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

[Gizmo]

This is a 3D turkey I made for a Fallout 3 mod.

No offence, but that is ugly as hell.

No offense taken.
This was for a Thankgiving machinima mod, for a Youtube video; I started it the night before Thanksgiving 2011, and could not finish [properly import it, and get it working in the game] in the time that I had.

** But also, understand that the FO3 engine applies varied and dynamic lighting and shadowing in the engine ~you don't put that on the texture art itself, and this image is full bright in an editor. It's meant [here] as an example to illustrate a point.

** That's another point... Its not very easy to (or possible?) to apply similar lighting and shadow to a 2D rendered sprite. IIRC Fallout used 229 colors and the rest were for alternate palettes to simulate day & night, but the results [IMO] can't match those of Temple of Elemental Evil.

I have never liked the look of 3D models. They're just UGLY.

Quality of appearance in game art is only governed by the time you put into it, the artist's personal ability, their familiarity with their tools, color palette (limits) and Pixel limit for 2D; polygon limits (for 3D).

I do believe that if they did a test using both 2D sprites, and 3D models for party members (two of each); the results could be indistinguishable, even if they had them all moving on the screen at once.

[gool]

You quoted me, but your entire post obsesses over cost, which isn't what I was angling at. Yes, 2D is expensive. It's also much more attractive. Anyway:

In the Fallout example, aren't the characters 3D pre-rendered? I know the talking heads are, at least.

I'm pretty sure Fallout was almost entirely pre-rendered. I (and Banana, whom I quoted) was saying that this is NOT the variety of 2D I want to see.

[Banana]

In the Fallout example, aren't the characters 3D pre-rendered? I know the talking heads are, at least.

Thanks for repeating what I wrote. I can't believe you care about cost over aethetic choices, you sound as bad as the game industry producers that Kickstarter projects are trying to refuse. Seeing as Wasteland 2 is a sequel to Wasteland, it would be great if the appearance would stay true to the world it is trying to expand on.

Just because you have, once upon a time, given money to some people you met on the internet (assumption) to create pixel art animation for you, doesn't mean that everyone else is as inefficient or costly as them. Frame rate can easily be adjusted to fit the work load, I am certain Fargo will employ/has employeed far better and more professional employees than you did.

[dehen]

3D.

With 2D-isometric you have to redraw everything from at least a couple different angles. It doubles the work. If your sprites are going to paperdoll, get ready to redraw the animation set for every item in the game.

2D is great for a game that is small in scope, but if you want something larger (for cheap) it's better to just go 3D. You'll get a lot more art for the buck, and things will feel less "samey." You can pretty easily give characters visual variety (tall/short, fat/skinny) without redrawing entire animation sets.

3D in the hands of bad artists looks like crap, but nowadays there're enough techniques and power that good artists can create whatever vision they want.

[Mort2]

At this point I think that 3D models for characters/weapons/items is a done deal, simply because I cant see how Fargo can deliver the Modding tools he promised if they work with 2D Sprites... unless he intend to release their source models(not gona happen) or maybe his idea of modding tools is very different from ours...

[dmazz]

2D art is far superior to 3D in establishing an 'art style'. Important for world immersion in the case of RPG's. Also something very useful for cost cutting purposes. (a style of art that's less time intensive,anime for example) This also tends to make 2D backgrounds more aesthetically pleasing than 3D backgrounds.

[Gizmo]

With 2D-isometric you have to redraw everything from at least a couple different angles. It doubles the work. If your sprites are going to paperdoll, get ready to redraw the animation set for every item in the game.

Agreed.
(However... Baldur's Gate didn't do it that way. They had visible equipment changes, via sprite overlays. If you look into the resources, you can see 2d sprites of just a dagger ~floating; or a helmet or shield.)

At this point I think that 3D models for characters/weapons/items is a done deal, simply because I cant see how Fargo can deliver the Modding tools he promised if they work with 2D Sprites... unless he intend to release their source models(not gona happen) or maybe his idea of modding tools is very different from ours...

Also agreed; but "Team BG" and others did release very decent 3rd party mod tools [for Baldur's Gate] including 'Bam Workshop', for editing and creating new sprites. It could be done. But I'd rather 3d myself.

[BlackGauntlet]

I chose 3D, not because I like it.

I love 2D but if there will be a development tool for this game available, it will kill the modding community because they would be bogged down with models instead of the story they wish to tell.

[Tagaziel]

2D art is far superior to 3D in establishing an 'art style'. Important for world immersion in the case of RPG's. Also something very useful for cost cutting purposes. (a style of art that's less time intensive,anime for example) This also tends to make 2D backgrounds more aesthetically pleasing than 3D backgrounds.

No, no it isn't. 2D and 3D are just methods of delivering content, content that's generated by model and texture artists. Good 3D models are indistinguishable from hand-drawn 2D media. Case in point: Ghost in the Shell: SAC. Tachikomas (and other mecha) are entirely pre-rendered and accompany hand-drawn characters, yet are completely indistinguishable, save for smoothness of animation.

[Gizmo]

No, no it isn't. 2D and 3D are just methods of delivering content, content that's generated by model and texture artists. Good 3D models are indistinguishable from hand-drawn 2D media. Case in point: Ghost in the Shell: SAC. Tachikomas (and other mecha) are entirely pre-rendered and accompany hand-drawn characters, yet are completely indistinguishable, save for smoothness of animation.

Agreed.

