[quote="Cleril" post="9.256568.9623205
Oi, third time with this. It has no use to me really as I don't make 3D games because I'm not made of infinite hard drive space 3D stuff will require. I plan to make games for four years at minimum while in college, 182 GB won't last for jack squat if I made 3D things for four years.
Besides, in college I'd use more professional stuff anyway in due time.[/quote]
There really isn't a necessary correlation between 3D games and absurd drive space. Indeed, given that a model is mathematically little more than a series of points, these tend to be quite small. My contrast, the high resolution textures in common usage are far, far larger. In the case of Fallout (as an example) a male raider's model (body and armor) is right around a megabyte while the necessary textures generally exceed 10 megabytes.
But then, most problems are easier to solve in 2d than 3d. Simple algebra and trigonometry are sufficient to produce a game engine and are quite easy to visualize. By contrast, a 3D engine requires far more complex interpretations of both and the use of linear transformations becomes necessary for optimization. Each of these is more difficult to visualize as a concept and thus more difficult to implement (from my perspective at least).
Of course, the simple fact that there exists a ready made platform for 2d gaming that requires little knowledge of how to make things work at the very granular level (Flash) is more than enough reason to avoid 3D. Still, it might be worth your time to try producing 3D assets and then simply translating them into the appropriate sprites when the time comes. Not only because of the useful experience in producing models and the like but also because such a process is often simpler than simply working in 2D the entire time.
Oi, third time with this. It has no use to me really as I don't make 3D games because I'm not made of infinite hard drive space 3D stuff will require. I plan to make games for four years at minimum while in college, 182 GB won't last for jack squat if I made 3D things for four years.
Besides, in college I'd use more professional stuff anyway in due time.[/quote]
There really isn't a necessary correlation between 3D games and absurd drive space. Indeed, given that a model is mathematically little more than a series of points, these tend to be quite small. My contrast, the high resolution textures in common usage are far, far larger. In the case of Fallout (as an example) a male raider's model (body and armor) is right around a megabyte while the necessary textures generally exceed 10 megabytes.
But then, most problems are easier to solve in 2d than 3d. Simple algebra and trigonometry are sufficient to produce a game engine and are quite easy to visualize. By contrast, a 3D engine requires far more complex interpretations of both and the use of linear transformations becomes necessary for optimization. Each of these is more difficult to visualize as a concept and thus more difficult to implement (from my perspective at least).
Of course, the simple fact that there exists a ready made platform for 2d gaming that requires little knowledge of how to make things work at the very granular level (Flash) is more than enough reason to avoid 3D. Still, it might be worth your time to try producing 3D assets and then simply translating them into the appropriate sprites when the time comes. Not only because of the useful experience in producing models and the like but also because such a process is often simpler than simply working in 2D the entire time.
