Guys..

Need some feedback in terms of the marketing impact of making my game 2D, 3D or a mixture.

This is a "casual" sims-style game. And the technology isnt an issue.

So does it make much of a difference? would 2D be preferable?

Thing is, normally people would say "yeah, 2D because of size plus performance requirements". But with the number of sprites involved in your normal sims games, it makes sense to go 3D (at least with characters in exactly the way the sims did it). But now the sims is going fully 3D.

What I'm asking is, is this a marketing decision, or a technical one?

Technically, I'm drawn between 2d and the sims style 2D/3D mix. But if its easier to sell a fully 3d game, even if the 3D is low poly low requirements, then I'll go for that.

The other issue is that once you make the leap for having the characters in 3D. Then you really arent going to win by not having the whole world in 3D (i.e. if you need 3d capable, not massive hardware, but something like a tnt2?) then you might as well make the whole thing 3D.

Hmm.. its an interesting dilemma for sure :)

I'd personally go for 2D, mainly because there's additional effort required to make sure the 3D engine you're using can be used on a wide range of systems. So, in that aspect, it's a technical issue even if you mix in a little 3D. 2D really isn't going to turn anyone off a game these days, but the 2D work does need to be good to match a decent 3D solution (like poly modeled characters, etc).

If you can do that, I'd be surprised if something like a 3D isometric game would have much more of an impact (sales wise) over a 2D one. When it comes to games like the Sims, you're not talking about graphical immersion so much, but more about gameplay, and immersion through an idea.

That would be the conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure if it doesnt have some impact sales wise.

Just wondered if the more marketing savvy have an opinion on the marketing aspects of it.

Interesting indeed.

It's worth remembering that the original Sims engine used pure software rendering, no 3d hardware was required, and that's one of the reasons it has sold as well as it has over the years. Low min specs.

I'd say it's clearly both a technical and marketing decision and you need to weigh both sides.

Answering your question is difficult because I don't know what you plan on doing with the game when you finish it. Are you planning on selling it yourself or via a publisher? Is it going to be download only or mainly via cd distribution?

There's no two ways about it, finding a retail publisher is massively more difficult for a 2d only game. Whether this reflects customer preference is another matter entirely. Shareware sales would seem to suggest that customers really don't care one way or the other, so if you plan on self-publication then I think it's really a non-issue and you may as well do what you're most comfortable with.

From a technical view, I do think you'd save quite a lot of overhead with 3d characters, but mixing 2d and 3d presents it's own challenges.

On balance, I think Indies really have to go with their guts a lot of the time, and if your instinct is telling you to go with 2d ( or at least a mix ) then you'll probably do a better job like that. If you're not entirely happy about going fully 3d, it may well be hard to motivate yourself when it comes time to do the dull and tricky work.

The best way to check would be to look at the sales of already existing games, and make a comparison between genres, and the games that are in 2D and 3D. Since I haven't seen any indie games that resemble the Sims, you may have to look at published games, and Sim-like clones.

Above points are good too ;)

One of the reasons I ask is because most of the 2D games myself and friends have worked on in the commercial game arena have all been migrating to 3D.

Which begs the question WHY?

I do like the idea of 3D characters because it simplifies the art pipeline (i.e. I need em as 3d characters anyway, so why not model, rig and animate them and use them directly in game).

But then, I still want to retain a low requirement for the title.

So technically, I'd probably be happier with 3D, however saying that I have both 2D and 3D engines available, so its not necassarily a technical decision, but more about what I can sell or worth with publishers on.

As far as publishing it, I dont envision working with a box publisher at least initially, the game is probably too small for them. As far as online publishers go, I'll be doing that myself (and possibly via garagegames, most likely).

I guess I'll get in touch with Jay and ask his advice for what direction to go in.

But I'm still hoping someone has that pearl of wisdom that swings the balance.

Of course, i could always do both :)

Are you considering doing a 3D title because it will make life easier for you (the developer), or because you expect that your customers will demand it? Will people be more likely to buy the game if it is in 3D, or will 3D actually put them off?

Recently I played an indie game called Grek's Puzzle Challenge. It is a really tough Sokoban-like logic puzzler. The game is 3D, which in this case makes some sense because Grek not only has to push the boxes around but also climb them.

