[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   

File: 355 KB, 300x400, Nina and Patty.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4465946 No.4465946 [Reply] [Original]

I feel like pixel art requires more skill to produce a quality result compared to 3d models + textures. does anybody else feel completely unimpressed by models? even average quality pixel graphics look 10x better to me than fallout 4's texture vomit, which gave me a massive headache after 30 minutes. pixel sprites are kind of magic when you look closely at each little detail (nina's left hand and wings, patty's chest and hair), models don't really have any artistic quality quite like that. am i just getting old? i want to enjoy newer games but they strain my eyes and until they have remade d&d stronghold it's not worth the pain.

>> No.4465947


>> No.4465953
File: 142 KB, 272x286, bitchslap.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

pixel art is the easiest of all gaming artforms. Kids can do it. It is cheap and efficient. 3D and hires is MUCH harder to do. I am a game dev. And I got experience with that.

>> No.4465961

i've done both as well and the pixel art was by far the harder of the two for me. i tried using shaders to create a 2d cartoon look and scaling it up by a factor of 3 or 4 but it just looked like a scaled cartoon although still better than a standard render. eventually i gave up on creating graphics and just wrote a mud instead.

>> No.4465963

There isn't such a thing as "average" pixel art. It's all either 7-10 quality if the artist "gets" it or 1-3 quality if he doesn't. If there WAS such a thing as average pixel art though, Fallout 4's graphics would blow it out of the water. Fallout 1 & 2 aren't brilliant because of the graphics and no one who'd argue they're superior to Fallout 3 & 4 would base that argument on them.

>> No.4465973

do you even know what averages are? if fallout 3 & 4 looked good then half of the mods made for them wouldn't be fixing bullshit textures and graphical glitches.

>> No.4465975

Shit like Undertale isn't pixel art. It's just low res mspaint drawings. Actual, quality pixel art with size and color limitations needs skill.

>> No.4465979

>I feel like pixel art requires more skill to produce a quality result compared to 3d models + textures

This is objectivily wrong. A texture is basically pixel art. To make good pixel art you just need to be good with 2D art.

To good with 3D art you need....
To be good at 2D art (texturing)
To understand how the texture you made interacts with lightning, reflection, and to create custom lightning maps.
To understand how the 2D art you made interacts with rendering and create custom bump maps
To be good at making a 3D model.
To be good at rigging, weighting, and animating a model

Several of of these jobs are tough enough so you need a dedicated specialist. It would take a man of great skill to make a character model himself in 3D but only moderate skill to make a character in 2D

And we havn't even gotten to enviromental art....that's a whole nother issue in 3D. To cut to the chase that also requires several different specialists. A 3D artist that can do all environmental and character stuff himself at a high level is a an extremely rare feat.

>> No.4465997

>A texture is basically pixel art
not really, a texture is just a color map that requires light maps, bump maps, and a mesh to stretch over to look right. pixel art includes the lighting and everything in the sprite. i've done quite a bit of 3d modeling and it really isn't difficult or artistic, it's just time consuming drone work mostly. i just don't see how it's supposed to be impressive in any way. it's like somebody expecting me to be impressed by the diamond they cut, the diamond is impressive but the cuts are nothing. 3d game makers are like diamond cutters and it's the computers and gpus that are like the diamonds. gpus are impressive, but that's not why i play games.

>> No.4466001

The major point was that there are is so much to 3D than 2D. That's why often takes more people to make the same model.

>> No.4466005
File: 129 KB, 580x620, lufia2sinistrals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it probably takes more work but not more skill, which was the point of the OP. you can't really render pic related using the same number of pixels and colors and have it look even half as good. pixel art is hand crafted so it's going to be really hard, if not impossible, to beat with a programmatic solution.

>> No.4466017

Pixel art is infinitely more difficult and detailed than 3d """""animation""""" will ever be. The only people who think it's easier to animate 2D than 3D are people who haven't got any experience with 2D. 3D artists can write all they want about how intricate the process is, but at the end of the day, when the models and physics engines are done, you literally are just playing with dolls. In pixel art, literally every single pixel matters.
The only respectable 3d animation I've ever seen in gaming is arcsys' most recent efforts.

>> No.4466019

>The only respectable 3d animation I've ever seen in gaming is arcsys' most recent efforts
that's what i was trying to emulate before i gave up and went text only. the new guilty gear is great looking.

>> No.4466029

>you can't really render pic related using the same number of pixels and colors

And why the hell is the pixel and color count in the equation?

Making these characters in 3D would be HARDER. It would take way more time and require a much greater assortment of skill.

>but at the end of the day, when the models and physics engines are done, you literally are just playing with dolls

What the hell does this even mean? Yes once you do fucking create everything you are just playing with easy to use assets. Just like how when you create all the sprites you are also working with easy assets.

>> No.4466034

>why the hell is the pixel and color count in the equation?
because working within limitations is the only reason we can measure the quality of art. if there were no limits to what a person could do then nothing would impress us. artists could simply take a photograph of someone but they choose to paint a portrait instead because it's more impressive when it's done with a canvas and brushes.

>It would take way more time
>and require a much greater assortment of skill
it takes a long time to paint a house and stain and finish all the woodwork. it even requires a greater assortment of skills but that doesn't make every house painter a regular da vinci.

>> No.4466048
File: 186 KB, 320x240, MjDtDh3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I think with 3d you just sort of lose the "imagination" older games required of you. I think rpgs provably represent this best. When you play a 16 bit rpg and your characters enter a cave you have to try to visualize the party exploring this giant cave. In a 3d rpg you just see the cave and think nothing of it. The restrictions forced you to get creative in interpreting what is happening on screen.

More then anything though I think art style is really what matters. Not retro exactly but wind waker looks better then most modern games for example. Hell, for a even more recent example look at cuphead. Five years from now all the "realistic" games will look like shit while cuphead will never, ever look bad.

>> No.4466061

So you're a snobby cunt who thinks because HE does 3d the other must be easier? Go make a metal slug and tell me more about how easy 2d sprite work is.

>> No.4466062

rpgs are fucking shite for no skill plebs and a terrible example of 2d.

>> No.4466067

>I am a game dev
Kill yourself fag

>> No.4466069

>because working within limitations is the only reason we can measure the quality of art.

Well the modern limit for art is 1920x1080 resolution and it's going to jump to 4k soon. You were trying to discuss art at a much lower resolution. Lower resolutions are actually easier to work with because there's less detail.

>artists could simply take a photograph of someone but they choose to paint a portrait instead because it's more impressive when it's done with a canvas and brushes.

Actually once photography got well developed realistic art took a nose dive because photography was cheapier and easier. Artists do not choose drawing because it's harder than photography, if they choose it because it can make things photography cannot. For instance dragons and anime school girls.

I went over this. Making a 3D model takes more people than making a 2D model. It takes so much skill that you often need 2 people to pull it off. A texture artist has to draw all the detail a sprite artist does. And than you need the guy making the model ontop of that.

People stick with 3D though because it has more potential.

But making Metal Slug in 3D would be even harder.

>> No.4466093

>Lower resolutions are actually easier to work with because there's less detail
there's the same amount of detail, just fewer pixels to represent said detail. that's why the stricter limitations require greater skill to work within.
>once photography got well developed realistic art took a nose dive because photography was cheapier and easier
>better = cheaper and easier
i'm starting to understand where you're coming from at least.
>A texture artist has to draw all the detail a sprite artist does
a texture artist doesn't have to account for lighting, physics, or animation. a sprite artist has to account for all of those in every frame of an animation and they have to do so within stricter limitations. this is far more impressive to me than running a photograph through some photoshop filters and stretching it over a model.

>> No.4466104

making static 2d is easier than static renders but animating pixel art is much harder than animating models

>> No.4466112

pixel art is the hardest of all gaming artforms. Kids can't do it. It is labor intensive and inefficient. 3D and hires is MUCH easier to do. I am a game dev. And I got experience with that.

>> No.4466118

>there's the same amount of detail, just fewer pixels to represent said detail. that's why the stricter limitations require greater skill to work within.

Yeah that's why the Sicilian Chapel took less skill than making an NES sprite. Because the smaller scale something is the tougher right? It's the reverse. Higher resolution is harder because there's more stuff to fill up. This doesn't mean ALL higher resolution stuff is tougher. For instance a 4k resolution texture that's one flat color is way easier than doing a SNES sprite. But if you wanted that 4k texture to be super detailed you might spend spend more time on just that one texture than an entire sprite sheet for an SNES game.

>a texture artist doesn't have to account for lighting, physics, or animation
The lightning is created in a normal map, the texture artist has to do that. If you want to it to move there's a guy who needs to weight it (so it will have physics) and create the animations. That's now a 3 man job: motion, texture, and the model.

>> No.4466130

>Higher resolution is harder because there's more stuff to fill up

Any moron can fill shit up. It takes an expert to convey meaning in a limited medium.

>> No.4466138

>Any moron can fill shit up.
Are you implying that "any moron" could have painted the Sicilian Chapel? I thought I explained this in the most basic terms possible. A high res texture of say the armor in Dark Souls is way behind any 16 bit sprite. However a single color at high resolution is easy compared to 16 bit sprites.

>It takes an expert to convey meaning in a limited medium.
'convey meaning' this meaningless.

>> No.4466186

Are you comparing texturing with painting murals? Any tard can create a character with a profile like "decorated war veteran with a scar on his face" with textures on a 3D model, but good luck when you have 16x16 pixels to work with AND have to make them look the same from any perspective AND in motion. Also let's face it, textures are mostly traced or directly edited photographs with little actual talent behind them.

>> No.4466207

>I am knowledgeable in the field of art pls explain to me how pixels and color matter?

See, this is why people shit on 3D "artists"

>> No.4466219
File: 15 KB, 235x215, 04DEFA6F-A777-4C03-9E5E-95A91CEEEEF9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Europeans are so fucking stupid

>> No.4466246

If the underlying concept is shit, the final product will be shit, whether working in 3D or with pixels. It is absolutely easier to get a result of some kind with 2D pixel art than with 3D. Once you have a well-modelled (good topology, good adherence to good concept art which includes satisfactory proportions/anatomy), well-rigged character, it is easier to get a passable rendered image or animation in 3D than it is with 2D pixel art since you don't have to craft each still image from scratch and you don't have to worry quite as much about perspective and spending time making every single inbetween.

That being said, both still require an understanding of animation principles to get a good animation. Good pixel art with shitty animation is not uncommon

>> No.4466251
File: 5 KB, 256x224, noob.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you obviously are inexperienced and you did it wrong. You do pixel art with a pixel grid painter or a program like ms paint.
Not understanding such a simple thing is really bad. As a 10 year old I did the sprites of link of zelda3 and gameboy 1 to 1 perfect in paint. It is so simple and a child can do it.

