Is there like a special reason for starting with 2d or just couse its easier? do you learn anything usefull in 2d games if you are to programm 3d games?

Personally, I''m developping my first game, and I use 2D too. I take care to split my game in two main parts, the first being the game itself and the second being the display part. Of course it is not easy, sometimes I can''t, but I think that when my game is finished, it will be a good challenge to make it become 3D.

In fact I don''t want to have too much difficulty for my first game, so the few 2D routines I have developped allow me to spend more time on the game, I mean characters, events and so on. I''m affraid 3D would be a too big step for the beginner I am, and I absolutely want to finish that game.

3d i not too hard. I started out with it. Unless you count one game i mad in qbasic that had some lines and circles for people. Just read through some nehe tutorials and you should be fine if you want to get into 3d. You can start by modifying the code that is there so you learn a little bit at a time and eventually you will realize you know how all of the code works. At least that happened to me.

If you want to finish your first game, I''d say that 2D would work out better.

While it is not necessary to make a 2d game first, you gain a lot of "XP" (get it??). A lot of the problems you face in a two d game you will face in a 3d game but with the 3 d. So starting with a (AND FINSIHING AND POLISHING) a two d game is the way to go. IMHO!

The fact that you''re asking this means you have no idea about the difference.

2D is a small subset of required 3D knowledge. Learn it first and you''ll have less of a huge amount to take in at once if you go 3D.

Helpful links:
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way | Google can help with your question | Search MSDN for help with standard C or Windows functions

There''s no such thing as a "3D" game. Last time I looked, monitors and TVs were still 2D planar surfaces onto which images are rendered. Ergo, all games are 2D.

(There is some debate as to whether an engine designed to render 3D models onto a 2D surface should be called a "3D" graphics engine. As a linguistics nut and professional pedant, I''m with the folks who say Quake III is a 2D engine.

If you''re learning about graphics programming, it is usually easier to start with 2D. 2D graphics programming is conceptually easier than working with 3D data. There''s no conversion of the data required, so the relationships between your game objects -- spaceships, aliens, wildlife-crushing-Italian-plumber, collectable coins, etc. -- are very clear.

3D models are harder to render because of the conversion work needed to fake the third dimension convincingly on a 2D display.

To be honest, whether you start with 2D or 3D is ultimately up to you: if you don''t enjoy 2D games at all, start with 3D. It''s not _that_ much harder to get something up and running. The more advanced stuff takes a lot of effort, but to be honest, most of the difficulty in programming these days comes from understanding the API''s own architecture.

Experiment. See what comes easiest. Enjoy.

--
Sean Timarco Baggaley

i still disagree. There is nothing wrong with making your first game 3d. If you face the same problems, it wouldnt really matter which you were using.
While learning 3d stuff you learn anything you need to know about 2d stuff. There is plenty of 3d stuff to learn that is just as easy as 2d.
Im not saying go out and make a fps for your first game. but, there are plenty of simple games you can make with 3d graphics.

If your goal is good 3d graphics I think it would be better to start with simple 3d graphics, instead of learning a completely different api for 2d. I dont know what this guy is talking about when he says 2d is a subset of 3d. You use different apis for each.

Time comparison to completion of first 3d game

learning 2d first:
learn2dapi + write2dGame + (learn3dapi - stuffAlreadyLearnedFrom2d) + write3dgame

starting learning 3d:
learn3dapi + write3dgame

note: I did this path and it DOES work.

stimarco- that''s really stretching it.

It''s like saying windows isn''t really what it is because there are no "windows". Or saying that artifical intelligence isn''t intelligence because it''s artifical thus it''s not able to learn.

And yes it is a 3d engine in every sense of the word. Your developing a code base that is able to handle and algorithmically handle 3d based math equations. The fact that you see it on a 2-d surface doesn''t take away from the fact that it is still processing 3d. Same arguement could be made with OO- programing.

Stimarco:

have you heard of shutter glasses, stereoscopes, etc. You can view these games in 3d if you want. most people dont have the hardware, but that doesnt make them 2d.

If i have a black and white tv. does that mean my broadcaster is broadcasting in black and white? No.