There’s a place for everyone’s artistic expressing, advocating one style as being objectively better just robs the genre of richness and variety.

Bruce Hugo

Strong disagree. Divinity looks like dog ****. Great looking 3D titles are few and far between, even in the AAA space. 2.5D lets you create a work of art for the back drop, and the less-than-detailed sprites let the characters exist in your imagination; which they need to, if your not going to pay for a legion of voice actors doing hours of work. Saying 2.5D is bad because we’ve moved passed it is ridiculous. That argument is no different then saying we should get rid of the 2D side scroller, because Skyrim! Catering to quality first and not nestalgia… Read more »


“Ultimately if you were to take an isometric 2.5D RPG and remake it in 3D on current day Unity engine or Unreal Engine 4, while remaining faithful, the 3D version is going to look infinitely better which is the point I was really making.”

That’s really more a case of personal preference than objectivity.
Different people have different tastes.
It’s fine that you don’t like 2.5D but trying to say it’s objectively worse than 3D is just incorrect.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ben
Robot Joe

I bet you’re the kind of guy that would play doom with one of those hideous hd 3d model packs.

Post Mabruh


You will die and no one will remember you.

How fucking dare you diss on the game that literally set the bar of what game development is capable of with zero tech and then write an article crying about cramming new tech on modern games, it makes no sense at all.
You sir have no shame and no respect for gaming history.

bad article

“in this moment i am euphoric”


I think good games are more about execution than polish. Limitations of bygone eras lend themselves to creativity, you didn’t get exact reality, you got representations of reality within the confines of the presentation. Those developers paying homage to these older styles show an example of understanding the various aspects that made those games enjoyable without the need for representing the world in a realistic 3D environment, where the visuals are secondary to the mechanics. Without mastering those basics and focusing on presentation, Ubisoft games have started to amalgamate to being the same game with different skins, with no flavour… Read more »


But you’re giving yourself the right to judge, basing that right on a lack of nostalgia, whilst having an obvious bias yourself. You’re not just correct “because I said so” this isn’t a parent arguing with a child, it is someone trying to make a very broad and bold claim against an entire genre, particularly singling out isometric games, taking stabs at a certain recent 3D throwback. You are well cemented in your opinion and I’m not trying to sway you, I’m defending the idea you present that your opinion is law, gospel (hyperbole on these last two), obviously and… Read more »


Again, how does 2.5D isometry restrict an evil play-through in PoE or reduce the number of spells in Tyranny? I’m sure modern cRPGs have plenty of flaws, but I fail to see how they are related to the choice of perspective. They are far more likely to be caused by a lack of resources, time or knowledge. When designing a game, you should primarily focus on core and secondary game mechanisms. If you can find no positive impact of a tertiary mechnism/feature there is no reason to allocate precious resources for it. To put it simple, if you decide to… Read more »


I want to take the boss that told you to write enraging clickbait and shove him through your chest.

Although, judging from your older articles, you seem to be a shooter fanboy and were relegated to only posting “top 10 mods for skyrim!” articles for a while.
Why were you of all people chosen to write an article about something you hate, didn’t play and would throw away for a copy of Medal of Honor for the PS1?

Your clickbait malware site is weird.


Someone needs to play Jagged Alliance 2, then try Jagged Alliance: Back in Action.

It’s cool, I’ll wait.

Don't starve

Don’t starve just wouldn’t look as good if it were fully 3D.

Designers choosing a certain style doesn’t make it bad, even if you don’t like it.


I mean I think that each developer should make the type of graphics he wants to make. This is like saying, “No! Every film should be shot on digital because it’s the way things are done now”. Maybe, just maybe, there are things you can’t get shooting on digital, the special look and feel of a picture that could have only been photographed in 16mm or 32mm for example. Or that every movie should have CGI instead of practical effects, because it’s the norm today and it’s present technology. With games it’s the same, I’m so damn bored of the… Read more »

Wu is the name

And painting should have never “come back” after the advent of photography. It just looks so budget and outdated, am I right?


