pathetic question

Hey its not a pathetic question but a very valid point. Technology is WAYYYYY over-rated. so here goes:
Deer Hunter (sold zillions, had 1970s graphics...)
Rollercoaster Tycoon (sold gazillions, ahd old style isometric sprites)
SimCity 3000 (another big selling yet isometric title)
Counterstrike (based on a very old 2D engine, most popular game on the net)

Dont let anyone tell you games need hi tech visuals to be popular, but In my experience, dont expect any publishers to be swayed by such ''facts'' when their marketing idiots tell them otherwise.
I wrote a game with old style visuals (StarLines INC), and although its selling very well, I had a hell of a job finding a publisher prepared to look at it. Stupid really, as they are only losing money by doing so.
Good Luck

http://www.positech.co.uk

I agree, although because of not only publishers, but the game buying public, the 2D game does have to be something special to sell well. If you can come up with a 2D game that has 3-4 very good selling points, it would be better than 70% of 3D games, but the buyers would probably still go for the visuals.


Mind you, there is always the GBC/GBA to look at, especially the GBA, since it''s capabilities are as good as the PSX (2D wise), but it doesn''t have to compare because people will be expecting 2D games :-)


If you are happy with your game and you are confident that it will be good, you can but try :-)


Marc.


oh, unfortunately the next GTA will be 3D, I say ''unfortunately'' because I''m wondering if it will be a come-down for the series......(Like many other 2d-3d conversions)

I think that it isn''t the technology that make the game great it''s the kind of experience you are left with after playing it that makes it a game to come back to again and again. I still watch funny old movies in black and white and like them just as much or even more than movies made today. Just thought I would get that off my chest. Happy coding!8)

P.S. Look at King''s Quest by Sierra, had good stories and mystical place to explore and sold well I think. Anyone remember Eric the unready (I think), that was the funniest game I played.

Actually, from what I can remember, GTA 1 did have 3d graphics.

-Hyatus(random UBI-guy)

quote:

---

Original post by Hyatus

Actually, from what I can remember, GTA 1 did have 3d graphics.

-Hyatus(random UBI-guy)

---

yeah, but I think it was like doom''s 3D...not "real" 3D



----------------------------

"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Click here to see my current project.

First I want to answer your question -- Diablo II has really old graphics, it uses 640x480 resolution in 8-bit color!! Did that stop Blizzard from selling a few million units?

Ok, IMHO, gameplay is 9999% more important than the graphics. I don''t want to start any flame wars here, but I just want to say that I hate FPS games, and most other 3D games because they have no gameplay. My favorite 3D game is Soul Reaver, because it makes excellent use of the 3D technology in my opinion.

quote:

---

mlambert: If you can come up with a 2D game that has 3-4 very good selling points, it would be better than 70% of 3D games, but the buyers would probably still go for the visuals.

---

I very much disagree with that. If you are referring to militant 12-15 year old teen males who play Quake III all day, then yes, your statement is true. However, there are more than enough people out there who fall into completely other categories. I myself really like strategy games, whether it''s real time or turn based. I''m sure I''m not alone. I could really care less about the graphics. This goes within reason of course for the new games. I don''t want 320x200 mode X graphics in the games that come out now, but I don''t need cutting edge Quake III engine graphics either if the game doesn''t need them to provide good gameplay. That said, I will still play games like Warlords II (released in 1990, turn based strategy) and X-COM II (released in ~1994, turn based tactical) even though they have old graphics by today''s standards. The gameplay is so addictive that graphics don''t matter. I don''t play those games anymore right now because I installed NT 5 and it doesn''t really emulate DOS well, but that''s another story.

Anyway, back to what I was saying. Yes, graphics do matter, but they only need to be as good as they should be. There''s no point in using a cannon to kill a mosquito. There''s also no point in using a Quake III engine for a Pong game. The point is that graphics only need to be as good as the game requires.

The game I''m working on right now for instance, is a 2D topdown view strategic shooter. I put a LOT of time into designing the gameplay. I will be using Direct3D of DirectX 8 for the graphics, but I will be simulating 2D because I''m only drawing textures to the screen, there are no 3D primitives. Why did I decide to use D3D then? Because I get free hardware accelerated texture rotation -- this means not having to draw 60 frames of each object that has to rotate 360 degrees. I''m also using D3D because of Alpha Blending, which is nearly impossible to do in DirectDraw.

