🔒 Locked

2D or 3D?

Started by AndrewH Dec 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM 16 replies 4.6k views

Original Post

Dec 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM

So guys, I joined up here to ask a very important question about my game I'm making. It's a space arcade/rpg where you pilot your very own spaceship and go on an open ended journey throughout the galaxy. It's not going to be a simulator or an RTS which like nearly all of them are.

But in order to complete my game I need art and I was wondering if people would prefer A 2D top-down game or a 3D 3/4'ths view. I'm not using 3D models outright, I'll have pre-rendered 3D models for a 3/4'ths view or 2D sprites for a top down view.

Do 2D games sell well in today's market? My brother is an artist on this and he's being swamped with 3D work, but he doesn't like the idea of going 2D. For him it's "go big or go home", but for me it's "let's get this done".

I'm asking a very mature question too. 3D art can look pretty but be honest, will you play a 2D game over a 3D game? I need to know, because even though my brother says go big or go home I have a feeling he's right about today's gaming market. However, for 2D I look at Terraria, and how they were like Minecraft without being 3D. So, what do you guys think?

Pros 2D:
Faster production time. (less work to do).
Less overall memory and filesize requirement.

Cornstalks

Dec 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Neither. Worry about making the game fun. If it's a lot of fun, I'll play it whether it's 2D or 3D. If it's not, I don't care how good your graphics are or whether it's 2D or 3D, I won't play it. Look at today's successful indie games. There's a good mix of 2D and 3D.

Your brother needs to realize that "go big" doesn't preclude going 2D.

AndrewH

Dec 24, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Neither. Worry about making the game fun. If it's a lot of fun, I'll play it whether it's 2D or 3D. If it's not, I don't care how good your graphics are or whether it's 2D or 3D, I won't play it. Look at today's successful indie games. There's a good mix of 2D and 3D.

Your brother needs to realize that "go big" doesn't preclude going 2D.

I and he knows that gameplay must come first. That was not the question. I have researched these games a lot and realize where their faults are at. Yes, gameplay is essential, but an ugly game?

Hmm... If we were to do a fully 3D game are 15,000 polys for a large model okay? Or should we tone it down a bit.

Cornstalks

Dec 24, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Yes, gameplay is essential, but an ugly game?

Who said 2D is uglier than 3D, or 3D is uglier than 2D? Either one can be gorgeous. Or both can be downright ugly. One is not inherently better than the other. Your number of customers won't really change much (if at all) based solely on a game being 2D or 3D.

Hmm... If we were to do a fully 3D game are 15,000 polys for a large model okay? Or should we tone it down a bit.

Depends on your target audience and how many of these models you'll be displaying. You can try coming up with an estimate of what your target audience's machine's specs will be, and then see how far you can push that machine.

Tom Sloper

Dec 24, 2011 at 3:09 AM

I like that you already started looking at pros and cons. Keep on doing that, and turn them into a decision grid.

JunichiTodo

Dec 24, 2011 at 4:37 AM

I and he knows that gameplay must come first. That was not the question. I have researched these games a lot and realize where their faults are at. Yes, gameplay is essential, but an ugly game?
[/quote]
This sounds crazy but this problem is similar to hitting on a girl. The bottom line is whether to turn your weakness to strength; or that your biggest weakness exceeds a threshold. In a way, your concern is right. Certain people turn their face if they find it ugly; however, tastes differ. Nobody knows that girl likes you or not until you approach. Launch your game first. The answer you seek is not ahead of you since the game you're describing doesn't exist yet. You look getting a fruit before planting it. I understand that you afraid of making a failure. Anybody wants to know an answer in advance. But you, who are tackling your project, have nothing left to lose. If you failed? You'll learn a lesson, of course! it would be the only one in the world for you. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? At any rate, we shouldn't bother such a thing before completing a game. Some will like it. Some won't. Just like that if it would have a PERFECT appearance. Good luck.

AndrewH

Dec 24, 2011 at 5:21 AM

I and he knows that gameplay must come first. That was not the question. I have researched these games a lot and realize where their faults are at. Yes, gameplay is essential, but an ugly game?

