Why is 2D more popular among indie devs than 3D?

[hardcore_gamer]

The obvious awnser is time and money but is this actually true though? When you think about it making 2D actually takes even longer and is even more hard because every single frame of animation has to be made from scratch. I think I heard somewhere that Braid cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and that Cuphead cost even more. Not to mention it took years to make them. For this reason I don't buy the idea that 2D games are actually cheaper or less time consuming to make.

So if 2D isn't cheaper or faster then why do most indie devs go for 2D rather than 3D? I know some indie devs do 3D and that many of them are pretty good, but most appear to favor 2D sprites instead.

[wildweasel]

And I'm guessing "because that's what they want to make" isn't going to satisfy you as an answer.

[Nash]

Not everyone has the budget, time or in most cases, especially interest to make games with 50k-polygon characters, 8k PBR texture maps and noise-hair rendering technology.

[Clownman]

3D modeling is harder than sprinting and animating 3D models is a hell of another story.

[Pixel Eater]

Maybe due to the Uncanny Valley of human likeness?

[Chris]

When you think about it making 2D actually takes even longer and is even more hard because every single frame of animation has to be made from scratch. I think I heard somewhere that Braid cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and that Cuphead cost even more. Not to mention it took years to make them. For this reason I don't buy the idea that 2D games are actually cheaper or less time consuming to make.

Any kind of game can cost a lot of time/money if you have high requirements (Cuphead has a very particular look to stand out, and that particular look isn't cheap to produce). However, I'd say getting passable 3D is still more costly than passable 2D (getting a similarly particular look in 3D would be even more expensive). Going above and beyond what's merely passable will be more costly regardless. Gameplay-wise, 2D is also better understood. Developing a 3D platformer is a lot harder than a 2D platformer, and 3D puzzle games are harder to design than 2D puzzles. There's a reason so many indie 3D games try to use "retro shooter" as an excuse for crappy 3D design with basic 3D shooter gameplay.

But ultimately, game development is costly. The cost of engines and assets may be lower than they have been, but good games will always require time to make, and time is money.

[InsanityBringer]

have you not considered artistic reasons? even if its more labor intensive (maybe? maybe not? I dunno i'm not an animator), cuphead wouldn't be the same game in 3d. its very much emulating a 2D aesthetic and trying to pull it off in 3d would be hell.

[leileilol]

I find making good 2D sprites harder than making 3d models...


You know that "hot witch" model I show off in the WIP thread now and then? I can't draw her well at all, sketch or sprite. Not even a reference sheet is made, so instead the model evolved over years of self-realized corrections

"but 2d its for lazzies who hate tehcolgy" no. imagine the situation i described if you were to revise an entire sprite set of this character

[Zan]

I personally like 2D more (in combination with 3D level design).
I feel like sprites are not outdated, and have many benefits that are overlooked. They are more forgiving with animation (you won't need friggin' motion capture or anything to give them a good fluent feel), they allow for certain detail that would either take a lot of time or be very performance tolling in 3D, and in combination with the right attached visual effects you can get some really juicy combat and what not. Heck, look at Brutal Doom, the only thing that comes to mind regarding that combat feel and responsivity is one of those new Wolfenstein games, except they cost a gajillion more to make.

The downside is not necessarily the time but the effort itself and redundancy of having to draw. Drawing character sheets is probably the hardest thing I have to do while developing Hedon. It's just nerve wrecking and the animations aren't even that great but the result is worth it in the end if you ask me.

Obviously, you can render your sprites from 3D models and man, that looks so good if done right. I was looking at Guncaster's weapon sprites and they look more personal than anything real 3D I've seen so far because of the added 2D editing (correct me if I'm wrong?) over the 3D base.

[neoworm]

Making 3D look genuinely good is much harder than 2D. Having the control over pretty much every single pixel is another reason. And making stylized 2D is also easier than stylized 3D.

