   3D or 2D graphics for a 2D game?
  I''m considering my next game project after i finish the one i''m on now (in a year or two...) and i had a thought:If the game is essentially a planar 2D kind of game, would it be better to create the game in "2 1/2 D", that is, 3D structures on a 2D playing plane (think Yoshi''s Island for the N64, or R-Type: Finale), or would it be better to actually have regular 2D graphics (like straight SDL)? I''m asking in terms of refresh rates and screen drawing. However, there are many other things to consider like lighting, creating 3D models vs 2D artwork, and more.What do think i should do for 2D-styled gameplay? 
  If you want lighting then by all means go for 3d characters. It will also save a lot of time and effort for artists who have to do the animation. ;  Simple answer: it depends.What is your target platform/hardware spec? Low end cards may struggle with 3D but may draw 2D like champs. How detailed to you want the lighting to be? You can use 3D API routines to draw 2D images, specifying colors at each corner of the image to map across the bitmap, thus "faking" lighting. It is not geometry-accurate lighting, but it accomplishes the illusion. Think Diablo 2, and the pretty colored lights hovering around eg. champion monsters. My current RPG makes use of this technique; characters are 2D, the world is isometric/tile-based, but there are dynamic, colored lights for spell effects, player light source, torches, etc...2D and 3D both come with trade-offs. 2D is simpler to get going; you can write a basic 2D animation manager in a matter of hours. 3D takes a little more groundwork. However, 2D graphics come at a vastly increased cost as far as memory usage to store the frames of animation. Storing the mesh geometry and bone animation data of a model is far more efficient than storing long sequences of image data frames, rendered for multiple facing directions.3D animation can be more fluid and realistic appearing than 2D. 2D relies on the standard cel-based technique of displaying a frame for some length of time, then displaying the next frame in the sequence, and so on. Slowing down the rate of animation makes the fact that it is comprised of still-frames displayed in sequence even more apparent. With 3D, although you may still have the various frames of animation, it is possible to mathematically "morph" between the various frames, interpolating from one to the next in a smooth fashion, eliminating the obvious, ugly jitter of slowed-down or frame-limited 2D animation.Do you plan on implementing realistic terrain gradation? Hills and valleys? Or will the ground simply be flat? If you want realistic terrain, 3D will probably be your best choice, the more easily to take into account the geometry of the terrain. 2D handles flat planes and "faked" elevation well enough, but implementing true elevation results in a cross-breed of 2D and 3D that can get awkward sometimes.Generating art for a 2D game is simple. You can hand-draw everything if you are an exceptionally talented artist or a raving masochist; or you can model your objects and characters in 3D, texture and animated them, then rendering them to sequences of images in your preferred bitmap format. This is the approach many professional 2D games take, and is the method I personally use.In the end, it all comes down to what you want to accomplish with the game, and how you want the final product to be. Bear in mind that both have their advantages and trade-offs, and that no blanket "go with 2D" or "go with 3D" sort of answer will cover all possible games you might desire to make.Good luck GolemBlender--The Gimp--Python--Lua--SDLNethack--Crawl--ADOM--Angband--Dungeondweller