You are overthinking it and man you make me lose trust in humanity...

>> No.4466254
File: 1.05 MB, 416x620, soulcalibur.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

this is wrong. Good 3d models are much harder to do, and a higher artistic skill. On the other hand you are more limited in 3d which takes from artistic liberties away. So I think that's the point you are trying to make, but from experience I can tell you 2d is much more efficient and easy than 3d.

>> No.4466273
File: 1.38 MB, 480x320, huehehehehe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it takes less work

this is correct. Shovel knights and especially undertales graphics are simple.

You are making alot of assumptions.
First I started making games with pixel art like rpgs, jump n runs and space ship shooters.
Then I went to 3d which took years to make a single game.
And then back to 2d vector because you need a team for 3d games.

And about your argument metal slug: Yes, these animations in this quality are still easier to make as pixel art than in hd sprites like skullgirls. Pixel art is art generated pixel by pixel, not by drawing. If you ever animated a pixel art explosion you will see how easy and quick it is to do. Especially because you do it in one go. No predrawing very linear. Pixel art is the easiest way to draw graphics for a game. And go the fuck away with your fucking assumptions. And make a game before you insult me and try to use the little brain you got and try not strain it...

what a simple creature you are, that you get hurt, by someone having experience you don't because you are too lazy or stupid...

>> No.4466274

That's nice, now make an original graphic within NES limitations.

>> No.4466275

>but from experience I can tell you 2d is much more efficient and easy than 3d.
Show us your 2D and 3D work, boy.

>> No.4466281
File: 2.29 MB, 582x328, I_HAVE_NO_LEGS.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Also: also pixel art has barely room for error because it is so limited. It is almost impossible to do something wrong because of the few pixels you got to use. Also errors are super quick and easy to fix.

>> No.4466283

Willing to bet money that the property shitting hard on pixel or poly art have never attempted it themselves.

>> No.4466286
File: 225 KB, 480x194, you are welcome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you are not old enough for my works, kid. While I am not afraid to post my work, I don't feel I own you anything either. Why should I show you the light. I pointed out the path op asked for from my experience. Take that or leave it, I don't care.

I just find it amusing and a bit outraging so many people don't understand pixelart, when they had all the time the tools to do it...

(ms paint - 8x zoom-) take a look at any sprite from snes or gameboy or nes, recreate, and then start making your own sprites. Making games will never be easier than this (except fucking text/novel adventures, which I dont call a game, fucking pest)

>> No.4466295
File: 64 KB, 1024x896, easyASFUCK.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

why so many people here with so little experience. You know that mario paint is full of snes sprites and barely has nes sprites, if at all??? You can import super worlds super marios head (yes, marios head is a single sprite) to the pixel painter.

>> No.4466321
File: 52 KB, 243x263, 1453013981466.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Coward afraid of critique. Yeah, you're going to go REAL far.

>> No.4466334

heh, I already have a job in the industry, unlike YOU, kiddo. pheh, this board is so tiresome most days and drains my genius whenever I visit.

>> No.4466343

Pixel art is fine when it's just stills. But try and animate that shit, or give it different clothes or hairstyles or whatnot, and suddenly 3D becomes way easier.

>> No.4466357

What a fat troll I see here.
It's sad that this thread went to shit so fast.

>> No.4466390
File: 2.61 MB, 320x240, 1510051938562.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you are picking special cases here, and I still would argue that it is easier with pixel art. Yes maybe swapping hair is easier in 3d, a complete 3d game is much harder to make than a 2d. If you do the 2d game right it is always easier. In super mario world the head which looks up and the head that looks straight is two different sprites. Marios running animation is two or three sprites.
And if you are comparing making 3d animations in 2d, that is wrong from the start.

There is cheap 3d animation aswell as cheap 2d animation. In the end pixel art is limited because of its lack of detail, and always a risk.

>> No.4466437

Yeah man, it’s so hard to change clothing and hair styles with animated sprites. I mean it’s not like literal children have done a shit load of OC donut steel sprite edits where they’ve done exactly what you said over the years or anything.

>> No.4466442

I mean it gets harder when you need to give each of those clothes and hair styles their own sprites and animations too. With 3D you can just slap them on top of the existing model and call it a day.

>> No.4466443

Honestly, it is harder to make 3d models and textures look good than pixels. I mean, just look how bad 95% of 3d games look. And if they don't look bad in screenshots, they will look bad once things start moving because animations standards in video games are appalling. And I'm not even talking retro games here.

>> No.4466462
File: 1.16 MB, 1136x1434, 183.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>dat erim nose
Lufia 2's Sinistrals looked shitty. Gades looked fat, Erim looked like a swordfish and Daos looks underwhelming. Only Amon is decent. Lufia 1 had way more imposing and cooler Sinistral sprites.

>> No.4466468

KOF13 was made with pixel arts, but it needed too much time, so KOF 14 went to 3D. They said 3D modelings was much easier than 2D pixel arts. Pixel arts are for low resolution, not HD one.

>> No.4466472

It is harder to make. Because animating a 3d object is easier than drawing every frame. But it is easier to make look good. Two different things.

>> No.4466516

Not him, but it really depends on how much animation you want. It's easy to make a static sprite that looks good, but it's a ton of work to compile many into smooth flowing animations that look good and all blend together.

It's much harder to make a 3d model that looks decent when you flatten it to be a 2d sprite. But once you get that down, it's pretty easy to animate it doing all kinds of things and compile sprites from that.

