Saying that 2D games is "being lazy developer" is just as closed minded as not accepting innovation and listening to players/customers.

Dont judge all games because many of other indie developers produce bad, sometimes horrible games using 2D artwork, this happens simply because 2D is cheaper and more people are able to produce it.

Living sample: Dofus and Wakfu fron Ankama, end of discussion from my side as I dont like this kind of arguments.

Personally I think that 3D art is already sufficiently realistic except for the particularly difficult areas of animal movement and human facial expressions. And I see people busily at work on those areas, so they're not being neglected. Indie games tend to have mediocre art whether it is 2d or 3d because indie teams tend to have no budgets and inexperienced staff. That doesn't really bother me. I don't think being indie is about trying to compete with industry-made games unless you are only being indie as a stepping-stone to become part of the industry. People who are permanently or at least long-term indie are in it for the freedom to experiment and pursue ideas that aren't the most popular, and for the fact that our own work is going into a game even if our work is not professional quality. No one would say I am a professional artist, but I've been proud to have my art used in a few different indie games.

But, I don't really feel like arguing about graphics, I don't think the topic is particularly interesting. My personal area of interest (which everyone else is probably bored of by now, lol) is designing gameplay for a monster breeding game which may or may not include tactical combat. I'm having a lot more problems with the basic structure of this game design than I usually do with a more established genre where there are more examples I can look at. (My previous design projects have included an adventure game, two single player RPGs, an RTS, and various attempts at an MMO.)

Before reading be warned. It's a pretty long post that contains my personal opinion and nothing more.

I guess I'll start with commenting the topics covered so far and then move on to my personal view.

First about the graphics. I completely agree to Sun. It's really is a boring thing to discuss. From my personal experience "good graphics" and "good looking graphics" isn't the same. So as long as it looks decent it doesn't matter whether it's 2D, 2.5D or 3D. But I do agree that the type of graphic you choose will influence the success of the game. I'm personally working on a long term dream for personal use and I am going to choose 2D. Not because I am lazy but because it works better with the concept of the game. And that's usually the factor chosen to be ignored . Graphics&Gameplay go together and sadly lately I've observed that a lot of the big titles focus on eye candies. I haven't played a lot of indie games but perhaps they are just leaning on the other side.

Now to something more productive. Player opinions. It is a great and free resource to draw ideas from however it works just like Google search function when the word free is included. A load of unusable,harmful information with rare gems sparkling here and there. And if you are only planning to design your game then it's pure madness to try and sort them out to find what to include in your draft.

The most frequent reason for this is because mostly (especially in case of MMO) players aren't suggesting things to improve the actual game but to simply improve their own standpoint in it. How many times "x is overpowered and y is neglected improve/degrade x/y" have been posted in MMO forums. And it's not always fault of a bad balancing. It's because players want to be able to be the best,the strongest regardless of the power cycle (x beats y,y beats z, z beats x). That is the reason why classes bring so much trouble to PVP.

Here is my personal opinion as a player and observer of what player looks for in a MMO. (It's a simple list. The first value isn't necessarily the thing players are looking for the most. It's not complete either but I would like to hear opinions about it.)

1 Purpose.
2.Community.
3.Growth.
4.Acknowledgment.
5.Simplicity
6.Depth.
7.Interaction.

In one long statement it would sound something similar to: Players look for a game that would be fun and enjoyable (Purpose) with other players to compete (Acknowledgment&Community) within easy to start settings (Simplicity) that offer advantage for experienced players after exploring the variations(Depth&Growth) in a persistent world that changes based on their influence(Depth&Interactivity).

I don't think that the problem would be in whether the game is "theme park" or a "sandbox" (I personally don't like those classifications.). My opinion is that the problem is in the focus and presentation. A lot of games get bad reaction because they focus too much on something like (and not limited to).
a) Graphic improvements with attractive characters and worlds. b) Changes in popular systems that are used by other games with the thought that those fixes/changes will make the players to shift to this game instead.
c) Multiple huge and complex systems(I really like how the term "Feature creep" describes it).
d) Rich and detailed story covering the entire world.
e) Free roaming worlds.

I'm not saying any of these things are bad. I'm saying that a game is an entity that must be perceived as a whole and developed as whole. Which I think is the hardest part. Creating a component isn't that hard. How to make them to work in harmony to achieve even grander results without making to look it like a simple pile of things is. And that is the tripping stone of many. If you think a certain part in game could be improved then perhaps you are true. If you think that bringing over this system with your improvements to your game will make it better then you most likely are wrong. And now comes the contradiction....

