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

[Janusz]

Yes similar, but much worse than the original

No my friend, the coudl be even better then original, welcome in shaders era Proffesional graphics programmist coudl make wonderfull 3D graphics, thats looks like old school 2D graphics.







And blood on fluids mhmm gore.

Look at this picture:


Can you say, whitch critter is 3D model?

[gool]

I would love for this game to have lovely pixel art (NOT Fallout-style prerendered shit), and I feel that it would fit well with the theme of bringing back the lost late-80's to early-90's RPG style, but I appreciate I am probably in the minority as the '3d has killed 2d' mentality is pervasive.

[mercy]

Let's be realistic. Which solution costs more money? Super rendered 2D sprites with Heap of Gore Technology™ aka Fallout 1., 2.? Or plain 3D models with lame particle blood and lame 3D-parts falling off (or just plain 3D models without any destructible body parts in the second case.)

inXile might be going for the cheapest solution for understandable reasons.

Is there somebody in the development team and especially amongst freelancer artists who could match Fallout 1. 2. style Heap of Gore Technology™? Because that would look awesome!

2.
3D models are an endurable nuisance and a sad compromise knowing about "exploded like a bloody sausage" and inevitably dropping plans to really show any bloody sausages save displaying them via text. If plain 3D is cheapest, without blood or damage, go for it.
If you can do some particle/sprite blood (which is the only choice in 3D) and if maybe you can do flying off 3D body parts, eeh.. better don't do it, because it will look sorry a** lame.

Ideal case
would be matching and surpassing Fallout 1. 2. gore in 3D with:
A. very skilled and economic application of particle blood. Wasteland characters are small so low to medium detail would probably suffice.
B. building a generic skeleton that becomes visible when flesh is torn
C. building fleshy parts onto the characters these can be blown away, complete with very simple low-poly animated organs, all of this falling/sliding off during 3D Heap of Gore Technology™.
But this will be probably only possible in 5 years.

[Tuco]

Yes similar, but much worse than the original

Actually it looks better than the original in may ways, especially as animations go.
Anyway, if WL2 would turn out to be on par with Fallout 2 in graphics i would honestly be quite disappointed.
I'm expecting a game with classic old school mechanics and more focused in substance than cosmetic fluff, but that doesn't mean trash production value and no visual appeal at all.

[Janusz]

A. very skilled and economic application of particle blood. Wasteland characters are small so low to medium detail would probably suffice.
B. building a generic skeleton that becomes visible when flesh is torn
C. building fleshy parts onto the characters these can be blown away, complete with very simple low-poly animated organs, all of this falling/sliding off during 3D Heap of Gore Technology™.
But this will be probably only possible in 5 years.

D. Build nice 3D animation with gore effect.

[gool]

Also, 2D does not mean 320x200, visual quality need not be sacrificed.

[mercy]

@Janusz

It could be possible creating one unhurt texture for the 3D character and one bloody-sausage texture that shows a totally crippled, but still whole character model.
Then if hit by SMG or an AK 97 apply the "vertex-shader decal GORE"-code, which will result in a mixed gory look. Changing the unhurt default texture to bloody sausage texture at random places on the torso and arms or legs of the 3D model.

Question: how will it look? Imagining is easy. Realizing awesomely looking gore is completely another matter. Will there be experts to do all textures (easy), program the shaders (hard) and invent and do the 3D Gore setup (nearly impossible) for the whole game? Pixel shaders would be icing on the cake, making superb effects as you described, shimmering radioactive particles on clothes and skin, glow, even blood, but that usually needs a good programmer and those people are super-expensive.

[Janusz]

@mercy Lokk at this video in HD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gNBq9QnmA
It's look pretty good.

[Tagaziel]

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

We use slightly different dictionaries, I believe:

Real 2D means to me that the game uses assets created in two dimensions by hand. That's what I was referring to when I said that the manner of their creation matters. Many people praise Fallout's 2D artwork, forgetting entirely that it was all made from pre-rendered 3D models and if the developers could've used a 3D engine safely, they would've.

[Svetlovska]

I'd say 3D because 1) Easier to Mod for community; 2) Opens the possibility of being able to view/rotate a map for true tactical combat (Can I sneak round the back of that car/get a line of sight from that rooftop down onto the low wall, etc...) 3) Can be 'upgraded' for better/user textures etc; 4) allows for realistic depiction of in game lighting effects - flickering flames, shadows, explosions etc... 5) NONE of which prevents the 'default' view being an isometric perspective, or for the figures to 'look' like 2D retro hand drawn sprites.

[Svetlovska]

'''Oh, and 'bloody mess' death animations, with body parts flying off and skeletons exposed/decapitations etc. VERY important...

[Grotesque]

make 3D models of characters with tier armors and weapons, apply effects, convert the 3D animation in successive sprites to render various actions, make a nice 2D background, fixed camera at 31 degrees

[Tagaziel]

make 3D models of characters with tier armors and weapons, apply effects, convert the 3D animation in successive sprites to render various actions, make a nice 2D background, fixed camera at 31 degrees

And then the game weighs in at 18 GBs due to an excessive number of sprites.

I'd like to mention that 3D models offer far greater flexibility. And if you think that it doesn't allow for awesome, gory deaths, I have to say two things:

1. All the awesome animations in Fallout 1/2 were rendered in 3D modelling software. They were not done by hand.
2. Soldier of Fortune called to mention gory deaths aren't that hard to implement in full 3D.

