• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

2D or 3D - Where to draw the line?

This topic is 5787 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Right now I''m designing a 2D tile engine that uses Direct3D. What do you think; does ( 3D == g_cFun++ )? Can a Pokemon style tile engine be more addictive than the Quake III engine? When do you draw the line between what needs 3D and what doesn''t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
its easyer to make stunning graphical effects in 2d than in 3d, the point is, effects in 3d are far more stunning

noone draws the line but you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2D != FUN
3D != FUN

Good_Game == FUN

If your game is good the graphics shouldn''t matter much.

I will not make a list of links... I will not make a list of links... I will not make a list of links...
Invader''s Realm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you only like FPS games then 2D is obviously not an option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet you never had an old Sega >

-Maarten Leeuwrik


Follower of the NLS
(New Lounge Standards)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stunning? Maybe. Then the novelty wears off, and increasingly quickly as time goes by since each new batch of games look increasingly more "realistic." Someday, we''ll have perfect rendering. Soon that novelty will wear off since that also will become commonplace. Then what?

Games don''t exist anymore. What people call "games" these days should be called "simulations."

Games died a long time ago, arguably right before the Playstation came about, making 3D nonsense commonplace and accepted as "required."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any difference in the "amount" of AI you can have in?
If 3D works the processor more would 2D allow more processor time for AI? And what about real-time vs. turn-based?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends.
Do you know MDK? It''s a 3d FPS, and I hated it.
Do you know Heroes Of Might And Magic? It''s 2d, turn based, and I loved it.
Do you know RTCW? (Q3 engine, Activision...) Well, I loved it.
Do you know Diablo (I & II). 2D, loved it.
Do you know Q3 Arena? I saw only the demo and, well, hated it.

This certainly is a question of personal taste, w/o a doubt. But I don''t think I have very special tastes...

It is in a first line the idea that makes a game, and then the engine. This does not mean that the engine is not important, but the most brilliant engine is worth nothing w/o a good idea (idea = story+gameplay+feeling+what_you_want)
quote:

Original posted by gaussuk
Is there any difference in the "amount" of AI you can have in?
If 3D works the processor more would 2D allow more processor time for AI? And what about real-time vs. turn-based?


I think you cannot put it this way. A genial programmer can code "more" AI in a 3d game than a poor programmer can in a 2d. But a more simple engine (2d tend to be more simple than 3d) allow you to invest more time/effort into the AI.
And if it''s turn based, you practically can invest as much as you want into the AI.

Forever trusting who we are
And nothing else matters
- Metallica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
granat, go play gautlent, smash tv, or basically any 2d overhead maze game. cause thats all an fps is at heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement