Why are almost all indie games 2D?

A

athenian200

Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
837
There are a lot of great indie games, don't get me wrong. But it seems like most of them are technologically stuck in the SNES/GBA era in many ways.

For instance, I've personally never seen a 3D indie game, and I rarely see RPGs or other games with deep stories. It seems like for that kind of thing, you still have to go to the big publishers.

Why do indie developers have more trouble with 3D graphics and storylines than with anything else? Or am I just not playing the right games?
 
Most indie games are shit imo. However there are a few exceptions and also depends on how you define indie. To name a few:

Hard Reset
Witcher series
Amnesia
Minecraft

EDIT: Most indie games are 2D as its cheaper and easier.
 
Last edited:
It's probably the toolset used to make the game is easier then a bigger budget 3-D game.
games like Awesomnauts have a pretty big following on steam along with Terra and some other ones I missed.

A lot of developers don't do 2-D right though =) They supercharge it to the points where it sucks.
 
athenian200 said:
Why do indie developers have more trouble with 3D graphics and storylines than with anything else? Or am I just not playing the right games?
Click to expand...

Think back for a minute.

Remember the original Fallout or the original Elder Scrolls games? They were 2D and had a HELL of a lot more content and story line than we ever get now with all these fancy engines and graphics. Further most games with 3D engines suck in terms of story, as well as having engine problems.

What you speak of is anything but an indie developer problem. It is par for the course.
 
Skripka said:
Think back for a minute.

Remember the original Fallout or the original Elder Scrolls games? They were 2D and had a HELL of a lot more content and story line than we ever get now with all these fancy engines and graphics. Further most games with 3D engines suck in terms of story, as well as having engine problems.

What you speak of is anything but an indie developer problem. It is par for the course.
Click to expand...

Yep, advanced graphics and 3D gaming has come at a cost. Not only has gameplay and story become more streamlined, but Skyrim for example seems to have been shipped in a rather bare bones condition graphically while relying on the mod community to flesh things out. That and holding back content as DLC is another fruit of advanced 3D gaming engines. I don't think it is greed so much as it is the jaw dropping 3D environments taking so much labor, time, and money to develop.
 
Last edited:
Because indie teams don't usually have big teams or a lot of resources. That puts limitations on what kind of games they can make.
 
Essentially, it comes down to money.

While it's not impossible, it is improbable that a small team can put as much money into the assets of the game. Most small teams also don't have dedicated writers, as that would mostly end up being a waste of money, if they have to pay for it or split the profit. Teams this small usually only have what they think they absolutely need. A programmer or two and artist. Sounds usually comes from free sites or outsourced or something they recorded themselves.

Indie teams also seems to focus on mechanics over everything. Games really do shine in that, and without it, your game is basically screwed. I mean, why play a game that you can't enjoy because of how it works?

EDIT: Witcher/HardReset is hardly indie. They were created by a studio with 30+ people. Unless you're talking about the first one, I'm not sure what they were at that point. It's hard to call them that though, even in the looses of sense.

Rogue Legacy, FTL, and Dust are all great games imo. But for 3D ones... I honestly can't think of any, either.
 
Last edited:
not only ressources , many indie games loves retro games and tries to relive those days.

one good example is Shovel Knight. this is a great 2d game... one of the best.
 
bytes said:
Most indie games are shit imo.
Click to expand...

This. But also keep in mind that most people don't consider many types of games to be "indie". Independent simply means the developers are independent from a publisher. Tripwire Interactive, although it made RO2 and now yet another zombie game, is independent.

Eagle Dynamics is independent.

Lots of people think "indie" = off the wall, 2D stuff with crap graphics. Plenty of good 2D indie games though.

I would strongly recommend Door Kickers (think of Rainbow Six 1, Rogue Spear & Police Quest games):

http://store.steampowered.com/app/248610/

Very fun, and while 2D, the graphics look nice.
 
athenian200 said:
There are a lot of great indie games, don't get me wrong. But it seems like most of them are technologically stuck in the SNES/GBA era in many ways.

