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

[geezer]

Not everyone likes the look of anime.

[Bryce777]

temple of elemental evil had 2D backdrops and 3D models and that was very nice. Exploration from overhead in true 3D is a pain in the buttock.

[Gamelore]

Not everyone likes the look of anime.

The look isn't requisite for the reason it uses 2D. The mere fact that an artform that has had many years to develop still needs to use 2D demonstrates that the medium exclusively provides the necessary range and potential for artistic character to shine.

3D, it's at a polygon level, lazily strewn out over animations that come for free. 2D, every pixel is deliberate.

Not to say technology won't eventually solve this, but 2D delivers much more feeling for the dollar.

[Sarkahn]

Whatever's cheaper/easier, whatever allows them to add more content to the game. I would think that would be 3D. But as long as it feels like Wasteland I don't really care which route they go.

[abdus]

Of course 3D! Like Fallout Van Buren! It will be easy to create modes by funs and random encounters on the global map.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Mort2]

OP: Considering that Fargo noted that the game will be a top down/isometric, I think you should really replace the image that represents 3d sprite Image. Here is one (from the same game) that looks much more in style:
http://www.hookedgamers.com/images/2237 ... ion068.jpg

EDIT: I should have probably scrolled to the last page.. the poster above me had good images of Van Buren project, with 3d sprites, which fits even better.

[Tagaziel]

Uh, I think you confused the terms.

Sprite is a two dimensional graphic that may be animated and requires animation frames for every single state and action.

A 3D model is a fully three dimensional, polygon or voxel model that may be animated as a whole or through skeleton-based animation.

Given that inXile is likely not populated by masochistic graphics designers, the debate 2D/3D is largely academic, as character models will have to be rendered in full 3D first, before being converted into 2D sprites. That's how it was done for Fallout.

The real difference is efficiency. Fully 2D graphics are limiting and will never be as smoothly animated as 3D models, due to them being inherently limited by the number of animation frames. For the sake of efficiency and ease of expansion, using 3D models for characters is the optimal choice.

Hell, come to think of it, Fallout isn't even a real 2D game, as all the "2D" graphics are 3D models converted to work with a sprite engine.

[krellen]

Like Fallout Van Buren!

This isn't Fallout Van Buren and isn't going to be Fallout Van Buren. If you funded this project expecting Fallout Van Buren, you will be disappointed.

[Tagaziel]

You do realize that he was referring exclusively to Van Buren's 3D engine, right?

[Gizmo]

Hell, come to think of it, Fallout isn't even a real 2D game, as all the "2D" graphics are 3D models converted to work with a sprite engine.

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.

[Drax715]

I would prefer everything to be 3D but with a fixed isometric camera.

LOL your Avatar Looks Like the one I used in Baldur's Gate

[kasra5004]

Anyone who wants the game to be vast and detailed with a lot of content should have no doubt about using 3D. It can be reused and easily edited. 2D is artistic and all but is too expensive and time consuming.

[Howie]

Animated sprites pls. I want consistency in my gameworld.

[Wyldhunt]

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?

[Howie]

I didn't know that had been decided - only just registered and stumbled upon this thread. Fair enough, 3D it is. It is a shame, though - for a long time i've wondered how good a 2D sprite driven game could look with current tech/resolutions and enough money behind it. In my mind's eye it's like a moving living painting. Many of my favourite games - particualrly rpgs - are 2D snes and PC titles. They don't age and still look great today, and have a tailor made charm you can't reproduce in 3D - 3D tends to last a generation and then looks dated.

[krellen]

It's going to be a proper AAA

Not on a $1-$2 million budget it's not. AAA is defined by budget, and 1-2 million is not "AAA".

The Kickstarter says nothing about 2D/3D. You pulled that out of thin air.

[Tagaziel]

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.

[Gizmo]

It does make a difference.

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).

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.

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?

[Frogacuda]

It's going to be a proper AAA

Not on a $1-$2 million budget it's not. AAA is defined by budget, and 1-2 million is not "AAA".

The Kickstarter says nothing about 2D/3D. You pulled that out of thin air.

Yeah, AAA isn't just an indication of quality, it means a blockbuster. This is going to be an old school game, without a lot of the presentation flourishes we expect in modern games, like cinematic cut scenes, full voice acting, etc. Any game funded exclusively on Kickstarter is going to have a pretty "indie" sensibility to it.

It'll be interesting to see if Kickstarter can ever get to the point of raising money for a true AAA game. The very idea sort of seems counter to the narrative of a AAA game, which is usually something niche by nature, but there might be products out there with mainstream appeal that are just unconventional or seem risky to publishers. You never know.

[Gizmo]

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.