Quote:Original post by DJ14IVI3 I'd say go with 2D. I'm of the opinion that 3D should be reserved for the games that really need it, like FPS, because pushing 3D into games that have no need for it acomplishes nothing apart from raising system requirements. |
2D art uses up a lot more memory. 3D art can stretch the detail from plastic 30 poly objects to the tessellated objects that you use to make your rendered backgrounds. The plastic looking models are much easier on the hardware than high resolution 2D images.
The 2D memory will really be eaten up with large rendered backgrounds. But it should be okay as long as only medium sized areas are visible at a time, or images are tiled, or something similar.
Quote:Besides, you can never have polygonal models with the level of detail of 2D sprites. |
Sprite detail is defined by pixel resolution. Model detail is defined by the number of polygons and texture resolution. But there are no detail limits for either. I've seen some really nice looking low-res models that look nearly identical to a rendered image, especially when zoomed out to overhead view.
Quote:The downside of 2D is that it's much more work for the artist. |
That's normally extremely true, but most of the work saved by going 3D is in animation. Since his objects will be 3D, he won't lose a lot of that. It might even be easier on artists to make a rendered background than fully implementing a rotatable environment. Most of the really huge advantage of 3D graphics is in the character animation, which is dirt cheap and very flexible.