[Kinsie]

So if 2D isn't cheaper or faster then why do most indie devs go for 2D rather than 3D?

Because drawing some pixels in one of the five or six free paint programs out there is infinitely easier than getting some polygons down in the one free modelling tool worth a crap. Also: One less dimension to have to deal with when designing and programming complicated things like physics.

[Rachael]

The obvious awnser is time and money but is this actually true though? When you think about it making 2D actually takes even longer and is even more hard because every single frame of animation has to be made from scratch. I think I heard somewhere that Braid cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and that Cuphead cost even more. Not to mention it took years to make them. For this reason I don't buy the idea that 2D games are actually cheaper or less time consuming to make.

So if 2D isn't cheaper or faster then why do most indie devs go for 2D rather than 3D? I know some indie devs do 3D and that many of them are pretty good, but most appear to favor 2D sprites instead.

Time and money, mostly. It's a lot easier to pay one good artist who can draw well and digitize their work effectively, and pay for a single painting tool, than it is to pay a whole team of them to do realistic modeling, animation, attachments, and customization, with possibly a whole software suite to boot if learning Blender is untenable for said team. (Let's be honest - I know there are many fans of Blender on this forum - but its user interface is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE - I hold no punches in saying that, it is what it is, and it's bad)

One thing that separates AAA developers from indie developers is AAA developers are not afraid to splurge with their assets, and they do so intentionally as a bragging right - whereas indie developers work on efficiency and getting to a point without all waste and extra baggage that AAA developers usually have. Also indie developers have a lot more value on their personnel, not seeing them nearly as disposable as AAA developers see them.

Of course, and this is an aside that's more off-topic but still relevant to the whole issue - this is why indie games tend to be more fun, as well. Instead of the "design by committee" that AAA games suffer from, where there's a whole number of developers with conflicting approaches, indie developers have fewer conflicting goals (they're not eliminated, they're just far less by the simple nature of there being fewer on a team) and tend to be unified by common interest rather than strictly a desire to have bread on the table tonight.

[Kinsie]

One thing that separates AAA developers from indie developers is AAA developers are not afraid to splurge with their assets, and they do so intentionally as a bragging right - whereas indie developers work on efficiency and getting to a point without all waste and extra baggage that AAA developers usually have.

This is a pretty massive generalization that largely ignores a lot of indie games that are very graphically-focused and about as much fun as a shrivelled asshole. Inner Chains is a particularly "good" example.

Also indie developers have a lot more value on their personnel, not seeing them nearly as disposable as AAA developers see them.

Show me a Kickstarter project that paid its staff a livable wage above the poverty line, and I'll show you a Kickstarter project that didn't get funded because it asked for "too much".

[Solmir]

Well it's far easier and less time consuming to make sprites than 3D graphics, it's far more difficult to make detailed 3D graphics that look good and are tolerable to modern sensibilities, even simple sprites when they aren't too ugly, can be far more tolerable than clunky and ugly 3D graphics. It's not always the case because nothing stops indie devs from making simple 3D models for artistic and economic reasons like Super Hot and it's simple polygon graphics, if an indie dev wants to make a more detailed game, sprites are far more accesible and easier to animate.

[NeuralStunner]

3D modeling is harder than sprinting

I disagree, modeling doesn't leave me nearly as sweaty and winded.

On a more serious note: Everything is simpler with 2 dimensions than 3. Physics collisions, for example. And animation - Good-looking 3D animation is probably going to involve motion capture, which requires extra equipment, software, and time.

From another viewpoint: There have always been people who missed "the days" of 2D after the 3D boom started. Why not make something for them? Clearly it's been successful so far.

Show me a Kickstarter project that paid its staff a livable wage above the poverty line, and I'll show you a Kickstarter project that didn't get funded because it asked for "too much".

It hurts, but it's true. A lot of people want to bitch about how much things cost, without giving a though to how much those things cost to make.