However, the 3D world really complicates the controls. Not only do you have to move Grek around, you also have to change the camera position in order to see all of the level. In my opinion, this puts off a lot of potential customers. Navigation through 3D space just isn't everyone's cup of tea. My gut feeling is that the typical player of logic puzzlers (casual or not) doesn't feel at home in 3D worlds. Had I made this particular game, I would have kept it 2D.

Does your game really need a 3D environment, and if it does, how will it impact the gameplay? Does it require people to navigate through three dimensions instead of two? Does it require players to manipulate the camera to see everything? Will it make the controls easier or harder? How much does it actually add to the game?

This subject is very interesting as I had the same thought process with my game design.

It was conceived as a 2d gameplay originally meant to be implemented as a 3rd-person 3d style of play. When I decided to perhaps publish/sell this myself, I thought about making it purely top-down 2d so that, like Matthijs says, I can possibly appeal to people that are usually put off by the complexities of control in a 3d environment.

I decided to go with 3d, though, but in a way where it's played more in the style one would play a 2d game (top-down-ish). The 3d is meant to open up the "dynamicness" of how the game will look, will be a much smaller download than the equivalent 2d game, and will be slightly easier to create the assets for (the artist would create in 3d anyway even if it would be a 2d game, but then they would have to be made into all bitmaps). I will design the controls so that, worse case, they will be only slightly more complex than the equivalent 2d version would have been, and there will absolutely be no camera controls (camera stays still).

However, I do have strong concerns about it running on a variety of other people's hardware setups (see http://www.dexterity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3011 ).

If I did see a compelling argument for it over the 3d-as-2d style, I would probably switch back to 2d.

Jim, well, I'm kind of feeling the same. If i go 2D, the artwork will probably be quite a lot bigger and low res than if I do a 3D, at least for the characters.

As for the control, it wont really change any. One possible advantage (only a small one) is that you can then rotate the screen.. but its only small.

But its definitely not a clear cut technical decision by a long shot.

I can't be useful enough in every aspect of the question. Our games a little bit different than you are trying to describe...

So, just my two cents.

We published all our previous games in 2D because:
1. The engine was tested by very powerful testing team on huge amount of different configurations and amount of separted beta testers as well.
2. We still prefer to stay with low enough hardware and system configurations and I know specifically that amount of our customers appreciate this.
3. Matthijs points on very important aspect of too complicated controls for regular 3D game - you either make them harder to show how 3D-ish your game or have stay in 2D enviroment through 3D output. It is very hard task to achieve apporiate (for casual player) conrol system for 3D world.
4. We just affraid to meet all that support and compatibility issues if we'll step into 3D on PC (it could be much easier on some Xbox or PS2) :D

PS Our pinball engine is working just fine in 3D on one particular PC - but that means nothing for us on current stage. We are still planning to spend few more time and efforts to make everything in good 2D in our upcoming project. :)

Hope this helps,

Originally posted by Matthijs Hollemans
However, the 3D world really complicates the controls. Not only do you have to move Grek around, you also have to change the camera position in order to see all of the level. In my opinion, this puts off a lot of potential customers. Navigation through 3D space just isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Yeah, but this has nothing to do with game being 3D. Going 3D doesn't impose complicated controls on you, you could make the game exactly the same as you would if it were 2D, just use meshes instead of sprites/tiles. Or you can do more and *better*.

I agree that a lot of people make a mess with camera controls, but that's developers fault, not techs'.

Well, i hadnt really thought of doing anything specifically different gameplay wise.

Basically the game is 2D in nature, so it'll work either way.

But.. ya know.. its just procrastinating over wehter to go 3D or not :)

I might just do both and cross-sell them :)

My only comment is:

Publishers prefer 3d games. That doesnt mean 2d dont sell as well or better, but if you want a publisher, they think 3d is "reall cool"... bunch of idiots.

Joe

Much as I'd like to discount this attitude, much as I'd like to publish it myself.

Fact of the matter is, if there's a publisher deal, I'll take the money (as long as I retain online sales rights). If thats easier with a 3D product.. Then thats the way it'll go.

But yeah, its a really dumb attitute, typical publisher thing.

If the game will be downloadable then consider whether your target audience takes download size into consideration. If they do, then choose 2d or 3d based on that.

--- Rod

What if its both? :)

3d was the "big new thing" a decade ago, but now that every kind of game has migrated to a 3d polygon look, the opportunity exists to do something really different and attention-grabbing with 2d. But I guess publishers haven't cottoned on to this. At least, not yet.

