2D Sprites or 3D Models? [poll added]

[krellen]

My impression has always been that the label of "AAA game" only referred to the dollar amount that was to be spent on advertizing it.

To be perfectly honest, "AAA game" means jack-all.

I did find this article that takes a pretty good stab at a definition, though.

From that page, I would argue a lack of all these things would automatically rule out Wasteland 2 as 'AAA':
- Broad market
- High sales
- Large teams
- Big budget
- First place in the markets, and great marketing
- Hype (it's not hype if it's true)

[Tagaziel]

I disagree; you said that fallout was not a real 2D game ~but it was (a real 2D game). The fact that they used 3d models (and even clay ) to generate the tiles and sprites is what is irrelevant.
(They could equally have derived the character and head sprites from video and photographs of costumed performers. The level art from Deluxe Paint and photos of buildings ~~Not that that would have been any easier).

I agree that it's irrelevant (aside from the huge footprint because of all those sprites). But it was still a pure 2D game; (complete with all of the inherent limitations that that entails).

** Were it it not a real 2D game, then what was it?

It was a faux-3D game, same as Diablo II. 3D models stored as 2D sprites to benefit from enhanced fidelity 2D engines offered at the time.

[Vryheid]

I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. B Fargo has already made it fairly clear that it shall be a top down 3d game. It has been decided. Even the poll to vote on what to improve with extra funds doesn't give the option of better sprites or more sprites... There is an option for more detailed 3d models/textures. There is not an option for replacing the 3d with 2d. B Fargo wants to make a quality game with modern tech. He's already made plenty of games with 20 year old tech. WL2 is not going to be a Facebook game. It's going to be a proper AAA 3d, top down, party based game with old school rpg combat rounds/tactical combat. He has made all of that clear already via the Kickstarter page/movie and these boards.

Why bother discussing options to use outdated tech instead of new tech when you know that this has already been decided?

Yeah, I wanna see a source on that. Where are you getting this from anyways?

[TechnoShaman]

I remember when the building simulation Pharaoh went from 2d sprites to 3d.

Never played the game again.

The 3d didn't add anything to the game, and the camera work just made things more confusing instead of less. Plus it jsut didn't look that good. Granted this was a while ago and 3d has gotten better.

Lets stick with awesome artwork sprites..if you gotta go with 3d, try to make the camera not have so many redonkulous angles.

Fallout made me fall in love with pixel art, and I would love to see wasteland 2 continue that legacy, only with more modernized mechanics and higher rez artwork.

[_Music]

No preference here.

I don't mind 3d, however, 2d graphics looks good even after many years (infinity engine for instance). Having the budget in mind, it's better to do a neat and more timeless 2d, than mediocre 3d, so I think I'll go for the 2nd option.

[Mort2]

I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. B Fargo has already made it fairly clear that it shall be a top down 3d game. It has been decided. Even the poll to vote on what to improve with extra funds doesn't give the option of better sprites or more sprites... There is an option for more detailed 3d models/textures. There is not an option for replacing the 3d with 2d. B Fargo wants to make a quality game with modern tech. He's already made plenty of games with 20 year old tech. WL2 is not going to be a Facebook game. It's going to be a proper AAA 3d, top down, party based game with old school rpg combat rounds/tactical combat. He has made all of that clear already via the Kickstarter page/movie and these boards.

Why bother discussing options to use outdated tech instead of new tech when you know that this has already been decided?

Yeah, I wanna see a source on that. Where are you getting this from anyways?

I think he speak of this pool:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=336

[Gamelore]

I don't mind 3d, however, 2d graphics looks good even after many years (infinity engine for instance). Having the budget in mind, it's better to do a neat and more timeless 2d, than mediocre 3d, so I think I'll go for the 2nd option.

Absolutely agree. I look forward to what they would do with 2D graphics in a Wasteland-style RPG after all these years.

As for 3D, you can't splice in a frame or two of hilarious detail in 3D. It's just not possible. You notice it pop in, rather than assume some level of abstraction granted by the 2D medium. 3D animation is just too predictable and boring.

3D animation is not a mature artform by any means. 10 years from now, the flaws of modern 3D will become apparent while 2D will not age. There is still a lot of work to be done to make it look as evocative as 2D per dollar.

[Mort2]

I don't mind 3d, however, 2d graphics looks good even after many years

3D animation is not a mature artform by any means. 10 years from now, the flaws of modern 3D will become apparent while 2D will not age.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, why would 3d graphics age?! and 3D animation not being mature as an art form this is just BS.