King of Fighters XII and XIII did a combination of the two. 3d rendered models for animation then hand drawing on top.

>> No.4466528

>Only one of them is left-handed

>> No.4466530

>Pixel arts are for low resolution, not HD one.
Never played BlazBlue?

>> No.4466703
File: 2.99 MB, 512x384, dewprism-1.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.4466712
File: 2.73 MB, 714x530, chrono-cross-1.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.4467092

Dude are you seriously telling me that you think making a 16x16 pixel is tougher than making textures for high rez models?

>Also let's face it, textures are mostly traced or directly edited photographs with little actual talent behind them.

Yeah when team Platinum made Bayonnetta's texture's they just took pictures of real life demons and witches.

>> No.4467112

A sprite with stiff animations can look fine. A 3d model with poor animation looks ridiculous.

>> No.4467194

A sprite with smooth flowing animations looks awesome. A 3D model with the same just looks decent.

>> No.4467273

This is just saying you prefer 2D to 3D.

>> No.4467292
File: 513 KB, 1859x1510, Acceptance_Render.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>some stone texture
>a bunch of simple patterns
>don't have to redraw for different perspectives
>don't have to draw animations


>> No.4467294


Most of that image is post-processing, from the shine, gloss, bump mapping, shadows all calculated on the fly and can't even really be considered art

>> No.4467297
File: 53 KB, 707x1000, 1489970455300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


As he should

>> No.4467303

Literally the only advantage 3D brings is the gameplay implications of adding a third dimension. Other than that, it's objectively fuck-ugly by comparison to 2D.

>> No.4467320
File: 185 KB, 720x540, 1498047262257.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>design, model, texture and animate a million polygon model that's going to be shown at HD+ resolutions
>takes a full team of specialized artists, each being an expert in their respective fields

>design and draw a fucking 16x16 pixel sprite with 5 or 6 frames of animation
>made by one guy in a couple of hours

Which is harder? Come on, anon, you got this

>> No.4467323

>what is buttery smooth animation with every intermediate frame being calculated in real time?

>> No.4467324

>nothin personnel. heh, you are already dead kiddo

>> No.4467327

Good job, now do it for literally everything in the game

>> No.4467334

LMAO, a) absolutely wrong b) would be utterly wasteful c) a good 3D artist keeps the poly count low

nothing special, is part of any modeling process

a single model

wow, slapping on a bunch of images, what a feat

wow, so hard to rig a skeleton and maybe nudge a bunch of assets if the engine doesn't already do it automatically

>> No.4467365

I already went over this. Texturing is it's own job. Making the texture's move is animation which is it's own job. And the model is a 3rd job.

This is a 3 person job (4 people if you want particles which have gotten so complicated they now require a specialist). All of these jobs require a different skill set. Making the sprite character is a one person job.

And it gets expontially bigger because once you have 3-4 people working on something you need a manager that keeps everything organzied and the production pipe-line smooth. That's now yet another person.

There's a reason that a single pixel artist can make all the assets for a game while 3D games require massive teams. To be able to do EVERY aspect of 3D graphics well working with high res high poly models would take a fucking prodigy. And even if such a person existed he wouldn't have enough hours in the day to make everything himself. Because doing all the 4k textures, a 50k poly model, making 200 animations takes a hell out of a lot more time than doing the complete sprite sheets for 16x16 characters.

>> No.4467368
File: 46 KB, 340x620, 1510766744731.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I already went over this. Texturing is it's own job. Making the texture's move is animation which is it's own job. And the model is a 3rd job.

>need three people to produce an inferior product

the ABSOLUTE state of 3Diots

>> No.4467375

You do realize there are indie game companies that task one person to do more than one of the roles you've listed, right? While you're not wrong with your breakdown that is often the case for middle to large game companies.

>> No.4467387
File: 76 KB, 600x939, a42.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Anyone on /vr/ defending 3D
3D art didn't stop looking vomit-inducingly awful until well into 2000s.

>> No.4467394

>pixel art is the same any 2d art
>3d modeling and animation is harder than pixel art
The fuck is going on in this thread?

>> No.4467780

Yes I am aware of that. However this situation where the workload is so heavy one person can't handle it is almost always the norm in 3D games. There's just more work to in 3D so on average the team sizes are much bigger.

This is why indies almost always go the 2D route because it's much easier to make the game with a small team that way. Attempts at 3D games often involve ultra-minimalist art styles, especially in environmental assets (minimilism might even be a too liberal a world, more like just complete neglect)

>> No.4468046


>> No.4468074

Your a faggot because you threw around the fact your a game dev, bragging about like your som hero that know more than anyone else. Kill yourself, faggot.

Next time explain why, rather than just stating that you like to suck dick.

>> No.4468086

Those sprites are pretty shitLooks like 16-bit deviantart

>> No.4468102

You do realize that Undertale actually follows sprite limitations right?
Look at any sprite in the game and you'll notice that they're limited to 4 colors.

>> No.4468112

Please recreate SF2's sprites if it so easy jackass.
To animate the spinning bird kick in SF2 you would have needed a solid grasp on shading and perspective, on top of being able to draw a fuck huge Sprite that actually looks decent. In 3D, you have have to change the pitch and yaw and, boom, you got a someone spinning.