Dude, nobody cares that you get sexual gratification from triangles.


Articles like this are the reason gaming journalism is a target of ridicule like no other.


So do you think Pixel Art games shouldn’t exist for the same reason?


Horrendously bad takes aside, this article reads like something written by an underachieving high-schooler. Do you have an editor? Is English your first language?

Nick Ger

This is satire right?


It’s satire because it triggered you? Denial is the first part of the grieving process. You’ll get to the depression and acceptance one day – but if that proves to be impossible, your existence will be agonizing. And know that the obstacles you’ll face during it will be much worse than simple articles.

3D sucks

What a joke article hahah.

3D sucks

Hey, you little clown. Show me any fully 3D top down game with better quality environment than this. And this was just 1 minute of Googling. There is none. Because pre-rendered 2D background will always look better than realtime 3D. That’s a simple fact proven by history. 3D games needed 10+ years just to match the detail of prerendered old crap games like Fallout or Commandos. The reason is simple. Because you don’t need to care about performance. You can render 1 billion poly scene with real life looking grass and highest quality raytracing (which makes today RT look… Read more »

3D sucks

And PoE2 is a low budget game. You could make full CGI quality isometric game (by using pre-rendered 2D stuff) with AAA funding which would easily wipe ass with any 3D crap like Divinity OS or BG3.

Baba Booey

There’s a reason lots of people don’t like you, Jester.


Interesting, I’m myself a 3d artist of more than 12 years of xp for a AAA company and I’m doing a game as a sideproject. I could make it 3d, with normal maps and pbr shaders If I wanted, but I’m deliberately choosing to make it pixel art AND isometric. This choice has nothing to do with the limitations, it’s probably even harder for me in unity. This is why this article makes absolutely zero sense, because it’s biased from the start, as the author don’t understand limitations vs artstyle. Any artstyle conveys different emotions, pixel art allows you to… Read more »

wow you are dumb

Did you create this article just to piss people off? The sprite art in these newer games is jaw dropping good looking and better than any 3d game I’ve looked at. Furthermore even if you have terrible taste, bad eyesight and disagree then at the very least you could see the sprite as art therefor it’s not subject to being “low effort” or dated or whatever other poorly reasoned argument you could fling from your keyboard. Would you call a Picasso painting “dated”?? There’s zero nostalgia about these games. They just flat out look good and to my eyes MUCH… Read more »


I imagine the author has a really nasally voice and reading the article in one out loud made this shitty article palatable and even a little funny

Post Mabruh

Don’t you think that 2.5D could be an artistic choice. Let’s look at games like Ion Fury or Project Warlock. Those games are 2.5D and yet they are visually gorgeous. Ion Fury makes up in personality and humor while Project Warlock looks incredible. they are both really detailed in their spritework and environments. You present no actual evidence as to how this is lazy. Boomer shooters are a thing now. Gloomwood is obviously an homage to Thief, but graphics don’t mean that something is lazy. Style is important. It might look simple, but it still accomplishes what it is trying… Read more »


So I guess you dont like Disco Elysium? That game is a work of art and that’s 2.5D


It’s not fair to say “don’t give me budget as an excuse” and then complain about the graphics of Gloomwood, of all games. Gloomwood is a super ambitious game being made by ~3 people! How do you expect them to make highly detailed, high-res textures and models for everything? Lower res textures help hide imperfections that small teams simply don’t have the budget to mull over and perfect. Look at an indie game like Mordhau that goes for a more realistic artstyle, and you can clearly see how many imperfections are everywhere due to the high-detail textures and models. I… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by cringeybabey

I agree from a technological perspective, but, ultimately I don’t think artistic choice is something that has to be tied to the current standards in terms of fidelity, at least in graphics and sound design. For gameplay and level design, that’s another problem. ‘And of course there’s that new Baldur’s Gate game that is literally built on Infinity Engine, the same 1990s engine used for the first two games which even the original Baldur’s Gate III: The Black Hound left behind in favor of 3D graphics in the early 2000s. Unacceptable.’ I think using an old engine is a different… Read more »


