Adding a 3rd axis complicates things. It's not so much a big deal playing when everything is relative to your character, but it causes spectator problems, and in the high-speed internet age, being more spectator-unfriendly is a real problem. The biggest E-Sport atm, MOBAs, are isometric 2D. A static frame for the action makes it easier for people to understand what's going on.
I've already mentioned this before but FGC and stream monsters most of all are a very small niche in the overall millions of sales that a single fighting game can earn. Do remember that streams are only a more recent thing. Fighting games were still doing fine when a few thousand people at home weren't spectating them. I mean tournaments are very important but they do not target the mainstream, casual audience.
3D used to move units and create interest. It no longer does. Things have rolled back over the years to where certain genres that used to be all-3D all the time are back to being primarily 2D, or be a mix of the two.
Here, you're making very generalized notions of 2D and 3D, especially if you're referencing SM64. Just because you're seeing NSMB on Wii and Wii U doesn't mean that people are no longer interested in the Galaxy games or don't want a full-scale 3D mario game.
On D&D, and what happens when you stop acquiring new users. (You do not want this.)
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column
I'm not saying that it's dying off as in "no new games" any time soon, mind you, but the "we're too scared to cut characters" thing was a huge red flag, and you see that they're in the process of trying to make radical changes with TxSF and Tekken Revolution.
I liked Tekken 2/3 back in the day. Everyone played them. I'm negative, but I'm not negative out of malice, I don't want Tekken to go off and die in a corner like PSABR. More genres doing well is better for everyone, and hopefully they can figure out a way to turn things around.
They're not designed for the US/worldwide market, though. That's just a side bonus. Their economics are different.
I'm not as concerned about Tekken's future because it's a very profitable franchise for Namco regardless of console sales. The arcade revenues alone is enough money for them to continue to make more games in the series.
Do not underestimate the reach of anime. Do you know how many people I've talked to that like BB for its story? Too many.
I don't know. Soul Calibur and DoA also have fans that don't care for the fighting......only for certain other things.
You know when you have spinoff beach volleyball games...or this is your game promotion ad.
It's simple really. Japanese companies have been on the decline since the start of last generation and they were the ones who pioneered the genre besides NRS aka Midway in the U.S. With the big things now being MMO games and FPSs, which by the way are both becoming stale themselves, the now bigger and badder Western developers have no interest in some niche genre to make a few bucks. The reason you do not see new 3d fighting games is not because in your opinion it is more expensive and time consuming to make, but it's because the money and returns isn't there for them to care. Remember, money is not the issue if they can make billions off of it ala GTA and Skyrim. If they knew beforehand they could make a ton of money from 3d fighters, you best believe they would hire hundreds of people and spend as much money on it as they need to.
But then 2D games should be considered just as risky, no?
These are my conclusions from what I gather.
DoA, VF, Tekken, SC all have many decades of history and all have evolved from their first entry to where they are now. That took a long process. Even getting the gameplay system we have now in TTT2 would
definitely be very extremely difficult to create (although not impossible) if TTT2 was (let's assume) a completely new IP and there was no foundation before it.
And for a new 3D fighting game to arise, it has to compete with these other franchises that have already established themselves over the years and that is difficult to do.
EDIT: A bit late, but eh.
I think the major expense factors between 2D and 3D asset development are time and efficiency.
Most original 2D offerings are hand-made pixel art, which takes extra time and effort to create per-frame versus drawing something that is just appropriately scaled, even if 3D model references are heavily used.
Pixel art also gets exponentially more expensive as the target resolution increases.
You also aren't going to be able to throw a large group at a project that is pixel art-driven, because the aggregate level of talent needs to be high or quality suffers. This costs time, which in the end is also money.
Skullgirls is an outlier because their frames aren't pixel art. The cost-per character for SG is relatively cheap because they can handle production in a way similar to how anime is made in general; the core talent produces all the keyframes(plus more depending on the standard of quality) and dozens of outside contractors handle the cleanup/polish.
I don't know for sure about 3D or 2.5D FGs, but I think the primary advantage of having 3D models(outside of possibly re-using animation data) is that the malleability also allows for them to be worked on by large groups with some strong leading direction. Well, that and costumes.
To sum this up, 2D is probably cheaper to develop(especially for smaller groups), but the original standard for 2D(pixel art) is too expensive and time-consuming(especially for larger groups) compared to 3D, which also has more mass appeal, is inherently more flexible asset-wise, and is constantly getting efficiency & visual breakthroughs to look better while being cheaper.
This, IMO is why you saw small to medium core teams still make 2D fighters last gen while only the big boys messed with 2.5/3D.
This is a better clarification for me.
