Meet our Editor of the Day!
Swords and Soldiers
DrMindbender says,
From what I can see so far, this looks like it will be FUN! Why aren't more dev studios making more quality 2D titles like this? The more I ask, the more I get responses like, "2D games cost too much to make" or "We don't have that kind of budget" or my favorite, "gamers don't like 2D games." Well, in response to those comments, "Hire a f*ckin' team of art and engineering staff that can deliver on every milestone, and your cost worries become irrelevant." If studios continue to put a bullsh*t cap on development of quality titles, then high end console development could quickly come to a halt... while their biggest fears of casual gaming taking over the market could very well come true. If a studio decided to take the low road because of budget issues, then they will lose their production staff because production staffers would rather work on something fun and worth while. And as far as "gamers don't like 2D games"... if gamers didn't like 2D games, then why all the Commando 3 downloads? They're not getting it for Commando... they're all getting it for the Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix BETA. And if 2D really wasn't something that gamers want, then why does Konami want to make a brand new Castlevania on WiiWare... in 2D?! And why is that new Wario game doing so well? Sure 2D takes a lot more to make production wise, but at the same time, do these people believe that their dev teams would rather stick to making mediocre games instead of possibly ground breaking, breath taking titles? Again, hire a team that can be trusted to deliver, and you won't regret your decision. Right?
Article excerpt from kotaku.com —
"The original de Blog developers are back with their own game studio and a shiny new title coming out on WiiWare in Q4 2008. Ronimo Games, founded by said De Blob creators in Utrecht, the Netherlands, is readying Swords & Soldiers for European and North American release. Swords & Soldiers is a side-scrolling RTS in which three different...
Read the full article at kotaku.com »
Read the full article at kotaku.com »
Comments: 10
Posted 3 years ago
I personally love 2d games. Metal Slug FTW!! Anyhoo, the impression I get from publishers and kids these days are that it's not what the "Next Generation" of games is expected to look like and that it'll cost a lot to make. Honestly I can see why they can view it this way, but it doesn't make them right. I'll take a 2d Megaman 9 any day of the week, month, year whatever over some of the "Next Generation" 3d games...cough Haze! 2d type of games rock its simple and gameplay is supreme to a lot of complex 3d garbage. Don't get me wrong I love 3d games as well; there's a lot of possibilities with 3d gaming. So yeah I understand where you're coming from.
Posted 3 years ago
i love me some 3d games too, but i'd trade looks for fun factor any day. Alien Hominid wasn't exactly a masterpiece for the eyes, but because it was so fun, and a toddler or senior citizen could pick it up, play it, and fall in love with it... it was awesome. the simplicity mixed with the fluidity of the animation was enough to keep you hooked for hours. Metal Slug is my favorite 2D game of all time, and i'm sure most of you have either seen or played it as well, so i don't need to go into how awesome, and fun that one is. i guess what i'm trying to say is, "i want fun games that people cared about making. all those pretty but crappy playing games are a waste of both time, and money." gimme some good 2d games to make, and maybe my hate will get toned back a bit... but until that happens, the hate thrives.
Posted 3 years ago
I've never heard the argument that "2D costs too much." That's... bizarre.
The answer is that, yes, there are gamers out there who like 2D. But not nearly as many as ones who like 3D. So, for some, it may be an opportunity cost. Do you invest $X million into a 2D game and sell X units? Or do you invest that money into a different project that might need it that will also reach a wider audience?
Oh, and hiring an "art and engineering staff that can deliver on every milestone" is sort of a nonsensical argument. That's like saying, "Duh, the secret to making good games is to make them *good*." No team delivers on *every* milestone. Some teams may have a much better track record than others, but it is impossible to anticipate 100% of all issues that can come up during any project.
The answer is that, yes, there are gamers out there who like 2D. But not nearly as many as ones who like 3D. So, for some, it may be an opportunity cost. Do you invest $X million into a 2D game and sell X units? Or do you invest that money into a different project that might need it that will also reach a wider audience?
Oh, and hiring an "art and engineering staff that can deliver on every milestone" is sort of a nonsensical argument. That's like saying, "Duh, the secret to making good games is to make them *good*." No team delivers on *every* milestone. Some teams may have a much better track record than others, but it is impossible to anticipate 100% of all issues that can come up during any project.
Posted 3 years ago
I've never heard that either, but hey, I'm not in the industry. :)
These observations are definitely interesting for me to hear. I had no idea that there were developers and publishers who were anti-2D for reasons other than feeling like it was "old".
Hapacheese, I agree with the gist of what you are saying for the hiring a good team issue, but your statment here: "No team delivers on *every* milestone. Some teams may have a much better track record than others, but it is impossible to anticipate 100% of all issues that can come up during any project," is problematic.
I have been a part of many complex projects, that while not in game development, have hit every damn milestone on the head. This happens when you have an environment where you are encouraged to look at _past_ history to make scheduling decisions and management that is willing to trust the decisions of the project lead, instead of pushing for more on less time/resources. You don't have to anticipate specific issues; you need to anticipate issues, period, and build in a bake time based on past history for similarly-scoped projects.
When you have great project management backed up by the execs and supported with sufficient resources, then you can meet every deadline. I'm not talking fantasy land, I am talking realistic deadlines so that you aren't padding the schedule to the end of forever, but you accurately predict when the finish time will be, and be aggressive with resource-cutting measures at the beginning of cycles.
There IS a better way to do game development.
These observations are definitely interesting for me to hear. I had no idea that there were developers and publishers who were anti-2D for reasons other than feeling like it was "old".
Hapacheese, I agree with the gist of what you are saying for the hiring a good team issue, but your statment here: "No team delivers on *every* milestone. Some teams may have a much better track record than others, but it is impossible to anticipate 100% of all issues that can come up during any project," is problematic.