I just wanted to point out how entitled and ignorant you must be to categorize a whole genre YOU don’t like as “worse than” and “lazy”

Go tell that to the single dev of Underrail and the thousand hours he spent creating every pixel. Also he managed to create an isometric rpg full of choices and freedom in builds,stuff that should embarass aaa companies. Please stop embarassing your profession with unrequired and wrong opinions. Game journalism is a big laughing stock already. It’s clear you lack a solid knowledge of games by this article alone


Same guy that wrote this. It’s disgusting to see a lack of professionalism and humility on your side when you choose to call criticizers “manchildren” or “basement dwellers”. You are paid for your job,and you truly wrote an ignorant piece yet you lack the decency of self evaluation. Truly a pity to see such a mob of entitled ignorants having the keys of game journalism. Please stop writing about stuff you don’t know.


How old are you? Not as a means to denigrate, rather wondering if you were around to play the 90s games. I happen to enjoy many of the major CRPG’s that have been released, as well as the “superior” games that you mention. You lack any meaningful comparisons to substantiate claims of quality or originality between modern 2.5d and 3d games, mainly harping on some aspects of functionality. To do so is hardly a critique or analysis of anything, its just your personal preference. For instance, having a preference on the rotation of a camera for its convenience is not… Read more »


Hi, I’ll take the devil’s advocat stance since I mostly agree with this article « having a preference on the rotation of a camera for its convenience is not a fact or evidence » I don’t think he states this as a preference, more as an argumented choice, I copy/paste the passage: 3D lets you rotate the camera and zoom it far more dynamically, 2.5D forbids that. Moving the camera is pretty damn important for combat, or just to see important things in the world that might be obscured in a 2.5D game. So often in these distant isometric 2.5D… Read more »

I'm sorry your mom drank during the pregnancy.

3D Isometric RPGs are almost always decline, and if they’re good games it’s despite of them being 3D instead of the other way around. How anyone could think something like Wasteland 2 is better looking than something like Icewind Dale just because it’s 3D while Icewind Dale is 2.5D? With opinions like this, no wonder you’re writing shitty articles on some random internet website that no one will ever read.

Eric Sebastian

The reason why people are attacking you is because of the way you’re diminishing someone’s reason for buying a game. Like we’re idiots because we buy a game that is not that innovative or because of nostalgia. Anyone can buy what they want for any reason and to not acknowledge that, be nice, and move on is kind of rude. Assuming we’re of some “hive mind” is rude. Since you are so desperate for an argument here’s one. A lot of these kind of games still make a ton of money. Some of them a ridiculous amount of money. And… Read more »


Have you ever developed a game? Going down the 2d route is a viable option for indie devs to significantly reduce the time required from start to finish…


Wow, imagine giving a platform to someone this stupid. Do you need mommy to remind you to breath every few seconds, too?

Fdhsh sjdj

Deadfire is one of the best games of the decade.


I have no idea how I came across this article, I think I was looking at random google images. Although I think other people have been pretty rude, they do have a very valid point that this isn’t a good article at all. This article is just full of unsubstantiated claims around developer intentions, and other’s for liking aesthetics and game features that are different to your own preferences. You take a dig at people you imagine are shunning new tech for the sake of new tech, but you’ve completely miss how hypocritical you are for actually shunning “2.5D” games… Read more »


Why do we enjoy looking at paintings when we can just look at real life?


This article appeared in this video, though it seems they were reading an unfinished version of it.


What a joke of an article. Unacceptable!


The only way this article could be dumber is if you tried to argue that 2.5d graphics were somehow rooted in ‘racism’.


Honestly I agree with you and hate this style of camera, but at the end of the day it comes down to preference. If a game has this camera I’ll just skip it because it’s not my thing. Others like it because it’s their thing. The cool thing about video games (to an extent because everything’s becoming microtransactions or NFTs now) is you can pick and choose what you want to play.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x