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

[Citronvand]

3D models and 3D engine really is the way to go. A good 3D engine can evoke 2D art styles quite well, especially from fixed camera angles. A 2D engine however needs sprites for everything and can't fake 3D effects well.

Exactly. Let's take the recent DOTA 2 beta as example: it has a 3D scenario with a (mostly) fixed camera angle that can actually compare with best 2D art, both in smoothness and detail.
Of course, it should be pointed that Valve isn't exactly composed from a bunch of amateurs.

I strongly disagree, I think there is a big difference between a 2D and 3D game. Take for instance Bastion, it is very noticeable that it is 2D and I do not think Dota 2 can compare to it.

Even a 2d isometric game can utilize any art assets made in 3D. As with pre-rendered 3D assets a 2D hand drawn sprite...

Yeah, but as your very post proves, it's a quite annoying, costly and time consuming thing, compared to just using the same 3D asset in a 3D engine.

I would love to see some comparison between 2D vs 3D costs. Do you have any references? I am genuinely interested in knowing the differences.

But even if 2D is let's say twice as consuming as 3D I think it is up to inXile to make the call if they can do it or not. Even if Voice-acting cost a lot of money Double Fine is adding it to their game since they got such a big budget. The cheapest option is not always the best. Yes of course we should priority the resources and not dump them on for instance cinematics and full voice-acting, but I think the actual graphics of the game and how it looks is important. If 2D makes the better game and inXile thinks they have enough resources to do it, they should.

[Vryheid]

As someone who has experience working on a sprite based game, I can tell you that one of the reasons sprite based games are much less popular than they used to be is due to the increasing screen resolutions of computers. You might not believe the enormous amount of space required for a set of detailed character spritesheets, especially when dealing with multiple character animations facing all different directions. It was easier in the days of games like Fallout when a 100x100 pixel sprite could take up a significant chunk of the screen, now with people everywhere running 19 inch monitors you'd need something like a 250x250 sprite to have the same effect.

Not only that, people expect more fluid character animations these days, which means having to add more frames and bigger spritesheets. A high resolution set of spritesheets for a creature that large could take up hundreds of megabytes. If this sounds bad for your hard drive, imagine how quickly your RAM will get used up if the game has to load multiple sets of spritesheets all at once. It's just not feasible without making significant design sacrifices.

3D models completely avert this problem because A. models can be rendered in any direction, and B. animation is stored in skeleton data, not prerecorded animation frames. This means the game runs faster, more hard drive and RAM space can be dedicated to other assets, and characters can rotate a full 360 degrees. 3D also makes effects like shadows and falling debris a whole lot easier to emulate. I understand that some people feel like the details of old sprite based games had a certain degree of individual care from the artists that we don't see anymore, but with advances in modern 3D engine technology a similar level of detail is certainly possible. The original Wasteland didn't skirt on pushing the limitations of technology when it was first released, and I don't think Wasteland 2 should either.

From a gaming perspective, I'm not the biggest fan of a sprite based approach due to my experiences in the classic Fallout games. I always felt that not being able to easily view, say, the back of a house was a significant source of frustration when navigating towns and trying to find NPCs. It was a symptom of a fixed isometric view that the developers only found a very limited solution for, that being faintly overlaying the character sprite when we're right up against these types of walls. A 3D approach would allow us to solve this issue by rotating the camera to fit the environment, a solution which has worked well in games as far back as Mario Bros 64. Not forcing to deal with these navigational design hazards definitely should be considered as a significant argument in the push to go full 3D.

[Alaseur]

This reminds me of a 3D isometric game that was built on the Unity game engine. It supported a full 3D game environment with dynamic real-time shadows, physics, and an excellent set of controls. It was not turn based though. Something else that reminds me of this is a turn based Isometric strategy based game called Civilization. I doubt the developers would really go with a 2D sprite game.

Age of Mythology also comes to mind although It's not turn based either.

[GrundleKing]

I'm largely indifferent as to whether the game should use 3D models or 2D sprites. I think something in the style of Neverwinter Nights or Van Buren could be pretty cool, but what is important to me is that the game should be able to run reasonably well on machines that are, say, less than cutting edge. At the very least, if it's in 3D, then there should be extensive graphical settings so that we can make the game look like crap if it doesn't run silky-smooth by default.