The world must focus on something. It might sound like I'm disregarding everything I said before but it isn't so. Focus on a certain aspect of a game and thing that game world revolve around isn't the same. I really like SabataS approach on this. A world that revolves around crafting sounds interesting. I'd personally play it myself. The difference from MMO games that players migrate between is that it isn't a generic world focused on crafting. It's a world that revolves around crafting with everything else designed to encourage and support it.

I'd like to tell about a discussion I had with a friend some time ago. We were discussing the best way to generate and operate with random and dynamic tree placement in game including tree growth. The conclusion we reached that in order to make vast,unique forest in a game you don't have to make an algorithm that grows unique trees from scratch and manage all the movement,line of sight,growth etc. issues it introduces. You just need to have enough tree models and growing stages to fake a unique forest. A game involves lot of faking and deception. Game designers are like illusionists that make the player believe the things they want even if they aren't as complicated as they seem. And that means they don't need to be that complicated.


And in the end it's simple economics. If it's not a basic need that absolutely everyone needs to obtain then you will never be able to sell it to everyone. Same with games. You can't make a game that will please everyone. So most titles tend to stick to designs that have proved to repay the costs and bring income. That's why when I hear the term "Indie Game" I expect to see a game that is independent from the trend(AKA mainstream) displaying some kind of innovation that might bring a fresh breeze to the stagnation of game world.

PS. Personally I think that one of the greatest successes lately is Portal 2. It's not something entirely new but it still has interesting ideas and everything goes in harmony. You can't say that the game is too hard or frustrating. You can't say that the game isn't challenging. You can't say that graphics or sound would be bad. You can't say the story is shallow. It's not the best game ever but it does exactly what a game is supposed to do which is to entertain the player.

"It really ins't hard to go on Steam, and sell 300k copies of your game."

Have you actually sold that many games?

Ok I want to clear some stuff up before adding some more advice. For starters LOOK at the mmorpg.com comments on all the theme park MMORPG threads. The players have spoken on Rift, DC Universe Online, Tera (its not even out and people are already judging it based on the Korean version), and many others. These games are losing players after 3-5 months being out. The players speak with their theme park attendance by saying enough and moving on. That's nice and cleared up on the MMO part. I want to go into sandboxes now. Sure the box cover sells for theme parks much quicker than sand box, but even sand box has its draw backs. For starters, indie sandbox IS POS. They aren't even considered games, let alone a MMOG. Horribly riddled with bugs, errors, downtime, and incompletion drive players away. The Sand Box is now a indie excuse for being incomplete, attracting short amounts of attention and money for some time, and then disappearing. Theme parks are also on the decline, but that should be easily recognized. The most that they do, is pretend to listen to players. If they did listen to players, more companies would be like Nexon and Blizzard.

Now let's clear up those indie titles on Steam. Majority of the indie market is sadly 2D sprite based. Yeah, thats cool but think on it. Why are soo many of the awesome multi platinum titles hitting mega millions? I look on Steam and sadly see the ultra successful recorded sales for games goes only to the few 2D games willing to break off some of the mold, ie Braid. 2D is now a excuse for laziness. You can achieve anime style look in 3D with shaders now. Games and processors and graphics cards now support 3D shaders, models, higher processing powers. I consider most 2D artwork unique, but to say that 120 developers on the indie section of Steam weren't lazy and refused 3D models is a lie. Mostly, each of these developers built the engine from scratch or used flash. Coolio, now let's move on to why its outdated. Instead of pushing forward into a deeper realistic 3D, we savagely step back and see 2D. It's like me going from 2D to 1D and expecting god0like miracles and powers to sell my game. It just is not happening. Yeah, they hit a decent 300k~500k sales by a years end, but still. Kaizen principle of incremental improvement is not there. It has become the fashion, the easier the work, the more we can spend time getting rich. Simply put, games for indies backslid into crap.

I'm ashamed to be even labeled indie if this is the kind of innovation and advancement that the community is wishing to put out. Since when did indie mean lazy developers? It is suppose to mean developers that are not sponsored by a publisher. Independent studio, not noob developer. I took 2 months out of my time to learn 3DS Max, 1 hour a day, and literally have comfortability in modeling in it. People can start with Blender, millions of tutorials on how to create fantastic game models. Don't start trying to defend lazy people, 2D art style is one thing, 2D excuse for a game is another. Literally the community thinks its pro coding your game engine from scratch. That's good for those that wish that. Instead, look to a game engine to do basics, Unity3D makes no excuse for people to make awesome products. UDK, ect is also on the list, and in August CryEngine 3. Shaders were invented for a reason, and it's about time to rise out of the ashes. Yes, people can code and sprite from scratch for various reasons. They are trying to invent the wheel and tires they want to use for their cars to make money with. Instead, use a great engine and a scripting language and focus on the product and marketing, not on debugging their custom scripts. Most major game engines already have a team to debug and help for problems, so those problems get over quickly.

