Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Which I find a bit ironic because I've never liked Civ3's aesthetic design. Its just so drab and brown. Like someone spilled coffee all over it and then let it dry.
Do you prefer strategy games to be in 3d?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Which I find a bit ironic because I've never liked Civ3's aesthetic design. Its just so drab and brown. Like someone spilled coffee all over it and then let it dry.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Civ5 looks weird when you zoom in, it gets all fuzzy and low res in the worst way.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Zoom in with your mouse wheel and zoom back out, that will re-render the roads and other stuff (usually). Though the game still has some graphical issues and has always been rocky in how well the graphics engine renders stuff. It's still using the Civ 4 engine if I recall correctly and absolutely taxing it to the max.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,927
Implying rivers and roads didn't look like crap in CivIV.
Akka
Moody old mage.
3D is inherently better than 2D. The only advantage of 2D is that it's easier and less costly to do (up to a point).
So yeah, today 3D is basically mandatory, unless you're deliberately aiming for a very special artistic point.
So yeah, today 3D is basically mandatory, unless you're deliberately aiming for a very special artistic point.
I'm not an artist, but I think the issue is much more nuanced than some of the posts here make it out to be.
First off, 2D vs. 3D is just a medium of expression, and neither is going to inherently yield a more visually appealing game. Bold outlines or character that may be traditionally prominent in 2D can be added to 3D, but it requires a broader mix of technical and artistic abilities. You might have to write shader code for example.
Cost wise, it's also very complicated. 2D doesn't necessarily mean raster or pixel art. If a cartoon look is appropriate, you can use a pure vector approach that allows you to use inverse kinematics or other techniques that reduce animation cost. If the cartoon look is not desired, you can then add shading or textures later to vector-based outlines. I'm not sure if there is any way to automate this based on some lighting parameters yet, but it seems like a technically feasible approach that could reduce the amount of had drawn frames required. At this point, the problem would become somewhere between traditional 2D and polygon-based 3D, since you'd need heightmaps or something to light and shade properly. If you are hand-drawing each frame, then yes, 2D does get expensive, especially when taking different viewing angles and rework into account.
3D on the other hand, can require a fairly substantial investment into modeling, texturing, and rigging. At larger companies, there are specialists that perform each of these tasks. Once this is done, minor rework is not as big of a deal compared to hand-drawn 2D frames. Major rework is still pretty expensive, as sometimes you need to basically toss the model and start over, or the work requires multiple people to be involved.
Also, in both 2D and 3D, the cost really depends on what you need to do. For example, while it adds to the playability of an RTS, does a turn-based strategy really need its 2D assets to face different directions? How detailed do your animations and textures need to be for 3D if you're never going to zoom way in?
First off, 2D vs. 3D is just a medium of expression, and neither is going to inherently yield a more visually appealing game. Bold outlines or character that may be traditionally prominent in 2D can be added to 3D, but it requires a broader mix of technical and artistic abilities. You might have to write shader code for example.
Cost wise, it's also very complicated. 2D doesn't necessarily mean raster or pixel art. If a cartoon look is appropriate, you can use a pure vector approach that allows you to use inverse kinematics or other techniques that reduce animation cost. If the cartoon look is not desired, you can then add shading or textures later to vector-based outlines. I'm not sure if there is any way to automate this based on some lighting parameters yet, but it seems like a technically feasible approach that could reduce the amount of had drawn frames required. At this point, the problem would become somewhere between traditional 2D and polygon-based 3D, since you'd need heightmaps or something to light and shade properly. If you are hand-drawing each frame, then yes, 2D does get expensive, especially when taking different viewing angles and rework into account.
3D on the other hand, can require a fairly substantial investment into modeling, texturing, and rigging. At larger companies, there are specialists that perform each of these tasks. Once this is done, minor rework is not as big of a deal compared to hand-drawn 2D frames. Major rework is still pretty expensive, as sometimes you need to basically toss the model and start over, or the work requires multiple people to be involved.
Also, in both 2D and 3D, the cost really depends on what you need to do. For example, while it adds to the playability of an RTS, does a turn-based strategy really need its 2D assets to face different directions? How detailed do your animations and textures need to be for 3D if you're never going to zoom way in?
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Every game element should have a purpose, art design being no different.
As an example when Space Empires went 3D on the 5th iteration they killed the franchise as 3D was there for no purpose whatsoever. No gameplay element relied on it and many were hindered because of this. In the vase of Starcraft II on the other hand, they locked the angle (except for an underwhelming and useless zoom) you play in but utilized a 3D playing world for map purposes. This worked because both decisions were related to a desired gameplay end.
As an example when Space Empires went 3D on the 5th iteration they killed the franchise as 3D was there for no purpose whatsoever. No gameplay element relied on it and many were hindered because of this. In the vase of Starcraft II on the other hand, they locked the angle (except for an underwhelming and useless zoom) you play in but utilized a 3D playing world for map purposes. This worked because both decisions were related to a desired gameplay end.
That seems to be a good idea. Given that you still can use some elements a "real" 3d world grants, without having problems inherent in 3d use for such games, and of course the useless mapview modes which no one ever uses 99% of the time anyway.
However it seems that programming a game to be 3d is too time-consuming so as to make most indie titles (or by small software companies) have a valid use for it.
However it seems that programming a game to be 3d is too time-consuming so as to make most indie titles (or by small software companies) have a valid use for it.
An example of 3d models being used as 2d graphics:
These are all 3d objects, rendered from a stable angle in Blender (a 3d creation program). In game they will just look like this, although i could render them from any angle i want to, or even make 3d mods of them for games that use a full 3d environment.
These are all 3d objects, rendered from a stable angle in Blender (a 3d creation program). In game they will just look like this, although i could render them from any angle i want to, or even make 3d mods of them for games that use a full 3d environment.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