[geezer]

That's the first time I've heard someone say anything good about the graphics from NWN. It may be just that I hated the main campaign so much I've forgotten. Were the graphics better than IE games like BG2 or IWD2? I just checked some screenshots and it looks like the indoor graphics might have been slightly better, but the outdoor graphics were worse. Since I assume Wasteland will be mostly outdoors I think IE would be a better choice than Aurora and since it's older it may be cheaper as well.

[falloutgod13]

i'm a bit inclined to 2D here possibly because the best cRPGs were always 2D or 2D/3D mix. however...this time i would like to see a full 3D game doing the isometric perspective thing properly! (requiem for van buren? )

^ This guy wins!

[cynip]

Anyone played the "modern" ToEE?
That engine should work well with this game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temple ... eo_game%29

[Tuco]

I strongly disagree

Yeah, but you are strongly wrong.
DOTA 2 looks just gorgeous in the details. Transparent animated water, critters running all around very clean textures and a sharp look.
Wonderfully animated characters (and HUNDREDS of them) and so on.
As far as I loved Bastion, it doesn't even compare as global effort... but that's a matter of taste, anyway, and not my point.
The point is: 3D graphics today can look gorgeous, and claiming it ages faster isn't true anymore.

I would love to see some comparison between 2D vs 3D costs. Do you have any references? I am genuinely interested in knowing the differences.

Luckily, Vryheid spared m the effort to argue about this with his post. Just read it.

Anyone played the "modern" ToEE?

We already name-dropped it at least a dozen of times even just in this thread?

[Cruxador]

I would rather have 2d and have few animation frames. We don't need fancy graphics, it just needs to be good enough to know what we're seeing.

Oh, but don't do that cheesy "retro" bullshit where sprites are pointlessly low resolution. There's no reason to ever do that.

[w9jds]

I have to go with the 3D models, what Vryheid is very true. 3D models are one build option that takes up way less space. plus the ability to have customization for every single item in the game is great. However, I love the 2D aspect of cRPGs so I think that the fixed camera will work very nicely here so it lays flat but in all reality its using a 3d model. This allows for the best customization as well as the feel that we all love. Plus this allows for easy use of our high resolution screens without possible degrading of the textures. That's just me.

[Citronvand]

I strongly disagree

Yeah, but you are strongly wrong.
DOTA 2 looks just gorgeous in the details. Transparent animated water, critters running all around very clean textures and a sharp look.
Wonderfully animated characters (and HUNDREDS of them) and so on.
As far as I loved Bastion, it doesn't even compare as global effort... but that's a matter of taste, anyway, and not my point.
The point is: 3D graphics today can look gorgeous, and claiming it ages faster isn't true anymore.

Still trying to convey your opinions as fact I see. Of course 3D graphics can look gorgeous, my point was that 2D and 3D graphics still look different even today and some prefer one to the other. I also don't believe you when you say 3D graphics age better now.

I would love to see some comparison between 2D vs 3D costs. Do you have any references? I am genuinely interested in knowing the differences.

Luckily, Vryheid spared m the effort to argue about this with his post. Just read it.

I would actually like some numbers on it (if it exist), not saying I disbelieve him, just asking for a reference because I find it interesting. But like I said, it doesn't matter if 2D needs more resources if you read my previous post.

[Alaseur]

I doubt it's an obnoxious number. I'm curious of the cost differences between building content in house or outsourcing production to another company. My guess would be that it would cost more to outsource the production of 3D models, textures, and animations for the convenience of not having to do it yourself. I don't mean outsourcing to the Philippines either. Everyone needs to make a profit.

In house you would have the buy the proper tools. That would probably mean a floating or network license per program which can cost a few thousand dollars or several hundred dollars more than the initial pricing of a single node locked license. Whatever they pay employees as well.

[Citronvand]

I doubt it's an obnoxious number. I'm curious of the cost differences between building content in house or outsourcing production to another company. My guess would be that it would cost more to outsource the production of 3D models, textures, and animations for the convenience of not having to do it yourself. I don't mean outsourcing to the Philippines either.

In house you would have the buy the proper tools. That would probably mean a floating or network license per program which can cost a few thousand dollars or several hundred dollars more than the initial pricing of a single node locked license. Whatever they pay employees as well.

