Here's what I don't understand.
Every time someone makes a game in 3D, many people say, "I like the old 2D art much better." Rightly so, as you would have to be a large company, (or have a workstation & a lot of free time), to make a 3D game that looks half-way decent. To make a good 2D game you simply have to be a good artist.
There aren't many of those, however, leaving a lot of our art lacking. The lure of 3D being you can make any object look good if one were to care enough to take the time.
My question is why doesn't anyone try using the sega-inspired, now mainstream, cell-rendering. Once only for high-end packages, it's now available for every platform; even the free Blender. Cell-rendering doesn't require hardware-intensive radiosity lighting or shading. At low-resolutions, it's a joke, but at, about, 800x600 & up, it really looks like a drawing; creating a piece of artwork similar to the size Sierra used in creating their beautiful low-res games.
Like Sierra, one could take this art, shrink it down, & viola! A true low-res gem!!
I really think this would affect the quality of our games.
I don't know how much you know about 3d but you still have to be a good artist.
Also, you still have to have a lot of free time or a large company or an animation set up to make a good 2d game that looks halfway decent. 3d and 2d are practically the same when it comes to making art for them.
Sure, animating a 3d character might be the tiniest bit easier but it is in no way super easy.
The lure of 3d for me isn't that objects looks good or anything, it's that there are things you can do in 3d that can't be done in 2d [no matter what DG says].
I wrote a long post on why I think cel shading is a pointless, and not very good looking gimmick, but actually... for many of the people here it might be a shortcut to a professional looking style, and it does generally look better rendered into 2d games than other kinds of 3d.
However, if you can master 3d animation enough that your cel shaded characters don't look completely wooden you can probably 2d animate well too, they're not totally dissimilar, and good 2d always beats good 3d in a 2d engine, like AGS.
And I agree with Eric, the main advantage of 3d is the effect it can have on gameplay, something which doesn't exist in AGS "3d".
3D heals wounds both physical and psychological.
I actually love cel-shaded 3D when it's done right. Jet Set Radio, Giftpia... these games make it beautiful.
I have absolutely 0 problem with people saying they like 2D art better when a 3D game comes out. It's just an opinion and one I typically share. I find a lot of 3D artists try to win their aguments technically, like "But it's better because of this and this!". It's all still objective. It doesn't matter how technically perfect 3D is, I still adore old 320x200 2D art and it'll always be that way for me.
I'm not saying YOU had that argument, er, I just got to thinking about it because of your topic ^_^ Theres my 2 cents.
I like the old 2D art much better.
I like working with 3D and 2D - I've done stuff in both fields and I love it. DCillusion's idea sounds nice and worth giving a try.
The thing that bothers me about 3D is that a lot of new adventure games try to make stuff look as real as possible instead of exploring new styles.
The amount of effort that goes into building and animating a 3D scene is enormously greater than whipping up a few paintings. Artists must be hired to draw concept art, modellers must be hired to model everything, more artists must be hired to draw textures, people must rig the models, then animate the models, programs with quality physics simulations are not cheap...you can use Maya or XSI, and Max for some things...but try orders of magnitude more work. Cell shading isn't so easy to make look like real cartoons, either. That takes skill. And all of it takes artistic ability...I would say, that almost everyone in the pipeline needs to be an accomplished artist. All that when you could just paint 1 picture and scan it in?
But with 3D you can actually use one model for all the poses and views, no need to redraw them frame by frame, moreover, you can actually buy/rip/steal/modify (hehe) some pre-built models which saves a lot of work.
In my opinion they're different things, and shouldn't be compared normally, each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
The main problem is, when something was made (game, movie, or whatever) which actually won't need 3D but 3D was finally used, sometimes they may look great, MOST of the time, that just ruin the products, which can even be done better using 2D.
Stuh, don't you think you're being a little awkward when you describe the entire process it takes to make a 3d scene and models and textures and physics [for some reason] and then just say "Whip up a few paintings?"