[Sluggish]

Animated 2D. I don't know much about these things but I'd assume it'd cost less and take less space than 3D/
Somebody mentioned 3D being easier for the Mod community, who I honestly couldn't care less about. I think no thought should be put into the mod community.

[Grotesque]

Fallout did not had 18 GB
Nonetheless, if Wasteland II would have ten times the size of Fallout, that would be ok

I don't know what the fuss is all about because I can bet that in the end at least the characters will be in 3D and not 2D for obvious reasons. The only question that remains is in what degree they will manage to attain the graphics FLAVOR of Fallout


Fallout had a budget of 3 millions, had a team of around 30 people that worked like slaves in the last development year
From a technical standpoint, if Wasteland 2 will be beneath Fallout (a game that shipped 15 yeas ago!), that would be a shame

[gool]

The only question that remains is in what degree they will manage to attain the graphics FLAVOR of Fallout

Since this is "Wasteland 2" and not "Fallout 3 Forrealz", hopefully not much.

[PiPboy]

Bastion is an awesome example of Animated 2D sprites


If you haven't tried Bastion you should.
Anyway I am a fan of both 3D n 2D. Krater did an awesome job for 3D

[ravenshrike]

But to stay on topic: the game is going to be top-down. That isn't part of the debate. It's in the Kickstarter description; top-down is Word of God here.

You must have missed the last statements from the Mouth of God.

Possibly, if they're not on the kickstarter page. Have any quotes?

I'd be upset otherwise, though. I funded a top-down game.

Isometric is a form of top down. Do you really doubt that if the tech had been there Wasteland wouldn't have been isometric or fixed 3D? The late '80s top down was always a silly constraint from tech limitations. No developer would have used it for all but a few games like the helicopter/car shooters.

3D is an agent of laziness, offering solutions that are too continuous, smooth, lifeless. In many MANY years of gaming, I've never played a 3D game with animations evoking anywhere near the depth of emotion evoked from animated sprites.

Time = Money. Figure the minimum resolution anybody except the very tail end of the bell curve will be playing this on is 1024X786. Your median non-widescreen resolution will probably be 1280X1024 with your median widescreen being 1920X1080. 2d that looks good at those resolutions is EXPENSIVE as all hell, MUCH more expensive than comparative 3d.





Remember, this game is going up on Steam. Torchlight took off there, as did several other games. This game WILL sell comparatively well for an indie title. Fargo will be taking this into account. In fact, if he asks, Valve may give him the indie game figures for average hardware. Assuming they're allowed too, which I think they are. It would certainly be smart of him to ask.

[Gizmo]

We use slightly different dictionaries, I believe:
Real 2D means to me that the game uses assets created in two dimensions by hand. That's what I was referring to when I said that the manner of their creation matters.

Yeah.
Real 2D to me means that the engine deals only with flat sprite layers, and that it loads and makes use of only 2D bitmaps (and/ or video). The method of asset creation [to me] is unrelated; (in the same way as the use of a paint program to illustrate sprites versus using scanned photos of illustrated sprites made with gouache or design-marker). To me 3D art is just an illustration tool ~unless the engine uses the models directly.

Many people praise Fallout's 2D artwork, forgetting entirely that it was all made from pre-rendered 3D models and if the developers could've used a 3D engine safely, they would've.

It's true. Even the clay heads, ultimately.

Do you really doubt that if the tech had been there Wasteland wouldn't have been isometric or fixed 3D? The late '80s top down was always a silly constraint from tech limitations.

The technology to make isometric and 3D (looking) games was there.
Bard's Tale shipped three years before Wasteland, and it was first person.

'Congo Bongo' was Isometric (looking) back in 1983 ~and they had DOS & Apple versions of it.
(I'm not saying it was good isometric though ; just that I do believe that Wasteland's design was not strictly tech limited; and that they had other options.)


It's the same as with Fallout ~it was designer choice. Fallout was Iso "Cavalier Oblique " because it worked for what they wanted. And before Fallout they shipped Stonekeep, and that was a first person dungeon crawler (with dual wielded weapons, up to 4 NPCs )

[Smejki]

People should think and read some stuff first before posting anything related to technology. You should distinguish 3 major aspects of the graphics:
data structure - 2D/3D
camera setting - top-down/high angle/first person/third person
projection - perspective/paralel(isometry/trimetry)

2D means a lot of work and data that are not easy to be modified.

I hope camera is self-explanatory.

Projection is the major issue here. All modern games use perspective which means the further object is the smaller it seems to be. Old RPGs used trimetry/isometry paralel projection which means that object is projected at the same size no matter the distance from camera. Old Baldurs Gate of Fallout were pre-rendered. This means that they would LOOK THE SAME as the original if original models would be rendered in real time AND projected in trimetry using same color pallete (which is handled by shaders, textures still may be realistic and 24bit color pallete and the output may be 256bit Fallout pallete).
Just watch these images:

1. top-down overview - there are 3 objects. We will be looking at this from right side


2. Perspective projection - this is what you see in 99% of 3D games. Note that the big square on left is the small barely visible piece you can see on the right side of previous image


2. paralel projetion. This is tha SAME view point as in previous image. You can see that the dimensions of the objects are independent on distance from the camera unlike the in perspective. Making this isometry looking is just a matter of positioning the camera and setting its view angle


The point of this post: You should vote for 2D only if you demand hand drawn art, not when you want isometric game like Baldurs Gate/Fallout/Planescape. These can be made in 3D without any negative effect.