#2d vs 3d

[may-we-rest-well]

This scene. As we catch glimpses through the shattered glass they're both 2D but they're existing as 3D behind it. This anime is fascinating and a creative masterpiece. I'm loving finding all of the seemingly small details in this show!

[askagamedev]

I have been heavily debating the differences between getting into 2D vs 3D game develoment. I have noticed that the industry at large is moving towards 3D and 2D games are becoming less relevant. While I understand 2D development is easier to get into, is 3D the future? Would experience in 3D open up more opportunities compared to 2D?

The honest truth is that 3D won a long time ago. We aren't "moving" towards 3D, we firmly set up shop there years ago and have been here for the past four console generations. The fact that [we can change camera angles without needing new versions of all character art in the game] is too valuable.

You are correct in that 2D development has a lower bar to entry - many things are much simpler in two dimensions than they are in three. This makes 2D development easier for hobbyists and indies to get something stood up and working. However, since you ask about opportunities, I will assume that you're not looking for a hobby but a career. If that's the case, learning the ins and outs of 3D will serve you a lot better long term. The number of job opportunities for 2D work is limited relative to 3D work in many disciplines.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[nattikay]

In light of the new Lion King movie, I’ve seen a lot of people (rightfully) criticizing it for the utter lack of character and expression compared to the original, and I absolutely agree!

HOWEVER, I feel like too many of those people are using that as a reason to bash CGI/3D animation as a whole and lamenting that 3D ever came to the scene in the first place instead of that sweet sweet 2D and I just gotta say: STAHP

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely adore 2D animation and would be thrilled to see new 2D films hitting the market! BUT 3D can be just as beautiful and expressive as 2D when utilized properly! It’s just a different medium!

Like, have we forgotten stuff like these?

Or, if you’re looking for a more realistic style like the new Lion King was going for, how about these?

CGI is not the issue here. It’s just a tool!

Heck, realism isn’t even the issue.

The issue is the idea that hyperrealism automatically trumps anything stylized so more photorealistic = more mature while more stylized/cartoony = immature/juvenile/“just for kids”, and therefore relying so heavily on hyperrealism that you sacrifice character and acting and color and cinematography. 

CGI can be absolutely amazing and when used right can capture a lot of the same sort of magic that you see in traditional 2D films! It’s just a different medium! Please stop using it as a scapegoat for the disaster that is Lion King 2019. ^^”

[airasora]

I will never understood how anyone can look at a CGI character and say it looks less kiddish and more realistic than a 2D animated character.

I will always look at CGI animated movies and feel like I'm looking at a kids movie, moreso than if I'm watching a traditionally animated movie. I'm not saying CGI is bad, but a CGI character will always look more like a doll to me than a living breathing being. Whereas a traditionally animated character might not look real either, but it's not trying to convince me that it's a real whereas a CGI character seems to be trying to, but failing miserably. To me anyway.

I have never to this day felt connected to a CGI character because they look terribly fake to me.

These are my thoughts and feelings on this matter. What are yours? What do you feel the most connected to? And do you think your opinion is affected by what you grew up with?

[poppibranchlover]

I was bored for some reason so I did a little short video of this. That’s all.

Hope you like it! This may look like a transformation of 2D to 3D, right? :D

[icyhotman]

Hot damn it!! I love this song because I fall in love with this dance at first. And whoaa, he's like 3d Kuroo >///<

[askagamedev]

Hi, Dev! I don't know if you've worked on a Sonic title yourself. But what, in your professional opinion, would be the greatest, -unique- hurdles when designing a platformer like that compared to other fantasy action games like Ratchet or Yooka Laylee?

The main difference between a given Sonic game and other platformers is that Sonic is fast. Since you mentioned Yooka Laylee and Ratchet, I'm guessing you're referring to 3D Sonic as opposed to 2D Sonic (which have their own core principle differences in level design). In my opinion, designing a 3D Sonic level should probably be a lot more like designing a fantasy vehicle racing stage than it is designing a 3D platforming stage. 

