Game Design, Programming and running a one-man games business…

Pushing 2D engines further

cliffski

I have dabbled very slightly in 3D (Don’t be alarmed), and have retreated in terror at the additional grief it requires, and the compromises required, and the general ickiness as it seems to me.

So I am pretty unlikely to release a proper 3D game in the next few years, at least. I personally do prefer 2D games. However, that doesn’t mean I do not enjoy nice graphics, and certainly there are a ton of nice looking 2D games out there. The majority of them are side-scrolling or similar style games that rely more on a very good piece of art direction (Braid, World of Goo), than they do any sheer horsepower or rendering muscle. I’m not aware of many 2D games, indie or otherwise that tax a CPU/GPU as much as Gratuitous Space or Tank Battles.

However, having just bought a new PC, AND watched the latest cryengine demos, it’s pretty clear that modern gamers have enough firepower to render the bejezus out of anything in 2D, so we are in the happy situation of twiddling our thumbs thinking what crazy stuff to add next time-around.

One idea is is to push particle counts through the roof and have seriously complex explosions and smoke trails etc. This could certainly be ramped up, although smoothly transitioning to it from low-spec PC’s is a nightmare

Another idea is to use a LOT of different layers and components to build up individual units to give them a more unique feel. Obviously GTB is a big step up from GSB in that respect, but it’s got way, way more scope.

Shadows and lighting are two other possibilities. GTB infantry uses blob shadows. Animated shadows are certainly doable, but involve a crazy amount of texture RAM to do right. Maybe worth investigating. Faked 3D lighting using that clever deferred rendering thingy is another (fairly tricky) option.

More detailed environments is another. The problem here is art budget. It’s all very well saying we need 120 different bush or pebble models. Someone has to make them, and get paid for it.

More cunning explosions, using some sort of clever physics modelling, or procedural whatnots, or clever multi-layered shader thingies, is another option.

Of course the real problem is TIME. I already have this big scary change to Gratuitous Space Battles waiting for me to release for everyone. It’s just sat in-between holidays, GTB updates, redshirt, and talking to builders. Plus another new thing I haven’t revealed yet. I am quite tempted to just push out my GSB update very soon ‘as-is’. I was hoping to find a cunning way to use it to raise money for charity, but that’s a whole other story…

6 thoughts on Pushing 2D engines further

  1. I think the trick is how to support the older hardware. For example, I’m still running an ATI-3450 (yes, that’s a “3”) at home, and I’m happy with the way GSB runs on it.

    Also, at some point, how “real” is real? if you take into account the real scale of a space battle, or even a tank battle, the units will be so small that they won’t even be drawn on the map. So we always come into a game with suspension of beliefs, and take a lot of the graphics as face value. If you start making them too real, then it start to clash with everything else in the scene.

    Unless we’re writing a full simulation (or go 3D), I think we’re at the point where the hardware has exceeded the requirements of a 2D game. Also, the gap between the various generations of usable hardware has become too great for a game to play well and fully utilizing all levels of hardware.

    Another trend I have seen are the new, flashy games that require the latest cards but have terrible game plays. Those games quickly show up at the used game stores at great discounts.

    Also, the problem with adding “better” modelings, etc. when the hardware is present is that the game is at least slightly crippled when run on lesser hardware, scarifying a lot of playabilities just so that it would look nicer if you spend X more $$$ on an upgraded system.

    I would play more for the game play aspect than graphics any day.

  2. Oh I definitely agree that gameplay is way more important, but given that the game has to have some graphics, and given the hardware that is available, I’d like to make it look as good and as rich as it can.

    I don’t think personally we have exceeded the theoretical demands of a 2D game yet. There is just room for some truly stunning particle effects, if nothing else, as long as we can code decent editors for them, and manage the scaling down of them for lower spec PCs (which I agree is one of the hardest things).

  3. @ Long,

    You need to consider the cost of new hardware. A brand new, 7770 is now at $100.
    This is phenomonal speed for tiny money. a step down to 6450 (very slow card) is $40 – very poor for money.
    New on cpu graphics by intel and amd are @6650 speeds, so the general public going into the next 3 years will have this in their pc, usually even if they didnt request it.

    If developing a game aimed at 2 years down the track, looking at what the majority will have in their pcs, it is not difficult to design for ati 6650 low graphics, 7770 for medium and high settings. (or higher if you do 3d)

  4. @Dave,

    I agree with you on the cost, and also with the point about looking two years down the line. But that is also precisely my point.

    Computers don’t get obsolete as quickly as they used to. In fact, I can dig out an “old” computer from 2000 or 2004 (you know, the one with the “Certified for Windows 98” sticker) and slap Windows XP or Windows 7 on it and it will run fine. And play most of the games (albeit poorly).

    Even though that is stretching it, I can see that a 2008 computer surviving another few years before getting replaced. Unless, of course, you’re at the cutting edge and upgrade frequently (I know a quite a few people like that, too)

    Here is a recent hardware and software survey (on steam, so all serious gamers):

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

    If you look at “VRAM”, 256MB card are still at 10%, given the demographic.

    Also, looking forward to things like tablets, I can see an iPad (original) still being used quite a few years from now, and which will still command quite a large market share. So is one running Android 2.x.

    So back to Cliff’s point, the hardest part is making sure that the game runs great on good HW, while still run acceptably on commodity ones.

    Long.

  5. As for amazing 2D graphics, take a look at Trine 1 and 2. They are both 2D, but the graphics are amazing.

  6. @ BramB

    These are actually 3D side scrolling games. Not sure, however, if your post is a trolling-possibility :)

Comments are currently closed.