Do every indie devloper are obsessed with 2d
or thy don’t like 3d, 3d is simple, 2d is hard maybe
ITCH.IO
Yes, I can model (not professionaly, I'm a programmer), it depends on the size and level of complexity of the model it can range from 20 minutes to weeks.
Same goes to pixel art, it's not more or less complicated, it's just different, and also modeling is just one of the 3D art areas, there's sculpting, texture art, rigging, skinning, environment, lightmaps....
I saw a 4d game here :-)
But I believe the question in general is more in this direction: most devs use an engine and there are 3d engines to use, for those who do not have deeper understanding. Or rather, most do not even have a 2d understanding of their game math. So if they use an engine anyways, why not use one of them 3d ones.
I mean, there even is this rpg paper maker, that is in 3d, even though it is still pixel art.
Maybe there is an anomaly/bias in itch users, and the amateur 3d game makers are just elsewhere. Like making mods for Minetest or Skyrim.
But as your screen is flat and mouse input is in 2D, it makes sense that everything is presented to the camera in a way very close to 2D.
That what you see is a 2d projection is a necessity, since the display is 2d. Not a necessity of the hid.
In a 3d game world you typically move around. And this is done with a combination of inputs. You use several input devices or at least several commands. The mouse usually does left and right and up and down. And a command does the forward motion. That is enough to fully navigate in 3d.
What your game probably has, is a point&click interface. That input area is of course 2d, since you move the pointer in 2d. But you could minimize the interface even further and eliminate the pointer, using only selectable highlights the player can navigate between by pressing left and right. Those highlights could be presented in a 3d environment, while the hid is basically 1d.
But at this point, we could extend the OP question to real time. Why is so much on Itch static gameplay, instead of real time. On second thought, there are lots of platformers and all those rpg maker games.
(And the answer is of course the same. It is easier to do.)
I want to add two thoughts to that.
Perspective is important. Something like Diablo 1 & 2 is pixel sprites. No matter how they were created. But the perspective is isometric, making it 3d, while debatedly it is actually 2d, since you could use a top down view like old Moria games. Diablo 3 did not change this perspective thing very much, but the sprites were now rendered in a 3d engine. Starcraft 1 even had height differences and flying units, but all ultimately pixel sprites and iso view.
So 3d vs 2d is related to lots of aspects. Including the engine, the assets, perspective, user interface, level design and real time or not also is a factor of course. There are all sorts of combinations. Like a 2d platformer with 3d graphics for example.
And the other thing is, that the engine and presentation of a game is not important all that much. Bells and whistles can of course help. And are expected in some instances. But ultimately, the game has to be fun enough for people to want to play it. Lacking an advertisement budget and marketing staff, indie devs are wise to do what you described. Finding out, if what they want to realize will garner an audience. Bluntly speaking , there are successful games that are text based. So having nice graphics are obviously not mandatory for success.
But if you do make a 3d game, or any other kind of game of a certain category, you will be measured by the competition in that category. There is less AAA competition in 2d games. So like that saying about not needing to outrun the bear, you only need to be better than the other hobby 2d game makers and small indie developers. And this can be done quickly if you have a good story or mechanic or plain luck and a good enough game. There are examples of really simple games that did go "viral".
I'm pretty new to this entire site and was like "why is everything 2D games?" then found this thread. I had to scroll down this far for an answer that wasn't some type of "it's easier." (you're like 20 posts deep)
If it can be uploaded and downloaded, it can be released. Technical aspects would not be a hinderance. There are releases for ancient video game consoles or that playdate console. You will also find stuff for vr systems here.
And of course games are limited by their presentation. But how much d would a text game have? You could play a text game with voice output, so no screen at all.
sorry to advertise it but if you search 3d games, im (and 15 other itch io developers) currently running a rather cheap 3d games ONLY bundle including 44 games for 4,65 bugs if you wont buy you can even though dl most of the games as some are free so its kinds of selection of curated 3d games of all kinds but if you want to support 3d developers this is the way to fo ;) https://itch.io/b/2311/3d-developer-support-bundle-i
If it does not exist yet, we could introduce a concept of "depth" for any field of skill. Like creating art in a certain medium. To explain by analogy, sculpting marble or carving wood vs painting on canvas vs story writing.
