2D versus 3D (pros and cons)

[Greg Squire]

After attending IGC and talking to a number of people, I'm considering doing something drastic (change my 3D game into a 2D game). So I wanted to get some discussion going about whether one should use 2D or 3D within your game. Obviously if your game requires 3D game play that is a "no brainner"; I'm only looking at cases where there is 2D game play but the graphics could be in either 2D or 3D.

Most of the advice I received to go to 2D was because "it's easier", and this is my first title. While I agree with some of that (in a general sense) I know that in some ways "3D can also be easier", such as with animation (as is can be simpler to rotate a 3D object than to create the different sprites needed to "rotate").

So with issues of difficulty aside, I want to get some opinions on whether a game ought to be 3D or 2D from a consumers perspective. May be it depends on the game's genre and audience?

I'm developing a game that I hope will appeal to a more general audience (casual audience for lack of a better term). So I'm going for simple gameplay with cute and colorful graphics. I'm not doing a sokoban game, but here are some 3D games that have 2D game play. (Puzzle Monkey (http://www.clevermonkeystudios.com/), Wonderland Secret Worlds (http://www.midnightsynergy.com/secretworlds/), or Dinos and Aliens (http://www.nevosoft.com/downloadable-game/en/games/dino-and-aliens.html)) These games could have been implemented in 2D. Would they have done better in 2D? or worse in 2D? Would it have made any difference (assuming the production quality was the same)? Does it all just boil down to the style you want in the game?

What do you guys think? (Sorry to pick on those games, but it's just a theorical discussion. I think the above games are great as they are and I wouldn't change them, but I would be interested in knowing why they chose 3D over 2D).

[Dock]

I enjoyed Puzzle Monkey because it was in 3D. It feels like it wouldn't be out of place as a modern console game, and it has a great sense of atmosphere with the graphics.

For the record, I'm planning a simple 3D game (http://deadpanda.com/lj/ranafeb.jpg) that could technically be done in 2D. However, I'm a pro 3D artist (as well as doing high quality 2D art) so I mostly feel like making the most of that. It's certainly easier to impress with 3D. Sadly this project has been held up this year by my full-time job, but will pick up soon I hope.

However, I must confess I've considered doing a simple 2D game in the interim, just to get some more coding under my belt. It's one less dimension less to worry about, and it's quicker to produce the art assets.

[Sharpfish]

Well each game deserves a in-depth analysis of whether it would suit 2D or 3D better. There is rarely any point in doing "3D for the sake of it" as often times the results are lacklustre - mostly though I feel in those case it would have been just as bad in 2D. Some people make tech demos (in 3D) and consider them almost games which is wrong.

However, like I said, it really depends on the game and its style. Certain games will ALWAYS be better in 2D while others will probably only work out in 3D. The game I am working on now is 3D but uses "2D control" - ie no akward 3D navigation or controls. The controls are as simple as a normal 2D casual game. The reason I didn't got 2D with it is because I couldn't do the idea justice in 2D.. I needed immersion ;)

A core part of my game COULD have been done in 2D and is fairly straightforward. The other part would have been tricky to pull off in 2D and deliver the same impact in my opinion.

I also have 2D only games lined up for development (in fact the next one will be a pure 2D title), this is only because it just suits that style of play. I never took into account the ease of system requirements on MOST 2D games compared to MOST 3D games because I WANTED to make this game the way I have and have optimised it fairly tightly anyway.

I wouldn't restrict yourself to an definate stand on what to use and just take it on a case by case basis. Generally, though, you could say that 2D stuff is far easier to market and get onto portals (and slower PCs) but again times are changing and with all the recent discussion on here I think it is time to go with our hearts a bit more and do what we need to do. Be it 3D or 2D, just remember it must JUSTIFY itself for whichever choice it takes and don't feel the need to do it in 3D just because you can (or because it is easier to rotate meshes than it is to rotate sprites ;) ) likewise don't limit yourself to 2D if you can do 3D and your idea warrants it.

