[quote name='Radnen' timestamp='1324704074' post='4897012']I guess I'll prototype the two styles see which I like best and go from there. Prototyping I have came to find out is going to be my best friend.

That's completely insane, you can't make 2 completely different prototypes to see if 2D or 3D is better That's a total waste of time and resources.
[/quote]

I uhh, think you're a tad bit crazy? I mean, the game will always be in 2D. But the question was to use 3D models or not. As in I've thus far prototyped just a 2D scene. I think anyone can do tat without too much effort or resources.

Okay I guess you need to see what kind of game I'm making. I'll attach a screenshot. This is with a 3D model, and I like it. My brother and I are the only developers and we have zero money to spend. But, I have used a top down 2D image and while the game can still be fun I think players will enjoy seeing more than one face when they control their spaceship. This approach is graphic intensive but I want to relive those old era of space games that weren't 100% 3D. I found completely 3D games to be complex or confusing and you saw too much cockpit and not enough spaceship and more often than not have some technical issues with rendering or graphics cards.

Prototyping made this a reality, btw. (Yes the ship is too big and the cursor almost too small, but that'll all get softened out later).

I have researched these games a lot and realize where their faults are at. Yes, gameplay is essential, but an ugly game?[/quote]
Lastly, just few more things. First, how about reconsidering that logic? Maybe you assume so. Second. the 2D or 3D problem is solved with the gameplay you're designing(especially, in this case). Say, if you want a enemy to hide in shadow and make the player move around for finding it, you should build the game in above 2D. But you just have been worried that yours look cool or not so everyone says "suit yourself." I believe the video game falls into art and any curved line in a picture or statue has meaning. To me, you seem to lack of a sense of "perfection" to your own game.

To me, you seem to lack of a sense of "perfection" to your own game.

Hey, I'm glad I lack perfection! A perfectionist would not get anything done, as is the dilemma. I think the style I'm going for is okay. My brother likes this 3D 3/4'ths view and if he's comfortable with that then I am. I'm just trying to strike a balance between 2D and 3D. Because this game is not strictly 3D, it's more 2.5D, (everything is pre-rendered 3D).

I think the biggest pro is that most of my designs for gameplay will remain the same if I go for this 3/4'ths view. So I'm getting the best of both worlds. Otherwise if I had a free Z-axis, then barrel rolls and other dogfight mechanisms would have to come into play and I'm not sure I wanted that for this game. I mean the Z axis itself is a huge gameplay consideration! So this 2.5D has the illusion of a Z axis but I don't have to actually do anything with it. This was one of my initial worries.

Oh, so you have a separate background and models on top of it. Then technical considerations are of low importance, since you could pull it off both ways... I would go with the preferences of your artist then.

If you go 3D route then you should make the backround 3D as well. It has several advantages (lighting, a bit of movement, consitency), I think, as a player, I would prefer it that way. And it costs you almost nothing since it is a separate background rendered separately.

So the game objects will exist in a 2D plane regardless?

Top-down 2D view: best possible perception of the locations, relationships and distances of the game objects. Particularly important in an action game, and whenever the player is in direct control of something.

Isometric view: more opportunity to give the objects visual "character". Many types of objects become easier to recognize, and can be made to feel more concrete or personal (which may or may not be desirable for the game design) when viewed in 3/4ths perspective.

This is a design decision, not to be left for an artist.

That said, I think 2D is still viable, but not as a downloadable game.

2d is absolutely still viable for downloadable games, as evidenced by Braid, World of Goo, Gish, Plants Vs. Zombies and a great many other recent successful titles.

The important thing is to make a game that looks good and is fun to play, and neither 2d or 3d graphics are inherently better for that purpose.

Some games are suited to more complex graphics, whilst other games are better off with simpler visuals -- again, neither 2d or 3d are inherently better.


If neither strikes you as more suitable to the gameplay than the other I would look at what you're more easily able to produce -- you've mentioned that 2d graphics would be easier for you to work with, and as the programmer that may (or may not necessarily) be true, but you also have to take the skills of your artist in to account. If he's pushing for 3d he's probably more experienced with producing 3d graphics, and it may be more work or take significantly longer for him to produce 2d graphics instead.

I must agree with previous speakers. 2D or 3D graphics is not the right question to ask.
At least not after you decided that the gameplay will be in 2D.

You should strive to make your game appealing, and if you, with the resources at hand, can do this best with 2D, 3D, or a mix of the two, you should choose what makes the game looks best. And this depends on both the programmers, and the artist experience, more then anything else.

I would not say that 2D would make up for a faster production time. Spriting especially is a time consuming art style. And if you see what people can do with zbrush or mudbox these days. They spit out a couple of awesome models in the time a good spriter can do a single frame on a 64*64 sprite. Well yeah you have to build, rig and texture a model but once thats done animating, arming or equipping it is easy.

As for your question, i think 2D games are amazing. They can be as deep and beautiful as a 3D game.

I faced this question too in my final year of undergrad. There was a group-based game project, and I think everybody did flash except for my group, because I took the lead and insisted on a 3D engine - I also thought "go big or go home" at the time. I did this despite one of my friends pushing for a 2D game instead. 3D was a lot of work, and maybe a 2D engine would've been better - I don't know. We allowed this to get in the way and I honestly feel that it allowed the gameplay to suffer. In short, your brother is flat-out wrong.

But to raise the flag for 2D here... there are so many great games that have come out recently in 2D. For one example... Bastion. That game looked good in 2D and the storyline and gameplay was just so much fun, I was blown away by it. 3D wouldn't have added anything to the game. It just depends on what you want, but I don't think that anybody would pick a dull 3D game over a fun 2D game.