2D or 3D space for a card game like Stacklands

ZhirTres

Hello everyone, I want to make a card game based primarily on Stacklands. My question is what to use, 2D or 3D space, considering that the basic mechanics of the game will be dragging cards across the field and their interaction with each other. For example, when a card is selected, it should rise up similarly to how it works in Stacklands, and its position can be controlled with the mouse. On the one hand, in 3D it will be easier to configure the camera and perspective, as well as work with light and shadow, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that these advantages (if I'm right at all, given my inexperience in Godot) will outweigh the complexity of working in 3D compared to 2D. It would be great if someone could describe with arguments which approach would be better for implementing such mechanics.

Tomcat

ZhirTres given my inexperience in Godot

Well, they usually start with something simpler — 2D.

DaveTheCoder

ZhirTres the complexity of working in 3D compared to 2D.

3D is significantly more complex than 2D. This depends on whether you really need or want 3D effects.

Are you new to programming as well as new to Godot? If so, I would definitely recommend starting with 2D.

Toxe

ZhirTres Well, if you are a bit experienced and doing it right then using 3D won't be much more complex than using 2D, other than getting the camera, perspective and lighting right. Once that is done it would be more or less the same.

I suggest making a quick 3D prototype. And not even a game. Just throw some sprites into a 3D scene and see if you are struggling with the concept. If you are then I suggest sticking to 2D.

ZhirTres

DaveTheCoder I'm not a beginner in programming, and last year I worked mainly in 2d on godot (100h+), but I'm quite unexpierenced in 3D. For card game like Stacklands I thought it would be easier to make a 3D scene with flat sprites than to simulate 3D effects in 2D (camera perspective on the field, shadows from cards and the effect of their lifting above the field)

Tomcat

Toxe I suggest making a quick 3D prototype.

I suggest starting the other way around — make a 2D prototype, and if you need a third dimension, then move on to 3D.

Toxe

Tomcat I suggest starting the other way around — make a 2D prototype, and if you need a third dimension, then move on to 3D.

Usually I would agree but they said that they already are familiar with 2D.

xyz

It really depends on what you do with 3D. In some cases it may be as easy as 2D in others it could be way more complicated.

DaveTheCoder

On the subject of simulating 3D in 2D, I found this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire_on_False_Perspective