I agree that if we using a single camera view, dont have many weapons/effects/variations/motions that it is easier to make more personal/detailed graphics with 2D. However It is not the case when you need to add a little more, for example if they want to add crouch stance, they need to make a 2D sprites for every direction(8 of them?), for every weapon animation(hold,shoot,reload) for every effect(walk,run,death) in any of the positions, for every NPC. Look here if you dont understand what I mean So think what if they want to add another weapon, armour, stance, an option to crawl through a window/fence? have a little verity of Npc's? The number of sprites just rise exponentially...

Besides in either case they make 3D models for everything. It's just easier to work with 3D models, than an sprite.

[Gizmo]

It was a faux-3D game, same as Diablo II. 3D models stored as 2D sprites to benefit from enhanced fidelity 2D engines offered at the time.

No, this is not the case. The art was rendered from 3d source files (as we know), but the engines were not 'fake 3d' (or trying to be); they were just 2D; and the engines dealt with sprite movements in only two directions.

Doom was fake 3D. Case in point... If you replaced the artwork in Doom and Diablo with just flat colors, only Doom would retain a (fake) 3D appearance; Diablo would not.

(Also, sprites in Diablo & FO are not scaled for perspective; a figure standing near the bottom of the screen, stands just as tall near the top.)

Were Wasteland 2 to use 2D sprites on a 3D landscape, it might be cool if the (3D) engine did scale the sprites for distance; though I think the results would look better if they used 3d figures.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

It seems a lot of the discussion here is between real-time 3d and pre-rendered 3d which to me is mostly the same. I don't find much value in photorealism in games. I'd much rather have the artist work in a more expressive medium, like Arne did:



Of course, if it's more cost effective to do decent 3d graphics, i''l be ok with that as well

It might be cost effective, because it's too easy. Those games don't please the eye as well as a colorful drawing.

A turn-based game could be designed to advance time between turns all at once and skip animating everything in between, and then give you an illusttration of your characters the way you customized them, if you traded in all that cpu power for the animations. I can live without animations in my game. Instead of an animated combat, give me a before - middle - during - after illustrations.

[Mort2]

Usually it's not the cpu that is working on animations and if you think in technical terms then loading couple of hundreds of high res sprites is probably worse.

Anyway my last words on the topic, that I am all for 2D background and 3D characters.

[Tagaziel]

No, this is not the case. The art was rendered from 3d source files (as we know), but the engines were not 'fake 3d' (or trying to be); they were just 2D; and the engines dealt with sprite movements in only two directions.

Doom was fake 3D. Case in point... If you replaced the artwork in Doom and Diablo with just flat colors, only Doom would retain a (fake) 3D appearance; Diablo would not.

(Also, sprites in Diablo & FO are not scaled for perspective; a figure standing near the bottom of the screen, stands just as tall near the top.)

Were Wasteland 2 to use 2D sprites on a 3D landscape, it might be cool if the (3D) engine did scale the sprites for distance; though I think the results would look better if they used 3d figures.

Uh, that's pretty much what I said. A two-dimensional engine using content generated from 3D source models to give an illusion of three dimensions.

[Gizmo]

Then there is more than one implied meaning among the many members here that are using the term "3D".
I understand your meaning now; but I wasn't reiterating what you said.
My example disputes what (I thought) you were saying.

Though I still don't understand your response from before, when you said that Fallout was not 'real 2D'...

Technically... That doesn't make a difference; Fallout was still 'real 2D'; for though a lot of 3D work went into to getting those 2D sprites, they still could have been hand drawn; and if they were or were not, it wouldn't matter ~it was still a 2D engine.

It does make a difference. It's irrelevant if the end display and storage was 2D; the sprites and environments were all rendered (painstakingly, I might add) in full 3D and later converted to 2D. The same goes for eg. Diablo I, II etc.

It's the way the graphics are created, not stored, that matters.

[Janusz]

I love 2D graphics from Fallout 1 and 2. But 3D models have some true advantages:
-each character can use weapons - only few Fallout 1/2critters have guns animations. With 3D you dont have this problem.
-You can easy add new weapon animation.


-can change textures(in 2D also posible, for example in Fallout Tactics sprite format, you can change armor colors).

And 3D could look as good as the 2D:
3D model special deaths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gNBq9QnmA
3D model Idle anims, flame, and stress test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eErgzd9kIU
3D models Laser Special Death animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj0rEUk1P_0

[SuAside]

Simply from a practical game development POV, I'd suspect dealing with 3D models is less time consuming.