I agree. But since I've seen a few people state that 2D graphics require so much more resources than 3D I have to wonder how much more resources? Is it like twice the amount? 5 times? In general I mean. Surely they should have some idea since they are stating it?

[golgepapaz]

Although I am not against 3d models instead of sprites,because they are very feasible if not the form today and can be implemented with relative ease but look at this


I don't think any 3d model can match the artistic beauty and the immersion a pre-rendered 2D background provides. PS:T ,Fallout etc looks pretty awesome in higher resolutions. So a mix of 2D backgrounds with 3D PCs, NPCs ,objects ,destructables etc would be my choice.

[Alaseur]

I agree. But since I've seen a few people state that 2D graphics require so much more resources than 3D I have to wonder how much more resources? Is it like twice the amount? 5 times? In general I mean. Surely they should have some idea since they are stating it?

Something I'm unsure about but would like more details on as well.

[Stabwound]

I would absolutely love a modern take on the 2D, isometric, fixed angle games like Fallout and Jagged Alliance. Imagine what they could do with high quality 2D art these days. It's mouth watering.

[w9jds]

Size think of it this way. For 3d Model you would have one high resolution texture that wraps around the 3d model. Where as if you where doing 2d you would have one file for ever single frame for every single animation for every single angle of the character that is also high resolution for each one. For instance if a person is walking you still only need one for 3d model system where as if you have 2d you would have four just for him standing there (front, back, side, and side) then you would decide how many screen updates you want while walking so say just one for a step with his leg out so that would be four more high res textures.

[Cruxador]

I doubt it's an obnoxious number. I'm curious of the cost differences between building content in house or outsourcing production to another company. My guess would be that it would cost more to outsource the production of 3D models, textures, and animations for the convenience of not having to do it yourself. I don't mean outsourcing to the Philippines either.

In house you would have the buy the proper tools. That would probably mean a floating or network license per program which can cost a few thousand dollars or several hundred dollars more than the initial pricing of a single node locked license. Whatever they pay employees as well.

I agree. But since I've seen a few people state that 2D graphics require so much more resources than 3D I have to wonder how much more resources? Is it like twice the amount? 5 times? In general I mean. Surely they should have some idea since they are stating it?

It's not that simple. If you're busting out a bunch of 16x16 units with one or two frames per animation, then 2d is actually much faster and cheaper than making a bunch of modeled units with skeleton-based animations. It really depends on how big the sprites are and how many frames of animation they get.

[Citronvand]

I doubt it's an obnoxious number. I'm curious of the cost differences between building content in house or outsourcing production to another company. My guess would be that it would cost more to outsource the production of 3D models, textures, and animations for the convenience of not having to do it yourself. I don't mean outsourcing to the Philippines either.

In house you would have the buy the proper tools. That would probably mean a floating or network license per program which can cost a few thousand dollars or several hundred dollars more than the initial pricing of a single node locked license. Whatever they pay employees as well.

I agree. But since I've seen a few people state that 2D graphics require so much more resources than 3D I have to wonder how much more resources? Is it like twice the amount? 5 times? In general I mean. Surely they should have some idea since they are stating it?

It's not that simple. If you're busting out a bunch of 16x16 units with one or two frames per animation, then 2d is actually much faster and cheaper than making a bunch of modeled units with skeleton-based animations. It really depends on how big the sprites are and how many frames of animation they get.

Ok, but then the argument that "2D cost much more than 3D so we should go for 3D" really comes down to how good graphics inXile are really aiming for. For instance, Bastion may be too much since this is a bigger game but maybe Fallout Tactics 2D would be achievable with their budget.

[Alaseur]

I think I understand it a little better now...

Reading Vryheid's post he states a single creature with a higher resolution sprite (which would be required as people do have higher resolution monitors) would require multiple spritesheets for that single creature to move in more than just 4 directions. My monitor maxes out at 2048 x 1152 and I only have so much ram. Now imagine five or six different creatures or NPC's loading sprite sheets each at least a few hundred megabytes.

His points with 3D models, and animation are also correct. Can't believe I didn't read it the first time.

My bad.

His points are clear to me only because I've rendered raw format images that each exceed 50 megabytes themselves depending on the various formats I can render to. PNG and BMP are the two largest I've encountered other than TIFF, or exr.