• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
work_op

3D Voxels vs 2.5D Rotating Axonometric

3 posts in this topic

I am getting ready to jump into my first game with Clojure. I have some programming experience under my belt, and I'm relatively comfortable with everything. 

 

Anyways, I am going to be creating a hex-tiled JRPG-esque party-oriented crawler. That's a mouthful. Basically "Pokemon Mystery Dungeon" meets "Final Fantasy" on hex tiles.

 

What I'm wondering is how I should handle tiling. I'm new to graphical programming so I'm curious if it will be easier to have a 3D setup and learn to love LWJGL with hexagonal voxels, or if I should try and do something easier like axonometric perspective. The nice thing about 2.5D is that I could texture stuff easily and rotate it smoothly because in axonometric games, everything is depth-sorted relative to the screen. That way, regardless of what's on screen, whatever is closest to the bottom is "closest"

 

underrail.jpg

 

That image is a good example. If I were to rotate that 180 degrees, that inside corner would be closest and would be depth sorted appropriately.

 

My question is simple: which is going to be faster on economy PCs? I want something that everybody can access. With 3D, I can control the draw distance easily, so I wouldn't have to worry about writing all the rotation code, and I could prob run it on slower rigs, but it seems like it would also be fast to just depth sort what is essentially a bunch of sprites. With 2.5D, I don't have as much computational overhead at first glance, but whenever the player rotates, I have to redraw and re-sort everything.

 

Please weigh in on this, if you have a second.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 3D all the depth handling is done with the depth buffer, essentially for free.

 

In 2.5D you have do it on the cpu.

 

So in the general case I would expect 3D to be faster. Of course there are lot's of clever programming tricks you can do to counteract this.

 

You can have a depth buffer in 2D and draw front to back (reducing the actual number of pixel writes ) for example.

 

Really I would just pick the one you WANT to program and get on with it. The power of the target devices is far less important than your own motivation and enjoyment.

 

If we were to say to you "what you need to do is this , that, twiddle this, depth sort the other" and you hate it, the game isn't going to get coded.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what game you make, or what PC it is. Use what you have to work with.

 

Even an (old) school laptop has a strong enough GPU these days to do some fancy computations on.

Old DX9/GL2.1 has depth/Z buffers, mesh streaming and shaders and everything else you need. Please use them. =)

 

No question: Use the rendering API of your choice. There is only as many dimensions as the vectors and matrices you use.

What is 2.5d even? Ordered sprites? Painters algorithm?

 

Keep in mind that you will have overdraw if you draw back to front.

With a depth buffer and front to back you prevent some, if not all, overdraw.

Edited by Kaptein
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 3D all the depth handling is done with the depth buffer, essentially for free.

 

In 2.5D you have do it on the cpu.

 

So in the general case I would expect 3D to be faster. Of course there are lot's of clever programming tricks you can do to counteract this.

 

You can have a depth buffer in 2D and draw front to back (reducing the actual number of pixel writes ) for example.

 

Really I would just pick the one you WANT to program and get on with it. The power of the target devices is far less important than your own motivation and enjoyment.

 

If we were to say to you "what you need to do is this , that, twiddle this, depth sort the other" and you hate it, the game isn't going to get coded.

 

I want to make something reusable, so I think 3D will be the way to go after reading this response and the other. I didn't realize how little overhead there is with depth buffers in 3D applications so it makes sense to take advantage of that. 

 

EDIT: Thanks, by the way for your time. Probably would have been smarter to start with that...

 

 

It doesn't matter what game you make, or what PC it is. Use what you have to work with.

 

Even an (old) school laptop has a strong enough GPU these days to do some fancy computations on.

Old DX9/GL2.1 has depth/Z buffers, mesh streaming and shaders and everything else you need. Please use them. =)

 

No question: Use the rendering API of your choice. There is only as many dimensions as the vectors and matrices you use.

What is 2.5d even? Ordered sprites? Painters algorithm?

 

Keep in mind that you will have overdraw if you draw back to front.

With a depth buffer and front to back you prevent some, if not all, overdraw.

 

The more I read on graphics programming the less I'm worried about the computational overhead of all this, there is a ton of stuff I can cut down on. I have a model in my head of how the game will work from a high level, and now I'm finding out that the low level is going to be way more powerful and efficient than I thought before. In turn that should give me more in terms of creativity.

 

2.5D has kinda two meanings. There's Trine-esque, and then there's axonometric. Trine is actually rendering 3D models, where axonometric models are just basically abusing creatively sized sprites to give the illusion of depth. See Final Fantasy Tactics for a good example.

 

EDIT: Thanks for weighing in, I really appreciate it.

Edited by work
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0