>> No.4468114

*And we're on the Genesis, that only supported a slect few colors on screen at a time
*and had to be limited in size to fit on an 8meg cart
*And possibly had to animated

>> No.4468137

So what? It's still just a low resolution line drawing. They're not applying any techniques.
No Anti-aliasing. No shading. No dithering. No hue-shifting. No sub-pixel animation. Saying anything that low-resolution is "technically" pixel art is really dumbing down the concept. It's coincidental and not intentional.

>> No.4468160

hurr durr i like it more so it must be harder to make

>> No.4468171

3D modeling is harder to pick up but easier to master once you've got a solid grasp of the basics. Pixel art is piss easy to pick up but difficult to master.

>> No.4468224

Which do you think took longer to make Chun Li's sprite sheet in sf2 or her complete character model and animation list in sf5?

I am genuinally curious how your brain works. Please go into details.

>> No.4468227

What the hell does "easy to master mean"? Are you saying that making Finding Dori is 'easy' because that's the most masterful 3D that exists.

The most masterful 2D we have is Fantasia. But this thread isn't about god tier 2D it's about pixel art which is infantial compared to what I mentioned.

>> No.4468268

>Chun li's Sprite sheet
Weeks, given that they had to redraw most of the Sprite per move
A day or two for the model, a week or two for the animations. Given that the game's models look like fucking shit, and that there is a bigger move list.

>> No.4468294

Is that really hard, though?
I think there's some definitions being missed here. The generation of any 3D model isn't the easiest, in fact, 3D modeling, especially in the 90's wasn't simple.
I'm not saying Pixel art is simple, but it's a lot more simple, even if it takes longer to do. Longer and time consuming doesn't necessarily mean hard, it just means that it takes time. And a decent 3D model takes longer than a day or two to make, even in the current engines given. You are really underestimating what all goes into that. Now, once you have the model itself completed, THEN everything gets easier because now you're just working on it's movements and making it look natural, but the actual building of any 3D asset unless it's a box is pretty complex.

>> No.4468301

You have infinite space to work with in 3D, while 2D is restricted to a canvas. Same reason vector is easier than raster

>> No.4468320

I definitely think you are underestimating the time to make a complete, quality 3D model and rig. If someone is skilled enough at 3D to build, rig, texture, and sculpt-detail a concept accurate and topologically perfect/near perfect model+clothes in a day or two, a similarly skilled person in 2D would blow through a sprite sheet in much less time than weeks.

But I go back to even just the timeframes you've suggested - with your estimates, you are saying they take roughly the same amount of time to complete. What is your point, then?

>> No.4468325

In video games you are limited by the technical specs of the time. Resolutions can't go past 4k right now. And you can't have so many polys that it crashes on high end PCs.

In Fantasia and Finding Dory there are also limits but they are just very, very high limits.

>> No.4468337

Am also a dev (artist) and these people are right.
You will get shit on here because people are emotionally invested in loving pixel art.
In the long run 3d is more efficient, depending on scope of game, but it's far more complicated and takes a much higher level of skill and multiple specialists to do well.
In terms of high level skill and tedium, 2d hand drawn animation is fucking hard to do decently. Looks amazing and the reason so many 3d models are designed to mimic 2d hand drawn style is because it's so time consuming.
Pixel art can be done well, but it's very rare. People with little to no artistic ability can mimic and copy this style because of it's building block simplistic style.
There's a reason the majority of indie games are pixel style and it's not just because of aesthetics.
It's because it's the go to style of people who can't draw and want decent results.

>> No.4468626
File: 1.26 MB, 572x288, thatwillleaveamark.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


The success of MUGEN isn't by complete accident. The low res simplicity of the sprites and is easy enough for common people to create in their freetime. This isn't ment to downtalk anyones talent, because it is still shit ton of work to do these mugen nude mods. But it is still easier than making a whole game in 3d in the same quality.

Alot of source film maker movies are not games! And they are still a lot of work, if you want nice quality. Still msot source film maker movies are pretty bad compared to games renders and the models aren't created from a scratch. The modded parts themself often look bad (vagina, breasts and breast bounce) because it is not easy to do. Many mugen mods look more appealing and have much more animation because they are low res pixel art and faster and more linear to do. Rotating fingers, hands, limps in 3d is alot of work, and even more so for throw animations, when they have to perfectly grab a body part. They are not allowed to slide or clip through the parts they are holding. 3D is a shitload of work especially in pron.

And again, GAMES are always a shitload of work, which is something some people here don't understand. BUT pixel art is on the simple end of the spectrum.

>> No.4468747

And again, GAMES are always a shitload of work, which is something some people here don't understand. BUT pixel art is on the simple end of the spectrum.

/vr/ never got the memo that graphics aren't the important part when it cimes to games.

>> No.4468886

If you're already a good artist and animator, it's easier. 3D modelling is really annoying and even harder to make an appealing look out of it.

>> No.4468902

Half Life 2 has been ran at 8k before. Not saying it's the norm, just pointing it out.

Yeah, but in games like SF5 the models look so shitty that it's hardly even worth it. The only game I've seen 3d in a fighting game done right is Guilty Gear, and that's only because they were TOO lazy to animate everything in 2D, and went for a very flat and cell shaded style.

>time doesn't equal difficulty
I'm just answering the dude's question.
It's all just art. 3D vs 2D is like painting vs drawing. Drawing is pretty fucking easy if you know how to hold a pencil, but try making a really good drawing. Painting has a few more tricks and requires more materials and time, but, try making a really good painting.

>> No.4468906

Bitmap drawing and 3D models both require skill to do well. You're not getting old you're getting hipster.