I think that is all I have to say on the subject.. for now :)

<edit> btw Dock - that is a nice looking (tiny) screenshot you have there!

[chanon]

One advantage to 2D is that you can create more detailed graphics, without affecting the system requirements. I think it is also more flexible in the artistic style you can do. Creating a unique setting/emotion/feeling to the game through 2D graphics might be easier (I've never produced a 3d game so I'm not sure.)

I have a feeling that most simple 3D games all have the same graphics style and don't vary much in the emotion they evoke on you when seeing them, while 2D games can give a wide variety of emotion or artistic style (ex. from Platypus to Gish).

[DanMarshall]

Sadly, I think if Indie Games are going to be taken more seriously over the next five years, the majority of games are going to have to embrace full 3D.

That said, I was reading about the original GTA being released in '97 last night, and how gamers at the time were just getting used to the likes of full 3D environments like those seen in Tomb Raider. To my mind, none of the subsequent GTA games have captured the thrill of those 2D car chases...

[soniCron]

Sadly, I think if Indie Games are going to be taken more seriously over the next five years, the majority of games are going to have to embrace full 3D. Taken seriously by whom, and why?

[Sharpfish]

One advantage to 2D is that you can create more detailed graphics, without affecting the system requirements. I think it is also more flexible in the artistic style you can do. Creating a unique setting/emotion/feeling to the game through 2D graphics might be easier (I've never produced a 3d game so I'm not sure.)

Ah, this is true but that again comes down to what KIND of game you are doing. It is no good having an ultra detailed / characterful racetrack for instance if you really want to convey the feeling of speed and immersion. Obviously 3D is best for that. If you want to make a more frivolous racer then top down 2D can be great (some of my favourite old games were top down 2D racers).

Also your point is more valid if you are doing basically the same game styles that have been done forever - platformers, shoot-em-ups, puzzle games - then 2D art can convey character and personality more easily no doubt, but some game types just can't be done in 2D and won't benifit from the detail of 2D anyway (apart from maybe 2D osi / avatars etc).

So if you are looking at it purely from the point of view of a traditional 2D game then of course 2D will be better every time and, as you say, allow more detail with lower requirements, but if I was personally doing a game that relied more heavily on its 2D looks than on its gameplay or immersion then I wouldn't be doing it in 3D anyway.

One last point, I have seen many 2D games this last year with beautiful pixel graphics, they simply can not be faulted - however I am NOT drawn into them anymore. Maybe when I was in my teens - the last 2D game I ever remember being drawn in to in a way you describe would be Donkey Kong Country on the SNES. Since then *ALL* of my emotional experiences with games have been through 3D (Tomb Raider, Unreal, Undying, System Shock, HL2, Farcry etc) so this really depends on the player and his tastes and how jaded he has become by 2D as a means of conveying the emotion you speak of.

There is no doubt that for the ever present casual audience, 3D is not as likely to "Pull them in" and may just alienate them, whereas 2D can make them say "ooh and ahh" and have an emotional link with the game(chuzzle for instance - which even I found emotional on a "ahh look at the cute stuff" level ;) ).

[Sharpfish]

That said, I was reading about the original GTA being released in '97 last night, and how gamers at the time were just getting used to the likes of full 3D environments like those seen in Tomb Raider. To my mind, none of the subsequent GTA games have captured the thrill of those 2D car chases...

Car chases apart - a car chase in a game if not meant to be a visceral experience is akin to a 2D gameplay type that has been around since the 80's (spy hunter for instance - though not strictly car chases). So in that case the gameplay of a 2D car chase was found to be more fun/addictive than the general GTA3/Vice City car chases (which are more of a diversion than core gameplay I feel). On the other hand, and all credit to Rockstar -I had MANY emotional interactions with Vice City, and I don't mean mowing down hookers and pretending I was some bad-ass.. not my style. I can not sit here and say I wasn't blown away at the time by the emotional impact that virtual city had on me, yes I am an escapist and I "get off" on "just being there". Gameplay is a different matter in this case, but of course it is vital to be as clear cut as possible for the majority of the general indie games audience. Needless to say If I had a choice I would take Vice City and roam around its streets killing time over 2D GTA any time. That is just my tastes though but I am far from alone. All of that has little to do with shareware at this point in time as 3D GTA style games wouldn't work without big budgets. 2D "clones" can work of course and there may even be that ready made (from GTA) elusive indie hardcore market willing to give it a try.

