Tuco wrote:enderandrew wrote:3D models and 3D engine really is the way to go. A good 3D engine can evoke 2D art styles quite well, especially from fixed camera angles. A 2D engine however needs sprites for everything and can't fake 3D effects well.
Exactly. Let's take the recent DOTA 2 beta as example: it has a 3D scenario with a (mostly) fixed camera angle that can actually compare with best 2D art, both in smoothness and detail.
Of course, it should be pointed that Valve isn't exactly composed from a bunch of amateurs.
I strongly disagree, I think there is a big difference between a 2D and 3D game. Take for instance Bastion, it is very noticeable that it is 2D and I do not think Dota 2 can compare to it.
Alaseur wrote:Even a 2d isometric game can utilize any art assets made in 3D. As with pre-rendered 3D assets a 2D hand drawn sprite...
Yeah, but as your very post proves, it's a quite annoying, costly and time consuming thing, compared to just using the same 3D asset in a 3D engine.
I would love to see some comparison between 2D vs 3D costs. Do you have any references? I am genuinely interested in knowing the differences.
But even if 2D is let's say twice as consuming as 3D I think it is up to inXile to make the call if they can do it or not. Even if Voice-acting cost a lot of money Double Fine is adding it to their game since they got such a big budget. The cheapest option is not always the best. Yes of course we should priority the resources and not dump them on for instance cinematics and full voice-acting, but I think the actual graphics of the game and how it looks is important. If 2D makes the better game and inXile thinks they have enough resources to do it, they should.