2D games: how big is market

[-22-]

hi

I wonder if there is any reasonable info how big and stable is market for 2D games. In internet we can finde a few commercial 2d games with advance graphic (rpg,shooters,arcade,miscellaneous(AlienShooter (http://www.sigma-team.net),Crimsonland (http://crimsonland.reflexive.com/crimsonland)))but is the market profitable or better start developing 3D games

-------------
sorry for may english... it's not my native language so I may make some mistake's

[Greg Squire]

I believe most indie games are 2D, but this is most likely because most of them are puzzle games (which are usually 2D). I don't think your first question ought to be 2D or 3D? You should let the game design and game play dictate whether it should be 2D or 3D. You should focus on the game idea and design first. There are certain games where 2D is better, and there others where 3D is better. There are also some where it could go either way.

[Coyote]

Well, let's see... Diablo 2 came out not TOO many years ago and it was 2D. How many did it sell?

[EpicBoy]

I hear The Sims sells reasonable well...

[Sirrus]

reasonably?

Quite an understatement :)

[Gilzu]

Well, let's see... Diablo 2 came out not TOO many years ago and it was 2D. How many did it sell?


I hear The Sims sells reasonable well...

those are 2d games, but in orthogonal display... pseudo-3d

[Jack Norton]

That remind me of a question that the Ubisoft lead designer posed me when I made the interview to become game designer. "There's still a market for 2D games?"
I replied that "no, obviously all the new games are coming out in 3d".
I didn't get that job (maybe not because of that answer...! who knows)
4 years later I'm having moderate success with 2D games only.

That's life :)

[maksum]

hi

I wonder if there is any reasonable info how big and stable is market for 2D games.

Check out this PDF from RealArcade:
http://gamedevs.realarcade.com/GameSubmission/RealArcade_factsheet.pdf

More than 55% of their customers are female and more than 60% are over 40.

40-year old females aren't playing Quake, they are playing bejeweled.

I know that's quite a generalized statement, but I hope you get my point.

Mike

[Andy]

That remind me of a question that the Ubisoft lead designer posed me when I made the interview to become game designer. "There's still a market for 2D games?"
I replied that "no, obviously all the new games are coming out in 3d"...

Jack!!! :mad:
Answer you correct "Yes" and we'd go without one more competitor now. :D
Why "no"?! May be you will visit that Ubisoft and answer them "yes" after your current exeprience? :D

[James C. Smith]

Also keep in mind that there are at least 3 different levels of using 3D. Although Crimsonland is 2D, it actually required 3D hardware acceleration to draw it’s 2D art.

0) Pure 2D Everything done at run time is 2D art (may be pre-render 3D art and may even trick the player into thinking it is 3D)
1) Art is 2D. Playfield is 2D. But uses 3D hardware acceleration at runtime. The art could be 3D art pre-rendered to flat 2D images or hard drawn 2D art.
2) Run time art is 3D polygons rendered using 3D hardware acceleration but playfield is 2D. The object on the playfields may be 3D objects but their movement is restricted to a 2D plane and the camera doesn’t spin around
3) A completely 3D world with no restricted to moving on a single plane and the camera moving and turning all over.

Of course, there are a million various between these steps or completely outside of this scale. The game could be all real time 3D but be software rasterized and not use hardware at all. (The Sims)

My point is even games will 2D art can still take advantage of 3D hardware. And even games which use 3D polygons data at run time may still restrict themselves to a 2D style of play.

Maybe this is all obvious and not related to you original question. I mostly point it out because one of my biggest pet peeves is game designers who thinks games need to have 3D gameplay to be good/modern/competitive. 3D game play is often confusing and disorienting to the player. Many classic games have had ridicules 3D remakes that are much worse that the 2D originals. They may look nicer but they play like ****. If you do design your game to use real time 3D rendered polygonal models you may find that it is still a good idea to keep the game play 2D. And if you make a 2D game with 2D art, you still may want to use 3D hardware for better performance.

Our newest game, Wik and the Fable of Souls (http://www.wikgame.com/) is all 3D models pre-rendered to 2D bitmaps. The game is essentially a 2D game. It is a 2D playfield and all the runtime data is 2D. But we use 3D hardware acceleration to quickly draw all the 2D images of pre-rendered 3D models.

[Rainer Deyke]

Personally I hate 3D polygon models. They always looks ugly to me - overly sharp and unnatural edges, blurry interior from bilinear filtering, and fake "realism" that only emphasizes the flaws of the 3D model. There are game styles that need 3D - first person shooters for example. Everything else is better done in 2D, IMO.

