That's 2D. 1D would be just one pixel... hmm gives me an idea for a KS campaign... "Stare at this pixel long enough and all your questions will be answered!"
A single pixel would be zero-dimensional. One dimension gives you a line to work with, and there is some stuff you can do with that. For example, whack-a-mole.
That's 2D. 1D would be just one pixel... hmm gives me an idea for a KS campaign... "Stare at this pixel long enough and all your questions will be answered!"
A single pixel would be zero-dimensional. One dimension gives you a line to work with, and there is some stuff you can do with that. For example, whack-a-mole.
Technically, a line requires 2 dimensions, otherwise it wouldn't be visible.
LOL yes because 2D has so many vertices and so much physics and so much animation in their models .....bah rubbish total rubbish. Even the most standard ugly 3D looks better than 2D. 2D looked good back in the 70/80's,by 90's it was already looking dated and less pleasing to look at.
This is VIDEO aka visual gaming,this is not the MUD era.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
LOL yes because 2D has so many vertices and so much physics and so much animation in their models .....bah rubbish total rubbish. Even the most standard ugly 3D looks better than 2D. 2D looked good back in the 70/80's,by 90's it was already looking dated and less pleasing to look at.
This is VIDEO aka visual gaming,this is not the MUD era.
Baldur's Gate looks much better than Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind IMO.
Some people are capable of drawing 2D art that looks better than a model made up of triangles.
Animation has it's ups and downs depending on if it's 2D or 3D. A 2D animation is capable of exaggerations that would be hard to duplicate in 3D.
I generally play 3D games these days, but a 2D games can still be quite good.
Baldur's Gate looks much better than Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind IMO.
The first one? You subjective definition of "better" is very lenient.
Torchlight, Diablo 3, Victor Vran .. heck .. take almost any 3D isometric modern game ... looks better, subjectively to me, than the first Baldur's Gate.
2D require much more work and animations - for example Haven and Hearth switched to 3D for that reason.
This is wildly false. 3d requires modeling, mapping, texturing, rigging, animating, etc. Oftentimes (to do this well) each one of these tasks requires the full attention of a single person. (Although in indie development, modelers often have to texture their own work, and animators have to rig their own models.)
2D require much more work and animations - for example Haven and Hearth switched to 3D for that reason.
This is wildly false. 3d requires modeling, mapping, texturing, rigging, animating, etc. Oftentimes (to do this well) each one of these tasks requires the full attention of a single person. (Although in indie development, modelers often have to texture their own work, and animators have to rig their own models.)
I've developed both. 2d is easier by a longshot.
How hard they are to develop depends greatly on how nice it needs to look. If you want your game to have AAA quality graphics, then yeah, 3D is a lot more work. But 3D is easy if you're willing to accept a game that looks like Faceball 2000.
Baldur's Gate looks much better than Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind IMO.
The first one? You subjective definition of "better" is very lenient.
Torchlight, Diablo 3, Victor Vran .. heck .. take almost any 3D isometric modern game ... looks better, subjectively to me, than the first Baldur's Gate.
You didn't read my post.
I very clearly stated that Baldur's Gate looks better than Neverwinter Nights (the bioware game) and Morrowind IMO. It's a bit pixelated if you play at lower resolutions, but the images are hand done (like a painting) and look fairly nice at higher resolutions.
On the topic of Diablo I would say I enjoyed Diablo 1 and 2's art style a lot more even though Diablo 3 has clearly better graphics due to being more modern. None the less if Diablo 1 and 2 supported high resolution modes and the dots per inch was low enough for the pixels to not be apparent I believe it would look a lot better than Diablo 3 in many ways.
2D require much more work and animations - for example Haven and Hearth switched to 3D for that reason.
This is wildly false. 3d requires modeling, mapping, texturing, rigging, animating, etc. Oftentimes (to do this well) each one of these tasks requires the full attention of a single person. (Although in indie development, modelers often have to texture their own work, and animators have to rig their own models.)
I've developed both. 2d is easier by a longshot.
He said the true . While 2D pretty cheap in singleplayer game (cause you don't need much sprites) making 2D MMORPG with humanoid is more work than 3D . Image you need to draw many set of sprites for different armor sets and weapon type (in 3 to 5 poses) , the animation part alone is a nightmare . ( once work with it so i know ) There are some case where you can get cheaper price with 2D , but for nowadays standard 2D more expensive than 3D .
Comments
Even the most standard ugly 3D looks better than 2D.
2D looked good back in the 70/80's,by 90's it was already looking dated and less pleasing to look at.
This is VIDEO aka visual gaming,this is not the MUD era.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Some people are capable of drawing 2D art that looks better than a model made up of triangles.
Animation has it's ups and downs depending on if it's 2D or 3D. A 2D animation is capable of exaggerations that would be hard to duplicate in 3D.
I generally play 3D games these days, but a 2D games can still be quite good.
Torchlight, Diablo 3, Victor Vran .. heck .. take almost any 3D isometric modern game ... looks better, subjectively to me, than the first Baldur's Gate.
I've developed both. 2d is easier by a longshot.
I very clearly stated that Baldur's Gate looks better than Neverwinter Nights (the bioware game) and Morrowind IMO. It's a bit pixelated if you play at lower resolutions, but the images are hand done (like a painting) and look fairly nice at higher resolutions.
On the topic of Diablo I would say I enjoyed Diablo 1 and 2's art style a lot more even though Diablo 3 has clearly better graphics due to being more modern. None the less if Diablo 1 and 2 supported high resolution modes and the dots per inch was low enough for the pixels to not be apparent I believe it would look a lot better than Diablo 3 in many ways.
Well, I guess that answers that. Hero's Song is already canceled.
There are some case where you can get cheaper price with 2D , but for nowadays standard 2D more expensive than 3D .
To be honest I think 3d and all the stupid graphical effects ruined MMOs . I hope this does well and would love to see more like it.
I've been playing Darkest Dungeon lately, great great game. It isn't 3D but looks great and its fun. The mechanics win out over everything
http://baronsofthegalaxy.com/ An MMO game I created, solo. It's live now and absolutely free to play!