Sunday, October 07, 2007
2D or Not 2D - That Is The Question
There's a discussion on indiegamer about whether or not 3D is worthwhile for indie games. It seems these days 99% of indie games do not use 3D graphics, but stay in the more retro realm of 2D, sprite-based graphics. Why don't we see more 3D games coming out of the indies? Papillon, AKA Georgina, the author of Cute Knight, has some very strong opinions against 3D graphics. As a 3D game junkie from the days when it was all vector-graphics and novelty, and a veteran of the mainstream game biz, I'm used to the assumption that the extra "D" is just automatically superior.Among hardcore gamers, maybe. But in the indie realm, everything is much more subject to negotiation. So why isn't 3D more popular amongst indie games? Possible reasons cited:
#1 - 3D Graphics Are Hard
Not that 2D graphics are easy. But with 2D graphics, there are limits to what you can do with the graphics before it really doesn't make much difference to the player. A couple of talented artists can do just as well as a team of 100 artists, aside from sheer quantity. But with 3D, you've may have an entire team of specialists required just to make each character. You need a geometry modeler, a texture artists, someone to do the rigging, and someone to do the animation. There's a lot more work (potentially) to do a 3D game, and players seem to be far less tolerant of weakness in 3D graphics than in 2D.
#2 - Casual Players Have Trouble With 3D
This is more of an issue for the casual than the indie "space", but casual gamers often have hardware that's not up to scratch to handle anything resembling modern 3D graphics, and they also have trouble dealing with 3D environments. I remember showing some non-gamer friends some 3D, first-person games in the early nineties, and having them ask me, "So... which one is me?" or "Where am I?"
#3 - The Players Who Appreciate 3D Graphics Won't Appreciate Budget 3D
The only people who really enjoy 3D graphics are busy playing Halo 3, Bioshock, Gears of War, and other big-budget 3D games right now. They don't have time for a 3D game that doesn't look current-gen (and if you are making a game on a budget, you aren't going to be looking current gen). So nobody who really gets into 3D graphics is going to enjoy a 3D indie game, anyway. They expect more of 3D graphics. The closer you approach realism, the more players will demand realism.
#4 - The Sales Don't Make a Difference.
As one developer comments in that thread, he created a game with significant 3D graphics that took him 2.5 years to develop, and it didn't sell any better than a 2D game (which presumably he developed in much less time). So why not stick with easier-to-develop 2D?
Counter-Arguments and Counter-Examples
So are we stuck in flat worlds amongst the indies from here on out?
It doesn't look like it. There are several 3D indie games that have done pretty well (particularly on the XBox 360... but that's a whole 'nother story). And while it may be impossible to compete with highly realistic graphics or the sheer quantity of content, it IS possible to have "nice" 3D graphics that is within the grasp of a small indie team (see Outpost Kaloki).
Is the lack of tolerance for abstraction in 3D a legacy of the polygon wars of the last dozen years or so? Can players learn to appreciate 3D graphics that don't push state-of-the-art? There are some very clear advantages to 3D over 2D, particularly when it comes to camera angles and animation.
As a player, can you ever be satisfied with "budget" 3D? If so, would you prefer 2D over 3D graphics?
(Vaguely) related mutterings:
* Are Graphics Really Killing Gameplay?
* Give 2D a Chance
* Do Game Genres Die?
* Simplicity and Subject Matter
Hey, we can even talk about it on the forum!
Labels: Indie Evangelism
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:01 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
3D is bigger, too, I'd suspect. A 64x64 sprite is smaller than a 8000 poly (with LODs) plus assorted 512x512 textures.
Actually, 3D can be a lot smaller than 2D. Imagine the number of sprites needed to have a character face eight directions and walk/run/jump/fight. The total size of those sprites will be far greater than the textures, vertex data and animation data of a (say) 250-poly animated model of the same character.
3D definitely has its place; lots of indies are discovering that using Direct3D to do animated 2D stuff like particles is very useful.
But in the end, "real" 3D - that is, 3D characters walking around in a 3D world - is hard and it just usually isn't necessary for what indies want to do.
When I wanted to learn 3D programming I deliberately picked a project that would be improved by real 3D rather than just tacking it on because it might look better. I think that's the right approach. Use it for what it's for and don't hate on it just because it's 3D.
3D definitely has its place; lots of indies are discovering that using Direct3D to do animated 2D stuff like particles is very useful.
But in the end, "real" 3D - that is, 3D characters walking around in a 3D world - is hard and it just usually isn't necessary for what indies want to do.