>> No.4468907

It's much more like painting vs sculpting. Painting and drawing are much more similar.

>> No.4469020
File: 7 KB, 400x269, earthbound_mother_sprites_by_jonoblue.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Look, whatever makes you feel superior.

>> No.4469043


I'm more comfortable with pixel art than with hand drawn. I never attempted 3D, appears to be too much of a learning curve.

>> No.4471171

>/vr/ never got the memo that graphics aren't the important part when it cimes to games.

I would think that, considering pixel games of yore were nothing BUT game, that /vr/ is very aware of that fact.

When all of your game's back end is being clogged with a million models/shaders/lighting rigs/complex game engine to reproduce environmental effects(rain/fog/snow/etc), the front end, while perhaps visually stimulating, will "suffer" because the player is too aware of the constantly loading that is required, and there is not much imagination. Not to mention that, with no limitation whatsoever to character designs, enemies and protagonists could be as visually "busy" as you want them to be.

Compared to a pixelated game of yore, where the back end wasn't clogged with any of that nonsense, and could help facilitate quick gameplay (not to mention visually appealing characters that were instantly recognizable) quickly, leaving the player with a far more satisfactory overall gameplay experience.

>> No.4471461

Oh my god you are moving the goalposts sooooo hard lmao

>> No.4471487

Jonas had a hard life. What with his sunken cheeks, gashed forehead, greying hair, and knees that bend inward.
Poor kid.

>> No.4471504
File: 10 KB, 275x155, 1512568988172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You are too young and inexperienced to understand. When you get older you will understand.

>> No.4471547

It's the Sistine Chapel, you dumb fucking moron. Apply yourself!

>> No.4471616

2/10. I would say I cant believe this jaybrone actually trolled the fuck outta you idiots. But that would be a lie.

>> No.4471630

this looks just like the place the last Stray Demon in dark souls 3 was. Fucking ripping off the classics.

>> No.4471887
File: 56 KB, 256x256, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>drains my genius

>> No.4471909

Vector graphics.
Todays 3D graphics are vector in nature (poligonal). Case closer to bitmap 2D is voxel, but I don't think any modern game uses them exclusively.
"Rain World" or much older "Another World" use vector or procedural graphics. So animations can have any amount of frames between keyframes, just like poligonal 3D about which you are talking.

>> No.4471954
File: 971 KB, 304x222, Crab_mecha_rocket_canisters.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Good pixel art is indeed more difficult to produce. I'm not great by any means, kind of an aspiring pixel artist.

Pixel art is to art as a haiku is to a novel. You can create a really beautiful haiku, and it's limits are what drive you to be creative. With a novel, you can be wordy, with haiku, you have to get to the point and be clever for it to be good.

It's an entirely different medium than other digital art. There are tons of specific tricks and techniques that don't translate well to other digital art. You use self imposed limits (or hardware limits in certain instances). Pixel art is art first, and secondly a kind of logic puzzle, think picross, only more complex.

Now, that said, shitty pixel art is just that shitty. Most people start shitty and take years of practice and dedication to "get gud". Kids might make a "mario" but I'd like to see them make a metal slug boss sprite.

It's damn fun, really relaxing. You can google tutorials, check pixeljoint and other forums for tutorials also. Said forum is really helpful for advice and critique.

You don't need much to start, honestly you probably already have the tools on your computer. Dedicated pixel art programs I use are Pyxeledit, Graphicsgale, and an old ass version of JASC Paint Shop Pro 7. Honestly though, you can use paint or pretty much anything. The difference between things like Graphicsgale and Pyxeledit is they are tailored to pixel art, and have most of the common features you'd ever need. They also allow different frames for animation, which is really helpful. Look up the book Animation from Pencils to Pixels for a great guide on animation.

>> No.4471959


This is correct. To animate in pixel art, you basically have to learn to animate cartoons, or at least all the tricks they used to do so.

>> No.4471965

making a good 3d model is probably harder than making a good frame for something done in pixels

Id say animating pixels is much harder than animating 3D though

>> No.4471967
File: 14 KB, 263x190, Giant_Tank_Type-07_Emain_Behemoth(Black)_Deformed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


Can a child do this?

>> No.4471994

are you 12 years old

>> No.4472028

A sufficient number of children working in parallel could.

>> No.4472038
File: 1.27 MB, 1676x720, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I think what a lot of people aren't recognizing here is that art isn't so much about the inherent difficulty as it is about how difficult you want to make it for yourself. No matter your art form if you push yourself it will reflect on your work always.

I think what you don't recognize is that every art form has many limitations you have to work around.

>> No.4472063

Yes any art done at a high level is tough. But some are tougher than other being done at high level.

Creating top quality 3D animation is about the most demanding thing there is. It takes massive teams with many assortment of talents and tons of time The only thing comes close is trying to 2D aniamtion at the level of Disney in their prime.

Pixel art even at it's highest level certainly is not as demanding as 3D it's highest level

>> No.4472118

Pixel art like that is mainly a matter of downscaling drawings and then cleaning them up by hand so they read better. It's not really "harder" than drawing, if anything there's much less detail so it could be considered easier. Of course, you have to be more aware of poses and stuff and be willing to take some artistic liberties because a lot of shit just won't read at low resolution.

>> No.4472125

>draw the line art
>"pixelize" it at the desired resolution
>clean up and shade

People try to make it seem complex, but really if you can draw well then you can make pixel art like that. Same skill, different tool.