This sounds crazy but this problem is similar to hitting on a girl. The bottom line is whether to turn your weakness to strength; or that your biggest weakness exceeds a threshold. In a way, your concern is right. Certain people turn their face if they find it ugly; however, tastes differ. Nobody knows that girl likes you or not until you approach. Launch your game first. The answer you seek is not ahead of you since the game you're describing doesn't exist yet. You look getting a fruit before planting it. I understand that you afraid of making a failure. Anybody wants to know an answer in advance. But you, who are tackling your project, have nothing left to lose. If you failed? You'll learn a lesson, of course! it would be the only one in the world for you. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? At any rate, we shouldn't bother such a thing before completing a game. Some will like it. Some won't. Just like that if it would have a PERFECT appearance. Good luck.
[/quote]

Hey, thanks for the inspiration. I've made many games that were unreleased I just didn't want to have 20 versions of my same project with the past 19 as failures or different visual styles. It's an important question to ask regarding 2D and 3D style.

I guess I'll prototype the two styles see which I like best and go from there. Prototyping I have came to find out is going to be my best friend.

ImpossibleDream

Dec 24, 2011 at 5:48 AM

Players are unforgiving when it comes to graphics. I've no doubt avoided potentially great games because I didn't like the graphic style.

That said, I think 2D is still viable, but not as a downloadable game. I think browser, flash and portable games are the only things that will let you get away with 2d graphics and still make a profit.

Going 3D is a big commitment, and can add more complexity than your game may require. You need to weigh what 3D will bring to your game against all the extra work and time a 3D project requires.
On the other hand, something like Hero Engine that handles all the server stuff for you can make the transition to full 3D very tempting.

I say if you can live without 3D, don't do it.

Cornstalks

Dec 24, 2011 at 8:25 AM

It's an important question to ask regarding 2D and 3D style.

I agree it's an important question to ask and decision to make. I'm not here to say go either way, because I've seen it go both ways. Which ever way you choose, just make sure you do your best to do it right. I vote you pick the one you have the highest likelihood of doing it right.

In the end though, your gameplay is still 2D, so 3D vs 2D doesn't make *that* big of a difference, assuming you do it right, which ever you choose.

And I'm a huge fan of prototyping. I agree 100% with your idea to prototype it. Good luck with your game!

Acharis

Dec 24, 2011 at 2:24 PM

I guess I'll prototype the two styles see which I like best and go from there. Prototyping I have came to find out is going to be my best friend.

That's completely insane, you can't make 2 completely different prototypes to see if 2D or 3D is better That's a total waste of time and resources.

1) What kind of game it is exactly? Your description is extremely vague. Is it a space simulation like the old Elite? You have to go 3D route then without any thinking.
2) How many people you have in your team? What is your budget? Are you able to meet the hard requirements of a typical 3D production? If you have less than 10 people then there is no brainer, go 2D (assuming you are trying to make more or less standard 3D game, but if you plan to do a dirty trick that let you save content, like in Minecraft, they you can do otherwise).

AndrewH

Dec 25, 2011 at 6:12 AM

[quote name='Radnen' timestamp='1324704074' post='4897012']I guess I'll prototype the two styles see which I like best and go from there. Prototyping I have came to find out is going to be my best friend.

That's completely insane, you can't make 2 completely different prototypes to see if 2D or 3D is better That's a total waste of time and resources.
[/quote]

I uhh, think you're a tad bit crazy? I mean, the game will always be in 2D. But the question was to use 3D models or not. As in I've thus far prototyped just a 2D scene. I think anyone can do tat without too much effort or resources.

Okay I guess you need to see what kind of game I'm making. I'll attach a screenshot. This is with a 3D model, and I like it. My brother and I are the only developers and we have zero money to spend. But, I have used a top down 2D image and while the game can still be fun I think players will enjoy seeing more than one face when they control their spaceship. This approach is graphic intensive but I want to relive those old era of space games that weren't 100% 3D. I found completely 3D games to be complex or confusing and you saw too much cockpit and not enough spaceship and more often than not have some technical issues with rendering or graphics cards.

Prototyping made this a reality, btw. (Yes the ship is too big and the cursor almost too small, but that'll all get softened out later).

JunichiTodo

Dec 25, 2011 at 6:41 AM

I have researched these games a lot and realize where their faults are at. Yes, gameplay is essential, but an ugly game?[/quote]
Lastly, just few more things. First, how about reconsidering that logic? Maybe you assume so. Second. the 2D or 3D problem is solved with the gameplay you're designing(especially, in this case). Say, if you want a enemy to hide in shadow and make the player move around for finding it, you should build the game in above 2D. But you just have been worried that yours look cool or not so everyone says "suit yourself." I believe the video game falls into art and any curved line in a picture or statue has meaning. To me, you seem to lack of a sense of "perfection" to your own game.

