Poll : is 2D programming dead?

Good question! In most cases now, i guess that using a 3D API is better for 2D rendering, it lets you get more speed (assuming you have 3D hardware) and it also gives you more options (lighting, rotation, etc. that hardware can give you). But, using the 2D approach (DirectDraw) is still helpful to people just starting out or if you''re just making a small demoish program. Why would you want to spend the time enumerating 3D devices and such to make a pac-man game? But for big games and programs i guess 3D API''s are the way to go for 2D rendering, unless of course someone makes a really nasty 2D API, then i''d be there in a second!

3D api''s work well to accelerate a 2d game, only because there are powerful 3d accelerator cards out there. However, not everyone has a 3d accelerator that is worth anything (in fact, some cards are so bad its almost a 3D declerator) so, the extra work needed to draw a 2d scene using a 3d api can slow the game down. Nobody wants to play Metroid at 2fps, even if it does have pretty lighting, particle systems, etc.



*oof*

The 3D accelerators are basically just a 2D accelerator that are only able draw triangles with variables interpolated between vertices. The only reason they are called 3D accelerators are because they are mostly used for 3D. I see no reason why they shouldn''t be used for 2D graphics as well. (It would be really nice if DDraw could take advantage of the 3D rendering transparently to the developer.)

At the risk of getting flamed: I don''t think developers should bother to make games for computers without 3D acceleration, unless they are targetting people that don''t do a lot of gaming anyway. Affordable 3D accelerators have been around for about three years now, and if someone hasn''t bought one in that time... well, need I say anything?

I''m not saying not to develop 2D games with 2D approach, I''m saying that developers should avoid using 3D API for faster graphics and special effects just because they are afraid that someone might not be able to run 3D graphics.

I agree with Spellbound.
3D cards are affordable, and players have already bought one, cause it''s a must have now.
There''s no reason why not using them in 2D.
Of course 2D approach is a must know.
After all you''re always using 2D...converting a 3d space to a 2D screen...

-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-

3D accelerator are more complex than 2D...

A 3D accelerator should be able to compute texture mapping (that is simple but it requires one floating point division per pixel and vector products...), compute and test Z-value for every pixel(a lot of divisions), interpolate colors between vertices, compute fog and so on...

A 2D accelerator is simply a ''memcopy'' device with few filtering capabilities (transparent blit)...but 2D and 3D
uses different standards (every 3D card supports blending in OpenGL and D3D but it seems difficult to use it in DDraw)

I think there is still a need for 2D in the educational games market. I''ve relegated my old PC to my four year old and I like to buy up-to-date education software with low hardware requirements.

This type of software has all the same aspects as traditional games. sound, animation, goals etc..

MaxPoly

I really think that we still need direct draw and all the other libraries for newbies like me and future newbies

Well, I don't think that it is such a good idea. Although most cards out there now support 3D accelleration, you shouldn't assume that they do. I mean, if someone needs a 3D card to play a 2D game, then there is something wrong. I think that it is a better idea to stick with DirectDraw rather than going into Direct3D.


"Remember, I'm the monkey, and you're the cheese grater. So no messing around."
-Grand Theft Auto, London

Edited by - Psychoprog on 3/10/00 2:44:31 PM

To ARCHIGAMER : DirectDraw is not the simplest API out there...I dont want to be considered an OpenGL fan but I''ve learned how to use this API in less time than DirectDraw (and D3D has confused me a lot
So, if you are a newbie and want to learn something, dont forget OpenGL...

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I still haven''t decided what API I am going to use Open GL or Direct X and from other polls I have seen the count for Open GL and Direct X are closely together. I really don''t know which one I well choose right know I am concentrating on learning C++ and once i have a grip on that I well make some serious decisions on what I well choose. What i have heard that Open GL work so well if you do not have a 3d accelerater card. However I do agree that Direct Daw isn''t the simpleist API.

I think that the answer to this question relies on the specific game that you are making. If your 2D game needs alpha blending, rotations, and clipping - sure go for 3D acceleration. However, if your game is just a simple 2D game that doesn''t use alpha blending, rotations, or clipping I say go with the basic DDraw for graphics

Just my opinion on the matter.

My game engine uses alpha-blending, rotation, and clipping to rectangles. Except for the alpha-blending, it runs very well in DirectDraw. I''d add code to take advantage of 3D hardware, but I have none, because I use a laptop.

Many people assume everyone is in the exact same situation they are in. Just because you have no trouble buying a 3D card doesn''t mean everyone has one. My laptop, of course, cannot be equipped with one.

~CGameProgrammer( );