>> No.4472153


You're right, but that's just the beginning honestly. There's all kinds of tricks, the simplest being pixel clusters, if you ever want to look into it.

BTW, I'm not saying 3d isn't difficult, I realize it's extremely involved to get good 3d. What I'm trying to get across, is good pixel art is also damn difficult. It takes real skill to master. Almost all things relating to painting like color pallette can have a HUGE impact on the look and feel of artwork. It's just a really interesting rabbit hole to go down.

Being able to draw, or at least willing to learn is very important to pixel art. It's like any art though, you have to study things like lighting, anatomy, etc. Pixel art just has so many tricks to it that it would be super easy to discount it without looking deeper. Everyone should understand the massive undertaking that 3d art takes, I'm just poorly trying to convey that well done pixel art isn't "easy" by any means.

Anyway, here's a few random pixel images:






>> No.4472338

>confirmed never done any low res bitmap graphics

>> No.4472372
File: 160 KB, 344x214, jug-standattax.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It depends. Individual sprites are quicker then some larger scale art/3d models, but a whole set that looks good and animates well takes far more effort. Any one who says other wise hasn't made a true full set of sprites before.

>> No.4472479

Different parts take different effort.

In 3D: making a model and textures that look good takes most of the time, then animating it properly takes much less time, and the new little animations do not take much time at all. You can add new animations with relative ease.

In Pixel art: making a good looking pixel art is a tad easier than 3D model and takes less time if you know what are you doing.
But drawing non-static animation (when character moves) and rotations is a lot harder because you are basicaly have to repeat the first phase numerous times. New animations are compareable ammount of work to creating the original sprite.

Whatever time and effort you save by not going 3D you are going to loose on animation.

tl;dr: in 3d you draw for a long time, then animate, in 2D you draw faster, then draw+animate and then draw+animate some more for every frame of animation.
Ammount of effort put into 3D depends mostly on how complex the model is. Ammount of effort put into 2D depends mostly on how complex the animations are and how many there are of them.

Another factor to consider: When you see model for the first time, you see ammount of effort put into it at first, and then not notice it because animation does not require that much effort and you already got used to the model.
When you see a pixel art moving on the screen, you witness a great deal of effort put into it continuously.

>> No.4472491

Where, though?

>> No.4472518

this is a great example. This animation is for the most part (pixel count) just a single drawing/sprite. As you can see and what is extremly common, you only animate a small portion of the model (legs and eye). The legs are can be repeated (for example it is common to use the same sprite animation for left and right side if its a frontal sprite and to reuse sprite animations for multiple legs, allthough this is higher quality work and there are at least two different animated legs). Of course Metal Slug is the pinacle of sprite animation so this example weights especially heavy. Aside from that the tips of the hand claws are animated. ONLY the tips! And as we can clearly see the hands are mirrored! Okay, somebody may say, "What are you talking about? There is more animation on the Sprite.". Fantastic question! This is extremly common in sprite animation, the arms and pipes are not animated sprites but a piece of code that generates a line of a single sprite particle. Like a stamp. So yeah, this model is not as hard to do as it looks. I know that isn't the only animation of the model and it is a great sprite, but easy as fuck. It's combines tequniques of 3d animation (transforms for animation) and is for the most part just a single image. But on first sight or on screenshots it looks great. But it's detail is highly limited. It does look very detailed. But keep in mind that in most sprite games there is no zoom. This cuts out ALOT of work.

>> No.4472632
File: 228 KB, 958x896, metroid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I like both actually. I can see the appeal for both. One thing I usually don't like is when they try to make older style games but then use 3D polygon models. A good example of what I mean of this is pic related. For these type of games pixel art would always be better. Sometimes they can make great looking sidescroller games with 3D models but its still probably true that they might as well go with pixel art since it is guaranteed to look good. I did not like the graphics of Samus Returns at all. It looked bad, even cheap to me. Yet pixel art would have looked perfect since that is how I most remember Metroid.

>> No.4473291
File: 56 KB, 584x576, eightiesnerd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ITT: kids, desperate to defend their pixels of choice, roleplay as "artists" and "game devs" to make sad appeals to authority.


>> No.4473624

Uh no you can't unless you just change the texture of the graphic of a shirt for example. Putting the same sweater from a tall lanky male model to a busty short female model is not gonna account for body proportions so in turn you gotta make two separate clothings.

With sprites unless the the body changes perspectives a lot can be way easier to edit and its prolly a reason why a lot of fan art, sprite webcomics, edits and etc. exist out there where as model edits are harder to come by because 3D modeling is a harder discipline than working with limited resolution art.

>> No.4473678
File: 33 KB, 512x446, boss_motherbrain2[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Somehow Super Metroid is still the best looking metroid game out there. At this point I'm pretty sure that if Nintendo tried remaking Super it still wouldn't look as good.

>> No.4473702


This! 2D has the best waifus.

>> No.4473730

Of course it wouldn't look as good. Nintendo games tend to all look the same across all their franchises. Metroid should not look like it could fit into a Mario game or a Zelda game or a Donkey Kong game yet Nintendo for a long time has made it seem like all of these different franchises could all be a part of the same exact universe with how they look. Even with as old as the SNES is when you look at all their main games they all looked different from each other.

Eventually all Nintendo games just started to look like the same old shit. Almost as if they started to like the smell of their own farts and are subtly trying to clue people in about it. They have become a seriously overrated company. I think the Gamecube days was probably their last truly great innovative years.

Oh yeah I also agree with you on Super still looking the best.

