Sprites VS 3D Models?

[Anonymous No.3406228]

which one do you prefer the most?

[Anonymous No.3406239]

Both are garbage

Good games use vector graphics, ASCII symbols, and/or text

[Anonymous No.3406313]

>>3406239
yougottabefuckingwithme.iso

[Anonymous No.3406314]

>>3406239
I prefer video games with nothing but the screen flickering in different colors.

[Anonymous No.3406320]

>>3406239
Is this it? Is this the point /vr/ becomes a parody of itself?

[Anonymous No.3406330]

>>3406320
I say, I say son, that there was a JOKE! A JOKE, son!

Nice boy but he's a few eggs short of an omelet.

[Anonymous No.3406354]

>>3406228
Sprites, easily. 3D models can be made to look really good as well though. I fucking hate the art direction in XII and XIII though. Everything looks like a fucking Falcoon drawing. His stuff was cool as fan art but not as the official style.

[Anonymous No.3406365]

>>3406228

>Sprites vs 3D models
>Pic is two sprites

Anyway, I actually prefer 3D models, because they can be animated much easier, smoother (in general) and can be animated once, then shown from any angle.

Oddly enough, I generally prefer 2D and prerendered backgrounds...

[Anonymous No.3406390]

sprites
i wish they weren't nearly ded

[Anonymous No.3406417]

>>3406365
Those sprites were done Guilty Gear style.

[Anonymous No.3406424]

>>3406390
Those are 3D models turned into sprites, dude.

Sprites all the way

[Anonymous No.3406542]

>>3406424

Nah, >>3406390 is "puppet" 2D animation mixing joint rotation/translation, deformation and some actual frame by frame-based animation here and there.

It's based on hand drawn high resolution artwork though, so it probably doesn't really count as "sprites"

[Anonymous No.3406565]

>>3406354
Not to mention...

EVERYBODY IN THE BACKGROUND LOOKS LIKE FUCKING MONSTERS OR ALIENS!!!!!

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ABOUT!?

[Anonymous No.3406578]

whichever gets the job done better

[Anonymous No.3406580]

>>3406565
nigga, it's niggers, just how xenophobic are you?

[Anonymous No.3406903]

>>3406314
Yeah fuck all these trendy 2D games, 1D was the golden age of gaming.

[Anonymous No.3407009]

>>3406542
Interesting, I was misinformed. I'd still call those sprites though. Anything not being rendered on the fly I would call a sprite

[Anonymous No.3407024]

I'm fine with either, though I have a deep appreciation for well animated sprite work.

All of SNK's games are a good example of this. Metal Slug is practically a tour of lovingly crafted sprites disguised as a run n gun.

KoFXIII is pretty much the pinnacle of sprite work, and even if you don't like the artstyle like an above poster mentioned, you can't deny the amount of detail in the spirtes and animations are amazing.

This site has a lot of information about them, particularly just how long it took them to do this: http://kofaniv.snkplaymore.co.jp/english/info/15th_anniv/2d_dot/creation/index.php

At such a cost, we'll probably never see sprites as good as those. Not unless SNK stumbles upon infinite money.

[Anonymous No.3407048]

>>3407009
Rasterized 3D sprites are absolute dogshit tier and why 80% of the Gameboy Advance library is unplayable today.

Seriously awful. Donkey Kong Country and its ilk have always looked like wet vomit.

[Anonymous No.3407054]

>>3407024
Ironically, most of the sprites in the game were traced from 3D models.

Now aside from the art direction (fuck Nona, really), I have 1 huge gripe with KoFXIII sprites. It's the resolution. What the actual fuck? Don't get me wrong—they still look more detailed and relief than anything else in the pic. But why did they need to make the resolution so tiny? KoFXIII even uses filtering for fuck's sake.

And really, they do look amazingly smooth, smoother than anything else really. Where, for example, KoF '98 used like 13 or so sprites for Kyo's C rekkas, XIII used around 100 different frames or so. This is just crazy, and looks stupefyingly smooth. But otherwise?

Call me contrarian, but I like Garou and SFIII better. They have super cool motion blur (see Dudley/Knushnood Butt) and other awesome effects, like lighting on Kim Dong Hwan's sprite when he does his lightning stomp, or Ibuki's "shadow" when she does her command jump. KoFXIII has none of that.

[Anonymous No.3407074]

>>3407048

Oh man so much this. I will never understand the nostalgia for 16 bit and up 2D. Only some PC games have managed to look relatively decent. The gaudy gradients alone are a sin.

[Anonymous No.3407086]

>>3407054
The resolution being tiny is probably a trade off. If they made 'em bigger, that means more work, and they already take a ton of work as it is.

BlazBlue's sprites (or really, all of ASW's spritework) are less detailed, and has less detailed animation.

Also, the motion blur I believe you're referring to is called "smearing", and yeah, it's really great.

I'm definitely not gonna argue with you, as SFIII and Garou also stand near the top for me. SFIII was definitely a technical showcase (It was the debut of the CPS3, I believe), and Garou was meant to compete with it.

[Anonymous No.3407246]

>>3407086
> The resolution being tiny is probably a trade off. If they made 'em bigger, that means more work, and they already take a ton of work as it is.

>BlazBlue's sprites (or really, all of ASW's spritework) are less detailed, and has less detailed animation.

I agree to an extent; technically, of course more resolution means more detail. But look at those pixelated lines on Joe's back. I'm sure these could have looked better if they just upped the resolution.

If you compare his sprite to Blazblue, it's obvious the latter uses just 2 different shades for lighting. Needless to say, it looks less detailed. KoFXIII uses these smooth halftones/gradients which make it look almost like 3D. But at the same time, the Blazblue characters have much more accessories in traditional ArcSys fashion.

> Also, the motion blur I believe you're referring to is called "smearing", and yeah, it's really great.


Yep, Garou/Last Blade had this super cool smearing. Why I care so much? It really added energy to the motions, helped feel the speed of the attacks.

I used to draw animation casually (alas all of them have been lost), and tried to recreate techniques from SNK/Capcom fighters. I learned some things from this. For example, you know how in Garou or Guilty Gear, characters often leave a cloud of dust when jumping/dashing? It's there because it really gives this feeling of impact with the ground. Small things like this—moving clothing, hair, shading—are the reasons why sprites don't age like 3D.

Only around Tekken 6, 3D fighters started having some smearing. But it looks nowhere as cool as in 2D games, still. Even on maximum settings, SFV is still not "it". Yes, it's cool, but it just doesn't look as alive.

[Anonymous No.3407256]

>>3407246
>Why I care so much? It really added energy to the motions, helped feel the speed of the attacks.

Yeah, I totally get that. Little details give so much life to animation.

I would say look at Guilty Gear Xrd for good examples of all of that stuff in 3D. Absolutely amazing 3D models in that game.

[Anonymous No.3407310]

>>3407256
Yeah, they did a good job on that 3D conversion, but as with the previous installments, the animation is not smooth but rather has anime-like choppy feel to it. And ArcSys is just not my cup of tea. Still pretty successful new look for the series

[Anonymous No.3407346]

>>3406417
Actually for KOF XIII they animated the models in cel shaded 3D then rotoscoped with pixel art. So it's a mix of the two.

[Anonymous No.3407349]

>>3407054
>Ironically, most of the sprites in the game were traced from 3D models.
THIS.

[Anonymous No.3407410]

>>3407349
Is this supposed to be some kinda "gotcha" towards SNK? It's a perfectly legitimate way to draw a sprite.

The other way is sketching by hand and tracing that.

Drawing sprites "from scratch" was a thing back in the really old days but once sprites got bigger, it became impractical.

[Anonymous No.3407547]

>>3407054
>But why did they need to make the resolution so tiny?

That should not be a complaint when it comes to pixel art at all.

You practically lose all the strengths pixel art posses once you start upping the resolution. A lot of it came down to changing tiny details that would completely change how the image appeared. Metal Slug's breathing animation was accomplished by simply changing colors along the edges, and not by shifting parts around.

At higher resolutions, those little visual tricks simply don't exist anymore. You might as well head towards the same route that Skullgirls went with and just do digital animation.

The Blazblue sprite looks like shit and animates like shit. All those accessories don't mean jack shit if they're shaded as poorly and animated as poorly as the rest of the sprite.

KOF XIII's does the job fine enough. It still keeps the delicious pixels at a level where they're still strong enough that every pixel matters and it keeps them nicely animated on top of that.

[Anonymous No.3407550]

>>3407054
>>3407349

>Ironically, most of the sprites in the game were traced from 3D models.

I don't see the irony. Rotoscoping is a legitimate animation technique. They just used models rather than live subjects.

[Anonymous No.3408138]

>>3407048
While I agree that DKC, Golden Sun and games like that often look like horseshit, all I'm saying is they're still sprites. And it would be possible to do them like that and make them look good, it's just rarer.

Hand drawn is much more work but usually looks better in the end.

[Anonymous No.3408405]

>>3407048
downkey kong looks like vomit today. if you're not playing them in a CRT tv via comopsite. they're are going to look like shitfucking horrible.

[Anonymous No.3408490]

>>3407410
>>3407550
Don't get me wrong, it's totally fine to use 3D as BASE. But they totally look like 3D models, except meticulously traced. This is close to what they did in Art of Fighting 3.

But look at the folds on Terry's pants—they look more like goo in XIII. His cap, his hair has highlights, like they're made of plastic. Why? I don't know. Why they couldn't just make more realistic clothing, like, you know, we saw in KoF, Last Blade, and so on? Is it art direction, or something else?

Now, look at the shading on Terry's sprite. Half of his body is covered in shadow, obviously 3D rendered. Now comes the problem: it's a very dark shadow, like he's standing it total darkness and is lit with a projector. Or the kind you get when you take a pic with a shitty camera.

Don't know about you, but to me it looks like total shit. I can't even see his body properly; all the contrast is lost in that goddamn shadow. I take my screen to 100% brightness, and I still barely can see detail. It's honestly like someone opened the sprite in Photoshop, selected the shadowed areas, and took the contrast to 5%.

Now what's interesting: I notice this in a lot of modern "AAA" titles, I can even give you screenshot examples. So I assume it's just the common trait for today's 3D—total lack of contrast and sharpness. So, ironically, it got translated to KoFXIII, "true 2D" game—the one supposedly taking the best from sprite graphics of the old, not today's gimmicky 3D.

It looks exactly like today's 3D models: plasticky and clunky. It's much closer to DKC than you think. Then why even go with 2D if it's not anything like their old sprites? The art direction is shit, they look like 3d models. The only things we got is smoother movement.

[Anonymous No.3408512]

>>3407547
>>3407547
Wait wait wait, who even said anything about pixel art?

We're talking HD sprites here. Then why stick to low res? We all understand it's going to look shitty on HD TVs, blurred with filters or looking obviously pixelized. Then why go for such shitty res? To me, it doesn't even matter—they could've gone vector graphics (or something similar like GG Xrd), as long as it looked better than 3D. Pixels are just gimmicks when we're talking big sprites with 32+ different colors.

Fighting games never really made much accent on pixels. Big sprite size of SFII allowed this, and it set the trend for all 2D fighters. Guilty Gear has always tried to look like anime. KoF always had a more 3D feel.

> You practically lose all the strengths pixel art posses once you start upping the resolution. A lot of it came down to changing tiny details that would completely change how the image appeared. Metal Slug's breathing animation was accomplished by simply changing colors along the edges, and not by shifting parts around.

This is not strength, this is a characteristic. Because of it, characters always had to move at one place to look alive. Small, precise movement is also what was hard to do with pixel art, as well as normal body proportions (see prevalence of chibi style on NES/GB/NGP). Pixel limitations are the reasons Castlevania sprites had no faces even on PS.

Pixel art is dead. All the best artists are gone, all the best works have been made. What's being done today is cashgrabbing on a trendy retro gimmick that has nothing to do with actual pixel art of the past. I guess if SNK could hire all the old artists, then they could have made something truly great. But alas, they made KoFXIII.

[Anonymous No.3408573]

>>3407086
>The resolution being tiny is probably a trade off. If they made 'em bigger, that means more work, and they already take a ton of work as it is.
There is a lot more at play than "the work it takes to draw them bigger". You have things like memory constraints, loading larger images = more memory and processing power to store and render the images in question. Larger images also means more space required for the ROM. The games in question (SFIII and Garou) came out in the late 90s, on late 90s and early 90s hardware respectively. Rendering bigger images, especially in the quantity you're asking is a massive task that the hardware just wasn't up to.

Blazblue has less detailed animation because ASW are the fucking scum of the earth and will cut literally any corner they can and serve it up to you with a grin for full price of a game.

[Anonymous No.3408634]

>>3408573
Yep, but speaking of KoFXIII, I have hard time believing 7th gen consoles wouldn't be able to handle it. It's hard to say because the console hardware is mostly developed with 3D in mind, but having seen SSFIIT HD Remix, I think a true HD KoF XIII would run just as smoothly. I have slight doubts only about Wii, but it's not like XIII came out on it anyway.

[Anonymous No.3408639]

>>3408634
Yeah, we could have an amazing 4K hand-drawn 60fps fighter with a full roster of characters. It would just cost so much to produce that it would bankrupt the company making it.

[Anonymous No.3408685]

The reason we likely won't see a mainstream 2D fighting game, even with all the processing power of modern consoles, is due to the shifting business model on these games.

The audience for versus fighters is so small these days that just selling the game won't turn a profit. Instead they focus on DLC, like alternate costumes and shit like that. This is something that the Asian audience (especially China) love to spend cash on.

With 3D graphics and a fully rigged and animated character, it's obviously way easier to slap some new textures on it and sell that, than it is to re-draw hundreds of frames of 2D animation. So it's cheaper and easier to churn out content this way.

[Anonymous No.3408732]

>>3408685
> The audience for versus fighters is so small these days that just selling the game won't turn a profit. Instead they focus on DLC, like alternate costumes and shit like that. This is something that the Asian audience (especially China) love to spend cash on.

I'd only add that it's the same for all games. $60 for a box is not enough anymore. Games need seasons, costumes, and other DLC, even if the gameplay is exactly the same. See CS:GO.

However, you overlook one point: it's the 3D graphics that made things be that way. The fast-growing cost of 3D production is the reason the average game budget has been increasing in geometric progression over the past few decades.

For 2D, I think things are a bit different.

[Anonymous No.3408745]

>>3406228
Sprites. 3D = pig disgusting.

[Anonymous No.3408754]

>>3407054

[Anonymous No.3408757]

>>3408639
HD Remix look like vector graphics. If they made it in actual vector, it would look great in 4K.

GG Xrd is pretty much like vector graphics as I said. They also have anime cutscenes. Still, ArcSys is doing fine.

I think vector animation could work just fine for 2D fighters. When done well, it looks great—in any resolution. Why no one does it is weird to me.

[Anonymous No.3408761]

>>3408754
what are they queuing for?

[Anonymous No.3408762]

>>3408732 However, you overlook one point: it's the 3D graphics that made things be that way. The fast-growing cost of 3D production is the reason the average game budget has been increasing in geometric progression over the past few decades.

Well it's not that simple, you also have to weigh in things like affordable and effective middleware that leverages production costs, and also how the mobile market and that audience has emerged and shaped purchase dynamics. I.e. we have a situation today where basically the biggest market of players are unwilling to pay for a game but are willing to pay for bonus content and/or gameplay perks.

[Anonymous No.3408775]

>>3408757
Try working in vector graphics and you'll soon know why. It's of course possible to fully create the art assets elsewhere and then just trace them in vectors, but I'd imagine for most 2D graphic pipelines that would be another, costly, step in the process.

Typically you create games because you're looking to ship, to a device, at some point in the foreseeable future. Very few anticipate stuff like 4K displays and make sure whatever product they're working on is future proof that way. Again, doing that adds more cost.

It sucks but it's just the reality of how shit is made. If you ever end up in game development you'll be surprised anything makes it out the door, ever.

[Anonymous No.3408837]

>>3408762
> Also how the mobile market and that audience has emerged and shaped purchase dynamics. I.e. we have a situation today where basically the biggest market of players are unwilling to pay for a game but are willing to pay for bonus content and/or gameplay perks.
Fighters are poorly compatible with mobile. They are made for arcades, they feel OK on home consoles, they don't belong on touchscreen phones. They are OK as side revenue for making money from people who don't know any better.

The whole mobile model is tailored for casual players, games made by very small studios, and also high levels of plagiarism. The games are intended as loss leaders to sell impulse purchase stuff like bonuses, play time and so on.

Going mobile for fighters would destroy them from within. From rigging the balance in favor of payers, to unlocking characters for money, to shifting accent from gameplay to IAP.

>>3408775
As I said, HD Remix and Skullgirls already look like vector. I haven't worked in vector nearly enough to get a feeling for it, but I imagine Illustrator would do just fine. In any case—I think you could even convert HD Remix to vector using automated software. With some quality control it wouldn't even look any different.

Of course today 4K is not yet everywhere. But, you know, in 2004 I thought HD would take decades to come. 10 years later it's pretty much the standard. We're slowly drifting towards the era of 4K, lots of different formats, display sizes and multi-season games. So I think sticking to raster forever will have its downsides.

[Anonymous No.3410647]

>>3408837
The biggest problem with making fighters work on mobile is the lack of good input controls and the screen usually being way too small to see what's going on well enough.

Conceptually you could make a game, release it free and then charge per play for multiplayer games. If the rate was low enough, 10 cents a match or 25 cents but the winner gets a free next round or something it could work. That would be better than arcades at least.

>They are made for arcades, they feel OK on home consoles

I disagree with this though. In the old days hardware limitations of home consoles made those versions usually sub par compared to the arcade. But those times are long over and fighters are the kind of genre that really benefits from players being able to practice as much as they like without having to keep feeding quarters in order to get better.

[Anonymous No.3410991]

>>3410647
>The biggest problem with making fighters work on mobile is the lack of good input controls and the screen usually being way too small to see what's going on well enough.
It's like saying, "the biggest problem with making RTS work on GBC is the fact that you don't have a mouse and also that it's a fucking GBC". Let's face it—even playing Street Fighter on 4 button pad is compromising; it goes without saying that mobile fighters are nothing but a meme without physical buttons.

> In the old days hardware limitations of home consoles made those versions usually sub par compared to the arcade.
It's not about hardware at all. Fighters are made for arcades because they are supposed to be played AT arcades: you fight against live opponents, learn to read them, get tips from them and eventually git gud. "Arcade" mode is made mostly as a way to pass time before someone else joins you in a match. That's why fighting games have no tutorials, or they are all shit and teach nothing. I've played single mode for years, it doesn't allow you to develop past level of execution/combos/basic move properties. It lacks the most important thing: tactics and strategy.

Nothing beats playing against an opponent live on the arcade machine, or at least on the same console. The second best thing is perhaps playing online on wired connection with people from your area and with voice chat, so that you share tips/advice. Compared to these, mobile doesn't even have wired connection, meaning lag-free multiplayer is virtually impossible on it.

So fighters lose most of their charm even on portable consoles, like PSP: practice mode is cool and useful, but as I said past certain level it does nothing if you don't add live play. And on mobile, even practice is atrocious because of touch controls.

You want a fighting game tailored specifically for smartphones? This is impossible. You can't make a real competitive fighting game like SFII for phones for the reasons I've just stated.

[Anonymous No.3411049]

>>3408754

God Skullgirls has such a hideous art style. Flash cartoony. It's such a wsate.

[Anonymous No.3411097]

>>3411049
Absolutely agreed. It belongs to deviantart

[Anonymous No.3411126]

>>3411097
What is that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.3411146]

>>3410991
>It's like saying, "the biggest problem with making RTS work on GBC is the fact that you don't have a mouse and also that it's a fucking GBC"

Agreed, and the GBC would be a terrible platform to use for serious RTS games. The same way it's terrible for serious fighting games.

>It's not about hardware at all. Fighters are made for arcades because they are supposed to be played AT arcades: you fight against live opponents, learn to read them, get tips from them and eventually git gud.

I agree with this except it doesn't happen in arcades anymore. It happens online, and it's much better. You can spar all day with people, met on forums or through random and get better as you learn and play.

I grew up in arcades and let me tell you, it's way better than paying for every match in every way.

I think we totally agree that fighters on smartphones is totally pointless though

[Anonymous No.3411920]

>>3406417
No they weren't. Guilty Gear uses custom built cartoon shaders on 3d models. The finished product has a 2d look but remains 3d. KOF 12 and 13 use 2d sprites that were created by first drawing a 2d mock up of the character, then building a 3d version and using it to animate all the necessary frames. Then they used these frames as a template and drew over them to create the finished sprites.

[Anonymous No.3411943]

>>3411920
Hm where did they go wrong?
> "quadruple resolution"
> Full HD is 27x times the resolution of Neo Geo MVS
I wonder

[Anonymous No.3411993]

>>3411920
>No they weren't. Guilty Gear uses custom built cartoon shaders on 3d models.
To be fair, it's not just "custom built shader" the shader is not even that particular. The work that went into the 3d models of Xrd is incredible, comparable to those you describe. Basically every keyframe has been not only positioned carefully by hand, but they implemented distortion in unreal to add smearing and other classic animationt tecniques that have been forgotten since the PS2 era in 3d. Also sometimes they have just another new model for part of the animation just to add more detail, and it's seen only for that animation. Those animation have a shitton more keyframe than usual animation in the field, and finally they tweaked manually every normal on their models to make sure that the cell shading resulted in the same shading of the hand drawn art, and this is insane on 100k+ tris models.
And there was also some great unwrapping work to position manually the black lines that are on the internal borders without making them look pixelated, since the tecniques that they used (inverse black model) only makes external borders outlined, by splitting the UVs and alligning them on the u-v axis.

