next »

[gimymblert]

I think that you should really try to finish a 3D game, maybe a 3D version of your game, and see if you are still unconvinced

Sophie Houlden has no problem with 3D so far and works alone. She can even do game in less than a bunch of hour in unity and she is entirely self taught.

[Tumetsu]

Recently I have taken a look into Blender and Unity since I'm part of a game project where we use Unity and most likely 3d graphics. So far Unity itself seems rather easy tool, kind of Game Maker for 3d. So programming 3d stuff shouldn't be much harder than 2d with Unity depending on what you are doing.

However, personally the whole set up of 3d graphics feels much technical and complex than 2d graphics. Modeling, UV-mapping, rigging, shaders etc. I think it will probably get easier after I have learnt more about it, but so far it features much more "nerdier" stuff than any 2d graphics workflow I have encountered.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think that you should really try to finish a 3D game, maybe a 3D version of your game, and see if you are still unconvinced

i have tried 3d games in the past, though -- granted it was a long time ago before unity even existed, and none of them were finished games (i was just learning how to code back then), but unity should have made it even easier than it used to be, i imagine

also we have actually started on immortal defense 2, which is actually a 3d version of immortal defense, and have the basic engine working, although i'm finishing saturated dreamers first as a priority. but we didn't really have any problems in the transition from 2d to 3d in coding a basic engine for a 3d immortal defense -- although keep in mind it's still *very* early in that game's development, less than 10% done, but what exists now is a basic framework (enemies moving along a line, bullets firing, towers placeable, enemies explode when they take enough damage, etc.)

but this is all way besides the point; it shouldn't matter what games someone has made or has not made. have those saying 2d is easier completed a 2d game with any significant amount of art in it (e.g. something with sprites that have hundreds of frames of animation)? i doubt that is true as well

[Superb Joe]

I have plenty of 3D friends.

[gimymblert]

as a repressed otaku you masterfully hide your 2D friends

[JScythe]

Just curious why does everyone think that most
people think simple 8bit games are better than
new realistic 3d games?

Today it seems hundreds of small 8bit games arising,
while there are only a few cutting-edge (HD) titles
emerging.

With the mobile market maybe it's because 8bit
games take less time to develop and take less resources than 3d?

I wonder... is it because the mean age group for gamers (teens - adults)
grew up with 8bit and it subconsciously triggers happy memories?

Just curious on everyone else's opinion.

Thanks
<3 SuperGamingPrincess <3

Because the core aesthetics of retro games is fundamentally different from modern games.

Retro games like Pac-Man or Robotron 2084 are more about abnegation - shutting off thought and just doing - while modern games are more about narrative and specticle. There's nothing wrong with the new way of doing things, but it definitely puts the current gamer culture rift into perspective.

Hardcore or Core gamer: Looks at a game and sees a gripping story or vicarious experience that they want drink in like a non-gamer would read a novel or watch a movie.

Casual or "middlecore" gamer: Looks at a game and sees a series of challenges to be overcome and disposed of in the same way that a non-gamer would solve a book of sudoku or crossword puzzles.

retro games play up to the middlecore mindset. And if you've been keeping score, there are way more casual / middlecore gamers than core gamers. Also, abnegation usually works best in chunks of ten minutes or less. Thus the 8-bit aesthetic plastered all over the iOS and Android app stores.

Or here's another way to think about it:

In the book "Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting" by Syd Field, he defines the three forms of narrative like so.

A short story or novel is a story told in the mindscape of the characters.

A play is a story told through the dialog of the characters.

A movie is pictures in motion.

Notice that story isn't even mentioned in the definition of movie. Now lets extend that to video games. And I know that this definition is not going to sit well with everyone, but it seems to be about as close to the reality of video games as I can get.

A video game is movement through time.

A video game is more like dance and music than plays and novels. Not that you can't tell a story in this way, but to focus on the story or special effects detracts from the core of what a video game actually is. The best games have a sense of flow and movement. The worst video games can barely even be considered games at all (I'm looking at you FMV).

Anyway, that's just my two cents. Hope it clears some stuff up.

[Udderdude]

Hardcore or Core gamer: Looks at a game and sees a gripping story or vicarious experience that they want drink in like a non-gamer would read a novel or watch a movie.

Casual or "middlecore" gamer: Looks at a game and sees a series of challenges to be overcome and disposed of in the same way that a non-gamer would solve a book of sudoku or crossword puzzles.

Pretty sure you've got this backwards ..