I can see this thread evolving into an "x is better than y because I use it" debate, but really the honest truth is already that you simply use what the game compells you to use. If it feels right it is right, the only thing to consider is if it is worth doing that game if you can ONLY do it in 3D and you think this will affect sales negatively. I have never had a choice to make "should this game be 2D or 3D" because the concept itself is clear cut, if it is not then it should be refined more to get to the core of the idea where the choice will be obvious - there is no right or wrong - I like both 2D and 3D games, the head may go with 2D based on sales but my heart goes more with 3D because that is more "my area" these days.

each to their own and good luck!

[papillon]

When it comes to GRAPHICS, it depends on what style you're going for and what you have skills in. If you are good at 3d art it would be a waste to ignore that. I generally side with 2d but I'm perfectly capable of being impressed by good 3d.

When it comes to GAMEPLAY... some of us still have serious trouble navigating in gameworld 3d. I've heard this problem is more common in women, but I've also heard in different papers that women like 3d environments even more than men, so who knows. Mostly all I can say is that I personally find first-person 3d an absolute nightmare and won't even touch it. Third-person 3d, maybe, if there are LOTS of maps and pointers and guides to help keep me from getting turned around. And making the camera spin around makes me sick. :)

[princec]

Sadly, I think if Indie Games are going to be taken more seriously over the next five years, the majority of games are going to have to embrace full 3D.
I don't reckon so. 2D still looks fabulous after all this time. I can't be that rare surely?

Cas :)

[cliffski]

personally I couldnt care less about people taking me, my company, my games or the whole indie industry seriously, as long as they buy my games.

[Anthony Flack]

I think 2d art looks fabulous too, and it has been completely mature for some time now - it won't date any further. 2d gameplay is definitely here to stay.

I've got a foot in both camps at the moment, getting the worst of both worlds. Or the best, depending on how you look at it.

If I want to keep using real models and photography (and I do), I'm pretty much committed to 2d sprites. Or full 3d photogrammetry, but that's an experiment for later. But I do try to use as much parallax and trickery as I can to give it depth. Doing good animation is a lot harder in 2d, and requires all kinds of trickery, but I do like that challenge as well. And these days, I'm using 3d hardware accellerated 2d, so you still need a 3d card to play. However I think the scaling, rotation, transparency and vertex colouring more than make up for it. And you don't need a very high-end card - I can create a nicely detailed 2d-in-3d scene with a few hundred quads.

However good 2d animation does chew through your video memory, and cards these days aren't really designed to be used this way.

[Phil]

My first game was a simple space invaders clone (purely to learn the basics). My second game, which I'm currently planning, is going to be a simple 3D affair. I'm only at the research stage at the moment but my purely technical findings so far are:

1. There are some great free graphics engines out there which can really help you get started. I'm currently trying out OGRE, Crystal Space and Irrlicht. Because I based my first game on SDL, the first thing I did was create a simple graphics engine around this which was an extra step. I'm sure others can give you advice on better approaches in 2D though.

2. My artistic skills are weak but I found bitmap editing for 2D was easier than using a 3D modelling tool. I've only tried Blender so far (again free) and it's very comprehensive but as a result pretty intimidating.

I've been reading these forums for a while (although this is my first post) and the advice I've most taken to heart is "make a game you want to make". So it may be best to think in these terms and then decide what technology to apply once you have an idea you think you can see through to completion.

Phil

[puggy]

Graphics wise 3D is probably easier to do but coding wise, 2d would probably be easier. I think several developers could be missing a trick though by deciding one or the other.