If I misunderstood anyone - let me know
I don't know if it would be as difficult as working out physics, I'm still talking about a mostly static enviornment.
it's true that you'd still need some talent for art, but I also think it makes the art easier if you can always be perspective-perfect & only have to draw the art once, (which has already been stated). You can also work & rework any part of the image until it's perfect. With 2D you, sometimes, must rework an image in its whole to fix it.
one the worst things that can rip you out of the reality of any game, (2D & 3D), is the absence of the little details that make your world seem real. You make an awesome tool shed, & spend hours filling it with everything important. The process takes hours, & it's beautiful, but what about the stupid things that you don't really see. Things like: some nails on the ground, splinters, a loose board, a fallen screwdriver, etc. These are things an amature designer can't be bothered. He/She hasn't the time. Here's where I think 3D really shines. Thousands of free-&-legal boring objects can be taken from the internet, (about 15,000 from Turbosquid alone). Grab these items, scatter them amidst your incredible scene & you've got something great. Some people may consider this an easy answer, but it's something to think about.
I'm not sure if some people fully understood the post by saying they like 2D better or 320x200 is better. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I theorized that one could cell-render a 3D scene in say: 800x600, 1024x768, etc., to create an art cell. The cell would then be resized to fit the lowered resolution. This is a similar technique that Sierra used. The goal of the render is to be as close to a 2D image as possible.
As far as animating, you are probably still on your own. It seems that in these types of games, the 2 are almost mutually exclusive; so what ever you can achieve. Although Sierra was notorious for relying heavilly on rotoscoping & motion-capture. Even so I'm, almost, inclined to call the scene & the animations apples & oranges
Thanks for all the input; please continue to respond. I recently threw out a nearly-finished game of mine, (done entirely in 2D), for looking to "Photoshopy" & I'm looking for a new technique. I have a lot of knowledge of & am quite good at 3D imagery, but I also enjoy the days of lo-res sprites & would like to make a game where I wouldn't have to toss my talents out the window just because it isn't nostalgic enough for me.
While you could go and create a fully rendered 3D scene and resize it to lo-res (320x200), you could also create a bigger-than-ingame drawing in photoshop or something and resize it. Drawing small details isn't that much of a problem.
It would still look more natural (more drawing-like) than a 3D rendered scene and it's probably faster, too.
I'd say that for 800x600 and upwards, 3D would be worth considering, because creating drawings for such high resolutions can be quite hard.
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/shotxx1.jpg)
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/policeman.gif)
Certainly for backgrounds 2d is the way to go for AGS scenes, if you're only going to be viewing a room from one angle you may as well draw it, modelling is no easier, especially if you're just doing a cel art style (which I think looks wrong for backgrounds anyway, even animation that uses cel shaded characters typically has painted backgrounds, cel shading is a compromise between quality and speed needed for animation frames).
I also think that would look better in AGS, although I'm certainly not anti 3d.
Cel shaded characters on hand drawn backgrounds like in Runaway is a much better idea, because it does save your animation time for high res characters. If I ended up doing the character animation in TJH part 2 I'd have to do it this way, there's no way I could draw 800x600 2d animation alone.
And stuh, you can't really compare the commercial 3d game making process to one artist making 2d backgrounds. If I was doing the whole 3d thing myself I'd say one 3d room is about the same amount of work as one 800x600 room painting, and one animated 3d character is a similar amount of work to a 2d one (maybe more to create but less to animate). I agree you'd need the same amount of art skill to do either well, and 3d is not going to make bad art good.
This thread (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=18728.0) shows off some 3D-rendered backgrounds that look great in VGA.
I think some artists on the forum have mentioned that they'll make a quick 3D model of their room, take a screenshot and paint on top of that. That way they can establish perspective more easily, try different camera angles and so on. This sounds like a very reasonable method to me, especially with something like a map editor for a game, which can be quite quick and easy to use.
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 16/03/2005 19:46:31
The lure of 3d for me isn't that objects looks good or anything, it's that there are things you can do in 3d that can't be done in 2d [no matter what DG says].
I said what now??
EDIT: Now I remember what Colossal's talking about it. It was a thread from ages ago (and one that's mysteriously disappeared for some reason) where in it I was saying that adventure games don't need graphics to exist, and that graphics only enhance the game but are not mandatory to the game's construction. In the thread, I posed that the graphics of a certain game could be converted to textual descriptions. And I think my theory is valid since text-based adventures existed long before most graphical adventures.
Sure, the game isn't as good without graphics, but the game still exists -- and that was my point. And this was based on my theory that an adventure game relies upon two necessary components: a narrative and interactions. Graphics, music, and so forth only enhance them game, but aren't necessary.
This isn't the same as saying what can be done in 3D can be done in 2D -- I don't think I've ever said that, or ever believed it. In fact, the only decent graphics I ever been able to do are in 3D using a rendering program called Imagine 4.0.
I believe there's a lot you can do with 3D programs, especially ones with Zvarily functions.
MrColossal,
Alright, the physics could be avoided. But they also might need to be there. If you're going to be animating characters wearings robes and cloaks, you'll probably want some kind of cloth simulation...and likewise, you may want to have some animated flowing hair that uses actual hair. But there are workarounds you're right.
Still, I think it is a lot less work to hand paint a background than to build a 3D scene of equivalent detail. A painting is probably going to take under 20 hours, whereas a single scene might contain 100 paintings as textures, each of which can take an arbitrary amount of time to draw...and there are so many other aspects that come together.
For some things 3D is faster, but you'll never see a single room painting that takes months of 9-5 work for a single person, and you can EASILY see this amount of time put in for a single 3D scene.
This discussion is about people here, using cel shading in 2d ags games. Sure a whole 3d level of a game could take one person a couple of months, but for one static 3d screen, well I think it's about the same amount of work, textures included. I've spent a week on one painted AGS background easily. If I'd done the same scene in 3d it'd take around the same amount of time. If I had done it in cel shaded 3d that minimizes the amount of texture work so maybe it'd be faster.
Not that I think that'd look good, and I have a fair amount of 3d experience, to a newbie it'd not be an easy process.
And physics? Why? most ags animation is pretty crappy, and not even most commercial games use cloth physics.
For people considering 3d backgrounds I'd suggest not doing cel shading, there are some good examples of nice 3d rendered low res graphics that use normal textures and lighting in the critics lounge. No radiosity or anything complex, just basic 3d scenes. It can work very well.
scotch, this image is just a small part of a 3d scene that I was working on.Ã, I didnt' even finish this 1 character, and I've already spent more than 200 hours working on it.
http://img202.exs.cx/img202/7358/saibekkillingfields9br.jpg
just for this character, I've got over 300 3d objects, and almost as many unique texture maps drawn in photoshop.Ã, And physics simulations are necessary to animate this character as well.
in 3D, the time that it takes to build and render the scene is dependent on the complexity of the objects in the scene
In 2D, it is not really dependent on how complex the scene is...to a small degree yes...but mostly its only dependent on how large the scene is and how much detail you put into it.Ã, theres only a finite amount of space and for any given resolution that you paint at it can only take you a finite amount of time.
I could paint this same image that I have in 3D in less than an hour.Ã, It wouldn't be quite so damn detailed, but still...I mean for contrast the picture of the farm hut I painted in the EGA/VGA topic in the critics lounge took me under an hour.Ã, to do that in 3d, it's all a question of how detailed I want to do the trees etc...using a tree modeller I could do them in probably a day of work, all in all though that scene would probably take me about a solid week of work.Ã, I guess I just work slow?Ã, But if I just work slowly, then wouldn't my 2D work be slow also?
That image is way too big.. scale it down.
Well, depends on the artist then I guess. As for me, I could certainly not paint that in an hour. But I could model it in a day or two, and I could paint it in a similar amount of time (mixing the two would be fastest, did you paint the background?).
However, the whole point of the cel shading idea seemed for people who are not good artists to have a short cut to backgrounds with good perspective, well drawn lines, in a half way decent style, without having to learn skills. For them I think basic 3d might be quite worth it. It wouldn't look great, but I think placing some boxes and stock models around and applying textures/shaders is easier than learning to draw properly.
I'd prefer it to (most) MS Paint rooms, but only just.
For someone who can paint well there is probably no advantage, as I've said, go for 2d if you can do it, it works best in AGS. And again, the main advantage of 3d cel characters is in character animation, I'd even consider that myself.
Quote from: scotch on Fri 18/03/2005 03:42:29
However, the whole point of the cel shading idea seemed for people who are not good artists to have a short cut to backgrounds with good perspective, well drawn lines, in a half way decent style, without having to learn skills.
This must be the feeling maths teachers experienced when the calculator was invented and suddenly no one bothered to try hard in maths anymore.
It's not hard to learn simple perspective, I've seen people get the hang of it in the critics lounge countless times. I don't think it's bad for people to use 3D, particularly if they make it to paint over, that's just a technique really to help you get used to drawing. I just think that if the only real reason you're using 3D is because you have a poor grasp of perspective, the game will probably suffer from it.
Again... I don't have a -problem- with people doing this, they have every right to. It just seems a little sad in my eyes that people aren't having a go at improving their skills. No one expects you to become a great artist from nothing, but it's really impressive to see someone who's put genuine effort into a game, or who's improved since their last attempt. I just get a little disenchanted when I see people using ripped sprites and easy ways out right from the outset.
colossal: sorry, I didn't want to upload a new scaled down image just to show the example
scotch: the modelling portion took me under 2 days
kinoko: I think you are misconcieved. 3D art does not really allow poor artists to "cheat" and make good art. You may think that 3D art is a simple matter of putting the time in to get good results...but it's really not, it requires more artistic skill than any traditional 2D medium in my opinion....and on top of that, there is a pretty drastic learning curve with all the software.
I didn't say that about 3D art in general, I said it about people who use 3D art as a work around because they don't know how to draw perspective.
So what if they can't draw perspective? Not everyone is so artistically talented. If they can't draw perspective, their 3D work isn't going to be any good either. But what's wrong with them trying to practice in the medium that they consider themselves best in? Isn't that what everyone does? Is the only difference that you don't like them because they're less talented but stil trying?
Seriously, did you even read my post, stuh? Read it. I said I didn't have a problem with them using 3D if the reason was that they didn't understand perspective, but I just, personally, liked it better if they tried to improve. It's impressive when someone tries and challenges themselves. It's NOT , in my opinion, impressive if they just use 3D to compensate for a lack of ability to draw perspective.
I didn't say ALL 3D users do this, I didn't say this was a crime, I didn't say people shouldn't practise in whatever medium that they consider themselves best in, and I most certainly didn't say that I don't like them because they're less talented but still trying.
Well, come on Stuh, you don't have to be good at perspective in 3D. The computer does handle that part by itself. It's like saying if you can't draw basic shapes, you'll suck at 3D. These programs will do some things for you.
Personally I think cellshading can look good but it still isn't the ultimate for a 2D background.
I would rather use 2D animated characters for my (2D) -game but it turned out that this cellshading process saved me many hours of time to make the backgrounds even better etc.
Remember this is only my opinions but to me handdrawn backgrounds and characters appeal to me because of my interests in art, drawing, and it gives me more atmosphere and satisfaction than 3D ever will. Basically because 3D is a differemt way of graphics than 2D.
A game called "Breath of fire IV" (for Playstation) has a great combination of 3D and 2D.
The backgrounds are made in 3D but has handdrawn textures while the characters are 2D computerdrawn, it looks brilliant.
But for me point n' click adventures doesn't need 3D because it doesn't bring any advantages and no atmosphere.
Runaway is an example of cellshading that works ok toghether with the background style, but if you compare the characters to for example Broken Sword, Runaways chars are very stiff and lifeless. The eyes are totally fixed, they almost look blind and their movements are never smooth.
Well to wrap it up I belive there are ways to achive a great look using 3D too but I think it is more suitable for other games than point and clicks.
Well 3d makes us better !!??
It has always been there and in the good ol days you had to draw it.
Now you can render scenes and charactors no problem. I say do
what your happy with. Kinoko mentioned skill and I understand she
is a great anime artist. <respect> But learning skills beyond drawing
like CG is amazing I love it. I also love drawing. Cell shading has become
very advanced and you get that almost "real" drawn feel when done
properly. If you arent going to become the world next da Vinci then I
say go 3d cause you have all the models and scenes items etc. On
hand 24/7 with no problem of having to sit down draw scan
color.
All in all this makes us a hell of alot faster and more effecient and lets
us get more creative cause we aint sitting and wasting our time on
forever drawing 50 different angles... Just a thought use it dont use it.
So yes 3d makes the graphical side better... Now if you can just sort out
your story.. (Thats a topic for another forum)
3d is 3d and 2d is 2d. What I'm trying to say is that is it not wise to try to simulate the either through the other, but to let each medium be its own. It's equalent hard to make something good in 3d than to make something good in 2d, and trying to make something great requires a lifetime commitment.
It may seem that you can whip up much better art with templates and a modeling utility, but it still shows if you know what you're doing.. or if you don't. That doesn't matter for the majority. If each and everyone knew all about art and design, I'd surely be out'a work. And unless you work professionally, I don't think anyone would toss something out just because it aint 1337 gfx0r. Sure, presentation is important, and gfx can make a huge difference, but the aspect of good is so relative. There are reasons Cpt Mostly's adored for his artistic abilities, while others try to gouge their eyes out. Art has been spat at, praised and spat at again. And now it's worth some million of your favored currency.
Now, cellshading. It's a cool feat, and it may produce immense gfx. We're about to see Dead Leaves tonight and darn if it aint cellshaded, but setting up a model in order to get a shortcut in making sprites have a huge downside - you must learn to do it good. If there's people out there that loves 3d and like to do this, there's nothing stopping you. Go ahead and amaze us! Because when you're doing anything really good, it strikes a chord through all of us, no matter how many dimensions you prefer. Just realise that each and every technique needs practice and work. And there are no shortcuts to anything, just different kinds of work.
Quote from: 2ma2 on Tue 29/03/2005 16:20:28
3d is 3d and 2d is 2d. What I'm trying to say is that is it not wise to try to simulate the either through the other, but to let each medium be its own. It's equalent hard to make something good in 3d than to make something good in 2d, and trying to make something great requires a lifetime commitment.
Though I did like in Futurama how they were able to blend the 3D work with the 2D work by making the 3D look cell animated. But would that also count as a simulation of 2D using 3D? If so, it's probably a very rare example of successfully trying to achieve a cell animated effect using 3D. I can't think of any other examples that have done so.
By the way, 2ma2, it's great to hear from you again, buddy! :)
Iron Giant? Or have I mistaken you?
I think that it's really dumb to say "2D/3D is better than 2D/3D", just as 2ma2 said.
They are not the opposide sides of something. I believe that these are just two different kinds of (digital) art.
2D goes under painting-art. It's very old, most-well-known and always admired one.
3D - on the other side is very modern art, which is actually a combination of many different forms of art, such as sculpting, architecture but also painting and photography, depending on case (of texture style).
So it sounds like difference-of-tastes-arguing, like "i like paintings", "no sculptures are cooler" - which leads nowhere.
I agree that graphics is not the critical part of an adventure game. And even if cell-shaded 3D games maybe as pretty or much prettier while looking like painted ones -- well, atleast for me, it's unexplainable, but I sense 2D other way than 3D. It gives different feelings and emotions and even if extremely masterfully made, there's just a little of something that doesn't feel right. For example - "Runaway: A road adventure" was an excellent game with superb usage of 3D and 2D together - but it just *wasn't* 2D! I liked it and all, but not the way I love indy games for example.
Also, I think I wouldn't like Indiana Jones & FOA that way and that much if it was cellshaded and in hi-res. Oldskool has its own charm, and it's unreplaceable.
The Futurama cel shading, along with the Iron Giant, or the Tachikomas are all examples of where the effect works, mechanical animation, which you'd do quite technically if you were doing it by hand. Ã, If the human characters in these productions were done with cel shading the animation would not look right imo, perhaps if Pixar's animators tried it it'd be expressive and flowing enough but if you're that good, why work against the medium, normal 3d shading won't be much of a challenge.
If you're not a great animator it'll look like Runaway, wooden.
Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 29/03/2005 21:53:26
Iron Giant? Or have I mistaken you?
Points! KA-CHING!
Well, cartonny 3d (I havn't seen Iron Giant so I'll drop that one, but Futurama yup and Invader Zim, oh yeah) fit well into 2d, but it's quite obvious that it isn't 2d. It is 3d that is cellshaded. That's what I feel anyway. But keep any points you feel you deserve :D
The mistake most people do with 3d is the same they do with 2d, namely animation that's realistic. And realistic animation doesn't look realistic. 2d animator have known this since the golden days, and 3d animators use this technique to get that flow going. Squash and stretch baby, recoils and weight. The only difference between totally goofed out and die hard realism is in how much you use the technique.
..but that doesn't make a lick of difference in static objects! It's just that we're more used to making movement in drawings, but as mentioned below, 3d is like sculpture, and sculpture is oh so static. To avoid the doll-effect, the model need to be really awsomly designed with movement in mind, or so abstract that it doesn't show. It's there that 3d ceases to be an easier option because backgrounds are a piece of cake! 'innit?
..no, I'm lying, I've never managed to get a succesful backdrop in a 3d utility...
And thank you DG, it feels good to be (almost) back.
Hello tomato.
And you're right. Taking a simple 3d model and animating it will indeed result in smooth animation. But it will not always result in realistic, or pleasing animation. Smoothness isn't always good. A keyframed 6 frame 2d animation might work quite better than a 25 frame even node-3d animation. A human hand, for example, contracts somewhat and changes shape according to the direction of the action, has muscles inside, the flesh folds, it suffers the effect of gravity and all that. Like tomato said. Obviously, when you have a bone animation using a simple cylinder-connected-to-cylinder arm, none of this is there. And little by little it adds up to really wooden and unnatural motion. Even the supposed best attempts at 2dish quality through 3d ( appleseed comes to mind ) this is really noticable and unpleasant. Now, of course, if you are a brilliant 3d animator, you will sit down and code in muscles for biceps, abs and balls and all that, but if you're accomplished enough to do all that, chances are you could do an animation in 2d if you wanted, so emulating 2d through 3d is pointless. MrColossal showed us a link to a fast-motion video of a guy going through all the steps of creating a 3d monster model, and animating him and all that. It was a revelation in that he was so good that he sat down and sculptured the model before remaking it in 3d. He didn't stop there. He made a sceleton for it, and muscles over it, arrrgh. To be a *great* 3d artist, you have to be *that* good. Good 3d is not a shortcut, and it's not easier than good 2d. Bad 3d is just faster.
Quote from: 2ma2 on Wed 30/03/2005 12:28:38
The mistake most people do with 3d is the same they do with 2d, namely animation that's realistic. And realistic animation doesn't look realistic. 2d animator have known this since the golden days, and 3d animators use this technique to get that flow going. Squash and stretch baby, recoils and weight. The only difference between totally goofed out and die hard realism is in how much you use the technique.
This I very much agree. Last year, two films were released that highlight this difference. The Incredibles and The Polar Express. The later used models that were very realistic. The problem was, despite the realism, they looked like lifeless dolls (in fact, they looked like brain-eating Christmas zombies IMO). Meanwhile, the exagerated aspects of The Incredibles' models gave each of them a certain character/life/individuality. Squash and stretch all the way.
It's rather like when people try to do real life versions of shows that were previously cartoon. They look so utterly stale and stiff because people just can't move (or animate) the way you can make a carton character move. I agree, there are lots of 3D things out there that tackle this problem REALLY well, just like the Incredibles. I still think the majority of it has a long way to go (Polar Express - blech! Scary shit, that).
Then again, with animation I guess it's about the style you're trying to emulate. If you want to make a Sierra VGA title, (between King's Quest 4 - 7), maybe you should go 3D. All Sierra did during that time was paintovers of motion-captured actors. They called it rotoscoping.
So colouring a 3D movement cycle would look about as real, or fake, as an early 90's title.
"So colouring a 3D movement cycle would look about as real, or fake, as an early 90's title"
Nope it wouldn't. Because rotoscoping gives you exact portrays of bodily proportions through movement, whilst a 3d dummy gives the bodily proportions of a 3d dummy in movement. It's those little movements, those twitches with the shoulder or tilting of the head whilst looking to the side that gives life to imagery. Squash and stretch is to exxagerate those traits to make a single motion have an impact of 20. Rotoscoping's an excellent way of getting your animations done. Grab a camera and a buddy of your choice and hit the streets ;)
Well why dont people just use 2.5D!
Ah just kidding the point is 2D is just as good as 3D and 3D is just as good as 2D so there is no matter what you use if you are good at it the work is gona be good!