I will carry this debate on via pm. I won't express my disgust anymore for that market in public. Instead of great milestones and innovation, indies cling to scraps and make excuses for not being a success.

From the several posts of yours that I have read... I have to say I disagree with most of it. First of all, you claim that it isn't difficult to sell 300k copies of a game in a year? Seriously? Have you done this? It sounds like it would be a good idea for you to do it if it is easy just so you can make some nice cash. You would get to do what you want and you would be financially stable.

As for the laziness part regarding 2D graphics... let me first start by saying I don't know why you are generalizing all indie designers into one group. You speak of indie devs as if they should all unite as one large group and take strides to improve as a whole; it makes no sense. I know that isn't exactly what you are saying, but when you generalize an entire group like that, you change the meaning of what you are saying. The fact of the matter is many indie developers are simply new to the industry and need to take smaller steps. Starting out with 3D is not always the best option for everyone, and the fact that you are surprised that some kids straight out of college may opt to make a 2D game instead is surprising to me. That is the natural and reasonable choice. I don't see how someone choosing to take smaller steps and go at a slower pace is laziness.

Of course there may be some more developed indie companies who also make 2D games (as there are some who make 3D games as well) but that is a choice they make for many reasons, not just laziness. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to declare it as such without any valid points to support it. I can't say I have much to respond to this topic other than indie developers make decisions such as whether or not to make their game 2D or 3D for MANY different reasons. It may be their comfort with the style, it may suit the game they want to make, it may allow them to finish the game more quickly if they are on a tight budget, they may be short on artists due to many factors therefore working on 2D instead of 3D is a better option, etc.

The bottom line for that issue is, you make such sweeping generalization and type all your posts with this sense of superiority. When you were discussing MMOs (this is actually directed at an earlier post of yours) you simply stated what "people" want as if it were fact (and said that they want sandbox games). Well the fact of the matter is the sandbox style feels very pointless to many. I discuss video games with friends all the time and some of them simply like the theme park experience. I am NOT saying sandbox games are bad, have no chance of success or people don't like them... but again... you can't just make a sweeping generalization that everyone likes sandbox games and state it like it is a fact. That's great that you have seen some people saying they want a sandbox experience, but at the same time it is easy for people on the internet to simply say they want a sandbox experience, it is another to actually enjoy a sandbox game as it comes with many down sides. I really don't want to go into that specific discussion to be honest, but the fact of the matter is that people have different opinions on the style.

I apologize if I misinterpreted some of your post as I went through this pretty quickly. I didn't want to spend much time constantly going through the thread rereading things, but from what I do recall, you claimed that everyone now is saying they want sandbox games, which is why I mentioned it.

The lot of you make me sick,cause you think that 2D games are the future or atleast thats how passionately your implying.Im a say also that gamedev is a place where indie devs do unite which is why gamedev was made DUHHH come on people lets keep up on this cause now your just blindly flaming a person for no reason.2D games do sell dont get me wrong but its not really the way to go unless you've got something unique that other 2ds havent done to death.Ive only seen MapleClones all over the place cause people wanna be like maplestory or like nexon in general.Never assume that it aint possible to get 300k sales cause most crappy games even get that much like bit.trip.runner.That game is a 2D game which is crappy and it made decent amount of takes.Also Steam as a good active 3~4million user base and 30million accounts.Your telling me that your all knowing brains can come up with saying that you cant get 300k sales ? your wrong yet again cause it really depends on the game and how good it is and if it can catch attention and its uniqueness.Its gross how negative you are about the sales and dont check how most of these indie games and major company games make they're money and how they do it.Remember Unreal Tournament was indie at one time but look at them now they're a major company.Also i encourage you to follow your dreams but i just put my emphasis on doing your research.If you sell your games on steam they should sell if they're not crappy,done to death games.