[Anonymous No.3412020]

>>3411920
>all that effort
Too bad they came out looking like shit

[Anonymous No.3412026]

>>3407048
>Seriously awful. Donkey Kong Country and its ilk have always looked like wet vomit.
T H I S
H
I
S
Sonic CD look so much better.

[Anonymous No.3412193]

>>3412020
>>3411993
>>3411920

We could finally have a KoF game that looks like high res Shinkiro art, but we never will. SNK Playmore is a sad mockery of it's namesake and Toshiaki himself is stuck doing promo art for Capcom.

Life sucks sometimes.

[Anonymous No.3413039]

[Anonymous No.3414503]

>>3412193
SNK made great games, but by 2000s they were stuck with a 10 year old arcade board. Hyper Neo Geo 64 failed miserably. Neo Geo CD console never caught up, as well as NGP. Their demise was no wonder.

Shinkiro stuck with them to the end. In 2000, SNK was already on life support. An artist with his skill would've been received well anywhere.

[Anonymous No.3414537]

>>3406228
Sprites by far.

[Anonymous No.3414559]

http://art-eater.com/2010/07/test-1-darkstalkers/

Here's a thing

[Anonymous No.3414727]

>>3406565
I too was put off by the background characters. People were reasonably proportioned in the UK level, but the Paris level was filled with hambeast women. Why?

[Anonymous No.3414753]

Kirby Super Star and Donkey Kong Country hold up even today with their pre-rendered graphics. Why? Because their developers went balls deep into the process. SNES' tile and palette limitations were very strict and they worked extremely hard to ensure the illusion doesn't break and the tiles not only match seamlessly, but actually fit into VRAM. I can't even imagine the algorithms they used when optimizing that shit. Even in the screenshot attached, it's not obvious that the far background is 2bpp unless you actually stop to think about it.

Enter the GBA - 3D modeling is affordable and any faggot with a devkit can cut costs by investing on some 3D modelers. Worry about space? Fuck that, there's plenty of room in VRAM. Careful with palettes? No need, it'll be fine. Unique sprites for 8 degrees? Scratch that, we can do mode7-ish rotation by default now.

The result was a bunch of mediocre cashgrabs with little thought behind them. Nintendo is partly to blame because they included that Yoshi's Story demo with the devkit, encouraging third parties to roll with pre-rendered shit instead of conscious design choices.

[Anonymous No.3414768]

>>3414753
>The result was a bunch of mediocre cashgrabs with little thought behind them
And still I liked them.
t. sixth genner baby

[Anonymous No.3414824]

>>3414753
>Kirby Super Star and Donkey Kong Country hold up even today with their pre-rendered graphics.

Speak for yourself, I think those games looked like dogshit when they came out (DKC in particular) and now look even worse. Give me hand drawn art over shitty renders any day.

[Anonymous No.3414839]

>>3414824
>>3414753
What I really hated about those pre-rendered 3D sprites was their lack of sharpness and clarity. In hand-drawn pixel art, it was possible to draw heroes eyes/mouths precisely, with pixel thin lines. In pre-rendered 3D, the resolution was just too small to show details precisely, and it always came out somewhat blurry.

Another thing: because SNES transparency capabilities weren't exactly very remarkable, there was no antialiasing on the edges of sprites. The gradients also weren't very smooth, because of the obvious limitations of the color depth.

But still, I'd never say DKC looked bad. I haven't beat it, but mostly because of the gameplay. Graphics-wise, it had a very clear art direction, beautiful bright colors, and overall you could see the artists put a lot of effort into it.

[Anonymous No.3414854]

>>3414839
My problem with DKC is that the models they made already looked ugly. So shrinking them down to the SNES pallet only ever made them worse.

Different people have different aesthetic preferences and I know there are people who like the way those games look but I think they're hideous.

[Anonymous No.3414867]

>>3414854
Well I don't find them ugly, so I actually liked how DKC looked quite a lot, same as Killer Instinct. But yeah, pre-rendered 3D look is a very divisive thing, there has always been a lot of controversy about it. Most people either hate it or love it.

[Anonymous No.3414870]

>>3414867
Yeah and I have a strong preference for hand drawing. It's possible to make pre-rendered stuff into sprites and have it come out looking good but it's an uphill battle.

[Anonymous No.3414954]

>>3408754
The smallest sprites still have a charm to them, 3D can do something this small that looks good, because they lose clarity and the gameplay suffers from it.

A good example it's the GBA tekken that just looks awful.

[Anonymous No.3415202]

>>3414559
I really like that article, but a good thing to remember is that the techiques presented don't need to be married to sprites, but can be done with all 2D animation and most, with some effort, could even be adapted to 3D.

Sadly these days people seem to think that good animation is all about lots of frames and smooth animation so techniques like that are pushed to side.

[Anonymous No.3415220]

>>3415202
Well lots of frames (60 of them per second to be precise) and smooth animation are incredibly important for fighting games. Just look at them on PSX. All it takes is a few missing frames chopped here and there and it can make what was an incredible game a nearly unplayable mess.

[Anonymous No.3415331]

>>3414839
>Another thing: because SNES transparency capabilities weren't exactly very remarkable
SNES transparency effects were the best around. But you're talking about AA, a thing that came much much later.
>gradients also weren't very smooth, because of the obvious limitations of the color depth.
Can you elaborate? HDMA can do some crazy shit, many devs just didn't utilise it to the full extent. Layer 3 typically had only a 2bpp window for HUD or some shit, but it could've had 224 unique lines of color if need be.

[Anonymous No.3415514]

>>3414954
The GBs are not good examples, as the res is a mere 160p

[Anonymous No.3415578]

Depends on what kind of game it is. I usually prefer sprites for 2D fighters (with the exception of Guilty Gear Xrd) and platformers. But stuff like FPS/TPS looks way better with 3D.

[g_z !Sen8ZFORTE No.3415592]

>>3414870
>It's possible to make pre-rendered stuff into sprites and have it come out looking good
Some games like SMRPG looked like they did a lot of manual redrawing (aside to actually designing the characters with low-res in mind) to make them not look like a resized image.

I wonder if they archived all the assets and could re-render again at higher res for a remake.

[Anonymous No.3415693]

>>3414954

man I love Neo Geo Pocket sprites

[Anonymous No.3415701]

[g_z !Sen8ZFORTE No.3415858]

>>3415693
I was a bit disappointed when the GBA KoF came out reusing arcade sprites.

[Anonymous No.3416432]

>>3415331
>SNES transparency effects were the best around
Yeah, I mean for the time they sure were, but later generations improved transparency/rotation greatly.

What I really mean is that, I assume, they couldn't add transparent pixels to the edges of the sprites to give them antialiased look.

> Can you elaborate?
I meant that with limited color palettes for sprites it's nigh impossible to achieve smooth gradients without "steps" in shades. Dithering on such small sprites is pretty much impossible.

In result, DKC had this look akin to "Posterized" filter in photoshop.

In comparison, this is where hand-drawn graphics certainly takes an upper hand, since, if we're talking about cartoon style art, it's reduced to fewer colors pretty much by definition.

[Anonymous No.3416449]

>>3414559
Good article, but that's exactly what I hate about Darkstalkers: sticking to those Disney principles to a T, like "squash and stretch".

Of all fighters, I liked what KoF and SFIII did most of all. They didn't concentrate so much on the outlines, but rather did very nuanced shading—something Darkstalkers didn't really shine in. They also went with more realistic look for the characters.

And 3D still can't compete with a lot of what they SNK/Capcom did. From realistic shading and clothing to motion smearing, I'd say Tekken other modern games still aren't on SFIII level.