But to do really good, modern 2d does actually require more resources than in 3d. To make 2d that looks really impressive is probably more difficult these days. But if you're feeling adventurous, mixing 2d and 3d is a huge resevoir of untapped potential as far as giving your game a unique visual style goes.


the 2D work does need to be good to match a decent 3D solution (like poly modeled characters, etc).

True, however, this is NOT the best way to go about it... you end up with the look of 3d without the flexibility...
Better would be to chose some other kind of art style for the 2d stuff, and do something tricky to make the 3d match the 2d, rather than the other way around...

But if you're feeling adventurous, mixing 2d and 3d is a huge resevoir of untapped potential as far as giving your game a unique visual style goes.

Yes, indeed. :cool:

Players have ALWAYS wanted to sit in front of their computer, look at their newest game, and have their socks blown off by what they saw. Mostly this has been about pushing the technological boundaries of what they saw. That has, in the past, been realistic 3D. Closer to what they see in the movies.

Wing Commander. Wolfenstein 3D. Ultima Underworld. Doom. Quake. Unreal. etc.

Here's something interesting - taken from filmsite.org:
Scene 14: A life-size closeup picture of the leader of the outlaw band:

The film closes with a medium shot close-up of the bandit chief (with green-tinted shirt and red-tinted kerchief in some versions) (George Barnes) with his hat pushed back on his head. He points and shoots his revolver point-blank, directly into the camera (and, of course, at the audience). This caused a tremendously terrifying sensation at the time.

That's the final scene from the 1903 film, "The Great Train Robbery."

Brian Moriary gave a talk at GDC several years ago juxtaposing this scene with a scene from Quake 2, where the player is shooting an enemy soldier. His talk had little to do with this until the very end, but he did point out the cheap little effect, which had little to do with the plot of the movie and everything to do with thrilling the audience with the special effect, compared to sensationalist nature of videogames. His point being, of course, that as audiences matured (or became jaded) and the novelty wore off, moviemakers had to focus on other things. Of course, audiences still thrill to good special effects, but today's audience is mature enough that it takes something really incredible to give them a stir (think of the first Matrix). There are many successful movies that have very few special effects. MOST movies don't rely upon that shock factor anymore.

Anyway - if he was correct, we're gonna reach that point with games. I think we are in many ways. You can't just throw 3D on a screen and expect your players to go "WOW!" like they used to back in the early 90's. If videogames are about nothing but impressing people with technology, then we're all screwed. But I think we're getting there with games. Of course, that brings out another problem - if you don't simply blow people away with your technology, how are you going to get noticed?

Easily. It's called blowing people away with your game.

Pure gameplay and game enjoyment will always win against sheer graphical prowess. Unless of course, your target market are gamers who are specifically looking for the latest graphical effects, to push their gaming machines to the limits, and not a fun gaming experience. I would imagine there aren't a lot of indie developers targeting the hardcore gamer scene, or with the ability (resources as well) to match the graphical asthetics of what hardcore gamers are expecting to enjoy.

So, my personal belief is that above and beyond the graphical excellence of a game, you have to have a gameplay experiene that is simply going to blow gamers away. Whether a game is 2D, or 3D really doesn't make or break a game in the average indie gamers mind.

What's one thing both 2D and 3D games have in common? It's that if your game stinks gameplay wise, it doesn't matter what way you've approached the graphics- hardly anyone will want to play it. Also, if you have a game that is amazingly fun to play, the difference between 2D and 3D really isn't going to make any difference-- they're still going to want to play it.

Which is easier and cheaper to develop? It'd go for that one. If the standard of your graphics is high, whether 2D or 3D, it'll be the icing on the cake to the excellent game (I'm assuming) that's underneath.

Easily. It's called blowing people away with your game.

Pure gameplay and game enjoyment will always win against sheer graphical prowess. Unless of course, your target market are gamers who are specifically looking for the latest graphical effects, to push their gaming machines to the limits, and not a fun gaming experience.
Ideally, yes. But when all they are looking at is your games name and a couple of screenshots amongst 100 other games they are deciding whether or not to download, how exactly can you blow them away with your gameplay? That's what I was driving at. That's the challenge.

Well, you can't have a conversation about graphics without somebody saying, "hey, it's all about the gameplay!". Which it is.

But it also isn't. Especially when you're having a conversation about graphics.