[Mark Fassett]

I think that, for the forseeable future, all my games will have 2d gameplay, whether it uses models or sprites. Most 3D gameplay games are just too complicated for lots of people, and I even find myself preferring 2d gameplay over 3d gameplay most of the time.

[super_e]

As long as you focus on capturing the hearts of your target customers, it doesn't matter much if its 2D or 3D. It's how you present it that matters. Of course like everyone said, let the game define the need for 3D or 2D, not your market.

[Indiepath]

I was just about to say what super_e said: Market size is not divided by the technology.

[Sunshine]

The 2d market at it's height was fairly impressive, and one might say it is actually a very broad market ....

But there just isn't any depth. :D
Ba-Da-Bing!

[cliffski]

"I mostly point it out because one of my biggest pet peeves is game designers who thinks games need to have 3D gameplay to be good/modern/competitive."

Agreed 100%. Idiots like this shouldnt get a job IMHO ;)

[Andy]

I think that, for the forseeable future, all my games will have 2d gameplay, whether it uses models or sprites. Most 3D gameplay games are just too complicated for lots of people, and I even find myself preferring 2d gameplay over 3d gameplay most of the time.

Guys I said that in another thread - the key word here "audience". Our ones mostly want to take a break after the hard work day. They are not going to study all that controls, take additional streess, etc.
Everybody from here who already sells the games can approve that following by feedback from their customers.

You are dumn right Mike - too complicated - that's what scarres them and turn them away from such games...

[Diodor Bitan]

Being in the 2D crowd myself, it's quite ironic that I've stumbled on 3D gameplay in a purely 2d game, without ever having intended it. In my Risk-like game several distant points on the 2D map can be connected - creating a 2D map out of a system that would require extra dimensions. In fact, even Risk had a limited version of this: the 3D earth is simulated with a 2D map by connecting the Alaska and Eastern Russia map zones. This has proved to be a very interesting feature of the game, and has created the most interesting maps.

[tentons]

It may have been said already, but choosing a market based on 2d/3d isn't really choosing a market.. it's choosing implementation. People don't shop for 2d games. They just shop for games that look fun. :)

To be fair, though, many people might consider 2d/3d a big issue when determining what to buy, so it's definitely a factor, but not the factor.

[dan]

When the 2D to 3D transition in AAA games occurred, especially on consoles, the 2D really got left behind because 3D meant quality. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way... the market perceives that 3D is new and superior, so the industry is going to cater to that.

Now that 3D is old hat, I think 2D gameplay is regaining strength in certain places (though as James says, there is often a 3D engine underneath). Viewtiful Joe is a terrific example of a AAA that was done by a small team on a low budget (big company, though). Super Smash Bros. Melee is a 2D fighter that has sold millions.

People are going to react to how cool your game looks, period. Your design or game niche will determine a lot of your audience's expectations.

[Coyote]

I think Dan makes an excellent point. I don't forsee a big "comeback" in 2D games, necessarily. But I think we're already seeing a change where technological superiority is less important than the overall craftsmanship of whatever is being produced.

In some ways, 2D games have a huge advantage here. I've noticed that with 3D, the better you get the more players demand. You can't get away with making something look so-so in 3D. People will hold it to much more rigorous standards than they would if it were in 2D. The superiority of the technology (in terms of complexity and difficulty, not as any qualitative measure) is no excuse!

[Pete]

It's an interesting agrument but I think it's not as black and white as people as stateing.

You've got AAA titles like WarCraft that are full 3D but the gameplay remains essentially the same as the 2D version. I think what people should really classifying as 3D Games are FPS's and flight sims that use a full 3D perspective.

I think as modern 3D accelerated hardware (with pixel shaders) is essential for the operating system ( Longhorn, OS X ) the lines will get blured even further, why would you pre-render your characters when you can just use the model in the game. I also think that with some of the effects people are achieving with the shaders coupled with the huge poly pushing power, poeple wont see 3D as we do now, it'll look more and more like what used to be pre-rendered.

We're not there yet but we're not that far of in my opinion!

[Mirage]

As I see people here don't like 3D.;)
But I like it. Between two games with same (2D) gameplay I'll prefer a 3D game.
3D is more realistic and thus gives more immersion.
Of course it all depends on game's genre and implementation's quality.
But 3D as such is a good thing.:)

[Anthony Flack]

Well, whether 3d is more realistic is debatable. And whether being more realistic is necessarily more immersive is also debatable.

I like polygon meshes just fine. But I can't say I'm a big fan of the notion that they are inherently superior. I much prefer to see a wide variety of styles.

[James C. Smith]

And even if you assume that they are more realistic and more immersive, that don’t necessarily mean the game will be more fun or better. There is nothing immersive or realistic about Support Collapse or Chess but a lot of people enjoy playing them.