When I wanted to learn 3D programming I deliberately picked a project that would be improved by real 3D rather than just tacking it on because it might look better. I think that's the right approach. Use it for what it's for and don't hate on it just because it's 3D.
It reminds me of the old Star Trek games written on mainframes and later in 8-bit BASIC.
The 2D version is easy to do, and can easily fit in a 8-16k environment.
If you go 3D, though, just adding that extra axis complicates things enormously. Not the least of which is an acceptable display with ASCII characters.
The 2D version is easy to do, and can easily fit in a 8-16k environment.
If you go 3D, though, just adding that extra axis complicates things enormously. Not the least of which is an acceptable display with ASCII characters.
There are a lot of things where 3D does simplify if you are doing something that's not directly top-down or side-view. It can be awfully convenient to just put a camera there, orient an object here, and viola! It works.
But even if you are using an off-the-shelf engine... Void War was based (loosely) on the old 2D games Asteroids and Spacewar. The difference in required code and artwork for Void War compared to a competent, modern re-make of either game would be... staggering. I think I could get a 2D version of Void War done in a quarter of the time... and probably have it sell better.
I won't. But I think I could.
But even if you are using an off-the-shelf engine... Void War was based (loosely) on the old 2D games Asteroids and Spacewar. The difference in required code and artwork for Void War compared to a competent, modern re-make of either game would be... staggering. I think I could get a 2D version of Void War done in a quarter of the time... and probably have it sell better.
I won't. But I think I could.
I think the mentality of most Indie developers is that they have to create games for some special 'Indie crowd'.
Now making your game 2D for that crowd is fine as long as your game can fit into it. Forcing your game into 2D while it clearly can be done and played better in 3D world is a crime. Has anyone ever considered that those people running and drooling all over these so called 'next-gen' games are probably that 10% that spends thousands of dollars to spruce up their high end gaming rigs into REALLY HIGH END gaming monsters?
I have read so many comments from players talking about how they are more than willing to trade graphics for a good gameplay for a LOT of games. The best part is that these people are running machines with specs which are regarded as 'high-end' in the Indie scene.
"#2 - Casual Players Have Trouble With 3D"
I would never believe that unless someone can ask a million casual gamers out there what their system specs are. Hell, I'll take two thousand. Either way, if you use a low-end engine like TGE, anyone with a good integrated card will be able to play your game. I am sure most indie players have at least some integrated card in this age (if not, it's not worth wasting your time making game for this crowd, move on).
"#3 - The Players Who Appreciate 3D Graphics Won't Appreciate Budget 3D"
- I have played almost every high-end game out there including Bioshock. I still play and enjoy games like 'Master of Defense'. I guess that proves that players can appreciate average graphics as long as gameplay is worth it?
"#4 - The Sales Don't Make a Difference."
- Somehow it seems like an issue with gameplay and the theme of a game as well. Not to mention the part about whether or not if the game was publicised properly to the right crowd and also, if there IS a big enough crowd for that kind of game.
I love indie crowd. I want to BE one of them, developing and playing. But TBH, these are the types of games most Indie developers aim for (3D games there, though some of them in the list are really good games) when going 3D. What's the point? Stick to 2D in THAT case.
1. You DON'T have to make a 10 map 3D game just cause Valve does it (not like they do it any better).
2. You can make the game playable on low-end cards. You are indie developers for crying out loud. Give the player options to customize their games unlike those 'next-gen' console ports like Oblivion and BioShock.
3. You don't need 20 50 people to work on your game just cause it's 3D. You can do it with 5, 3 or even solo (being jack of all trades isn't for everyone though). So don't worry about this part and get some [b]really good[/b] (read=skilled) team-members instead of getting 10 people who consider Marble Wars to be some kind of epic game.
4.5.6....? Yeah, I can write a whole book on this subject but whatever. Discussions on net are like banging your head against brick wall.
Anyway, this is a noob rant in between all the pro crowd (I don't have a commercial game experience like the rest of you) and I know it will be ignored and will piss-off a lot of people but I posted it anyway :P
Now making your game 2D for that crowd is fine as long as your game can fit into it. Forcing your game into 2D while it clearly can be done and played better in 3D world is a crime. Has anyone ever considered that those people running and drooling all over these so called 'next-gen' games are probably that 10% that spends thousands of dollars to spruce up their high end gaming rigs into REALLY HIGH END gaming monsters?
I have read so many comments from players talking about how they are more than willing to trade graphics for a good gameplay for a LOT of games. The best part is that these people are running machines with specs which are regarded as 'high-end' in the Indie scene.
