Actually I had offered "(not-so-)old school" isometric graphics , so no Unity etc involves. I think it is easier to achieve than going full 3D, AAAs set bar too high for decent 3D graphics.

- Using 3D with fixed ortographic projection may look easier at first but I think even "manpower" required to make assets low-poly yet hq is much more work, you go high poly other way. (especially if you are not giant Swiss army knife)

Not in the design field, so I'm not going to chime in on that stuff, but as an artist I have to say that's actually kind of a big misconception.

A lot of people have said things along the lines of "Well, it'll be easier on you if it's 2D, right?", and at least in the context of me I can understand where the sentiment comes from. Most of what people see from me is 2D, so they're basing it off that. But as a generalized statement, 2D is not necessarily easier to achieve than 3D.

"Full 3D" means you don't have to draw/paint/pixel the same sprite from multiple angles if it doesn't work to just flip it, and if you made them in a modular way you can just scale up and down and move pieces to easily create new buildings that follow the same style/universal rules. They can even use the same texture sets!

Now, of course, you can make modular 2D assets, too, but hand drawing is a little more time-intensive. I should think having to draw different angles of near-everything, combined with the fact that scaling modular pieces can be near infuriating depending on the art style.

Additionally, at the scale of your generic "city simulation/tycoon" game, it would hide most all of the actually difficult 3D work, like hiding slightly iffy seams and the place where objects intersect (as you'll never really be close enough, even zoomed in).

The bar for 2D graphics is no lower than 3D, to be honest, and having worked with both, for something like this I'd pick 3D over 2D to work with any day. I also believe that a good 3D artist (eg: the one you should be hiring) wouldn't take anymore time to create a usable asset than a 2D artist.

Just my 2 cents.

- Using 3D with fixed ortographic projection may look easier at first but I think even "manpower" required to make assets low-poly yet hq is much more work, you go high poly other way. (especially if you are not giant Swiss army knife)

The difficulty is definitely in content-creation.

The reason why 3D is easier in some cases is because:
A) Making basic 3D models isn't too much harder than making 2D artwork (it's harder for me! But others find it easy enough).

B) With 2D, you have to draw each character at dozens of different angles... for dozens of different animations. With 3D, you have to rig and animate the model, but you don't need to draw each angle and make sure the angles are in proportion to each other - some developers even use 3D models and then render them to 2D sprites by rotating every 15 degrees or whatever, because it's easier than drawing each walk direction and gives a smoother result.

C) You get lighting and shadowing 'for free'. Lighting/shadowing is pretty much a solved 3D problem, and isn't hard to implement - a couple days work. Have the artists do all the lighting and shadowing in a 2D game is more manual labor.

D) You get heights for free. It's hard to do 2D heights because, depending on the nature of your game and the camera angles, it can be complicated to make it look good. Iso heights are easier, but still require more programming work and more artist work. 3D heights are basically "free".

E) If you pull the camera back far enough, it doesn't have to be really high-detailed polygon wise.

What I get from your reply is these type games are stuck between two worlds, too much for indies, too infeasible for big guys.

Less profitable for the very big guys, maybe. Definitely a large enough niche for the medium-sized studios to be occasionally interested.

I'm not saying the projects are too large for indies, I'm merely saying they have to either be interested in making them, or else they have to see financial profit in it. If they see two potential games to make: One that they are passionate about AND will likely be profitable, and one they are lukewarm about that will likely be profitable, they'll probably lean towards the one they are more passionate about.

It's definitely doable for indies to create games like that - they just need a reason to: If not passion, then money. They also need resources: Money, and time. The type of games are totally within reach of indies - even a solo developer or a small team of 3-5 - but they need a reason to make those type of games over other types, and the resources for development.

Actually I had offered "(not-so-)old school" isometric graphics , so no Unity etc involves. I think it is easier to achieve than going full 3D, AAAs set bar too high for decent 3D graphics.

- Using 3D with fixed ortographic projection may look easier at first but I think even "manpower" required to make assets low-poly yet hq is much more work, you go high poly other way. (especially if you are not giant Swiss army knife)

Not in the design field, so I'm not going to chime in on that stuff, but as an artist I have to say that's actually kind of a big misconception.

