3D, a lost battle?

[AJirenius]

Ok, this IS my first attempt trying to create ANYTHING that could even be commercial functional and would appeal to the "casual market" but now that I'm making more and more progress with the game I also start to play more and more casual games out there and realize that I STILL haven't played a game using any 3D at all yet.

Now I look at my creation and wonder if it's any use trying to create a title that would be interesting for the bigger portals out there.

If interested in trying out the concept idea you might find it here
http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=9902

but i would rather have you bring up the discussion why the casual game market really doesn't consider 3D games and if it's even worth the energy pushing a title like this into the market.

regards
Andreas Jirenius

[Agent 4125]

There's a difference between 3D graphics and 3D gameplay. Zuma, I think, used 3D balls but it's obviously a 2D playfield. Kudos is similar example.

Casual users would probably have a rough time navigating a 3D world. At least until someone releases a successful casual FPS and everyone jumps on that bandwagon.

Anyway, just judging by your screenshots, I don't think you'd have a problem. In fact, the 3D-ness would probably make it stand out in a good way.

[Applewood]

Yours definitely isn't a 3D game. Not really anyway.

You don't have to move a camera about or have a sense of direction/aiming which I'm sure is what the people who regard casual players as somehow retarded are referring to I'm sure. (My mother-in-law who started gaming several years ago, aged 72, loves playing mario kart for starters.) You just have to keep it simple to control - mouse buttons only would be good, and keep camera spinning to a minimum.

My main worry would only be compatibility. I'd stick to DX8 or maybe DX7 for something like your title and just make it look all it can be.

DX9 is actually fairly safe wrt buggy drivers if you use the shader pipeline (it's the fixed-function pipeline that exposes most driver crapness), but for that you can run into people who haven't got it and don't want to get it. DX8 comes on XP by default. DX7 comes on Win98 by default but tbh I'd ignore that and stick with DX8 which at least is much easier to setup and hence again less likely to suffer terminal driver bugs.

If you're really worried about drivers and all that shit, there's a few software renderers about last time I looked. Or there's definitely lots of good triangle plotting tuts about, which is 90% of the problem in writing your own.

As a side note, if your gameplay is as good as your mock-up visuals, you should get this onto XBLA - you'll make enough to retire on. Or I'll do it and split the proceeds with you. :cool:

[DrWilloughby]

Think about your market. If they wouldn't care about the difference between 2d and 3d, make it 2d, your development time will be a third.

In my case, I was trying to compete with Zoo Tycoon and other big budget Tycoon games, so 3D was a necessity. Also, I had 6 years experience working in 3D games as an engineer on big budget titles. If my situation had been any different I would have been dumb to make a 3D game.

[ragdollsoft]

Think about your market. If they wouldn't care about the difference between 2d and 3d, make it 2d, your development time will be a third.

Very true. Good 3D assets are much harder to make than good 2D ones, and good 3D gameplay is much harder to achieve than good 2D gameplay. Also in 2D stylized graphics is ok, in 3D you often clash against the ultra-realistic big-budget competitors.

[MrQ]

There are a few succesfull 3d casual games out there, It can be done and I think it will become more and more accepted as the industry progresses. To me it seems like the natural progression for casual games and I think we will start to see more and more 3d and less 2d as the industry (and requirements) grow.

[Genimo]

I like your game, I think it has potential, but I think you have to "fix" the control scheme. I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with it but it does not feel as fluid as in Chuzzle.

As for DirectX 7 and 3D I would not worry about it too much, my game Butterfly Escape, is using DirectX 8, "realtime" 3D models and animations and I may hit a driver issue here and there but overall it's been doing OK, by my standards anyways, with average conversion rate of about 1% across AOL, BigFishGames, TryMedia and Reflexive (for some reason it is getting extremely low conversion rate on Oberon network)

[AJirenius]

The game I'm creating is based on DirectX 7 and have no fancy shaders whatsoever. Still as you mention it is always harder to make fluent controlsystem in 3D and as I've rebuilt the control system twice already I cannot think of anything easier than I have now.

So what you are saying is that it's mostly a time/energy issue and that the developers usually choose to achieve their goal in 2D just because it is easier and faster to finish the product that way? Any portal affiliates that could give us a view on this?

[Emmanuel]

As far as actual 3D games are concerned:

Travelogue 360 paris (http://www.bigfishgames.com/downloads/travelogue360paris/index.html) is a breakaway hit (although with simpler 3D than your game, and a fixed camera);
Tumblebugs (http://www.bigfishgames.com/downloads/tumblebugs/index.html) was a breakaway hit two years ago as well (and looks like it uses actual 3D balls).
Master of Defense (http://www.bigfishgames.com/downloads/masterofdefense/index.html) did well too.
A lot of games, including the ones in my signature, also use a "2D in 3D" engine such as blitz, ptk or popcap (some have a software rendering fallback, but we don't really know if that helps or not). We don't really care about the tech as long as it's a good, accessible game that doesn't make the players feel lost or seasick.

