I’m a big fan of top down shooters, Helldivers especially, and am currently exploring the idea of creating one myself. One the main questions I’m currently considering is the choice between 2D and 3D. While 3D graphics can look incredible, I’d imagine it comes at the cost of more time, money, and possibly the challenge of hiring people with that talent. With this in mind, I am interested in knowing how long and how many full time employees it took to develop the 3D models, environments, etc of Helldivers. Also, does making the game 3D make the programming and physics more challenging as well, even if the game is experienced top down and is mostly 2D in terms of the interactions? Any rough estimate on how much more time and money it takes to jump from 2D to 3D would be incredibly appreciated! Thank you very much
Not a dev, but I have messed around with unity a bit. And I think I know why you haven’t had a response.
The choice between 2d and 3d isn’t necessarily about resources but style. I believe 2d graphics might be a bit easier to program and animate for the programmer, but then a lot more things need to be hand drawn. For 3d graphics the task of creating and rigging a model, putting a texture on it, and animating it probably takes a lot longer than drawing a picture… But if you go with 2d you’re going to be drawing a lot more pictures.
You’d have to ask an artist which is easier, but I don’t know if they would even have the answer. I’m pretty sure on one thing, though… You probably don’t want to change your mind halfway through.
Indy games tend to use rough versions of either, I don’t think it’s just for a ‘retro’ feel. It’s because they lack the personnel to make 30 billion polygon models or thousands of sprites.