I have been reading the article for the last 30 mins and honestly, I’m not really a fan.
The article talks about how developing 2d games are easier (“You can also make 2D games with a smaller and less experienced team”) but then keeps on talking about how it’s sometimes even harder than developing a 3d game, which seems very contradictory as for the author’s opinion goes. Also I don’t really like how the author quoted some of the people in the article, the opinions seemed to me as a little too extreme and in favor of 2d games rather than 3d games, and usually have a lot of assumptions about 3d games that are not necessarily true: “If it’s a game for the masses, you’re wasting your time, and more importantly, money, making it 3D”, absolutely not true, how could Minecraft (or even, Fortnite and Overwatch) not be an absolute demolisher of this opinion? Change my mind by all means. “3D has always been about realism and immersion”, not true either. If you searched some of the ___.io games, all of them are 3d, but none of them had any intention of realism — they are just kinda for fun (if you know you know). “Some games just work and feel better in 2D. The original Donkey Kong, Kirby, and Sonic games were always far more fun than the attempted 3D outings”, highly subjective, which I personally also strongly disagree, (look at super smash bros for example, same IPs, in 3d, also a banger).
All in all, despite I partly agree that the future of 2d games being near infinite possibilities, I really wasn’t a fan of how the author came to this conclusion.
Leave a Reply