[Anonymous No.3416452]

>>3415858
>I was a bit disappointed when the GBA KoF came out reusing arcade sprites.
Yep, they also stretched them. Also added a few shitty characters. But oh well, the mechanics were mostly intact. I guess their whole selling point was "KoF just like on arcade".

[Anonymous No.3416454]

>>3415578
I just came into this thread to say that guilty hear Xrd is the best looking 3D fighter ever.

[Anonymous No.3416509]

>>3416449

It worked for Darkstalkers because of how in human and cartoony it was. You couldn't away with it for more serious human fighting games but when everyone's a wacky shapechanging monster

[Anonymous No.3416558]

>>3416509
I don't deny it had a consistent and whole art direction. I'm simply saying it's not my cup of tea

[Anonymous No.3416780]

>>3416558
>>3416449
I'm with this guy. I like the designs in Darkstalkers, but animation wasn't it's strong point. I understand why amazing detailed sprite art has always been as rare as it is but I still miss it.

[Anonymous No.3416793]

>>3416454
>3D fighter

[Anonymous No.3416798]

>>3416793
Hurr

[Anonymous No.3416810]

>>3416793
>>3416798
Given how clueless /vr/ can be about fighters it's honestly hard to tell if that was meant as a joke or not. Sad times.

[Anonymous No.3419642]

>>3406228
I hate textured polygons. Looks cold, sterile, grainy and boring. And lately all "high end" 3D games look like fucking poser renders. What was once considered a gimmick has completely taken over. And you know what? 2D development is much more expensive, takes more skill to be successful. So the industry conditioned the average consumer to prefer 3D.
Don't get me wrong, i love 3D racing games. But for fighting games or RPG's it makes no friggin sense. The new KOF looks absolutely atrocious. They will turn most of their HC fans away with that.

[Anonymous No.3419652]

Here is another good article on 3D vs 2D (animation).

http://www.dinofarmgames.com/a-pixel-artist-renounces-pixel-art/

[Anonymous No.3419841]

>>3406228
I actually prefer...

...untextured polygons.

[Anonymous No.3419875]

>>3419642
> Don't get me wrong, i love 3D racing games.
When 3D became easily affordable by most of people, 2D racings quickly disappeared.
I can barely name 10 2D racings.

[Anonymous No.3421427]

>>3419642
I used to feel this way, through the PS1, PS2 eras. But it has been getting better. Relatively speaking we're still in the early days of making things look good with 3D rendering.

[Anonymous No.3421440]

>>3419642
They gave their HC fans the pixel art game they wanted with XIII and look how that turned out.

[Anonymous No.3421446]

>>3416810
I know what you mean, the game is rendered in 3D but the gameplay is still 2D. Shit can get confusing at times.

[Anonymous No.3421475]

>>3406314

Venetian Blinds on the Atari 2600 is a masterpiece

[Anonymous No.3421631]

>>3421446
It really shouldn't be confusing. When people talk about 2D vs 3D fighters, they're talking about gameplay not how the graphics are rendered.

[Anonymous No.3421670]

>>3421440
Most people don't have a problem with XIII's graphics. It's the game that's shit

[Anonymous No.3421931]

>>3421427
>it has been getting better
has it? We're still at excessively same-y looks, because polygons are an excessively same-y rendering method

[Anonymous No.3421978]

>>3421931
>polygons are an excessively same-y rendering method
lol
polygos can go really crazy, the problem is that devs just go with realistic texture/realistic lighting, or at best, they try cell-shading.
To be fair, SFV had a nice style to it, too bad the game isn't that good

[Anonymous No.3422235]

>>3406390

Lol these look ridiculous

[Anonymous No.3422716]

>>3416780
>but animation wasn't it's strong point
Animation was its entire selling point. The style might not be to your liking, but it had b far the most advanced animation of any fighter at the time. Even just going by frame count.

[Anonymous No.3422787]

>>3422716
number of frames doesn't matter much, if they're filled with not-so-good animation

[Anonymous No.3422801]

>>3422787
>not-so-good
Those Disney principles are what makes animation look good and Darkstalkers excels at it.
Without smears, squash and stretch animation looks stiff and dead, like bad anime.

[Anonymous No.3422864]

>>3422787
>number of frames doesn't matter much

It actually matters quite a bit because that's what animation fucking is.

The animating of frames to create an illusion of a moving picture

[Anonymous No.3422875]

>>3422864
I can animate shit at 120fps, it's still gonna be shit, all I'm saying. Of course more frames make for more opportunities for motion, but they do not imply a higher quality

[Anonymous No.3422876]

>>3421978
The thing about SFV I've noticed as I've played it lately is that I think it looks fine when playing, when camera is at it's proper place and you view the characters from side, it's all fine.
Also the match intros and supers are basically fine.

But the same models in other cut-scenes and camera angles somehow end up looking wrong.
And the little things, like the characters' huge hands, start to draw attention in unpleasant way.


Also when talking about comparing 2D and 3D a thing that 3D should start to do more is to go beyond shaders and textures in the stylizing things. And add some squash and stretch and motion smears and other 2D techniques to 3D.

[Anonymous No.3422883]

>>3422876
>3D should start to do more is to go beyond shaders and textures in the stylizing things. And add some squash and stretch and motion smears
I suppose when you say "3D" you mean "polygons", and in that case, they simply can't. Then again, even non-polygonal models have a hard time doing that, due to geometric consistency. The effects you suggested specifically go against that consistency

[Anonymous No.3422895]

>>3422883
Squash and stretch is just animation, polygons can be manipulated. It takes more manual effort, but is possible.
And for motion smear type of stuff, it's more about faking it rather than inherently having the models cause them.

[Anonymous No.3422906]

>>3422895
haven't done much with 3D animation, have you? These things pop up as issues regularly, because 2D animations do not have model consistency. Some 3D animations go as far as fully replacing models at different frames, because you simply can not deform the models to fit the requirements

[Anonymous No.3422914]

>>3422895
>motion smear type of stuff, it's more about faking it
how? they're screen space effects, that map terribly to world space, and polygons in particular are ill-fitting structures to emulate something as ephemeral as motion

[Anonymous No.3422942]

>>3422875
>Of course more frames make for more opportunities for motion, but they do not imply a higher quality

they literally do

[Anonymous No.3423158]

>>3422876
>Also when talking about comparing 2D and 3D a thing that 3D should start to do more is to go beyond shaders and textures in the stylizing things. And add some squash and stretch and motion smears and other 2D techniques to 3D.
Those tecniques started to actually catch on.
The funny part is that they where common in the PS1/N64 era (look at mario punching and kicking or at the godlike animation in CTR), but they where phased out when specialized hardaware for rotations came out and people fell for the realism meme. That's why CGI in anime for example looks subpar, too.
But lately people noticed this. Smear and deformation are in overwatch, GG:Xrd has plenty of those and use a special version of Unreal built to allow those animations.
>>3422906
>>3422883
>muh model consistency
that's a meme and you know it. Most modern engine usually disallow streching of the models but is possible to do it. Basic deformation is totally supported by 3d models, it's just not used because most engine nowdays don't like animation with deformations. The real problems arise when you want to change the topology of the vertices, but in that case you can just swap the model in-animation, and that is a legit animtion tecnique for 3d. In 2d you are consistently swapping your sprite with a new one every frame, if we go with that retarded line of thought