>> No.4473734

Except Fusion looks much better overall?

>> No.4474462

>Fallout 1 & 2 aren't brilliant because of the graphics

Actaully, Fallout 1 and 2 have very well animated sprites and portraits with such high framecounts that they make the other late 90s-early 2000s 2D WRPGs look stiff by comparison.

>> No.4474512

I've only done drawing and pixel art, so can't really comment on 3D first hand, but the sheer amount of shit rigging something takes makes me think it's hard as balls.

Anyway, pixel are is harder in the sense of limitations where I constantly have to zoom in and out to make sure every pixel is interpreted as accurately as possible given my intentions. Meanwhile the big time consumer in drawing/high res is accurately modeling the volumes of things. With pixel art you can kind of fudge your proportions/volumes without it being very noticeable, but if you do that with a figure drawing you'll immediately recognize it.

>> No.4474524

Fallout isn't pixel art. It's pre-rendered 3D like most overseas 2D games of the time.

>> No.4475137
File: 175 KB, 1440x894, pBH0Ma8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>using age as an argument like a toddler

>> No.4476113

Stupid pleb question.

Can you make a semi-accurate 3D model, use it in a bunch of poses with cell shading/other tricks to copy a bunch of frames as 2d-sprites, then have an actual 2D artist go in and clean it up?

Sounds like it'd be an efficient way of doing it maybe

>> No.4476179

if it looks good, it takes time. regardless of medium.

>> No.4477828

Yes. That's exactly how King of Fighters XII and XIII were done.

>> No.4479894

>I think there's some definitions being missed here.

I think thats alot of the butthurt in the thread.

There's a difference between simple and easy.

I think anyone who is doing game dev in 3D now and is defending their hill is doing so not thru the lense of the limitations of retro 2D pixel art, with major frame and data limitations, color, etc. kinda like >>4472125 is saying.

why nobody has mentioned pre-rendered pixel art like in DKC is beyond me.

>> No.4481531
File: 330 KB, 471x467, 1422300932968.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Finding Dori is the most masterful 3D that exists
>The most masterful 2D we have is Fantasia.

At least try with your bait.

>> No.4481709
File: 610 KB, 663x447, metroid-fusion.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


Wasn't impressed with the goofy looking boss sprites

>> No.4481790
File: 27 KB, 563x463, 1461988963128.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>pixel art is the easiest of all gaming artforms.

modern indie devs are very incompent, then

like 50% of indie games featuring pixel "art" look like this

>> No.4481815
File: 27 KB, 80x119, nako-with-hawk-ss4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.4481824
File: 4 KB, 640x400, classicjumpman2-640x400.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

That's because it's usually one or two people who just want to make a game but don't have backgrounds or much skill in art. So the graphics are simple and they focus on the game.

Pretty much the exact reason a lot of old games made by just a few people look like that as well. It's also why it used to be widely accepted that the graphics of a game were usually one of the least important aspects. And that those who were overly concerned with it were mockingly referred to as 'graphics whores' or the like.

/vr/ has now moved into a bizzare alternate dimension where the graphical look of a game is one of it's most important features and is generally assumed that one glance a screenshot is all the information somone needs to form a good troll argument about why it's garbage.

It's pretty flippin weird, I gotta say.

>> No.4482548

Pixel art is easy to do. Pixel art is very difficult to do well.
3d models and textures are moderately difficult to do. They are also very difficult to do well.

>> No.4484002
File: 119 KB, 333x399, b1ef9ed926055bccce2368d9ddf813f3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

i don't think many people realize that the more complex pixel art in games aren't done "pixel-by-pixel". even the many examples in the early 90s had shrank down hand drawn work and touched them up before implementation.

>> No.4484738

>i don't think
You coulda stopped there kiddo

>> No.4484748

can't silence the truth, gramps

>> No.4485868

The creation of animated 2D sprites takes indefinitely more skill, talent and its much more time consuming. By the mid nineties there werent many companies that were able to compete with SNK and Capcom any longer. If you cant compete but still want money, what do you do? You turn the tables, hello Sony.

Polygon graphics is mostly a paint-by-numbers affair. And if you have absolutely no skills in that field either, you just go buy prefabs.

They used to say 2D graphics and 3D polygon graphics can Co-exist. That was a lie. Because then they went and brutally murdered sprite based games to favour their mass produced, ugly, polygon crap fests. FUck you Sony. You greedy fucking whores.


>> No.4485895

>They used to say 2D graphics and 3D polygon graphics can Co-exist. That was a lie. Because then they went and brutally murdered sprite based games to favour their mass produced, ugly, polygon crap fests. FUck you Sony. You greedy fucking whores.

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

>> No.4486451


Thanks, that was an interesting read. I think I've read it before but it really sums up the issue of good vs. bad pixel art and how "HD" is always seen as superior to consumers. I recommend this read to anyone remotely interested in this thread.

>> No.4486478

The biggest problem with pixel art is that people who can't draw think it covers up their flaws.

You can tell the difference between someone who at least understands target proportions and working within a limit and someone who redraws Mega Man (or other) sprites and calls themselves an expert in the field.

Proportions and color theory are recommended.

>> No.4486491

Amount. One "m"
Lose. One "o".

Message not invalidated, just for future reference.

>> No.4486497

Funny how you're saying it's easier in 2D, but your specific examples are ROM hacks which are edit jobs.

Have you ever tried making something from scratch WITHOUT being married to someone else's work as a template?