Been really looking to get back into game developement and I have always worked with 2D graphics in the past. Thier just so much easier to work with and develope for. I also realize though that a lot of people refuse to touch anything 2D now-a-days. With that being said is better to make an uglier 3D game with the same systems or make a beautiful 2D one?

Those who want 3D graphics usually want it to be so good, that they wouldn't play a really bad-looking 3D game anyway. But if it's beautiful 2D graphics, you'll only lose those who need it to be 3D graphics.

When Nintendo let a screenshot of a fully rendered Link from the Legend of Zelda franchise leak some years back, I was freaking out.  I jumped for joy because Link was getting a highly detailed 3-D makeover.

Fast forward a little to the first screenshots of Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, and I about blew a gasket.

I was pissed!

Fast forward a little more, and I got my hot little hands on a copy of Wind Waker, and OMG!  WOW!  It was freakin' amazing!

I had no idea cell-shaded graphics could look so cool, yet be so simplistic!

I think if your artwork is beautifully done, there's probably going to be a market for you, and skeptics might be forced to eat their words.

Make a beautiful 3D game, of course.

I would rather have a not so good looking 3D game, that flows good, than a beautiful 2D game, unless it's like Castle Crashers or something

I am torn really...I like both.

For every dimension you add to your project eligible people who can work on it goes down by 10 times.   This does not just refer to art direction, but also to things like world seamlessness, persistant data, and similar.   Going 3D easily adds a few more dimensions to your project, you have your artist requirements and your IT requirements.   To get something that looks "quality" you're going to need a few people in both fields(just because someone has a knack for making awesome low poly models doesn't mean they can make a good animation.   Same goes for Programmers when you start comparing compression/shader-tech/optimization and similar).

To get decent art you're looking at $20-$60 an hour.   Then from this point you need to take into consideration the difference between 2D and 3D, and how much more time it will take.   For someone "just looking to get back into it" it's probably going to be a no brainer.  

I preffer really well made 2D over really well made 3D.

i love 2d isometric games. So many good games like : Ultima Online, original syndicate, starcraft, fallout, baulders gate, icewind dale and so many other classics

Originally posted by anemo

For every dimension you add to your project eligible people who can work on it goes down by 10 times.   This does not just refer to art direction, but also to things like world seamlessness, persistant data, and similar.   Going 3D easily adds a few more dimensions to your project, you have your artist requirements and your IT requirements.   To get something that looks "quality" you're going to need a few people in both fields(just because someone has a knack for making awesome low poly models doesn't mean they can make a good animation.   Same goes for Programmers when you start comparing compression/shader-tech/optimization and similar).

To get decent art you're looking at $20-$60 an hour.   Then from this point you need to take into consideration the difference between 2D and 3D, and how much more time it will take.   For someone "just looking to get back into it" it's probably going to be a no brainer.  

this is very true.  

Originally posted by Crusix221

Been really looking to get back into game developement and I have always worked with 2D graphics in the past. Thier just so much easier to work with and develope for. I also realize though that a lot of people refuse to touch anything 2D now-a-days. With that being said is better to make an uglier 3D game with the same systems or make a beautiful 2D one?

Could do with more context. What do you have in mind?

Umm..Its not well done 3D vs well done 2D.

Its HD Well Made 2D vs Poorly Done 3D.

I vote for the 2D.

Originally posted by Castillle

Umm..Its not well done 3D vs well done 2D.

Its HD Well Made 2D vs Poorly Done 3D.

I vote for the 2D.

Yeah that was pretty clear.  I also voted for 2D.

My point was that I would even take 2D over good 3D.  I think it can be implied that I would also take them over crappy 3D.

I can deal with either, but I really have been looking for a Vanillaware-quality 2D one since... forever.

I jumped for joy because Link was getting a highly detailed 3-D makeover.

we dont care what dimension your game is. we care what content it has that is inventive. thats all we care about anymore! let the masses speak!!!

I prefer a well-made 2D game. I like the graphics of Suikoden V even if it's cartoonish and 2.5D-ish graphics. I prefer it a thousand times over Suikoden IV's 3D but mediocre graphics.