Word of mouth is very important in todays gaming age... and time to let that word of mouth get around is equally important. I'd personally prefer to draw people to download the demo by solid advertising, and a good website, and let the game speak for itself. Having a good looking game will only draw people who are looking for a good looking game. With that also, is the stigma that the better looking a game is (especially in 3D) the more the download size and requirements will be.

It's a matter of who your target audience is.

Is this about graphics styles or about the rather technical choice between having the same 3d models rendered at run-time by the game engine or prerendered in image files by external software?

3D is the way to go. If you don't want 3D spatial movement in your game, keep the camera fixed on a 2D plane, zoomed out to show exactly the view you'd get if you did the game with sprites.

If you would do a game in isometric for instance, do it in full 3D, but orient your camera in a similar way and only move it in the XZ plane. If you don't like the perspective, make it an orthogonal projection.

I honestly can't think of an agument against 3D, other than 'I can't do it, so it's not needed'

A 3D camera will make even a 2D game look better, adding depth to objects. Most games will want to look as good as possible and I find it really sad to keep reading the "gameplay is king" messages. They're right of course, but why wouldn't you also want it to look good ?

Just be realistic about it. If you're not up to inverse kinematics and skeletal animations for the people, do em as animating billboards and keep the camera pointing in the same direction.

Reasons I can think of for not going 3D:

1) "Target spec machine isn't powerful enough" - A total misnomer, my mini-golf game runs nicely on a TNT2 on a 1GHz processor. That's a pretty old machine. If you're targetting older than that, then sure - your game probably isn't worth the effort of 3D - stick to GDI.

2) "It'll make the download bigger" - Well, no it won't if its anything more than tetris. It'll probably be smaller. Even tetris with slightly changing perspective as the blocks drop would add a 'wow' factor imo. Target DX7.0 and practically everyone will have the DX runtimes already installed. Offer a separate version (yes, that is much bigger) with the redist included

3) "It won't sell more because it's 3D" - It *will* impress some of your audience purely because it's 3D. Those that don't care don't care. A net win.

Right now I'm writing a golf game that would obviously benefit from 3D, so it's in 3D. My next project is a simple puzzle game that would traditionally be done with sprites. I'm doing it in 3D with a camera that doesn't rotate and only moves in 2D. It's gonna look ace and play the same as a 2D game, but all of a sudden I've got real specular highlights on the pieces etc.

I honestly can't think of an agument against 3D . . .
Why would a game like Dweep or Pretty Good Solitaire need to be in 3D? They look fine the way they look now.

"It won't sell more because it's 3D" - It *will* impress some of your audience purely because it's 3D. Those that don't care don't care. A net win.
I have seen plenty of shareware games that were made in 3D that would have looked better in plain old handdrawn 2D.

A few other things...

"I honestly can't think of an agument against 3D..."

Man, there's a ton of them. You might want to think a bit longer :)


"They're right of course, but why wouldn't you also want it to look good ?"

When your target audience doesn't care how the game looks, or simply has no real understanding of the difference between a great and average looking game.


"A total misnomer, my mini-golf game runs nicely on a TNT2 on a 1GHz processor."

It may be a total misnomer, but it's often a percieved truth to gamers. So, as far as that goes, it matters.


Great points, otherwise, especially the one about being realistic :)

3) "It won't sell more because it's 3D" - It *will* impress some of your audience purely because it's 3D. Those that don't care don't care.


... well, no, a rare few WILL care. :) But I admit that we're few and far between.

Still, I honestly don't loathe all 3d. I just hate *bad* 3d and *unecessary* 3d (ie, needlessly complicating the gameplay) and *ugly* 3d.

If you have a good 3d artist and can make a smashing-looking game in 3d but only a middling one in 2d, then DUH, use 3d graphics. Even I won't whine about 3d if it looks great.

If you have 'okay' artists who can do either 3d or 2d... go for 2d with special effects, it's easier to get a recognisable style that way (imo). Too many 3d games look alike. If you look a lot like a bunch of other games.... you'll blend into all those games in the user's memory.

If you have no artists and no real art skills, please don't make your game 3d just so you can replace all of your characters with cubes and spheres and claim it's an artistic statement. :)

(The 'you' here is generic, not to any individual!)

Ok, so I don't just have to say what I said earlier.

You have to create what you envision! You can't (or shouldn't) get a vision to create this game and then say "lets make it 2d, or lets make it 3d."