[Anonymous No.3423165]

>>3423158
>Most modern engine usually disallow streching of the models but is possible to do it
not talking about what engines allow or disallow, just geometry itself

>Basic deformation is totally supported by 3d models
and it's insufficient for the described effects

>The real problems arise when you want to change the topology of the vertices
indeed

>in that case you can just swap the model in-animation, and that is a legit animtion tecnique for 3d
which means producing a shitton of custom 3D models, negating the "advantage" 3D had to begin with

>In 2d you are consistently swapping your sprite with a new one every frame
that's why you can pull all kinds of stunts that are virtually impossible with 3D models

[Anonymous No.3423178]

>>3423165
>and it's insufficient for the described effects
no? Smearing, squash and strech can be totally done with deformation. Just go look at overwatch, as I've said or old PS1/N64 games, where the things manages to work even with low polycounts.
Or do I need to link those example effect a random jap cooked up in 3dsMax (no real custom engine, even): https://twitter.com/chiba_akihito/status/746288419660128257 (especially at the end)
You could obtain a similar smearing effect with simpler models, adding a tesselation stage and then the vertex shader can randomly offset along the translation vector the vertices that are on the opposite side of the movement, just to give an example.
>which means producing a shitton of custom 3D models, negating the "advantage" 3D had to begin with
not really, since it's still easier to produce them than single frames of animation.
And first and foremost, toplogy changes are rare. In Xrd they happen mostly when there are trasforming weapons, hairs changing shape and so on. And to produce a new model you can take the old one, and just change the part you need. Hell, if you want to avoid UV re-mapping. You can just do modular models that are assembled at run time, but this again is a an engine problem.

You were pushed to believe that polygon manipulation couldn't go as far because the industry is lazy as fuck with them. But the same is true for 2d shitty animation. It's shit when it's lazy.

[Anonymous No.3423196]

>>3423178
>especially at the end
I suppose you're talking about the teapot, which remained solid throughout the entire sequence. Drawn animation does not have to deal with that limitation. It's why I said 3D models are insufficient. They have a geometric consistency, solidity, that is just not in play during certain 2D motions. They can't overcome it. They can try to hide it, but not more.

>no real custom engine, even
no real time either

>adding a tesselation stage and then the vertex shader
so you maintain a perfectly solid model, although the concept is about things being the very opposite of solid in motion; and thanks to the movement of the vertices, you expose the mesh to the viewer. Not exactly a good thing

>it's still easier to produce them than single frames of animation
an individual 3D model is vastly more complex and time consuming than a 2D frame. Its advantage is in re-use. When you're forced to create additional models, your re-use goes down, and the one advantage you had, goes away

>toplogy changes are rare
not in 2D animation and its typical effects, which you try to translate to solid models

[Anonymous No.3423213]

>>3423196
>I suppose you're talking about the teapot, which remained solid throughout the entire sequence. Drawn animation does not have to deal with that limitation.
I don't see 2d animation breaking that rule that much either. What does even mean for a 2d frame to look open? Not being sarcastic, I just don't understand
>so you maintain a perfectly solid model, although the concept is about things being the very opposite of solid in motion;
again, I would like to see an example in 2d animation where the "solidity" of the object is broken. Usually deformation happens, it looks "squashed" or "streched", but never inerently broken up.
>and thanks to the movement of the vertices, you expose the mesh to the viewer. Not exactly a good thing
well, you're not supposed to see streching and other classic animation tecniques too. They usually last for very few frames, and people see them when pausing videos usually like
>le quality
shitpost when retards catch one on naruto and want to shitpost on /a/.
Or the same happened when they found them in stills from overwatch and redditors were laughing at the bug until someone with more than 18 years explained them what it was.
So the same would work for deformation of meshes. I really don't see your argument here.
>not in 2D animation and its typical effects
Are you sure that you know what a topology change is?

[Anonymous No.3423221]

>>3423213
>open
not open, just not solid. In 2D you can trivially remove the solid appeal of an object. Smears do it, in part by removing outlines, but also motion lines in thin air. For 2D there's no real distinction between an object, a suggestion, and mere lines. For 3D, the difference between "something" and "nothing" is very real. One can try to work around it with transparencies and additional geometry, but it is unintuitive to the core, because you're forced to model something in world space that only exists in screen space.

[Anonymous No.3423240]

>>3423221
I have to agree that 3d animation is more structured than 2d. The fact that is not straightforward is not the problem. Nothing is straightforward in 3d respect to
>get down and draw everything
For small productions the above is actually easier, see why a lot of indie game are actually 2d.
And deformations aren't screen space, they are world space. They are nothing different from a rotation or translation, but instead of a change of the direction of the group vector you have a change in magnitude.
Only smearing and motion blurring-like artifact are in screen space, but luckly shaders are camera-aware and thousand of effects for screen space already exist. That's why I said that smearing could be added at the vertex shader level after some tesselation. In this way you don't have to explicitly model them, and the shader can be aware of the camera position. Hell, you could defer subtle squashing and stretching to the shader and only model explicit deformation for expressions and other sensitive keyframes

[Anonymous No.3423248]

>>3423240
>The fact that is not straightforward is not the problem
it's a huge problem. Just so we're clear on the fundamentals: 3D is made to model concrete things in world space. It's much better suited for that than any 2D process will ever be. 2D meanwhile has a strength in the abstract, conveying something by mere suggestion. That does not work well in 3D, because, the whole concept of these suggestions relies on a fixed angle, and 3D can not offer that. Of course you can restrict 3D processing to an angle, but then you gained nothing, and lost a lot.

>Nothing is straightforward in 3d respect to
>get down and draw everything
That's because you don't "draw everything" in 3D. 3D is completely ill-fitting for a drawing-like approach. It's all about the tangible.

>And deformations aren't screen space, they are world space
they exist to emphasize a motion as it is seen. The last bit is important. That same motion viewed from a different perspective would not lead to the same deformations, because different aspects of the motion are emphasized.

>luckly shaders are camera-aware and thousand of effects for screen space already exist
You do realize it's a 2D post processing of a 3D object, because that 3D object sucks at doing the 2D thing? Because that was kind of my point.

>smearing
>model
If you don't see the disconnect, we have no common ground for any meaningful exchange

[Anonymous No.3423279]

>>3423248
>on a fixed angle, and 3D can not offer that.
In every frame, the camera is at a fixed angle. Rendering is processed frame by frame, so it's not different from classic cartoon or anime animation, where there is a " 3d scene", even if immaginary, and the animators pick single frames out of it and draw them so they form a flowing animation, aplplying rules according to the type of movement.
>That's because you don't "draw everything" in 3D.
yeah, that's what I was saying. I was talking about 2d there
>That same motion viewed from a different perspective would not lead to the same deformations
that's why modeling it in 3d space works. Just go with the simplest primitives and picture the necessary deformation for the motions. Like a ball moving, you deform it along the axis of movement. See it from a perpendicular camera position, and you can see the deformation clearly, see it from a parallel one and it disappear. If the effects need to be present only at certain camera angle, just multiply your deformation for the scalar between camera and movement vectors.
You fail to realize that all of those effect have mathemtical rules at their roots.
>You do realize it's a 2D post processing of a 3D object, because that 3D object sucks at doing the 2D thing?
A vertex shader works in 3d still, and even fragment shaders keep the depth information still and you can use that. And in any case postprocessing at the fragment shader level are part of the 3d pipeline. You are moving the goalpost if you want to include this class into "2d animation"
>If you don't see the disconnect, we have no common ground for any meaningful exchange
I don't really see the disconnect. That teapot in the vid looked smeared to me and a fine example of smearing on a 3d model.
I think I've made my point clear to anyone reading this exchange anyway.