What you could do is make the 3d models for your game, but make the game 2d to start off with if it's going to be easier to code. Use the 3d models to capture your 2d images and put out your version 1 game in 2d. Once out, apart from bug fixing work on version 2 of your game with the 3d interface, you have the models and the base game, so it's just working the interface (you could even keep the 2d inteface and have a dual interface allowing the player to select which one they want.

[delsydsoftware]

I really enjoy programming 2D games and apps in OpenGl, myself. You get all of the benefits of hardware acceleration,including alpha-blending,sprite rotation, etc. The zbuffer allows tons of layer effects. With clever texture management, you can get incredible throughput on ancient hardware. Brickout manages a 5000-6000fps on my box(Athlon 3800/x850XT),and still plays at over 80fps on a 400mhzp3/geForce2MX PCI box at 1280x1024. Hardware acceleration is your friend sometimes. :)

If you want to make a game in 3D, you really need to dive into the subject. For a casual game, you can get away with doing things in 3D more easily than other types of games. In a puzzle game, you have much more control over what the player is going to be doing, and what they'll be able to do. 3D coding in that respect is very easy---it's not much different from writing a simple game in 2D. You can get away with simple collision detection,overdraw,etc.

If you're making a 3d game that gives the player the freedom to roam around an environment and interact with other objects(an FPS,RPG,RTS,etc), the learning curve goes straight up. If you're writing your own engine, you have to fight to keep up the visual quality of your engine, as well. I have a nice 3D engine sitting on the shelf right now with 3 years of development time in it, because I couldn't keep up with the demands of modern 3d technology fast enough. If you want to go this route, license a 3d engine like Torque.

In my opinion, if you can make your first game in 2D, go for it.A good artist is a must, though. If the game is fun and it looks nice, your customers won't care. :)

[Christian]

Another alternative for 2d is vector graphics. I can remember playing the game "out of this world" using this technique, it looked wonderfull, amazing, it didnt consume much resources, and i cant belive that no one used it since, its an amazing technique!, im going to use it with pixel graphics with my game.

The advantages are that, they animate perfectly and smoothly, they look like 3d, but they are 2d! :eek: (sort of.. think about cell shading, toon like games, etc), they can have various types of manipulation in realtime... better chek the game out, youll be amazed if you havent seen it.

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=2345 For the game

[Anthony Flack]

i cant belive that no one used it since


Well, there was that little thing called "Flash"...

[Robert Cummings]

For me the important distinction people need to understand is:

Tekken is 2D.

People always argue with me on that. Why? Make a choice on how it plays.

The fact is do not worry about the rendering or the polygons or even if it's 2D or 3D artwork: the important thing to do is decide on how it plays and why? Get your audiance having a good time.

However you do the graphics is entirely a matter of your capability from that point onwards.

[Dock]

For me the important distinction people need to understand is:

Tekken is 2D.

People always argue with me on that. Why? Make a choice on how it plays.
Perhaps, although many would argue 2.5D, as it fits firmly in the '3D on a single plane' group of games, along with NiGHTS, Klonoa, Pandemonium. Also, I believe recent versions of Tekken have more in the way of stage interaction.

I've decided to pick up development of my 3D puzzle game again. I was doing a bit of coding last night, and I've recently figured out some ways that I can make it easier to develop.

[Coyote]

Hey Greg -

I'm confused. It looks like your game (if it's the one I've seen) is already a ways along in 3D... why change it now?

[Christian]

I know flash uses vector graphics, but, what about if i dont want to use flash? :confused:

[soniCron]

I know flash uses vector graphics, but, what about if i dont want to use flash? :confused: Then program your own software- or hardware-based vector engine. What kind of question is that? :confused:

[Anthony Flack]

The point I was trying to make was that the techniques used in Another World (aka Out Of This World) haven't fallen by the wayside; in fact they've never been more popular.

[Greg Squire]

Hey Greg -

I'm confused. It looks like your game (if it's the one I've seen) is already a ways along in 3D... why change it now?
Jay, It is the one you've seen, and it is a ways along in 3D, but it still has a long ways to go.