Bottom line? I''m not using a Quake III engine for my game, but I am using some 3D features. Just because my game will not be "3D" doesn''t mean it won''t look good. However, the main selling point of a game shouldn''t be how good it looks. I feel that the gameplay my game will have will be a much better selling point than the graphics. That doesn''t mean though that I don''t want my game to look good, within reason. You need to find the right balance. You don''t want your graphics to look TOO crappy, but at the same time you don''t want to spend more time than necessary adding more and more flash to your game.

Yes, it''s true that publishers and reviewers (well, magazines mostly. sites like gamespot.com seem to actually play the game for more than 3 minutes) are pretty stupid when it comes down to rating games. I believe StarCraft got a review of "average" from most magazines and then went on to become the #1 game of the year. I rest my case.

It might be harder for you to find a publisher for a game that doesn''t have too much initial WOW! to it, but it will sell much better than a game that does. If not initially, then in the long run. Games with a lot of initial WOW! to them sell very well when they''re first released, but since their replayability is very terrible they get forgotten quickly. Games with good gameplay are immortalized. People still play WARCRAFT II on Battle.net for crying out loud! Does that game have awesome graphics?

GTA did have 3D graphics, not 2D or 2.5D

I say this because you could go all around, over, and under blocks. You could have a block on the ground, go over it and under the block which was above that, and you could also get onto that and under another one that was even higher up.

The view was simple kept as a top-down view.

How about the current top 10 best selling games:

quote:

---

Top-Selling PC Games December 10-16, 2001

Rank / Title / Publisher / Approximate Retail Price
1 / Roller Coaster Tycoon / Hasbro Interactive / $25
2 / The Sims / Electronic Arts / $42
3 / Who Wants To Be A Millionaire 2nd Edition / Disney / $16
4 / The Sims: Livin'' Large / Electronic Arts / $27
5 / Frogger 2 / Hasbro Interactive $26
6 / Roller Coaster Tycoon: Loopy Landscapes / Hasbro Interactive / $28
7 / Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 / Electronic Arts / $40
8 / Barbie Pet Rescue / Mattel Interactive / $27
9 / Hoyle Casino 2001 / Havas Interactive / $24
10 / Sim Theme Park / Electronic Arts / $20

---

(Taken from: http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2669538,00.html)

Note the lack of any 3d games from this list.

Is that the sort of thing you want?

Trying is the first step towards failure.

Hehe statistics speak for themselves

HI all,


Maximus - Because you can go above/under blocks, doesn''t make a game 3D. That effect is very easily achieved with 2D, they may have given the gfx 3D coordinates or a method similar, but the doesn''t neccessarily make it a bona-fide 3D game. The new GTA is at the moment titled GTA 3D, which speaks for itself.


Supernova - I am very much aware of what target audience games are aimed at. The PC top ten may be as it is, but that is nothing compared to the console sales, which is where the money is for development.
Don''t get me wrong, being a game designer, I know what makes a great game (as far as one person can, of course), and the gfx don''t have to be the best, as long as they provide the best setting/atmosphere for your particular game.

Let me tell you about the project my company is working on, which is currently in the hands of publishers.
Basically it''s a game in the style of Dance-Dance-Revolution, music plays/arrows scroll up/ and you have to dance in time with the music (with a specially designed dancemat). Now, since the game is based on a famous ''pop-group'', the plan was to use a 2D main character who can dance with you and show you the timing and such.
This looked good and worked very well, until a large publisher (clue: GTA) decided that they wanted 3D in there somewhere with motion capture, which meant in the 11th hour I had to rush through a full 3D routine (including plug-in) to meet the deadline.

This does look very good, but it''s not neccessarily better, nor does it change the gameplay. The only thing it does is get a few more sales.


Now I''m very much in favour of 2D games that play well, although lets not forget the fact that 3D game can be better IF the gameplay is right, because you can get immersed in them more. I challenge anyone to try and argue that Alien3 on the Snes/Megadrive is anywhere near close to the atmosphere in Aliens vs Predator (PC 3D-FPS).


I''m looking to go back to 2D routes by using the GBA, which will be very fun to do.


Marc.


BTW: Half-life/System-Shock-2/Rogue Spear are all gameplay loaded FPS games, especially SS2, which perfectly added a very good touch of RPG...

Actually, GTA 1 DID have 3d graphics capability(and used Glide as
well as eventually, I believe, d3d).
GTA2 was DEFINITELY 3d.