For instance, I've personally never seen a 3D indie game, and I rarely see RPGs or other games with deep stories. It seems like for that kind of thing, you still have to go to the big publishers.

Why do indie developers have more trouble with 3D graphics and storylines than with anything else? Or am I just not playing the right games?
Click to expand...

I think the answer is obvious. Complicated games require more capital and staff to develop. In some cases indie game developers make more money with less at stake, smaller staff and less overhead.
 
Most of the big indie RPGs are 2d/3d. Shadowrun Returns had a decent story. Several more good looking RPGs are on their way from Kickstarter like Wasteland 2, Torment: Tides of Numenera, Project Eternity, Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues, etc.
 
I imagine that its difficult to create a 3d graphics engine from scratch or that it costs too much money to use a massively released 3d engine for a title that may or may not be popular enough to break even
 
Because development time, team size, and cost scale up rapidly with complexity.

Ballpark budgets:
Pixel-art 2D = ~$100k
High-quality 2D = ~$1m
3D = ~$10m
AAA 3D = ~$100m
 
XenIneX said:
Because development time, team size, and cost scale up rapidly with complexity.

Ballpark budgets:
Pixel-art 2D = ~$100k
High-quality 2D = ~$1m
3D = ~$10m
AAA 3D = ~$100m
Click to expand...

Game: Elysian Shadows
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRDU71BLWwww_NgT5VBGZYQ - looks like they want $150k for 2D/3D pixel-art using a custom engine (This engine / toolset looked like a lot of work, and is the main reason I was interested in their project). It's somewhat inspired by Chrono Trigger, apparently. I haven't contributed to their KS yet...I just watch their whacky youtube development blog sometimes... I'm glad they got the project rolling, but it's difficult to understand what their overall vision is. Hopefully they release some new neat-summary videos quickly - that should help their kickstarter.

Damn... that sounded like a plug for the game. Oh well... I was actually more interested in development costs. I'm not even sure this development team works for pay... I do wonder what a few motivated developers could achieve with Unreal Engine 4, for instance. Multiplayer-server costs may be a barrier.
 
Last edited:
I would have to ignore the plethora of Unity-based indie games on Steam to even be able to answer the question. Perhaps you are only familiar with the 2D ones? Not sure how to answer OP...
 
They are out there, Stanley Parable, Gone Home and Brothers: A Tale of two sons for example.
 
The largest cost of developing a game is the art and graphics. 3D models and environments = a lot of art and graphics.
 
Archmage said:
Game: Elysian Shadows
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRDU71BLWwww_NgT5VBGZYQ - looks like they want $150k for 2D/3D pixel-art using a custom engine (This engine / toolset looked like a lot of work, and is the main reason I was interested in their project). It's somewhat inspired by Chrono Trigger, apparently. I haven't contributed to their KS yet...I just watch their whacky youtube development blog sometimes... I'm glad they got the project rolling, but it's difficult to understand what their overall vision is. Hopefully they release some new neat-summary videos quickly - that should help their kickstarter.

Damn... that sounded like a plug for the game. Oh well... I was actually more interested in development costs. I'm not even sure this development team works for pay... I do wonder what a few motivated developers could achieve with Unreal Engine 4, for instance. Multiplayer-server costs may be a barrier.
Click to expand...

That appears to be something the team has been doing in their spare time while otherwise employed/in school...for seven years. That changes the calculus of it quite a lot. The Kickstarter is just so two of the team (out of seven) can go full-time. If this'd been a full-time project -- and been managed as such -- it'd probably run something like $1m over two years.

---edit---

bigdogchris said:
The largest cost of developing a game is the art and graphics. 3D models and environments = a lot of art and graphics.
Click to expand...

Well, technically the largest cost would be manpower. Asset creation just happens to be the biggest timesink.
 