The 2D animated sprites are largely made from 3D models anyway. 2D animated proves less flexible and more time consuming to change things to. Once you go 2D animated, you can't change anything anymore to the point of view for instance, whereas with 3D, you can experiment with camera angles or even offer multiple point of views.

But in the end: 3D would likely permit the devs to do more in less time. So I'd go for 3D, but I wouldn't mind 2D (animated or otherwise).

[cerberix]

I love 2D graphics from Fallout 1 and 2. But 3D models have some true advantages:
-each character can use weapons - only few Fallout 1/2critters have guns animations. With 3D you dont have this problem.
-You can easy add new weapon animation.


-can change textures(in 2D also posible, for example in Fallout Tactics sprite format, you can change armor colors).

And 3D could look as good as the 2D:
3D model special deaths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gNBq9QnmA
3D model Idle anims, flame, and stress test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eErgzd9kIU
3D models Laser Special Death animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj0rEUk1P_0

3D models must be in this game for easily creating new characters, weapons and etc.

[Janusz]

And 3D could look as good as the 2D:
3D model special deaths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gNBq9QnmA
3D model Idle anims, flame, and stress test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eErgzd9kIU
3D models Laser Special Death animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj0rEUk1P_0

3D models must be in this game for easily creating new characters, weapons and etc.

Yes, and so you can see on this videos, 3D models, can have gore animations like fallout 2d models

[Gizmo]

I'm all for 3d, (and I do understand that that is just a test); but those don't hold a candle to Fallout's death animations.

I don't understand... Is the engine they're using 2D, with Fallout assets and character sprites, or is it 3D figures on top of a 2d background (made from Fallout's tiles)?

If it's 2d figures, then they could use particles and key-framed animation (of body chunks) to replicate or even improve upon the rendered 3d sprite animations that Fallout had.

If instead, it is 3d figures, and their engine or modeling is limiting the results... I'd say it's not worth it IMO; the original Fallout sprites look superior. *Granted, it may just be test models, and not the intended finished assets.
I would think that they could match the 2D with 3D... or could fake it (like Myth 1 & 2 did), where the gore chunks themselves were 2D sprites that appeared to rotate in 3D when in fact it was flat animation and only the sprite's location moved with with any physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBj1NESMNcs

[RandomForceOne]

And 3D could look as good as the 2D:
3D model special deaths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gNBq9QnmA
3D model Idle anims, flame, and stress test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eErgzd9kIU
3D models Laser Special Death animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj0rEUk1P_0

3D models must be in this game for easily creating new characters, weapons and etc.

Yes, and so you can see on this videos, 3D models, can have gore animations like fallout 2d models

Yes similar, but much worse than the original and if they decide to do in 3D they make whole game enviroment, objects, buldings everything and that i do not want and the word "3D" is not consistent with the concept of old school, see games like Baldurs Gate, Torment, Icewind Dale, Fallout, Diablo ,Wasteland ,Arcanum THIS IS THE OLD SCHOOL and look at what technique aces of RPG genre were made of. NO TO 3D!!!

[Gizmo]

Yes similar, but much worse than the original and if they decide to do in 3D they make whole game enviroment, objects, buldings everything and that i do not want and the word "3D" is not consistent with the concept of old school, see games like Baldurs Gate, Torment, Icewind Dale, Fallout, Diablo ,Wasteland ,Arcanum THIS IS THE OLD SCHOOL and look at what technique aces of RPG genre were made of. NO TO 3D!!!

Quake is older than most of those games save for Diablo and Wasteland... but in Wasteland's case, its contemporaries (Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance; and their sequels) were actually first person perspective (not technically 3D, but trying to look it).

I do not know where this anti-progress movement has come from; it was my understanding (my impression) that with WL2 Brian Fargo was making a return to so called 'old school' values, mechanics and gameplay potential ~not EGA graphics, or deliberate emulation of 20 year old methodology ~we don't want them to use Deluxe Paint 2 do we?

** I want Iso too, but I'm not (philosophically?) opposed to the use of modern 3D methods to achieve it; and have the game benefit from it.

This notion of "old school" everything seems almost akin to wanting 'old school' 320x200 screen resolution; and 'old school' palette animation (another staple of 'old school' RPGs)... Would anyone point out where the notion originates ~that Wasteland 2 was touted to be 'old school' anything but for mention of it being turn based and party based? (I'm not necessarily disputing... I'm just curious, and would like to read it myself).