Not one of those statements is true

by uberfoop , Seattle-ish, Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 12:56 (3971 days ago) @ Cody Miller

3D first person shooters are better than 2.5D first person shooters, because a 3D FPS can do everything a 2.5D FPS can do PLUS MORE.

Games and film will never replace each other, since each can do things the other can't.

Your analogy is shooting itself in the foot. Horribly. All these examples of media which include all of the technological capabilities of another medium and therefore stamp it out?

Games can play back scripted imagery in sync with scripted sound. Real-time graphical power considerations aside (and even that is rapidly becoming a smaller and smaller gap), their capabilities completely encompass those of film, while also allowing interactivity to affect things.

The reason that games won't stamp out films is because those weirdo non-interactive games that people call "films" aren't intrinsically inferior on account of reducing the technical features. Not because each medium can do things the other cannot.

If you really want to argue that a distinction arises on account of techniques used by developers in each field tending to be somewhat different to better suit the different capabilities available, I'd reply by pointing out that that's true of literally every single example you've brought up. Like, in practical terms, people developing within Doomlike shooter engines tend to use totally different design techniques than people developing within newer engines.