"#2 - Casual Players Have Trouble With 3D"
I would never believe that unless someone can ask a million casual gamers out there what their system specs are. Hell, I'll take two thousand. Either way, if you use a low-end engine like TGE, anyone with a good integrated card will be able to play your game. I am sure most indie players have at least some integrated card in this age (if not, it's not worth wasting your time making game for this crowd, move on).
"#3 - The Players Who Appreciate 3D Graphics Won't Appreciate Budget 3D"
- I have played almost every high-end game out there including Bioshock. I still play and enjoy games like 'Master of Defense'. I guess that proves that players can appreciate average graphics as long as gameplay is worth it?
"#4 - The Sales Don't Make a Difference."
- Somehow it seems like an issue with gameplay and the theme of a game as well. Not to mention the part about whether or not if the game was publicised properly to the right crowd and also, if there IS a big enough crowd for that kind of game.
I love indie crowd. I want to BE one of them, developing and playing. But TBH, these are the types of games most Indie developers aim for (3D games there, though some of them in the list are really good games) when going 3D. What's the point? Stick to 2D in THAT case.
1. You DON'T have to make a 10 map 3D game just cause Valve does it (not like they do it any better).
2. You can make the game playable on low-end cards. You are indie developers for crying out loud. Give the player options to customize their games unlike those 'next-gen' console ports like Oblivion and BioShock.
3. You don't need 20 50 people to work on your game just cause it's 3D. You can do it with 5, 3 or even solo (being jack of all trades isn't for everyone though). So don't worry about this part and get some [b]really good[/b] (read=skilled) team-members instead of getting 10 people who consider Marble Wars to be some kind of epic game.
4.5.6....? Yeah, I can write a whole book on this subject but whatever. Discussions on net are like banging your head against brick wall.
Anyway, this is a noob rant in between all the pro crowd (I don't have a commercial game experience like the rest of you) and I know it will be ignored and will piss-off a lot of people but I posted it anyway :P
Nikhil,
The crowd here spans everything from pro game developers to casual game players, and even a couple of folks who don't play many games at all. And IMO, your opinion is as valid as any - maybe even more so. I know for myself, I end up with a very biased viewpoint, and it's hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes.
For what it's worth, as a 3D game developer (partly because it's what I'm familiar with), I hope you are right :)
The crowd here spans everything from pro game developers to casual game players, and even a couple of folks who don't play many games at all. And IMO, your opinion is as valid as any - maybe even more so. I know for myself, I end up with a very biased viewpoint, and it's hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes.
For what it's worth, as a 3D game developer (partly because it's what I'm familiar with), I hope you are right :)
Want an alternate take on 3D? Look at Total Annihilation. One of the chief advantages TA enjoyed over competing real-time strategy games was that by going to simple 3D polygonal models, they were able to get higher performance and a reduced memory footprint compared to competing real-time strategy games that had to load zillions of sprites for every animation. This led to Total Annihilation enjoying popularity because it could do something the competition could not: have absolutely HUGE battles among immense number of units (for the time, 200+ per side) and not kill performance on modest machines.
There were no textures to speak of, just colored polygons. But it was dang cool and performed really well. Units climbing hills would be able to show different parts of their geometry, and in the day of very 2D flat-map-style terrain in RTS games, this was revolutionary.
Obviously, this was not an Indie title. It was a big-budget production with a symphonic soundtrack and superb gameplay. There exists a small but dedicated fanbase even today.
Nevertheless, I think that for certain situations, 3D can do the job better with more limited resources than 2D. Sure, maybe you have to forego 512x512 textures and 5,000 polygon models, but I think a market exists for just this kind of game. I've been waiting for a game which captures the "feel" -- huge battles, little micro-management, high performance on limited hardware -- of Total Annihilation for a long time. So far, it seems every developer has gone the opposite way toward more micro-management of resources and special units in smaller engagements.
Give me my huge battlefields littered with the hulks of thousands of units that can be reclaimed as salvage. Give me the never-ending BOOM of cannons and SQUEE of lasers as hordes upon hordes of units pour onto the battlefield, orchestrated in a symphony of destruction determined more by the skill of the player in choosing his forces and the field of engagement than in how fast he can click his mouse. Give me massive wars of attrition, where defenses are formidable and taking the territory of even the weakest foe requires a substantial investment of resources and not some lame cheap-unit rush.
I want the pounding grind of a thousand minions dispatched on a mission of destruction. I want the simple management of just a few renewable resources where the game never devolves into "chase the hero" with a handful of units. I want a game where it's possible to rebuild from even the most devastating loss as long as you can find a nice corner of the map to rebuild.