[Mike Wiering]

And even if you assume that they are more realistic and more immersive, that don’t necessarily mean the game will be more fun or better. There is nothing immersive or realistic about Support Collapse or Chess but a lot of people enjoy playing them. Speaking of chess, I've seen lots of beautiful, realistic 3D chess games that you can view from any angle, but I still always prefer a simple 2D top view.

[James C. Smith]

FYI: I wasn’t talking about computer chess games looking like realistic chess board. I was talking about the game of chess itself. When you play chess, on a computer or with a wooden board, or with diamond crowned marble pieces, the important thing is the game play. You may be immersed in the strategy of the game, but it isn’t because of anything related to the quality of the pieces or board or graphics.

[Davaris]

I suspect one of the reasons 3D was embraced by the industry, was because it makes animation easier to do and hence is more cost effective. Animation in 2D is a huge amount of work and takes up a lot of space.

Another thing you should consider if you make a 3D game is getting artists to make the low poly 3D models and animations. Artists that will work on a royalty basis are impossible to find and anyone who is good at 3D low poly modeling will already have a job.

As your biggest problem will be getting the art for your game, you will probably have to do it yourself. There are several cheap model packs you can buy on the net, but most of them are high poly, so they will not work in a 3D engine. So if you are doing the art yourself, prerendered 2D is the only way to go.

[BongPig]

Personally I hate 3D polygon models. They always looks ugly to me - overly sharp and unnatural edges, blurry interior from bilinear filtering, and fake "realism" that only emphasizes the flaws of the 3D model. There are game styles that need 3D - first person shooters for example. Everything else is better done in 2D, IMO.

Have you played our games?
Are you suggesting either title would, or even could, look better in 2D?

No way.

[Rainer Deyke]

Have you played our games?
Are you suggesting either title would, or even could, look better in 2D?

I've played both. Overall I found them graphically unimpressive - pretty colors, simple geometric shapes, pretty special effects, no substance. The general mechanical/geometric (as opposed to organic) look works fairly well with polygon models. Each individual model is given very little screen space, which hides the problems with the models. Futhermore Mutant Storm has rotation as an intrinsic game mechanic, which makes pixel-accurate art unviable.

I think you would need a very good 2D artist to improve either game in 2D.

[whisperstorm]

I'd like to toss in a bit of reading (which I'm sure everyone's already read, but you never know)

http://www.igda.org/online/IGDA_WebDL_Whitepaper_2004.pdf

Many of the Web and Downloadable games mentioned in this whitepaper are 2d based. I think part of the original question was is there still a market, which I think the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

[BongPig]

Rainer, are you suggesting its better to do organic art in 2D?

.... stuff that actually moves of course. Not some static sprite.

[BongPig]

Crap. My last posts were somewhat off topic! Sorry. I dont wanna start a 2d v 3d debate.

To give an opinion on the original question. The 3D sector is growing. Fast. Im not talking about 3D gameplay. Only using 3D for visuals. 2D gameplay is always going to be around.

Can I ask, which was the original question aimed at? 2D graphics, or 2D gameplay? ... or both?

[Anthony Flack]

It's irrelevant, surely, if you're talking about the size of the 2d market. The 3d market may be growing, but that doesn't mean the 2d market is shrinking, because they aren't mutually exclusive (your customers may enjoy both).

If anything I think people are less quick to dismiss a 2d games than they were a few years back, but in any case the market is still huge.

[tentons]

You can't break the gaming market into those categories. You're talking about technology, not sales. How many people shop for "a 2d game" on that basis only? It's not a market or a brand.

You could look at games that use those technologies and compare them, but that's still got little to do with 2d or 3d when you talk about marketing.

Think in terms of the gameplay experience--not the technology. (No, "2d" is not a type of gameplay.)

[Rainer Deyke]

Rainer, are you suggesting its better to do organic art in 2D?

Let me put it this way: I have yet to see a humanoid character in realtime polygon-based 3D that looks good.

[Hans]

well you must admit that the characters in Doom
look good ;-)

I agree, the gaming experience dictates the
engine and graphics. Don't forget the time
factor as well. In my experience 3D graphics
are a lot more work then 2D.

I think one of the reasons smaller
developers are making the 2D kind a games is
they making them in small teams, or alone.

[Rainer Deyke]

well you must admit that the characters in Doom
look good ;-)

They look better than most realtime polygon-based 3D models. However I wouldn't call them "good" by 2D standard.

[Hamumu]

Those points on their heads! Spend a few polygons rounding those off next time, Id!