There is no technical reason (that I know of) that would prevent 3d art from deliberately looking like 2D illustration. (And the reverse is also true... but not nearly as easy to achieve.)

[stormen]

All 3D models like the "Van Buren Aphla" build which was suppose to be the next Fallout 3 game. But still in the same Point of View of the Fallout 1 and 2 game.

Later
Stormen

[DethRaid]

I really don't know why any of you think that 3D models are somehow less realistic than 2D sprites. Yes, low-poly 3D models aren't very realistic, but then neither are low-size 2D sprites. If you look at Nintendo 64 games as the sole example of 3D models then yes, they're not very realistic. However, look at some modern games, like Mass Effect 3. Look at some gameply trailers of modern AAA games. Look at how realistic things are.

Now look at the animations. Look at how the characters move. Look at all the angles you can see them from. Now imagine doing that in 2D. Imagine rendering every possible animation for every single frame. Imagine drawing that so that it looks even slightly realistic. Imagine drawing that from every possible angle, for every possible stage of any given animation. the image files for just one model would clog up the RAM pretty quickly.

Consider this: if 2D sprites are so superior in every possible way, why are they almost never used in modern movies? Why is that all done in 3D rather than 2D? Because it's easier and more cost-effective, that's why.

2D sprites work very well when there is limited animation, as in the original Wasteland, or if there isn't enough processing power to render 3D models, like in the N64 Mario Cart or the original Starcraft.

Some of you rage because someone suggested considering cost over aesthetics... Wasteland 2 has a development budget of however much we donate. I'm guessing $2 million. Consider for a moment the cost of professional games. Skyrim took an estimated $25 million to produce. That's 12 times what Wasteland 2 will have. So yes, cost is a very important factor, as in graphics, 2D or 3D, take money. That's just the way the world works.

[quote=dmazz]This also tends to make 2D backgrounds more aesthetically pleasing than 3D backgrounds.[/quote]

No it doesn't. A 3D background looks infinitely more real than a 2D one, because it's so much closer to an actual representation of the real world. 2D backgrounds are used to save processing power, and a good one looks very realistic, but a 3D background is optimal as far as graphics are concerned.

2D sprites can be very effective if that's what the game's going for, and if Wasteland 2 is going to have 2D sprites then I'll be fine with that, but please don't try to convince me that 2D sprites are more realistic, because they just aren't.

[krellen]

I, for one, don't care one lick about realism. I think 2d is more aesthetically pleasing.

I'm also not expecting a lot of animations. No more than you see in my avatar, and the other avatars from Wasteland around here.

[Tagaziel]

I'm also not expecting a lot of animations. No more than you see in my avatar, and the other avatars from Wasteland around here.

That's a bad example, Wasteland had very advanced portrait animations for that time (several animations per portrait that can be played independently and simultaneously).

[krellen]

for that time

So no reason to change anything, they're already really advanced. And should be a lot cheaper to do thanks to the advance of technology. Everybody wins!

[BlackGauntlet]

So no reason to change anything, they're already really advanced. And should be a lot cheaper to do thanks to the advance of technology. Everybody wins!

Yes!
1) Brian should re-use all the portraits in Wasteland!
2) ???
3) Profit! (for EA)

[rudel_dietrich]

Looking at those three screenshots, Fallout is still the most beautiful to look at. That artwork just stands the test of time.
A game with todays modern technology that supported up to 2560x2048 and where 32 bit colour of now commonplace I think 2-D sprites would look simply stunning if the art work was good.

Some of the art work and architectural work in Baldurs Gates, Planescape Torment and Icewind Dale still looks similarly amazing today. That kind of high quality art never goes out of style. The only thing that hinders those games is being designed back in the day when 15" CRT monitors were king.
This game is not going to have that problem.


Now saying all that...3-D graphics from a isometric perspective can be pulled off well. I think Sim City 4 when everything is maxed out is still a gorgeous game too. It crippled my computer when it first came out but when I upgraded there some were jaw dropping still screens if you are a good virtual urban planner.

[Gizmo]

One of the most beautiful 2d games that I have is Disciples 2; it looks like an animated oil painting... but its a blend of 2D illustration and 3D character animation (as 2D sprites).

One of the most beautiful 3D games that I have... is Disciples 3; like the one before it, it is a blend of 2d illustration and 3d character animation (this time as 3D models).

It all depends on the artist and their skill with their tools, and artistic vision... being 2D or 3D is moot at this point, when even the cheapest PC motherboard usually has built in 3D hardware; and any serious gamer has a monstrous power hogging dedicated 3d card installed. I would expect that WL2's use of 3D would not tax an integrated graphics card too much, or to the point that it would be un-playable.

** I'd be very interested (being an illustrator myself), if anyone would post a detailed account of how (or in what way) 2D animation can surpasses 3D animation. (Especially considering that 3D art very often incorporates 2D art; I'd think, more often than not.)

[Lanatir]

I dunno....but 3D to me rings the same bell that 'social' does. It is far far far from the classip RPG feeling.

[Gizmo]

I dunno....but 3D to me rings the same bell that 'social' does. It is far far far from the classip RPG feeling.

Why exactly?

* Incidentally.... The first cRPGs that I can recall ~and they (pre-date Wasteland) were attempting to look 3D, and were first person games. Later I started seeing "isometric" style RPGs, and then first person again, and then ISO, then First person almost exclusively, and now it looks like we are about to get some more ISO styled ones.