AndrewH

Dec 25, 2011 at 7:39 AM

To me, you seem to lack of a sense of "perfection" to your own game.

Hey, I'm glad I lack perfection! A perfectionist would not get anything done, as is the dilemma. I think the style I'm going for is okay. My brother likes this 3D 3/4'ths view and if he's comfortable with that then I am. I'm just trying to strike a balance between 2D and 3D. Because this game is not strictly 3D, it's more 2.5D, (everything is pre-rendered 3D).

I think the biggest pro is that most of my designs for gameplay will remain the same if I go for this 3/4'ths view. So I'm getting the best of both worlds. Otherwise if I had a free Z-axis, then barrel rolls and other dogfight mechanisms would have to come into play and I'm not sure I wanted that for this game. I mean the Z axis itself is a huge gameplay consideration! So this 2.5D has the illusion of a Z axis but I don't have to actually do anything with it. This was one of my initial worries.

Acharis

Dec 25, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Oh, so you have a separate background and models on top of it. Then technical considerations are of low importance, since you could pull it off both ways... I would go with the preferences of your artist then.

If you go 3D route then you should make the backround 3D as well. It has several advantages (lighting, a bit of movement, consitency), I think, as a player, I would prefer it that way. And it costs you almost nothing since it is a separate background rendered separately.

Stroppy Katamari

Jan 3, 2012 at 2:28 PM

So the game objects will exist in a 2D plane regardless?

Top-down 2D view: best possible perception of the locations, relationships and distances of the game objects. Particularly important in an action game, and whenever the player is in direct control of something.

Isometric view: more opportunity to give the objects visual "character". Many types of objects become easier to recognize, and can be made to feel more concrete or personal (which may or may not be desirable for the game design) when viewed in 3/4ths perspective.

This is a design decision, not to be left for an artist.

jbadams

Jan 4, 2012 at 6:18 AM

That said, I think 2D is still viable, but not as a downloadable game.

2d is absolutely still viable for downloadable games, as evidenced by Braid, World of Goo, Gish, Plants Vs. Zombies and a great many other recent successful titles.

The important thing is to make a game that looks good and is fun to play, and neither 2d or 3d graphics are inherently better for that purpose.

Some games are suited to more complex graphics, whilst other games are better off with simpler visuals -- again, neither 2d or 3d are inherently better.

If neither strikes you as more suitable to the gameplay than the other I would look at what you're more easily able to produce -- you've mentioned that 2d graphics would be easier for you to work with, and as the programmer that may (or may not necessarily) be true, but you also have to take the skills of your artist in to account. If he's pushing for 3d he's probably more experienced with producing 3d graphics, and it may be more work or take significantly longer for him to produce 2d graphics instead.

alh420

Jan 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I must agree with previous speakers. 2D or 3D graphics is not the right question to ask.
At least not after you decided that the gameplay will be in 2D.

You should strive to make your game appealing, and if you, with the resources at hand, can do this best with 2D, 3D, or a mix of the two, you should choose what makes the game looks best. And this depends on both the programmers, and the artist experience, more then anything else.

menyo

Jan 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I would not say that 2D would make up for a faster production time. Spriting especially is a time consuming art style. And if you see what people can do with zbrush or mudbox these days. They spit out a couple of awesome models in the time a good spriter can do a single frame on a 64*64 sprite. Well yeah you have to build, rig and texture a model but once thats done animating, arming or equipping it is easy.

As for your question, i think 2D games are amazing. They can be as deep and beautiful as a 3D game.

j-dog

Jan 5, 2012 at 7:49 AM

I faced this question too in my final year of undergrad. There was a group-based game project, and I think everybody did flash except for my group, because I took the lead and insisted on a 3D engine - I also thought "go big or go home" at the time. I did this despite one of my friends pushing for a 2D game instead. 3D was a lot of work, and maybe a 2D engine would've been better - I don't know. We allowed this to get in the way and I honestly feel that it allowed the gameplay to suffer. In short, your brother is flat-out wrong.

But to raise the flag for 2D here... there are so many great games that have come out recently in 2D. For one example... Bastion. That game looked good in 2D and the storyline and gameplay was just so much fun, I was blown away by it. 3D wouldn't have added anything to the game. It just depends on what you want, but I don't think that anybody would pick a dull 3D game over a fun 2D game.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.