Edit:Also for you with your sad responses like " have you ever sold a game with that many sales" im a simply say have you ever made a game and put it on steam ? if not then just dont try and respond cause it gets sad really depressing to see your opinions hold no water

You're welcome to make excuses for those trashy 2D games. I'd think the point of gamedev.net was to unite its indie developers and try to improve the market. It seems that instead its like all the other fanboy forums out there. They claim to do stuff like be a community or help improve or provide useful information, but that is just the mask. Dig deep down and find the true mentality of the forum. Instead of innovation into a full 3D market, you claim your laziness and unwillingness to work as 2D is the in thing. That is legacy now. You want to know why Steam rejects some developers and accepts the other 80% that apply? They dare to be better than the fail posted on here daily. I look to the recent game created blogs, and I see stuff that even PAINT wouldn't poop out. 99% clones on here spouting, "let's code from scratch", and 90% fail. You see 1 or 2 rise up, but only after what seems like ages. Now, Steam sales do this. 1% of 30M accounts is 300k sales. Give or take that a month or 3 months depending on the price of your game and quality of your game, and that is sales. Even at total flop, for a 20$ game, you make around 1.5M~2M after Steam cuts. So, you guys admit your 2D crap won't sell for 300k sales? Thank you, you prove my point. Better community contributions into a 3D market = more improvement of sales. Basic knowledge. I'm done seeing the same 12 year old mentality (though they are likely 19-50 year olds posting here) about being unable to do something. LAZY, lazy, lazy and to make excuses for "I got a life". You can do 3D modeling 1 hour a day, and license a good engine like the UDK for 99$. Maybe I had hope for a community coming from Garage Games and the now Dead Instant Action. I thought, maybe Instant Action only failed because people just generally gave it bad rep. I dug a little deeper to find that it failed cuz they thought they didn't have to evolve and they were immortal to tehcnical issues and bankruptcy. See you guys on Steam, if they let you in.

You're welcome to make excuses for those trashy 2D games. I'd think the point of gamedev.net was to unite its indie developers and try to improve the market. It seems that instead its like all the other fanboy forums out there. They claim to do stuff like be a community or help improve or provide useful information, but that is just the mask. Dig deep down and find the true mentality of the forum.

Actually, gamedev does have a mission statement about what our purposes as a forum are. Our primary purpose is to be a community, a friendly place where people who want to discuss anything relative to game development can do so. We want to encourage people to exchange ideas, and as part of that we need to support the diverse spectrum of ideas people have. In that sense, it is more of a 'fanboy' or 'hugbox' approach than other forums which choose not to moderate posters who act aggressive and have bad attitudes. Frankly I'd be embarrassed to be associated as a moderator with a forum where people are always rude and often verbally abuse each other. What we at gamedev want to do is help people work on whatever project relative to game development they want to work on. It's not our place as an organization to have opinions about whether a particular project is feasible, in good taste, ethical, or whatever. It is our place as an organization to provide an environment where hobby and indie game developers around the world can meet each other, become friends, team up, and read each others' writings on topics related to game development.

Further, I'd like to point out that this is the writing forum. The specific topic of this subforum is writing game stories, scripts, and technical writing such as game design documents and advertising copy. Editing, ghostwriting, and all forms of fiction are also on-topic for this subforum. Art and sales are not. If you want to talk about whether 3d games have greater sales potential than 2d games the appropriate place would be the business forum. Or if you want to make a thread taking a survey of who prefers 3d art to 2d art, or complaining that people shouldn't do 2d development anymore, try the lounge. If you wanted to talk about how to actually produce 2d or 3d content, then the appropriate place would be the art forum.

The lot of you make me sick,cause you think that 2D games are the future or atleast thats how passionately your implying.

I don't see anyone saying that 2d games will replace 3d games in the future. I see people saying 2d and 3d games will exist side by side in the future. Personally I think it would be quite sad if all games used the same graphical style, that kind of lack of diversity is boring. But I also think it's useless to argue what the future will be like. And off topic to this forum. So, no more posting about art or sales in this thread please. Go to an appropriate subforum and start a new thread if you want to discuss that topic. Only post here if you have something to say about designing the setting, culture, plot, races, etc. of an mmo.

This is seriously starting to get off-topic. But I'm easily trolled by that kind of posts so *sighs*
So this is aimed towards HazePhaze and RedPin.

*Insert some flame here*

Now then seriously talking let me ask you both a few questions. What is needed for game to sell? What is needed to create a game? Do everyone who comes here is completely determined to make his own game no matter what? And most important one. Do you think everyone creates games just for a single reason? You don't need to answer. The answers you have should make you understand why Indie games and Gamedev forums are the way they are. (And it's awesome from my point of view.)


PS. Below is the pyramid of disagreement just for reference. Anything below Contradiction isn't suited for a decent discussion. Think about it.