[Anonymous No.3423281]

>>3423279
>I think I've made my point clear to anyone reading this exchange anyway.
likewise

[Anonymous No.3424149]

>>3419642
>2D development is much more expensive
It's completely the opposite. 3D graphics have caused the cost of game development to balloon in geometric progression.

[Anonymous No.3424159]

>>3424149
>geometric
you punster

[Anonymous No.3426448]

>>3406228
Sprites, any time.

[Anonymous No.3426790]

>>3406228
2D vs. 3D aside, I really hated KoF13's style. Your picture was half the reason, they turned all the male characters into human bricks only rivaled by The Blob for being the closest you can make a human being look like a simple 3D shape with limbs. Don't even get me started on Athena.

I generally like 2D better if only because sprite artists tend to have better styles than 3D ones, but of course there are exceptions.

[Anonymous No.3426921]

>>3422875
>I can animate shit at 120fps, it's still gonna be shit,

Sure, but if you animate something amazing at 5fps, it's still going to look a lot better at 20 fps and far, far better still at 60 fps. That's more the point.

In general I like sprites more, but 3D can be breathtaking when enough love and skill is put into it. Pic very related.

[Anonymous No.3427090]

>>3411049
i dig it because of that.
not that i wouldn't mind if it looked like this

[Anonymous No.3427123]

>>3406228
the new guilty gear models are pretty fucking cool

I think we've gotten to the point where sprites aren't really necessary any more

[Anonymous No.3427546]

>>3426921
>Sure, but if you animate something amazing
>>3422787
>number of frames doesn't matter much, if they're filled with not-so-good animation
>if they're filled with not-so-good animation

[Anonymous No.3427574]

>pre-6th gen
2D
>6th gen and up
3D

[Anonymous No.3427627]

>>3422942
>make for more opportunities for motion, but they do not imply a higher quality
>they literally do

Higher frame counts don't mean shit. Honestly.

Your mind fills in so much of the blanks.

Especially in fighting games, where you have to have very dramatic changes in essentially split seconds lower framecounts are not only preferred, they're basically required.

Theres a video of that autistic girl who did the skull girls animation somewhere where she talks about very strict frame counts, we're talking 6-8 frames.

Also

>you faggots will argue about anything.

This era 2D is dead except for Indie shit because all the talent is in 3D.

Back during the peak, SNK and Capcom had a shitload of really, really fucking talented sprite animators and artists.

Even the fucking backgrounds in those games have an insane attention to detail.

I'm sure those guys are still around, but they're most likely doing stills and shit for VN's then making some of the greatest fighting games ever made.

[Anonymous No.3427675]

>>3427627
Most of the Capcom animators now work in anime. Designers like Akiman and Bengus also work on anime.

Most of SNK animators work on Dimps.

[Anonymous No.3427682]

>>3406228
Between those two I'd go with Sprites

But I prefer 2D Pencil Drawings like in Cuphead the best

[Anonymous No.3427686]

>>3427682
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.3427852]

>>3427686
>chromagic undulation
>not retro
shit and not retro

[Anonymous No.3427943]

>>3412026
>Mentions Sonic CD
>Not Sonic 3K or Ristar which look lightyears superior

[Anonymous No.3427949]

>>3407246
>that gif
That looks absolutely disgusting
Samsho 3 looks way better than that garbage
That is not how you apply "smears" in animation

[Anonymous No.3427962]

>>3422787
Animufag kill yourself

[Anonymous No.3427972]

>>3427852
>Muh chromatic abherration meme
It's supposed to simulate old projectors
And you can turn it off along with the film grain and all those other effects

And
>not retro
The style it's going for is even older than "Retro" itself you fucking shitter
While the gameplay is straight from the 80s/90s

And in a thread where games like KOF13 get posted you have no grounds for complaints of posting new games

[Anonymous No.3427986]

>>3427972
There's no such thing as a "retro" style.
We had old animation movies done by hand and we had old animations using cutouts, claymation and etc. We even had a blend of both, like in the old Popeye cartoons.
We had old games using pixel art in the NES, but we also had old games with 3D graphics in the 80's, like I Robot.

Pixel art doesn't mean retro. Hand drawn animation doesn't mean retro.

What you could say is that the games uses retro animation inspired character designs, based on the trends of the 30's.

[Anonymous No.3427990]

>>3427986
>There's no such thing as a "retro" style.
Never said there was
I was replying to his "not retro" complaint in a cheeky way...as in 30s cartoons(the style the game is going for) pre-date video games completely

[Anonymous No.3428310]

One of the coolest effects I've seen in any 2D fighter. Too bad very few games bother did anything like this, I fucking love it

[Anonymous No.3428330]

>>3427986
>There's no such thing as a "retro" style.

You really need to look up the deffinition of the word again there, friend. Retro IS style. Pixel art done today to look like 80's art is exactly what retro is.

This calendar is not retro. This calendar is a product of it's time. Making a calendar now that is clearly in the style of this calendar from a specific era in time would be retro.

If there's one thing I want /vr/ to understand over everything else it's that "retro" is not a synonym for "old".

[Anonymous No.3428332]

>>3427972
>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.
>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.
>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.

[Anonymous No.3428342]

>>3427546
That's what I was saying. Animation quality doesn't matter either way if what you're animating is shit. So who cares about it either way?

If something is worth animating, it's worth animating well.

[Anonymous No.3428349]

>>3428332
To add to this. >>3428330
It also needs to be kept in mind that this board is erroneously named. Almost all the games we discuss here aren't retro, they're old. Shovel Knight is retro. Super Mario 2 is old.

The name of the board isn't what's important though. It's what the board was set up to discuss, which is clearly outlined as we can see. Even if going by console instead of year is pretty retarded imo.

[Anonymous No.3428634]

>>3428342
>That's what I was saying
might not want to start with a "but" then. So you're saying you have no point and are just nodding along, without even knowing or giving a damn about the exchange that took place. Kindly fuck off

[Anonymous No.3428637]

>>3428349
>Almost all the games we discuss here aren't retro
that's because the board is about retro gaming. The act of playing old video games now

[Anonymous No.3428641]

>>3428637
The act of playing games is not retro. That's not what it means either.

[Anonymous No.3428646]

>>3428641
>The act of playing games is not retro
the act of playing old games sure is, just like driving an old car, dressing in old clothes (or the style of old times), doing old fashioned things, using old furniture in the present, etc

[Anonymous No.3428647]

>>3428634
I was part of the exchange the whole way along. That was all in response to someone claiming the number of frames doesn't matter if the animation sucks which is an obvious statement.

> Kindly fuck off
No thanks.

[Anonymous No.3428648]

>>3428647
>which is an obvious statement
and yet people loudly objected to it

[Anonymous No.3428649]

>>3428646
No, driving an old car is NOT retro.

[Anonymous No.3428651]

>>3428648
This is /vr/ Even after pointing out people weren't using the word retro correctly and they should look it up, people are still here insisting it means things it doesn't. People loudly saying stupid things is par for the course.

