Edit: mv, while I was writing my message, you posted exactly the suggestions I made. Nice. I’ll keep the following here anyway.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. I, too, like the 2D game better, and it’s because it’s overhead and faster. The reason is, it gives me more control. I can see the threats and I can avoid them, which makes the game more intense and less frustrating.
The best example is with the tanks that shoot at you. In the 3D game, you have to keep looking out for them. In the 2D game, you see them immediately. In the 2D game, it’s easy to avoid the shots, by moving at 90 degrees to them. In the 3D game you can’t, because then you don’t see them. In the 2D game, when you die and reappear, you immediately know where you are, and know what threats there are in the area, and how long it will be before they become real threats (such as tanks that are rotating towards you). In the 3D game it takes time to orient yourself.
These things, and others, make the 2D game more engrossing and less frustrating. It’s not any easier - in fact, I think it’s more difficult - but it allows you to use a little more tactical thinking, since you can see everything that’s happening, and that’s more fun.
I disagree with hull about the flash. The game would have been better in 2D even if you gave flash there a lot more attention. In fact, I’d have loved to see a better looking 2D version - something like the 3D version with an overhead view (not exactly overhead, probably).
The problem isn’t flash vs. content, since the content is the same, it’s just that a game that works in overhead view doesn’t necessarily work the same in first person view. This could probably be rectified to a large extent by overlaying a “radar” of the entire scene over the 3D visuals, although I’d still think that a flashier 2D version is the way to go. Kind of like what Hasbro did to Pong - I loved that.
[This message has been edited by ET3D (edited 05-16-2001).]