Let us assume that each field has the same possible depth. Or maybe level of artisanship that can be achieved.
The point I am getting at is now this: how easy or hard is it for a non expert to judge and appreciate at which level any given piece of art is.
Are there maybe art styles where it is harder to evaluate the skill involved, beyond the mere impression of: I like what I see. For that matter, even with skill, it could still be ugly, yet you might appreciate the skill.
The "problem" with 3d is, that we live in a 3d world. We are used to seeing that stuff irl. So for 3d a assume it is harder to get good results. For pixel art it is so much removed from reality, that it is easier to get to a level where people say, oh, look, it's pixel art. Where they would say, oh, look, it is cheap looking 3d textures. Even though both artists might have the same level on that depth scale of artisanship in their respective field.
Of course it might just as well be, that different fields have different depths of achieveable skill - till a virtuoso comes along and demonstrates that there is yet another level.
id say it completely depends on your personal skills (god) blessed you with, and saying pixel art would be easier then 3d may be true for a certain amount of people but not all always depending on skill you can easily addopt which is also only about you so imo this whole discussion is kinda sensless as you all give values to art which cant be compared with each other in not a single way you wouldnt coutn a peach to some apples or?
also to call somthing easier to learn then something else is absolutely not comparable depending on individual and luck the biggest factor you all forget or better
synchronicity
:D
I wasn't arguing that pixel art is easier to learn, but that people cannot tell as easy, if you are good at it.
A better example might be abstract expressionism. Regular people cannot tell actual garbage from art in that style. Of course we could argue, if it even is art or just pretend art, just as we could argue, if a photographer creates art. But let us assume that it is art and you can be good or bad at it. My point is, that casual observers will not be able to tell the difference, while they could for something more life-like.
So in a way, it is easier to produce results that look adequate at first glance.
doesnt the passion of the artist and the effort make it art? but i understand your point sure :) but if you dont rate art then it would be okay if someone loves an "ugly" pic its okay imo if the artist felt something while he created it which you at least can recognize a bit....but its and endless complex topic. also i didnt ment to personally react to you i ment it more of other posts ive red about what may be easier to learn....soerry for that
You replied to me, instead of replying to the topic ;-)
doesnt the passion of the artist and the effort make it art?
Not really, no. Just because someone is an artist (called so by whom?), work created by them is not art. It is human made, artificial instead of natural. But the art in artificial is not the type of art we are talking about. Art is a display of skill. There can be passion put into it, and it usually makes art even better, as it engages the viewer. Even if that passion is accidentally attributed by the viewer.
Oh, I read softer definitions about art, that even lack the skill attribute. And it has long tradition to argue about what is art and what is not. There are like 5-7, maybe more defintions in dictionaries for "art".
But if you use the softest defintions, literally everything would be art. And art is supposed to be special. If everything is art, none is.
Or what about masterfully painting a portrait on canvas, catching the moment and the light with your brush - but putting no emotion into it, since it is your paid work and you just do your job. Is it art or is it not?
So maybe the heat in such discussions comes from one person using defintion A of art and the other person using definition B of art. And one of the defintions of "art" is: stuff that an artist made. But that lacks the definition of what constitutes an artist. It is circular, if you say, someone that creates art. It no longer gives information about the merit of a work and reduces art to human made. Think about it. Even without skill, anything I make is either art because I put emotion into it, or art because it was not made accidentally. Oh, and even for this, there are "artists" literally doing random stuff and call it art.
makes sense i agree sure just wanted to give a new point of view to the discussion :)
maybe its about havein a skill and always try to get better in it well as you said we wont find the perect solution to this
so the attitude of the artists is also an imporatn part well im off for now trying to create some art, see you man