[Anonymous No.3428654]

>>3428651
>they should look it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrogaming
>Retrogaming (...) is the playing or collecting of older personal computer, console, and arcade video games in contemporary times

[Anonymous No.3428660]

>>3428654
Retrogaming is a new word. It's a misappropriation of the word retro.

[Anonymous No.3428667]

>>3428660
where are you going with your goal posts?

[Anonymous No.3428672]

>>3428667
There are no goal posts. Retro is a word. It has a specific meaning. All I'm asking is people learn what the word means and stop twisting it to mean other things.

Posting a wikipedia article about a compound word derived from the misuse of the word we're talking about is pointless at best and most likely purposefully misleading.

[Anonymous No.3428674]

>>3428672
>most likely purposefully misleading
it explains the meaning of the board title better than your "hurr, people are wrong"

[Anonymous No.3428678]

>>3428674
>>3428674
That the board name is bad and doesn't match is a problem already. All I'm asking is that people learn the language we're conversing in and try to use it properly to avoid even more confusion.

My "hurr, people are wrong" is really just wanting people to use words properly and not decide they mean whatever you think to yourself they should. Does that really seem so unreasonable to you?

[Anonymous No.3428679]

>>3422876
SFV has massive graphic issues if you dare to take a closer look. The clipping is all fucked up from vs screen to ingame. There are compression artifacts in some of the textures. And speaking of textures, quality is all over the place ranging from gorgeous to really shitty. Lighting, placing of lights is really bad too in some stages. SF never has been this sloppy before the incompetent dimps noobs came on board. Yet everyone praises the games for its great graphics. Seriously the gaming industry is a lying money grubbing sack of crap.

[Anonymous No.3428681]

>>3428672
>is a word. It has a specific meaning
>learn what the word means and stop twisting it to mean other things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription << you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics << them

[Anonymous No.3428684]

>>3428678
>Does that really seem so unreasonable to you?
Yes, very much so, as you're trying to "correct" established meaning, because you insist on some inner logic that just isn't there.

[Anonymous No.3428689]

>>3428684
>Yes, very much so, as you're trying to "correct" established meaning,

Exactly the opposite, I am trying to correct a misunderstood meaning. People frequently use that word with no understanding of what it actually means.

[Anonymous No.3428692]

>>3428689
>People frequently use that word with no understanding of what it actually means
They understand exactly what it means. You may not like that meaning, for whatever reason, but it's perfectly understood

[Anonymous No.3428693]

>>3428672
> I'm asking is people learn
You can't change the board. You will have to conform even if you think the whole board is wrong. The only other option you have is to fuck off

[Anonymous No.3428704]

>>3428693
Well I'm not going anywhere, and I'm sure as hell not going to sit quietly while people make up random new definitions of words and then insist they're right. So learn to read a dictionary or get used to being told you're a retard when you try to use words to mean things they don't.

[Anonymous No.3428712]

>>3428704
>make up random new definitions
it's established, whether you like it or not

>learn to read a dictionary
http://www.wordsense.eu/retrogaming/

>get used to being told you're a retard when you try to use words to mean things they don't.
you're projecting a little

[Anonymous No.3428718]

>>3428712
>it's established, whether you like it or not

Show me an actual definition of retro that supports it then. Not links to compound words like "retrogaming"

[Anonymous No.3428726]

>>3428718
>Not links to compound words like "retrogaming"
considering the compound word is far more relevant and has an independent meaning, dismissing it is kind of dishonest

[Anonymous No.3428735]

>>3428704
>I'm sure as hell not going to sit quietly while people make up random new definitions of words and then insist they're right.
Oh mug gosh, someone is not right on the internet. Can you believe it? These cunts have THE FUCKING NERVE to INSIST they are RIGHT. This is just outrageous, isn't it? This whole place should be burned down with a flamethrower.

> So learn to read a dictionary or get used to being told you're a retard when you try to use words to mean things they don't.
Get used to being told to shut up and deal with it. No one's going to change it, it's established. You alone have no power or even wit to even make anyone think about it. If you're such a smartass, you should know better than try and argue with a whole message board.

In any case, no one cares what "retro" really means. This is a gaming board, not a linguistics forum. If you want the latter, you're posting in the wrong place.

[Anonymous No.3428738]

>>3428726
I'll take that as admitting you can't find it. The word "retro" has a specific meaning. That's what I'm talking about. Clearly this is a lost cause though. Kids these days hate nothing more than learning.

[Anonymous No.3428748]

>>3428738
>Clearly this is a lost cause though. Kids these days hate nothing more than learning.
still projecting? I'm quite sure you have yet to look at >>3428681

[Anonymous No.3428750]

>>3428735
>In any case, no one cares what "retro" really means.

This is really what it's all about. And I didn't want a linguistics forum. I was hoping for the people conversing in English to understand the language they're using and use the words in it properly.

But you are right, no one else cares. This is the result of today's education system I suppose. I'm not even that much older than most of you but it's amazing the way kids these days just don't give a fuck about fundamentals like this.

[Anonymous No.3428764]

>>3414824
I think it looks dated as fuck, it's visibly something that was mainly made to look impressive at a certain point in time, but it's not ugly. On a screen, in motion, it's still somewhat attractive to look at.

>>3416780
>but animation wasn't it's strong point.
see, that's wrong, all of the characters have dynamic, exaggerated, expressive movement in their animations
The Darkstalkers series had emphasized its animation more than the rest of the games Capcom was putting out at the time, up until SF3.

[Anonymous No.3428843]

>>3428750
You sound like a neckbeard elitist. OK we get it, you know what "retro" really means. Congratulations. Yes, some words are used wrong by some people, like "literally". Yes, no one gives a fuck. No, this doesn't give you any more voice than the rest of the board. You don't contribute much to the actual discussion, yet you complain more than anyone.

Also, are you seriously playing the "kids these days" card on a video game board?… I guess your high moral cause of saving English language is why you post on /vr/. Well good luck on your quest, gramps.

[Anonymous No.3428864]

>>3428843
Honestly I think it's sad that wanting people to use words properly makes me sound like an elitist. I feel like I'm living in Idiocracy more and more every day.

But hey you should be proud of your ignorance, right homie? Fuck tha man for trying to make you learn and shit. Words don't need meanings, that's for elitist neckbeards! Let's smoke some weed!

[Anonymous No.3429026]

>>3428864
Citing pop culture as an argument is a first sign of an elitist and a neckbeard. It says that you're dumb enough to take to the heart the messages from movies.

> But hey you should be proud of your ignorance, right homie? Fuck tha man for trying to make you learn and shit. Words don't need meanings, that's for elitist neckbeards! Let's smoke some weed!

That's a nice strawman you've built here.

> Honestly I think it's sad that wanting people to use words properly makes me sound like an elitist.
You're just nitpicking. You correct other people when in fact you understand what they said perfectly well. Then why would you care what others do right or wrong? It's none of your business.

No one asked for your guidance, there was no problem, before you came. Whether people use the word "retro" right or wrong is really unimportant; everyone with a little bit of brain would figure out this board is for consoles made before year 2000.

Then why have this conversation over and over? You're just a hypocrite: if you care about grammar so much, just use it properly yourself—stop demanding this from others, end of story. If you still insist on continuing with your holier-than-thou attitude, just go be such a pious prick somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.3430713]

>>3429026
>If you still insist on continuing with your holier-than-thou attitude, just go be such a pious prick somewhere else.

Again, no thanks. And I'm not talking about grammar. I'm talking about people being too lazy and stupid to learn what the words they are throwing around actually mean.