In short, I'd love another Total Annihilation-esque game, but updated to take advantage of the more powerful CPUs and memory we have ten years later. And with new gameplay, because TA had a few sore spots (Flash rush, anyone?) that were never addressed because the game studio that made it went out of business.
There were no textures to speak of, just colored polygons. But it was dang cool and performed really well. Units climbing hills would be able to show different parts of their geometry, and in the day of very 2D flat-map-style terrain in RTS games, this was revolutionary.
Obviously, this was not an Indie title. It was a big-budget production with a symphonic soundtrack and superb gameplay. There exists a small but dedicated fanbase even today.
Nevertheless, I think that for certain situations, 3D can do the job better with more limited resources than 2D. Sure, maybe you have to forego 512x512 textures and 5,000 polygon models, but I think a market exists for just this kind of game. I've been waiting for a game which captures the "feel" -- huge battles, little micro-management, high performance on limited hardware -- of Total Annihilation for a long time. So far, it seems every developer has gone the opposite way toward more micro-management of resources and special units in smaller engagements.
Give me my huge battlefields littered with the hulks of thousands of units that can be reclaimed as salvage. Give me the never-ending BOOM of cannons and SQUEE of lasers as hordes upon hordes of units pour onto the battlefield, orchestrated in a symphony of destruction determined more by the skill of the player in choosing his forces and the field of engagement than in how fast he can click his mouse. Give me massive wars of attrition, where defenses are formidable and taking the territory of even the weakest foe requires a substantial investment of resources and not some lame cheap-unit rush.
I want the pounding grind of a thousand minions dispatched on a mission of destruction. I want the simple management of just a few renewable resources where the game never devolves into "chase the hero" with a handful of units. I want a game where it's possible to rebuild from even the most devastating loss as long as you can find a nice corner of the map to rebuild.
In short, I'd love another Total Annihilation-esque game, but updated to take advantage of the more powerful CPUs and memory we have ten years later. And with new gameplay, because TA had a few sore spots (Flash rush, anyone?) that were never addressed because the game studio that made it went out of business.
wait, when have you seen someone force a concept into _2D_ that didn't belong there? it's generally the other way around... people thinking "3D is automatically better, it MUST be 3D!" without actually changing the gameplay so that the game works or is any fun in 3d...
# posted by 
: October 08, 2007 8:37 PM
: October 08, 2007 8:37 PM
Hey Matthew ---
You have played Supreme Commander, haven't you? That's the "spiritual sequel" to TA. I was a big fan of TA - I'm such a heretic that I actually preferred it over Starcraft!
But your point is well taken --- that was a game that used very simple 3D very well, and showed how it offered some really awesome advantages over 2D. The models had very few animations, but they moved very believably. The tanks and artillery recoiled from their shots, the aircraft banked and turned - it was all very smooth.
I was actually in a sister company at the time the game was released (we, like Humongous / CaveDog, were acquired by GT Interactive, which was later bought by Infogrammes, AKA Atari), and we met some of the developers at a "development summit" in Las Vegas. They were an awesome, very sharp bunch of guys with some great ideas. And they brought Ron Gilbert with them, which was always delightful. I seem to remember Bob Bates being there too (as part of Legend, another GT-owned company).
Alas, things started going sour shortly after that. Very sad...
You have played Supreme Commander, haven't you? That's the "spiritual sequel" to TA. I was a big fan of TA - I'm such a heretic that I actually preferred it over Starcraft!
But your point is well taken --- that was a game that used very simple 3D very well, and showed how it offered some really awesome advantages over 2D. The models had very few animations, but they moved very believably. The tanks and artillery recoiled from their shots, the aircraft banked and turned - it was all very smooth.
I was actually in a sister company at the time the game was released (we, like Humongous / CaveDog, were acquired by GT Interactive, which was later bought by Infogrammes, AKA Atari), and we met some of the developers at a "development summit" in Las Vegas. They were an awesome, very sharp bunch of guys with some great ideas. And they brought Ron Gilbert with them, which was always delightful. I seem to remember Bob Bates being there too (as part of Legend, another GT-owned company).
Alas, things started going sour shortly after that. Very sad...
I just found out about Supreme Commander yesterday. I don't know how I missed it! Probably because it wasn't on the shelf at Wal-Mart, and I haven't been following the new games scene (other than the upcoming Team Fortress 2 release) as closely as I used to...
On the buy list! Thanks!
Post a Comment
On the buy list! Thanks!
Links to this post:
<< Home
