what is easier to make in your opinion, 2D or 3D games?

[Weegee]

Choose what you think would be easier to make and why. If you can show some similarities and differances from each other that show why your pick is easier to make. If you give a good reason I'll gladly give you +rep

 

[Glivee]

I think 2D cause youre just working on 2 axis (Width Height) instead of 3 axis (X Y Z, Width Height and Depth)

Maybe that is not complicated for the wellknown of modelling (im useless at that )
And for the guys that find Terraining the least fun in making games i think 2D is the way to go. Your artistic skills wont matter that much in a 2D game as in a 3D?

 

[Ozzdog]

3D is harder to design graphically, but its also hard to think up something fresh and new that hasn't been done on 2D.

 

[duyen]

I have trouble making 2d graphics. 3d the graphics would be easier to make for me but coding a 3d game is a pain.

That's why you use Id tech 4.

 

[Darthfett]

3D Disadvantages:
-Math/Physics. It's a lot more complicated when you have to determine whether something is going to get hit by something. Collision for 2-D is simpler.
-Models. Not everyone can make models, and they take more time than making pictures do. Plus, you have to make the skins for those models as well as the animations.

2D Disadvantages:
-Gameplay. Often, you have to have great gameplay to make up for the graphics not being the top of the line. This means you have to think more, and probably code more.

3D Advantages:
-3D games are fun to play and generally don't have to have a ton of depth. This is pretty easy to see in racing games and shooters, as they don't have much to them besides the math/physics.

 

[Weegee]

well those were all good explenations so +rep to all posters (as many as I can +rep)

Thanks for the votes and explenations. I am choosing between making my game 2D or 3D :thup:

 

[Varine]

2D is way easier to make because you're working with sprites, not three dimensional objects, so you don't have to worry about making a ton of animations that revolve around three axises, rather just two. In 3D pretty much everything will need to be made in 3D since you can go around it, whereas in 2D it's all just sprites and images. However, in 2D the gameplay is generally incrediably repetative and often extremely linear, making it not so much fun.

 

[BlowingKush]

In 3D pretty much everything will need to be made in 3D since you can go around it, whereas in 2D it's all just sprites and images.

Wow. thanks for clearing that up. I try to go around 2d images all the time but never can make it work.



3D is substantially easier to program in. Most editors allow you to chart vertice movement using motion charts that make even the simplest movements nothing more than setting start and stop keys, and dragging your motion across a given set of frames. You don't have to modify the sprites everyframe, and you don't have to redo every sprite if you decide to change a texture. I use 3ds max 5.0 with blizzard's Art pack. It is a wonderful thing.
Also when using 3d models it is much more simple to add new weapons, change scaling, or create physics effects without having to alter the entire sprite sequence.

 

[gameman]

Well how about the slight cross of 'Doom I'? Its not only partly 2D, but the 2D objects act as if there in a 3d world. The scaling and shrinking sprites adds depth and adds to the illusion.

 

[Varine]

3D is substantially easier to program in. Most editors allow you to chart vertice movement using motion charts that make even the simplest movements nothing more than setting start and stop keys, and dragging your motion across a given set of frames. You don't have to modify the sprites everyframe, and you don't have to redo every sprite if you decide to change a texture. I use 3ds max 5.0 with blizzard's Art pack. It is a wonderful thing.
Also when using 3d models it is much more simple to add new weapons, change scaling, or create physics effects without having to alter the entire sprite sequence.

That's not programming.

Well how about the slight cross of 'Doom I'? Its not only partly 2D, but the 2D objects act as if there in a 3d world. The scaling and shrinking sprites adds depth and adds to the illusion.

I think that the world itself was made in 3D, but it had no Z-buffer. Might be wrong, I'll look it up.
But that would be an option if you didn't want to make a ton of 3D geometry because that's really time consuming, whereas with sprites it's really not that hard to do if you can draw and have good mental imagery. There might be programs now that make it even easier. It's also more limiting though.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

I wouldn't necessarily call this easy to program, would you?

[YOUTUBE]HswqpDxBe1A[/YOUTUBE]

Or this

[YOUTUBE]PP-mePr1-ZQ&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Varine]

It all depends on what you're using, Phoenix. It's definately not 'easy' to do, but it's totally manageable. The hardest part, I think anyway, I'm sure it's relative to the person, about 2D is animating the sprites since you have to make so many and put them into orders, whereas in 3D it's all together already since you can usually do it in orders, like in Warcraft, but it's also confusing because you're adding an extra dimension to it and you have to take into account and you're seeing a 2D image of it on the screen. It just depends (and on that second on, all of that glittery stuff is sprites, all that's really being programed with that is the movement of them which isn't the hardest thing to do. A lot of engines will be made so that you can do most of it with a GUI system).

What kind of game are you thinking about doing, Dragon?

 

[Genkora]

2D is way easier to make because you're working with sprites, not three dimensional objects, so you don't have to worry about making a ton of animations that revolve around three axises, rather just two. In 3D pretty much everything will need to be made in 3D since you can go around it, whereas in 2D it's all just sprites and images. However, in 2D the gameplay is generally incrediably repetative and often extremely linear, making it not so much fun.

Ever play any old fps? Marathon or Doom are good examples. 2D images running around a 3D world. Makes me miss the good old days.

But if you want to make a game 2D, you are pretty much limited to platformers if you want it to be any good, I'd say RPGs too, but I think they have moved past being 2D. Unless you count Paper Mario, but that's kinda like the 2D in 3D sort of thing. Paper Mario games are awesome by the way.

 

[Varine]

Ever play any old fps? Marathon or Doom are good examples. 2D images running around a 3D world. Makes me miss the good old days.

Yeah, fun times. But I would probably just make a 3D game rather than combine them. If he's making an FPS, he would best go with 3D; platformer, 2D would probably be better. If he's making an RPG, it just depends on how he's doing it.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Both of my examples are not platformers or 2d RPGs.

 

[Varine]

Both of my examples are not platformers or 2d RPGs.

Those were just examples. Fighting games and scrollers aren't that hard to do, they generally use pretty basic scripts that could probably be done using GUI scripting, which a lot of 2D games use now.

 

[swe_suffer]

If you are good with mathematics and are decent with modeling/skinning/animation I whould go for 3d - I think it will be more rewarding then a 2d game. (in gamedeveloping aspect)

But ofcource thats me