It has to be the right type for the right game. A space game can be done well in 2d or 3d. It can be done well with fixed plane camera angles or full 3d. What is most important is the settings match the vision of the game.

Let's take a look (and if you don't know these games, you should go download them and this whole thing will make more sense):

I talked to Coyote recently, and we talked about these:

2d space game. Subspace (now Continuum) Obviously, fixed, top down. Great game! Right concept. Putting it in 3d would make it too hard to hunt people down. Using a fixed angle 3d would have been pretty pointless for it's style.

3d space game. Terminal Velocity, Decent, Wing Commander. Great game, right concept. 3d gives you the mobility you need and the level design and enemy design keeps action pumping.

3d fixed angle. Dark Space. The game benefits from BEAUTIFUL 3d effects. The fixed angle and fixed plane make combat easier. If it were 2d it would not have had nearly as many cool effects.


If its between 3d fixed and 2d, you should make the decision based on if you can use the 3d effects, if using 3d effects would enhance the game (or just make it too complciated), would it affect the size (3d is NOT always bigger than 2d), and finally, do you have the TALENT to do either? 2d artists are not 3d artists, and visa versa.

In general I stick with the theory, envision it and then build it.

Joseph Lieberman
Video Game Marketing
www.vgsmart.com

I agree with the art point. Bad art is bad art. I don't release games with bad art, and neither should anyone else imo.

Why would a game like Dweep or Pretty Good Solitaire need to be in 3D? They look fine the way they look now
Why would it look worse if 3D ? I keep hearing arguments for dont fix if not broken, but thats not what the poster was asking about.

As to the target audience that don't even care what they're looking at ? Well, I guess I'm showing my commercial roots but I can't envisage anyone being like that. In fact, I think it paints a very cynical picture of our potential punters.

A game like solitaire wouldn't neccessarily look better in 3D, but it might, and where's the hardship. This is what I don't get - 3D is not much 'harder' than 2D and being in 3D doesn't mean you need to have a 1st person view.

I've been in commercial game development for 15 years and recently an independent specialising in PDA and cell-phone games for 2 or 3 more. I've not yet released a PC title by myself, but I can't suddenly see why my audience wouldn't want their game to look all it can be, and am working on the premise that they still do.

"I honestly can't think of an agument against 3D..."
Man, there's a ton of them. You might want to think a bit longer

Nope, I've thought some more and I still can't see any.

However, if you have a list of them, why not print them up here and answer the posters question.....

I do 3D games --- though I'm tempted to do a strictly 2D game for my next title. But here's some of my arguments for 2D graphics:

#1: Consumers tend to hold 2D and 3D games to different standards. A 3D game is more likely to be compared to a top-end AAA 3D title by the consumer, whereas a 2D game is more likely to be judged according to its own merit.

#2: 2D has lower risk of external dependency problems (drivers, version of DirectX or OGL on the machine, etc.) The problem is - YOU are going to get the tech support call when somebody else's driver has a problem.

#3: 2D has less capability differences between hardware - you don't have to worry (so much) about whether or not the consumer's card can support textures of >256 pixels in size, or if multitexturing will be a serious hit on performance, or whatever. The bad news is that you are talking to the lowest common denominator, but the good news is you don't have to scale your game to match varying capabilities of cards. That means less work (I think this is becoming less of an issue as time goes by, but remains something of a problem).

#4: Some types of games are simply better in 2D - if you have a game with hundreds and hundreds of units on the screen, you are likely to have MUCH better performance leaving them as single-sprites than full 3D models.

I'm still committed to making 3D games - but reasons for keeping it 2D still exist.

I'd say most of those are game dependent and not general case though, apart from the compatibility point which is a good one.

It's not one that worries me personally as I don't use advanced features and my engine's been tested on masses of different setups. The only way to avoid *any* tech support like that is to stick to actual GDI calls and I can't get that into my brain.

If I was doing a 3D RTS with hundreds of tanks onscreen and expecting to run on a TNT card, I'd make em billboards, same as a 2D game. Maybe generated from top-down renders of the models the optional 3D view would use which are pretty much all pixel-art to start with.

My main point is that 3D or 2D isn't even as deep a question as most people assume - you're still just drawing images on the screen. By going 3D that means to me that I use textured triangles instead of sprites and I have an option to move the camera more if I want it.

