How many of you are submitting a 3D game and how many are submitting a 2D game. Well as the criteria says fun Innov and Production quality, the judging criteria is heavily tilted towards I think a 2D game. Because it is really difficult to make a 3D game. Even if you make it the innovation factor kicks in and it is harder to innovate in 3D as number of variables increases. IN fun factor i can say 3D will triumph but the 3D games can't be long that gives a edge to 2D games. I mean what is better for 5 dollars, a 12 level of a interesting 2D game or 1 level of a rocking 3D game. 1:12 you may argue is a little more but 3D animation part becomes real time consuming because you have to anyway polish it. Plus the 3D vectors and 4D quaternions makes the whole thing a lot slower. I think they must do something to encourage 3D games. I didn't see any finalist last year with a 3D game except hurricaneX which i think got repetitive due to the above reason. What i mean is if you come up with a Halo 2 but only one level and on the other hand you have 15 level dishwasher, then who will win???

One of the second place winners was a 3D game (Yo Ho Kablamaho). Plus, I think Burning Angles was also a finalist, and it was a 3D game also.

my game uses 3d because it has to, in that stacking of counters would not be very visible in 2d. www.adcworks.com/projects/uckers

I'm going to go for 2d. I have a good concept going and i find it easier to make good 2d images than 3d models PLUS textures. Textures have alwase been my downfall. Also I have as good as no experience with XNA. right now I am learning all the concepts of it that will go into my game. The only 3d knowledge I have is with Dark GDK which is much different than XNA. XNA is much more powerful still, but I'm going for 2d. With Innovation I'm not sure of anything that is really innovative but I do have something that you don't see too often. And with 2d like you said, you can have MORE. More levels, more enemies, more everything, and still fit within limits, and you can make it faster.

Ady:

How many of you are submitting a 3D game and how many are submitting a 2D game.

Mine is 2D.

Ady:

Because it is really difficult to make a 3D game.

I think people set the bar too high on a 3D game. They don't say "I'm going to make another StarFox", which would certainly be possible. They say "I'm going to make another Halo 3" or "I'm going to make another Forza Motorsport" or "I'm going to make another Fable". On some level, it simply doesn't occur to them that large professional teams with dozens of people and millions of dollars didn't make those games in less than a year. You simply can't do a game on that scale within the DBP timeframe. If I wanted to do a 3D game for DBP, I'd probably be looking at some of the theoretical stuff coming out of Northern Europe for something that wasn't just like every other 3D game. Rekkaturvat is a great example of something that American developers simply aren't doing, and it's not exactly new.

2D here.

This is because my DREAM is currently to have a clone of a game that really hasn't been redone nicely since release and death in 97/98.

People who have the time and team can possibly do their dream in 3D, but if it can be done in 2D, it gives that extra time to work on things that may matter more, like game-play, bug fixes, cross-platform, etc.

 

With many nice 3D engines popping up for XNA 2.0, it shouldn't be too long before they will be similar to building (time-wise).

For those without 3D math skills that might need it, there are always great sites out there listed on google that can give equations to just plug into the game, and go. Ie stuff for physics, lighting, waves, etc.

 

3D doesn't always have to be setting the bar high either. People could be using 3D part of XNA to make a sidescroller, just with cool effects. Game on PSP does this...can't remember which.

I'm a first time entrant and also doing 3D. I am yet to find any repeat entrant who thinks 3D is a good idea which, i must admit, sucks. Either way, i am feeling quite good about my entry. The thing that worries me most is not even gameplay, its the 200MB limit. You cant texture your heart out with such a small size limit. I have had to sacrifice some of my finer content to save on space. The competition is heavily in favor of 2D entries which is very unfortunate. Is there someone we can picket or something?

Kigunda:

I am yet to find any repeat entrant who thinks 3D is a good idea which, i must admit, sucks.

I think 3D is fine for an entry in the competition. It's how big your game idea is that makes the difference; if you have a massive idea that will take three years to build, it doesn't matter whether it's 2D or 3D. You simply have to restrict your design to what you can build in the contest timeframe.

Not that I'm a repeat entrant, but I thought about entering last year - AI just isn't my strong suit, so I didn't think there was much chance I'd do well in the competition.

CDarklock:

On some level, it simply doesn't occur to them that large professional teams with dozens of people and millions of dollars didn't make those games in less than a year

couldn't agree with you more.

With size consideration being in favor of 2D games there must be a gazzilion ideas (most of them awesome) that will not see the light of day. Yes, time is an issue affecting the development of the more spectacular entries but so is size. Time i can control, the size limit on the other hand cannot be maintained without compromising game quality. i honestly believe that the 200MB is a bigger constraint than the few months for development

   You are forgeting that those millions of dollars are not spent on the coders. Coding is a very small part. Resident Evil 4 had only 6 game programmers(that also in C++ and DirectX) and is a 30 hour + game. The point is 30 hour game. That is the place most money goes in. Animating cut scenes. Animation only costs almost $200 - $300 per second, yeah thats right. Resident evil had more than 30 minutes of it. So don't start babbling about millions at the word 3D. What i am saying is what about designing a 1/60th of the resident evil. 6,000,000/60 = 100,000 dollars. Subtract the infrastructure cost and other kind of things which they include in their cost which you donot have to pay because you are not a company. Ofcourse you can't buy $3000 dollar Maya or 3DS Max instead you can do with XSI. That boils down to less than 2 month pay of team of 4 (programmer, artist, animator, sound designer). Isn't that achievable.Just think what a achievement it is - designing the first stage of Resident Evil 4. The cost of development is just there to intimidate you and they are quite successful at that. So if anyone gets discouraged at the multi million figure talk then just concentrate on the above analysis and dream on.

Ady:

You are forgeting that those millions of dollars are not spent on the coders.

No, that would be why I said "dozens of people" and not "dozens of coders".

Ady:

So don't start babbling about millions at the word 3D.

I'm not. It's words like "Halo" and "Forza" and "Fable" that compel me to point out that you don't have the team, the budget, or the time those games had. There are lots of great 3D games you can make with small teams, low budgets, and tight deadlines. People make them in Flash all the time.

Ady:

What i am saying is what about designing a 1/60th of the resident evil.

I would suggest that this is similar to making 1/60 of a sandwich.

Ady you selectively quote facts to fit your argument. Is your 1/60th development of resident evil in two months achievable? No. You grossly underestimate the amount of work that cost the (professional) resident evil team in excess of half a decade to develop the game. Do you honestly believe it would take your artist and animator 60 days to develop 1/60 th of the content in resident evil? I encourage the dreamer but let he/she not be fooled that they could achieve said feat in the DBP window, afterall the discussion was on the feasibility of creating a large game for DBP.