And as for that list, Frogger 2 is 3d game ;p

BTW, Counterstrike is not based on a 2d engine, unless you mean
that Halflife used the Quake 1 engine, which probably used bits
and pieces from Doom...

-Hyatus(random 3d-monger)

Edited by - Hyatus on January 4, 2001 12:06:49 AM

I myself am not arguing what GTA1 is, to be honest I haven''t got a copy to try out and see, it''s been a long time since I''ve played it! However, I use D3D and OpenGL to display 2D gfx, the PSX actually draws sprites as textures, but that doesn''t mean they are 3D games.

It''s an interesting point actually, where is the 2D/3D line? There are many 3D games with 2D backdrops, and mixtures. I suppose that most people will call a game 3D if it has even a little bit.


Half-Life used the Quake2 engine. I should also imagine that Quake1 used very little, if any, doom code.



Cheers,


Marc.

Hi,

Thanx for clearing that up. It''s like I said, you can define sprites in a 3D world with z coordinates, but it doesn''t make it a 3D object.

As a side point, are you still in the industry? Which company are you with?


Marc.

Just want to clear a few thing:
- GTA was 3D, because it supported Glide(Vodooo cards). But it had 2D sprites.

- Counter-Strike is also full 3D, because it supports D3D, OGL. And it uses Quake2''s engine, not Quake 1.

But anyway. I like 2D more then 3D. Well, maybe 3D is better. But most 3D games has such bad game play, and often start to go slower as soon as there are a few polygons more on screen.

But 2D is better to stick with if your a newby programmer and want to publish a game.

/MindWipe

"If it doesn''t fit, force it; if it breaks, it needed replacement anyway."

I totally disagree, just because a game uses D3D/OpenGL/Glide, it doesn''t automatically make it a 3D game.


I once made a side on shooter, which was fully 2D, but it did support the Voodoo cards, does that make it 3D?

What about if you had an emulator for, say a Megadrive/Genesis, and that supported Voodoo cards, does that make all those games 3D?


Like the guy said, Logically GTA1 does use a 3D coordinate system. Just using a coordinate system, does not make the game 3D, it just gives the game an illusion of depth.


Cheers,


Marc.

boy you guys are good at taking a topic into irrelevant territory.. the post was about can a non 3D game sell..

and my answer? hell yes..
very few top-selling games are 3D..

MOST 3D games are loved by zit faced kids, not the masses with the money.. a lot of you seem to forget that..

digital euphoria software

"MOST 3D games are loved by zit faced kids, not the masses with the money.. a lot of you seem to forget that.."

Where are you getting your information from? Most 3D games are loved by zit faced kids? Not the masses with the money? Come on, you don''t really think that only kids like 3D games, for a start, I like 3D games and I''m no kid. I like games that I enjoy playing, be they 2D or 3D.

"very few top-selling games are 3D.."

Again, where is this information coming from? Even if the PC top ten doesn''t have many 3D games, PC games hold a very small % of games sold worldwide, just look at any reliable list and count how many PC games make it into the top 50? or 100?



Now, again, I myself will go out and buy a 2D game if it''s good, but people also seem to forget that just because a game is 3D, it doesn''t automatically have no gameplay! I could name hundreds of crap 2D games, as well as 3D ones.........

I''m currently setting teams up to work on 2D games for the GBA, and I''m hoping to get some of them onto the PSX and even PC.


To the original post, a game does not neccessarily have to have the best gfx to sell well, BUT it may be a struggle to get a good publisher to look at it. Unfortunate, but true.


Marc.

quote:

---

Original post by ragonastick
Rank / Title / Publisher / Approximate Retail Price
1 / Roller Coaster Tycoon / Hasbro Interactive / $25
2 / The Sims / Electronic Arts / $42
3 / Who Wants To Be A Millionaire 2nd Edition / Disney / $16
4 / The Sims: Livin'' Large / Electronic Arts / $27
5 / Frogger 2 / Hasbro Interactive $26
6 / Roller Coaster Tycoon: Loopy Landscapes / Hasbro Interactive / $28
7 / Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 / Electronic Arts / $40
8 / Barbie Pet Rescue / Mattel Interactive / $27
9 / Hoyle Casino 2001 / Havas Interactive / $24
10 / Sim Theme Park / Electronic Arts / $20

---

GAAH! And the majority of ''em aren''t even multiplayer! Why the heck have I been spending all my time on networking and 3D!?!

BTW just to clear up, Counter-Strike IS 3D. All the guns/ppl are made in 3D studio max and are polygon based.