Last edited:
BladeVenom said:
Most of the big indie RPGs are 2d/3d. Shadowrun Returns had a decent story. Several more good looking RPGs are on their way from Kickstarter like Wasteland 2, Torment: Tides of Numenera, Project Eternity, Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues, etc.
Click to expand...

I looked up some of those, and they seem pretty good.

It seems like it's just 3D that isn't done after all. There are at least a few good RPGs, though still fewer of those than the action-type games.

In fact, it seems like even studios are taking a long time to release any game that's worth playing these days.

I wonder if all this 1080p stuff is increasing the lead time on character models and textures? If so, I hope 4k doesn't take off. I'd rather not wait 5 years between games just so they'll look good on giant TVs.
 
Easier to control the art direction, I'd guess (especially when it's a small team - not enough people to push the boundaries and flesh out the game worlds).
 
3d isnt a requirement for a good game.

2d is most likely used for cost reasons.
 
chrcoluk said:
2d is most likely used for cost reasons.
Click to expand...

It actually didn't occur to me that it would be harder or more expensive to make a 3D game... I know a lot of people who make stuff in 3DSmax or something in their spare time. Some of them are pretty good at it, too.

I always kind of thought maybe most Indie developers just have a passion for retro gaming and hate the idea of 3D gaming on principle. So they make games the "old-fashioned way," in protest of what gaming has become, or whatever. Basically, I thought it was a philosophical problem rather than a financial one.
 
athenian200 said:
I wonder if all this 1080p stuff is increasing the lead time on character models and textures? If so, I hope 4k doesn't take off. I'd rather not wait 5 years between games just so they'll look good on giant TVs.
Click to expand...

Is the tech advancing faster than the devs ability to finance a game for the hardwares capability when they stand to loose money with piracy?

chrcoluk said:
3d isnt a requirement for a good game.

2d is most likely used for cost reasons.
Click to expand...

That is true, its the gameplay. Many fun games in 2d.

I miss this late 90's to early 2000's era, were games cheaper to make back then for companies?

Test_1_zps05669fd3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mblake81 said:
It is nice to have games that challenge your gear, I suppose I am accustomed to that from my start in the early 2000's.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you fell into the "tech demo as game" marketing push of the video card war years.
 
athenian200 said:
It actually didn't occur to me that it would be harder or more expensive to make a 3D game... I know a lot of people who make stuff in 3DSmax or something in their spare time. Some of them are pretty good at it, too.

I always kind of thought maybe most Indie developers just have a passion for retro gaming and hate the idea of 3D gaming on principle. So they make games the "old-fashioned way," in protest of what gaming has become, or whatever. Basically, I thought it was a philosophical problem rather than a financial one.
Click to expand...

While there is a skill/ability component and therefore the talent required is more costly the other aspect of this is simply the time component.

How long for example (in terms of man hours) would you think it takes to design and make a character used in one of those 2D retro art type games you are referencing?

Now how long do you think it would take to do the same for a character in one of the modern big budget games?

The higher fidelity of an art asset the more time it will take to create it.
 
limitedaccess said:
While there is a skill/ability component and therefore the talent required is more costly the other aspect of this is simply the time component.

How long for example (in terms of man hours) would you think it takes to design and make a character used in one of those 2D retro art type games you are referencing?

Now how long do you think it would take to do the same for a character in one of the modern big budget games?

The higher fidelity of an art asset the more time it will take to create it.
Click to expand...

I guess it would also depend on the level/quality of 3D. If they were making N64/PSone-era 3D graphics, it might not take that long. Half the time they just used plain Gouraud shading and didn't bother with textures back in those days.

I suppose the decision that usually gets made is that they'd rather have quality 2D graphics rather than primitive-looking 3D. Although, I wouldn't mind playing another Super Mario 64-looking game or two.
 
athenian200 said:
I guess it would also depend on the level/quality of 3D. If they were making N64/PSone-era 3D graphics, it might not take that long. Half the time they just used plain Gouraud shading and didn't bother with textures back in those days.

