IndieGameDev.net Forums

I was wondering when a 2d art style is more preferable over a 3d art style.

Also when is a 3d art style more preferable over a 2d art style?

Realism would be a good example to use a 3d art style.

I don't think that there is any definitive rules to tell which art style outperforms.
Your players may have different tastes on that issue.
Generally speaking, I think 2D is already good enough for a game to be fun (even addictive), unless your game specifically requires 3D realization such as CS:GO and DOTA2.

That makes sense.

I think complexity is a big part of this. Ready to go game engines have definitely changed the technical concerns, and to an extend the ludology concerns.

I know that a simple 3D style is often easier to create assets for than 2D. Simple 3D objects are much simpler to create in something like Blender than nice 2D graphics are to create. And engines make it easy to load and control models, and to an extend even the game (like a ready to customise FPS engine).

But I think 3D is inherently more difficult to make a good game. That's of course based on my very limited experience with 3D though. Maybe I just prefer 2D games?

Deckhead wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:50 am I know that a simple 3D style is often easier to create assets for than 2D. Simple 3D objects are much simpler to create in something like Blender than nice 2D graphics are to create. And engines make it easy to load and control models, and to an extend even the game (like a ready to customise FPS engine)

I've found that, while 3D Animation is inherently easier because the tools to create 3D meshes typically also support lerping/keyframe animation, Mediocre 2D art is often better than Mediocre 3D art. Bad 2D art is pretty forgiveable if the game is good, but mediocre 3D art screams "my first Unity tutorial".

But I think 3D is inherently more difficult to make a good game. That's of course based on my very limited experience with 3D though. Maybe I just prefer 2D games?

I agree. Personally, I think that a lot of people default to making a game 3D without any plan for how that extra dimension is going to actually be incorporated into gameplay. Plenty of 3D games that take place essentially on a single plane, effectively making the game 2.5D (which is, of course, a perfectly acceptable art style, but is fundamentally a 2D game in design).

ShortroundDev wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:10 pm Plenty of 3D games that take place essentially on a single plane, effectively making the game 2.5D (which is, of course, a perfectly acceptable art style, but is fundamentally a 2D game in design)

Yeah definitely. The art style vs the gameplay need to be thought of separately.

Depending on the genre, this can be taken further. For strategy games, like Paradox type of games, you should be able to make the game with paper. As in, like a board game. It would probably be too complex as a board game, but it should be possible (I wouldn't suggest you do it, just it's possible). It's a good way to think about the game separately from everything else.

With the amateur 3D art... You can make low-poly simplistic graphics a lot easier. Assuming you're not adding textures, and everything is just coloured triangles. Of course... These work in only some genres.

Like you, I'm of the opinion that the third dimension is often not needed. Platformers for example, the third dimension does very little. Strategy games, RTS, the 3D is not required.

Terraria sort of proves that you don't need 3D even for something like Minecraft. And Dwarve Fortress proves you don't need 3D graphics to have a third dimension in the gameplay.