If I only had access to a 2D artist to make sprites, my games would still use 3D setup because I'd like to be able to draw a million particles on the screen or something.

I guess this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I was asked for an opinion and provided one. The bottom line for me is that with a 3D engine you can do whatever you like, but with a 2D engine you're stuck with a fairly limited set of rules.

I think in Zoom`s case answer is pretty simple because of the reason he gave himself in the beggining: animations. I think in his case it would be easier to go with 3D, using animated models.
Combined with "cutie'" 2D images for backgrounds and such, it could look pretty decent, I think.

I'm had exactly the same dilemma for the game I've just started on , 'Apartments' (http://www.itsallagame.com/apartments.htm), which co-incidently is a sims-like/Little Computer People game with loads of user creation and network features.

I eventually settled on full 3D for a number of reasons,

It makes the dynamic interaction required for users creating and personalising their characters/apartments/apartment blocks much easier and dynamic with 3D models then 1000s of sprites

It was much easier to buy prebuilt 3D models off the net (my entire furniture set of around 300 pieces cost only $100)

The characters are completely interchangable and I only require a female/male skeleton and animation is far simpler than with sprites again.

I think its easier to impress in 3D with not so brilliant models than 2D where you need some pretty nifty artwork to get the same impact.

With the art at source level (Max files) its so much easier going in and remodelling items instead of redrawing sprites (I had to remodel and retexture all the rooms in the main apartment block as the original artist made the rooms far too short)

Its far easier to have dynamic lighting/shadows on a 3D world than having everything 2D and 'baked in' lighting/shadows

My whole interface is still 2D with the camera moving in a single plane and always facing the same direction, it zooms in and out but through the control mechanism as opposed to user having 3D movement controls.

I've included some early dev shots..

Marcus Lynn
www.itsallagame.com

Totally agree with Nauris. Just that I seemed to use 1,000 extra words. :)

It was much easier to buy prebuilt 3D models off the net (my entire furniture set of around 300 pieces cost only $100)

The characters are completely interchangable and I only require a female/male skeleton and animation is far simpler than with sprites again.

I think its easier to impress in 3D with not so brilliant models than 2D where you need some pretty nifty artwork to get the same impact.


See, I look at that screenshot and I think it looks soulless and sterile. Given the game design I can *definitely* see the appeal of using 3d models - especially if you have bonuses like better choices in object positioning and possibly skinning/importing (much simpler with 3d and users have fun with it.)

But given a choice, I would pick a game with so-so 2d over that look every time. :) It doesn't impress, it's offputting. Again, though, I'm a rarity. Most people don't feel like I do. (And no, I don't want to imagine the amount of work you'd need to reproduce the sort of content you're talking about in good 2d. Ouch. :) )

Although there have been some great points made since, I'd have to go with Terin and his point that whatever format you go with, it really does have to fit what you envision for the game. Imagine what you'd want to buy, and then build it! :)

As for negative points for 3D... what about development difficulties? 2D art is usually a task for one guy, but good 3D (not average 3D, that most people will look down upon, as opposed to appreciating) is the task for multiple people. If it isn't, you'll need to fork out for a number of programs (my 3D kit is worth about $1200US) whereas you can get away with a whole lot less for 2D graphics creation (which can often be done in one program).

As one guy mentioned earlier, 3D also means you have the task of dealing with compatability problems. No one is going to struggle running a 2D game when they switch to the new Geforce FX5600, but I'll bet you'll be releasing a patch to accomodate for the latest drivers when they do. Also, there's testing that needs to be done for all major brands of 3D card, and all of the latest driver releases. This takes time.

Lastly, you're game won't nessesarily age well. 3D goes out of fashion in a flash, whereas 2D (good 2D) will always appear attractive, especially to nostalgic gamers. Take Starcraft, for example. It's fully 2D, and is still recognised (apart from the low resolution) as a good looking game. That was years ago. Warcraft 3 is already starting to age. It may have looked nice at the time, but each and every day the poly counts look lower and lower... which of course, brings me back to the importance of gameplay :D

If your argument also includes using 3d acceleration to make sprite games, then I'm all for it. There are just too many cool places you can take a 2d game when you're using 3d hardware.

And yes, I think that these days, making something in FULL 3d can actually be easier than doing loads of handmade animation, etc. for a good looking, modern sprite game. But I choose to do it that way because, yes, I think it actually can look better, or at least more individual.

I really don't like the assumption some people make about 3d meshes being inherently superior to other styles of art.