Most platformers are approached methodically by players typically cycling between observation and engagement. The player enters a new environment, observes what is there (looks around), then enters the new space to explore it. There is this constant rhythm of pausing to look around for what is new or important in the area and planning a route, and then moving through it. This is the expected behavior for 3D platformers. Players rarely must engage with the gameplay without adequate time to prepare for it.

Sonic, however, doesn’t play by these same rules. Due to Sonic’s core feature of speed, the observe-engage cycle is often bent or broken. Sonic runs fast enough that he essentially short-circuits the observation part of the platformer gameplay cycle, instead jumping from engagement to engagement with very few breaks. This means that the player doesn’t have enough time to look ahead at what to do and instead has to hope for the best. This sort of rushing gameplay is fun in its own way, but the times where the constant engagement breaks down (e.g. suddenly getting stopped for combat or missing a jump or something) is very jarring because it comes without warning. Such situations often feel like getting the rug pulled out from under you because the player has not had enough time to mentally prepare for it. It breaks the rhythm and feels uncomfortable.

Essentially, I think the gameplay pillar of Sonic should be gameplay that feels like a platformer but without ever having to slow down. In order to iron out these kinds of rhythm breaks, I think that Sonic games should turn to other games where the player is both constantly moving and still needs to make quick decisions involving other gameplay elements. Racing combat games like Mario Kart, Blur, F-Zero, etc. have a similar situation - the player moves navigates a potentially branching path at speed while dealing with obstacles, power ups, and opponents as they appear. In these kinds of games, the observation is performed during the race - the environment is constructed such that the player can see road forks and decisions coming (often with visible signs and such to direct the player) in the periphery while dealing with whatever other elements happen relatively near them. All opponents are also constantly moving at speed, so the player never has to stop while engaging in combat. Furthermore, a key element to these racing combat games is that the player has to run multiple laps, allowing the player to put the track into short term memory and make adjustments for subsequent run-throughs of the environment. Most 3D platformers don’t send you back again unless you fail.

As it currently stands, I think Sonic in 3D tends to fall into this strange limbo where players want to go fast but designers keep incorporating elements into the game that require stopping for whatever reason. Speed is essentially the essence of Sonic, like how web-swinging is the essence of Spider-Man. Playing as Spider-Man would feel bad if he could not reasonably swing through the city very easily or quickly. Similarly, I believe the core gameplay of a Sonic game should be that the default player should be able to play through the entire game at default difficulty at speed without stopping.

Further Reading: [Game Dev Myths: Aiming for Perfect Balance]

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

The FANTa Project is being rebooted. [What is the FANTa project?]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[askagamedev]

Pretty much all of the good feeling and looking indie games i have played in the last 5 years have been 2D (except Hat in Time) so I have to ask: is 3D harder on the budget than 2D unless the team size hits a certain critical mass?

Yes, very much so. 2D art has a much lower barrier to entry, because you can draw sprites and you’re only limited to the number of frames of animation you need to create. 2D art doesn’t scale very well as you increase scope, however - every new character needs its own set of sprites with every frame of animation drawn for each sprite, which makes things like costume changes much more expensive to build. You can’t do something like change a camera angle or an outfit with 2D, due to the expense of having to redraw every animation frame. The initial cost of 2D art is low but the marginal cost - the cost to add more or change content - is high.

3D art, on the other hand, has a much higher initial cost but a much lower marginal cost. The absolute minimum for a 3D character is a model, a set of textures, a rig, and animations for that rig. All of these elements require a fairly significant time investment to create before you get something functional. The marginal cost to add more content, however, is lower with 3D art. You can reskin the model to create a whole new character. You can create new animations with the old rig. You can reuse the same rig and animations on different character model and texture combinations. You can change camera angles without having to change anything. Adding more content once you get the initial thing working is much easier.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons 3D is the medium of choice once you reach the AAA space. It’s much more expensive to build initially, but the need for content scales with the budget, and creating 3D assets is much more reusable over time than 2D assets. But, since indie titles tend to be much smaller scope and closer to the ground, they don’t necessarily have the scope to do things like lots of additional characters, reskins, cosmetics, etc. They don’t have the budget to amortize that initial setup cost over lots of assets, so they go with what looks best with the budget they have. Usually that’s 2D.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

The FANTa Project is being rebooted. [What is the FANTa project?]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