I'm not sure that I'm going to change anything now, but it has been an idea I've "toyed" with of late. There are a number of reasons, some have to do with my abilites, and others are about whether the game itself would be better (or worse) in 2D.

Most of the advice I gotten to go with 2D, was simply because I'm a newcommer to game development, and 2D is "easier". I'm an experienced programmer, I'm also a beginner in this space in a lot of ways. I've been a professional Java/JSP/web developer for around 7 years now, and that's what I know best. I've dabbled in game programming over the years, since my very first computer (TI994a). I feel I do "okay" in 2D cartoon art (done that off and on since I was a kid), but I've found 3D modelling a bit harder than I thought it would be. I know everyone says you need to play to your strengths, and that's one reason I was thinking of going back to 2D (as I have better 2D art skills). However a lot of people outsource their art, instead of trying that themselves. I may still outsource all of the 3D art, but there is a limit to my resources. ;)

I can work through issues with abilites. I can learn it or outsource it, either way that can be solved. So mostly, I was trying to get opinions on why a game ought to be 3D or 2D. Would a player like it better in 2D than 3D? I know some people really hate (or get sick) with a lot of 3D motion (especially with FPSes), so I used a camera that doesn't spin, though it still follows the mouse (3rd person player) around. Also, some don't like when they can't see the whole level on the screen a once (as in a side scroller). I could move the camera up so the whole level (or most of the level) is on the screen, and that could solve that. That is if the player wouldn't be too small to see anymore.

Here's a one level pre-alpha version of my game so far (http://www.monkeytimesoftware.com/MazeCrazedPreAlpha.zip [sorry no installer]) if anyone cares to look, and has an opinion on whether it should be 3D or 2D. The 3D art in there is definately not final. Again I emphasize this is just a PRE-ALPHA build (not much to it yet).

[Vorax]

This game has to be 3D. It's pretty cool. Obviously it needs work, but it's definetly got potential.

I don't think it would translate well to 2D, isometric maybe, but that's pretty much what it is now and it wouldn't make the art simpler.

[Dock]

I like the maze crazed game in 3D. Make the camera a little higher perhaps, but no reason to make it 2D, I think it would lose some of its charm.

One thing I've noticed since getting a laptop is exactly how much you have to cut down 3D to work on machines like this, without proper graphics cards. It looks great, but it's just quite slow. At least it means I have some sort of benchmark to test my work on. It's definitely true that with 3D its more tricky to draw the line in terms of technology used though, and that's a major thing to decide.

[Sharpfish]

My laptop is far more powerful than my desktop as it happens(!) so I have to use my desktop as a lower system check.

laptop: amd64 (3400) Mob Radeon 9700 (128mb DX9)

Desktop: Duron 800mhz (yes DURON! ;) ) gf4ti4200 (128mb) but I switch in an old Voodoo 5 PCI (with ms drivers) for an even lower check and so far so good (with my stuff requiring DX8,~16mbVram - 64mb ram and a CPU at 500mhz+).

We have another PC here with a 3200 CPU and a GF6800 for "uber testing" which eats my current game at around 600fps lol.

Anyway, it is tricky to optimise 3D as there is far more to take into account than just texture memory, but I think we are slowly moving towards most lower end users having some form of 3D acceleration and a LOT of them with DX8 (through having to update to XP for broadband in a lot of cases or because it comes with new PCs). Though my sister has a 2 year old PC that is one of those crappy "cpu speed boasters" that is filled with garbage. on the case was a sticker (1.X ghz!!!) in big letters, it sounded good to someone who knew nothing about computers. Unfortunatly it didn't advertise quite so loudly that it was 1.xghz on a celeron and that it had rubbish/low ram AND built in on board gfx with near zero capabilitys. It runs OGL in fallback (software) mode and won't run D3D at all (even though she has XP SP2 DX9).
And there must be a lot of these computers out there bought by this demographic, (30 something female with a couple of kids). IT may just need some decent drivers for it, I haven't really ever looked in detail but it doesn't look promising. :(