Best regards,
Emmanuel

[tolik]

This week we are coming out with a launch of our casual game with full 3D gameplay which is super-accessible.
We've gone through the same hassle you went over past _years_ of development to have truly super-accessible product.
We've played dozens of games that were over-complicated because they tried to bring true 3D gameplay dynamics into casual gaming world.

Your game is not really 3D -- Cubology (this one is even more 3D than ours, but it's less casual) and even Cubis has "more 3D gameplay" than Cryptex. Cryptex of Time is a super-complicated version of Pokemon's Puzzle League featuring 3D mode (which is explicitly patented BTW). I don't see problems with using 3D in your game, you've got real problems with the control scheme and accessibility.

You should get Pokemon Puzzle League for Nintendo 64 and see how you could simplify the game and make it accessible.
I would still be worried about potential intervention with their patent which is very similar to your game. I've seen a similar game to yours in the past years, but it had worse production value.

[AJirenius]

Well, tolik. I actually don't know if I need to be worried in a development market like this.

Honestly Im not a casual gamer myself and have not touched anything like this before so I can surely say that I havent seen any game with my concept. But then again this IS the world of neverending flood of clones. I would be really really surprised if I were to stumble apon serious legal actions, but then again I know that especially Nintendo is very harsch about their IP.

I will check the game out though.

[cam]

You can check our title Space Trader at http://www.playspacetrader.com. It's an FPS action trading game aimed at the casual and hardcode market. It has full 3d navigation and combat, however, you can also play just fine without moving around in 3d or shooting stuff.

We're in beta right now feel free to sign up and give it a go.

Cameron Tofer
HermitWorks Enterainment

[Bmc]

To me it seems like the natural progression for casual games and I think we will start to see more and more 3d and less 2d as the industry (and requirements) grow.

Not so sure about that.

[AJirenius]

tolik: I checked the pokemon puzzle league out now and honestly the only similarities with that game and mine was that in 3D mode the cubes were placed in a cylinder shape.

It had more in common with all the "swap 2 pieces with each other and match 3" games that mine so now I'm not worried at all.

I know that this thread was intended to discuss the whereabout of 3D but as weve mentioned controls so far I just wonder what specifically you think is wrong with the controls in my game. Is it:

1: the pointer does not follow the cube you pressed exactly but have another "speed" than the rotated star?

2: hard to click the correct cube

3: hard to see if you're placing the star correctly?

As I've played it now for so long I cannot tell but you surely can.

[tolik]

The easiest way to figure out problems is:
Give it to your mom/dad/girlfriend if they haven't seen it and DO NOT EXPLAIN A SINGLE THING. Write down their questions, do not help them. Think about it then and give them 1 tip per 5 minutes.

The game is not clear from the first click. It's counter-intuitive and doesn't follow "I've expected that" behaviors. It's really hard to explain what's wrong, a lot of people in the original thread suggested to completely revamp the control system to something that is used in other proven games.

[AJirenius]

tolik: if you continue reading my original post you will also see that I took all their advices and rebuilt the control system. It was a whole other system before. Or maybe you do have the old version of my game?

[tolik]

I'm going to send you a private message.

[fmsoftware]

I hope 3D isn't a lost battle - we're about to release a 3D casual game.
It does use plain OpenGL without any extensions or shaders. So hopefully it should run on most machines.

[~LK~]

To me it seems like the natural progression for casual games and I think we will start to see more and more 3d and less 2d as the industry (and requirements) grow.


I would agree with this almost completely, though I think there will always be a nitch for 2D regardless; it's just a matter of time. But then, I have issue with the term "casual Game" to begin with because it almost sounds... derogatory I suppose to me.

Main Entry: 1ca·su·al

1 : subject to, resulting from, or occurring by chance <a casual meeting>
2 a : occurring without regularity : OCCASIONAL <casual employment> b : employed for irregular periods <a casual worker> c : met with on occasion and known only superficially <a casual friend>
3 a (1) : feeling or showing little concern : NONCHALANT <a casual approach to cooking> (2) : lacking a high degree of interest or devotion <casual sports fans> <casual readers> (3) : done without serious intent or commitment

Well.. I guess employed for irregular periods might work, but the rest aren't things I want associated with my work lol. Sorry for off-topic.