I suppose the decision that usually gets made is that they'd rather have quality 2D graphics rather than primitive-looking 3D. Although, I wouldn't mind playing another Super Mario 64-looking game or two.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's an issue of quality necessarily but more "effectiveness." The retro 2D look works, for one it invokes a pleasant nostalgia feeling and can be presented as retro.

Low quality 3D would probably just on the other hand would probably make most people just think the game looks ugly.

Even for modern titles from big studios you see how the use of different art direction can affect how well a game looks without relying on higher fidelity. Valve games, and specifically Dota 2 as something recent, would be a good example. They aren't technically demanding and age well.

Although if you're comparing with what I think you were referring to, those 8/16bit console era style graphics which are basically a few dozen pixels (well blocks, I think they are higher resolution these days just scaled?) would still take much less work then even the "primitive" 3D graphics of the n64/ps1. Maybe not if you're referring to even older and basic just wireframe type 3D graphics though.
 
limitedaccess said:
I wouldn't say it's an issue of quality necessarily but more "effectiveness." The retro 2D look works, for one it invokes a pleasant nostalgia feeling and can be presented as retro.

Low quality 3D would probably just on the other hand would probably make most people just think the game looks ugly.
Click to expand...

Yup. You go 3D and people have fairly high expectations. And getting a 3D engine game to play well isn't easy.

I decided to check out the Avatar game that came out around the time of the movie thinking it might be kind of fun. Published by Ubisoft. It turned out to be one of the worst done games in years that I've bothered with. The camera angle was awkward and just looked wrong, the textures blew chunk, the controls sucked, the map layout was primitive and best, the maps themselves were highly restricted in 2 dimensions, so instead of tree hopping like the movie you're always running around the ground...and the story sucked as well of course.

Sometimes critics are hard on a game...the critics weren't hard enough.
 
XenIneX said:
That appears to be something the team has been doing in their spare time while otherwise employed/in school...for seven years. That changes the calculus of it quite a lot. The Kickstarter is just so two of the team (out of seven) can go full-time. If this'd been a full-time project -- and been managed as such -- it'd probably run something like $1m over two years.
Click to expand...

This Elysian Shadows Kickstarter may just succeed.

They announced that they will release the engine / toolkit (can be used for your own games), and that has probably helped their campaign tremendously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCQd0gFtqs&list=UURDU71BLWwww_NgT5VBGZYQ - looks like a time-intensive process to simulate lighting on 2D pixel art objects. I guess their assets will be revamped.

Though my RPG-nostalgia is for the classic RPG style (D&D, wizardry, betrayal at krondor, etc), I've still kept tabs on this project... probably because they've been documenting the development, and because they've improved the quality of the project significantly in a short time. Considering that the project is looking better now, I wonder why they couldn't delay the kickstarter another month.

Thread relevance: Anyone think this indie game is going to be good / suck?

I actually want that $10 development notebook add-on for the lighting and physics notes.
 
Outlast is an indie game and it's full 3D. First person horror and you're only armed with a video camera. It's pretty good, actually. Almost an AAA title.
 
Pretty much like what everybody else said, it's a matter of cost mostly. You could argue that a visually nice 3D game would also take a lot of time, which is true, but even that goes back to cost. Not that I think that it's bad. Some of my favorite games are smaller indie titles. There's something about a really well done sprite-based game that just looks so beautiful.
 
athenian200 said:
There are a lot of great indie games, don't get me wrong. But it seems like most of them are technologically stuck in the SNES/GBA era in many ways.
Click to expand...

Because they are catering to the 30 somethings that want to relive their childhood. Its a HUGE market.
 
Combination of nostalgic fanboys plus its takes less time and money to program with a cheapo 2d engine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top