A lot of people have said things along the lines of "Well, it'll be easier on you if it's 2D, right?", and at least in the context of me I can understand where the sentiment comes from. Most of what people see from me is 2D, so they're basing it off that. But as a generalized statement, 2D is not necessarily easier to achieve than 3D.

"Full 3D" means you don't have to draw/paint/pixel the same sprite from multiple angles if it doesn't work to just flip it, and if you made them in a modular way you can just scale up and down and move pieces to easily create new buildings that follow the same style/universal rules. They can even use the same texture sets!

Now, of course, you can make modular 2D assets, too, but hand drawing is a little more time-intensive. I should think having to draw different angles of near-everything, combined with the fact that scaling modular pieces can be near infuriating depending on the art style.

Additionally, at the scale of your generic "city simulation/tycoon" game, it would hide most all of the actually difficult 3D work, like hiding slightly iffy seams and the place where objects intersect (as you'll never really be close enough, even zoomed in).

The bar for 2D graphics is no lower than 3D, to be honest, and having worked with both, for something like this I'd pick 3D over 2D to work with any day. I also believe that a good 3D artist (eg: the one you should be hiring) wouldn't take anymore time to create a usable asset than a 2D artist.

Just my 2 cents.

I couldn't agree more when it comes to pixel perfect "drawn" assets, but considering you'll use rendered 3D models from a fixed camera angle, you have all good parts of going full 3D , just you may have issues to create asset on-the-fly.

Less profitable for the very big guys, maybe. Definitely a large enough niche for the medium-sized studios to be occasionally interested.

I'm not saying the projects are too large for indies, I'm merely saying they have to either be interested in making them, or else they have to see financial profit in it. If they see two potential games to make: One that they are passionate about AND will likely be profitable, and one they are lukewarm about that will likely be profitable, they'll probably lean towards the one they are more passionate about.

It's definitely doable for indies to create games like that - they just need a reason to: If not passion, then money. They also need resources: Money, and time. The type of games are totally within reach of indies - even a solo developer or a small team of 3-5 - but they need a reason to make those type of games over other types, and the resources for development.

In fact, that's mostly what I am trying to say. From my business POV, a moderate entrance barrier that leads to lesser competition is a big advantage. And I believe it is lucrative.

I have a guess: although many game designers like strategy games, maybe for all of them another genre is more their favorite. Strategy games are playable, they are fun but not awe-inspiring, they are middle of the road like an SUV, not sexy like a Camaro nor adorable like a VW Beetle or quirky like a Plymouth Prowler or 'manly' like a big pickup truck or a Humvee. When I was involved with a group of volunteer gamedevs voting on what genre of game to make, strategy was the compromise vote-winner, but as soon as it was announced many people left the group because they were not enthusiastic enough about the genre to want to make one.

I have a guess: although many game designers like strategy games, maybe for all of them another genre is more their favorite. Strategy games are playable, they are fun but not awe-inspiring, they are middle of the road like an SUV, not sexy like a Camaro nor adorable like a VW Beetle or quirky like a Plymouth Prowler or 'manly' like a big pickup truck or a Humvee. When I was involved with a group of volunteer gamedevs voting on what genre of game to make, strategy was the compromise vote-winner, but as soon as it was announced many people left the group because they were not enthusiastic enough about the genre to want to make one.

Sorry for not being able to reply before.

Pity I see a pattern especially in newcomers that they usually come for "FPS". I tend to believe because it is perceived as simpler. No super solid story like an RPG or adventure, no mechanics like strategy , plain " let's kill each other ".

Why people look for too ambitious goals ( next CoD , next WoW )

Let's not mistake two things. What people, who never made any game, say they want to make and what indies actually finish and deliever. Basicly no one makes FPS or MMORPGs, there is just a horde of "wannabe designers" who desire to make one of these. It's a false impression.

As for strategies, I was having a discussion about this with other indies and the conclusion was that this genre is very hard to make. Traditional strategy come with two flavours, 4X and RTS, both are resource killers. That being said there are always exceptions, for example the bulk of my income come from strategy+MMO mix so far, but... that's far, far from a typical traditional strategy game we are talking about.

(if you look at my topics, where I try to design strategy games, you will notice the huge amount of dirty tricks and simplifications I try to make :D)

Another reason could be simply a lack of interest. Let's face it, majority of people don't like strategy games and don't play them, why would it be different for developers?

(not that I understand it, I LOVE strategies a lot very much)