We would not have gotten our publishing deal if our games were 2D.
The games are essentially 2D gameplay, but rendered in a full 3D engine.

Even the very best sprite artist could not make a 2D version of Space Tripper that looks better than the 3D version. Its simply not possible.
As for Mutant Storm, forget it. Without the 3D aspect, it would have half the impact, period.

Good 3D will always look better than 2D. Always. however, I must agree that bad 3D is the worst of all.

Regards download size, making all the various graphics in those two games as bitmaps rather than models would have made the file twice the size.

I agree with palmtree. Even if we wanted to make a pure 2D we would still use our 3D engine to do it. Its 3D all the way from now on for us.

With regards to engine, I'm using Torque for 3D and Torque for 2D (my own mods to the torque engine so it can render 2D stuff just as easily as 3D).

So its really not much of a technical issue, more as a marketing thing. What I'm trying to get across is that not only do WE have our own agenda when it comes to 2D vs 3D, but also others do as well, not just the public, but for instance box publishers, or magazine editors, or hardware manufacturers.

I simply dont want to cut myself off from potential resale choices for want of a bad decision at the outset.

Of course if the game were super-casual, I'd think harder about it, because of the support issues. But this is more of a semi-casual game (i.e. a non puzzle game).

I'm leaning towards doing both now :) hahaha.

Even the very best sprite artist could not make a 2D version of Space Tripper that looks better than the 3D version. Its simply not possible.

Good 3D will always look better than 2D. Always.


I guess there will always be some people who feel that way. No accounting for taste, after all. But I have to say it's sad to hear that coming from you, because your games DO look good.

Fortunately there are still plenty of people out there who are interested in seeing other kinds of artwork being used - yes, even in videogames...

Not that I would necessarily want to see Space Tripper done with sprites, mind you. I'm not against using polygon meshes by any means. They definitely can look great in the right hands.

But man, have you never seen great animation done with pencil, paint, models, cut-out photographs, or any of the other media that creative animators make use of? Do you really think it would all look better done with polygons? Surely you can appreciate that there are a broad range of styles available to work with, and it makes little sense to look at one as being inherently "better" than the others. It's like saying photography is better than painting.


Regards download size, making all the various graphics in those two games as bitmaps rather than models would have made the file twice the size.

Yes, that is for real! Which is why, in this day and age, I don't see much point in doing a sprite game if you're just going to render the graphics in a 3d program anyway. Now that polygon count isn't so much of an issue anymore, I don't know why anyone would use sprites to do something that simply replicates the look of real-time polygons.

Youre right anthony. Maybe I was being a bit forcefull with my personal opinion on the matter.

There probably are instances where pure 2D has an advantage, especially when it comes to taste and style.

But getting back to marketing 2D vs 3D games, ill stick by my guns and say, we would not have got published if our games were 2D, regardless of style or quality.

Besides, the more I think of it, I cant think of any 2D style games that couldnt benefit from 3D. Even the flat, photograph style cut-out art could do with some depth and bending.
Look at pappa-da-rappa. That was flat 2D, but the characters looked ace whne they started getting bent around.

Remember, 3D isnt just about 3d models. Its about 3D space and what you can do within it. The ability to do what you want with your flat 2D objects within a 3D world has to be desirable, no?

As it happens, I am mapping all my sprites onto 3d textures these days... not so much for the bending (at least, not *yet*) - but the different blend modes, alpha transparency, and glitch-free scaling and rotation that 3d hardware gives you for free is pretty hard to resist. ..

Besides, the more I think of it, I cant think of any 2D style games that couldnt benefit from 3D. Even the flat, photograph style cut-out art could do with some depth and bending.

Slay (http://windowsgames.co.uk/slay.html)
Smugglers 3 (http://nbsd.de/smugglers3.html)

Diodor, are you seriously telling me that both those games wouldnt look better with some 3D technology?

Diodor, are you seriously telling me that both those games wouldnt look better with some 3D technology?

The Slay game is my classical example of gamplay vs. graphics. All the pixels in the game are used for gameplay - for describing the strategic situation. Prettier graphics in Slay could do nothing but detract from the gameplay.

As for Smugglers, I'd say all programming effort is (and was) better spent on the game part of the game. Professional 2d still images give the game a unity of style and a level of polish that is hard to achieve with 3d effects with the same resources (or 10 times as many).