I have been a part of many complex projects, that while not in game development, have hit every damn milestone on the head. This happens when you have an environment where you are encouraged to look at _past_ history to make scheduling decisions and management that is willing to trust the decisions of the project lead, instead of pushing for more on less time/resources. You don't have to anticipate specific issues; you need to anticipate issues, period, and build in a bake time based on past history for similarly-scoped projects.
When you have great project management backed up by the execs and supported with sufficient resources, then you can meet every deadline. I'm not talking fantasy land, I am talking realistic deadlines so that you aren't padding the schedule to the end of forever, but you accurately predict when the finish time will be, and be aggressive with resource-cutting measures at the beginning of cycles.
There IS a better way to do game development.
Posted 3 years ago
Hm... Maybe I should clarify. There are definitely individuals and parts of entire teams that do deliver on every milestone. But, from what I've seen (so I should definitely clarify that this is only based on my personal experience and perception), the vast majority of the time (even top notch developers) will often have something missing (though with the good developers, this is negotiated beforehand in a "hey, we have to put off doing X because of Y, but we can deliver Z in its place instead for now").
I think the big difference (and I might just be wrong here) is that internally within a team, there are likely groups that are always on target all the time. But, in my experience, even with the best of teams, there are some times when something is a little late, an unanticipated problem comes up, etc. Like I said in the paragraph above, the good teams know how to communicate this and compensate, but my point still stands, from my experience.
(And this very well may just be something wrong with the game industry. Too many teams over promise and under deliver. A lot of times, it just seems like promises are made just to get the contracts signed, and both devs and publishers alike turn a blind eye to the glaring problems, which is, well, dumb.)
I think the big difference (and I might just be wrong here) is that internally within a team, there are likely groups that are always on target all the time. But, in my experience, even with the best of teams, there are some times when something is a little late, an unanticipated problem comes up, etc. Like I said in the paragraph above, the good teams know how to communicate this and compensate, but my point still stands, from my experience.
(And this very well may just be something wrong with the game industry. Too many teams over promise and under deliver. A lot of times, it just seems like promises are made just to get the contracts signed, and both devs and publishers alike turn a blind eye to the glaring problems, which is, well, dumb.)
Posted 3 years ago
I think the distinction is that 2D games are being made when it's appropriate to make a 2D game. Braid only works because it's 2D. Castle Crashers (and the Behemoth's whole visual aesthetic) only works in 2D. Games that are designed to be 2D can be just as fun/challenging/interesting as 3D games, no question.
But at the same time, 2D isn't always better. In the days of 60FPS, doing fluid animation that looks as good as 3D running at 60FPS at full HD resolution? Expensive, both in terms of memory and cost to create the animation itself. Yeah, you can run the animation at a lower FPS, but the point is the fluidity.
Also, for a game like SF, and some here undoubtedly have more experience than me, tweaking moves in 2D is more costly than it is in 3D, I'd assume. Changing the length of a kick on a 3D model in the rough stages is relatively cheap - a half-hour change to a whitebox-quality animation - grab a locator, pull, re-export the animation. Doing the same in 2D takes a lot more time, even if you're doing things in a relatively sketchy state.
I think the shift isn't "back to 2D for its old school awesomeness" so much as it's a move away from publishers' reactive "3D EVERYTHING!" that they've been stuck in for the last seven or eight years. Now, you'll finally start to see 2D games not being actively discriminated against, and so people will use the right D for the right application.
I hope.
But at the same time, 2D isn't always better. In the days of 60FPS, doing fluid animation that looks as good as 3D running at 60FPS at full HD resolution? Expensive, both in terms of memory and cost to create the animation itself. Yeah, you can run the animation at a lower FPS, but the point is the fluidity.
Also, for a game like SF, and some here undoubtedly have more experience than me, tweaking moves in 2D is more costly than it is in 3D, I'd assume. Changing the length of a kick on a 3D model in the rough stages is relatively cheap - a half-hour change to a whitebox-quality animation - grab a locator, pull, re-export the animation. Doing the same in 2D takes a lot more time, even if you're doing things in a relatively sketchy state.
I think the shift isn't "back to 2D for its old school awesomeness" so much as it's a move away from publishers' reactive "3D EVERYTHING!" that they've been stuck in for the last seven or eight years. Now, you'll finally start to see 2D games not being actively discriminated against, and so people will use the right D for the right application.
I hope.
Posted 3 years ago
oh, i hear the "2D costs too much" on a daily basis. however when i ask for evidence by wanting to see the numbers, i get the, "it's a need to know basis, and you don't need to know" treatment.
whether or not the statement is true has yet to be proven. i would even be happy to hear them say, "we don't wanna do 2D titles, because we don't want to do 2D titles." that'd be plain and simple, and though i'd get further jaded with the answer, at least i'd know that they weren't just blowing smoke up my a$$.
whether or not the statement is true has yet to be proven. i would even be happy to hear them say, "we don't wanna do 2D titles, because we don't want to do 2D titles." that'd be plain and simple, and though i'd get further jaded with the answer, at least i'd know that they weren't just blowing smoke up my a$$.
Posted 3 years ago
Are these people generally business types or development types? What a bunch of weirdos. You should make them a 3D render of their pants on fire, since they hate 2D so much.
Posted 3 years ago
i should animate their pants on fire in 2D... because they hate it so much.
Add your comment:
Anonymous
Tagged:
Video Games
,
WiiWare
,
Swords Array Soldiers
,
De Blob
,
Ronimo Games
About DrMindbender
Gerald Broas
Fremont, CA
36, Male
Joined: August 14, 2008
Level: Level 4
Points: 4,575
Lifetime Interest: 81, 0%
Today's Interest: 0, 0%
Following: 2
Followers: 5
