Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Yeah what Kargor (#7) said. Indie developers start off as one person or up to five - ten people in very small teams working on games with shoe string budgets normally. 2D platformers and things take relatively little effort and actual development to get them going. Unlike a full 3D game which requires a lot more actual hands on coding time due to increased complexity. Just think the difference between using a range of sprites for motion and character models compared to a 3D model that needs to be fully animated and textured to get the same effect.
That means they start off 2D, fools on the internet don't like keeping their money so they pour tonnes into them even though they are quite poor games. Multiply that by a couple of thousand sales and they have doubled tripled their money. That means they can expand the office and get more developers and make a bigger games.
It is just that Indie development is a cut throat industry. If people fail there is no endless publisher budget cushoning their fall. When they fall they don't often get a second chance. Which I personally think is a good thing. If it was too easy we'd end up with even more crap games on here than we already have.
It also means it takes a long time for any developers to get any meaningful revenue. Indie is still early which means most of the developers are still scrambling around on the first few rungs of the ladder. Sooner or later we will see some of the more successful developers appear victorious above the rest but we are a way off that yet.
It may even become possible that in the future one or two Indie devs become so successful that they can compete with the likes of AAAs with EA and Ubisoft on the boxes. Who knows.
What I do know is Steam needs to give us a way of removing Indie from the searches. I don't mind as such that they let so many crap games and shovel ware onto Steam but they don't give us any way of filtereing that crap out from the other games.
Not necessarily. There are excellent 2D games out there (including "pseudo-3D" like isometric stuff, or 2D games using 3D technology); however, you have to look for them as they don't have marketing budgets that allow them to be on TV, in movie theaters and on posters everywhere around the world and get press coverage every month keeping people hyped long before the game is even finished.
With platforms such as Desura and Steam, however, there is no "need" to have a professinally developed game and a decent publisher to get into stores. You can be one guy with no game development skills making a crappy game in your spare time, and still have it on a sales platform that can potentially reach millions of people.
However, you can also be one guy or a small company with a lot of game development skills getting a really great game onto a sales platform that can potentially reach millions of people. There's two sides to Steam.
2D platformers require less work to make them look good.
Though they require just as much thoughtfulness to actually design a good game, with things like a proper learning curve / dificulty ramp, a thematically interesting and coherent progression of level environments, an engaging narrative presented by story script or other means, and much more.
Of course, 3D games can present all these things, but they can also fail at them just as easily.
That said, a lot of indie games (including 3D indie games) probably came about on tight budgets and could probably improve on their narrative, design, etc. Though I wouldn't know since I haven't bought most of them...
...same probably applies to AAA games, from what I hear. Though again, I wouldn't know since I haven't bought most of them either.
This answered my question. Thank you for your informative answer.
LOL
Not possible at all!
Seriously, how old are you guys?
Ofc it's possible to make first person game in 2d
ex. TES: Arena
But so many are terrible, the only way this will stop is if people just stop buying after a while.. Most of the games aren't even worth a dollar.
As for rungs on ladders, you have the big hits like mobile, candy crush/angry birds, and you then trail off to nothing. where is there to go from candy crush? Its a dead end. Many indies can't expand beyond their scope, so expansion is just not a long term possibility. You have zenga and its nonsense facebook games, Farmville etc, its all just a big money grab of shallow games. AAA games can expand their scope, expand their budgets, but whats the point of making angry birds sequels, its just more of the same, at the same level...
The point is to make a good game, not to make a teaser for a future game.
FYI, if you want some good 2D games, check my profile's infobox.
Edit: Reproduced the stuff currently in my infobox, here: