3D makes us better

[Kinoko]

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.

[stuh505]

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.

[Kinoko]

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.

[stuh505]

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?

[Kinoko]

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.

[DCillusion]

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.

[j-Hed]

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.

[Afflict]

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)

[2ma2]

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.

[DGMacphee]

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! 

[MrColossal]

Iron Giant? Or have I mistaken you?

[InCreator]

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.

[scotch]

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.

[DGMacphee]

Iron Giant? Or have I mistaken you?

Points! KA-CHING!

[2ma2]

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

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.

[Helm]

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.

[DGMacphee]

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.

[Kinoko]

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).

[DCillusion]

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.

[2ma2]

"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