Darkstalkers Are Not Dead
- Thread starter TagYouRPregnant
- Start date
JetSetDizzy
[11] Champion
Crossing my fingers for Ruby Heart(she was designed as a darkstalker but scraped and picked up for mvc2 later)
iKotomi
[10] Knight
Heh, I hear you and agree with you for the most part. I think we're using slightly different meanings for style, which I used for lack of a better word for what I was getting at.
Think current examples are pretty biased, since if in this day and age you go 2d, you are extremely committed to doing something special with it (not counting facebook apps and the like). But when you play a 2d game, what are the things you notice? You notice character design, the exaggerated and unrealistic movement, and small expressions. Especially expression.
Part of it may be because it's easier to go over the top, because you can do things with 2d that break the laws of physics of what is possible to be seen. A good example of this would be critical animations in Fire Emblem in the 2d era compared to the 3d era. On the other hand, I think you do have to go over the top with 2d if you want to get something special across, because you are limited by what you can show in frame by frame animation. This is especially obvious in SNES era games where they were limited to like 2 or 3 frames per animation, but it still holds for more modern 2d. Kind of rambling here but I hope you can get what I'm saying.
3d on the other hand, you notice very different things. Sure the colossi in Shadow of the Colossus is impossible, or the creature from the Last Guardian, but it doesn't feel fake. You're amazed by them because of how convincing they are, or at least I am. And what are you noticing when you play a 3d game? Again, I'm probably biased because recent game design hasn't really appealed to me, but you're drawn to how convincing the violence is, how convincing the environment is. I rarely get the feeling that 3d is trying to do something special with it's design other than to create something to play a game in. Sure they can do some cute things to give them "character" but that always takes a backseat to just the playing part of the game. Contrast that to anything done with 2d style graphics in the modern age, GrimGrimoire, Odin Sphere, *Ookami*, and appreciation of the art style itself is just as important as the game.
2d also feels more "alive" to me. No matter how realistic you can get the model to look, something is always missing that makes them look plasticky, expressionless. PS2/gamecube era rpgs are especially guilty of this. Part of that is technology. Maybe things have changed now, but it has always been damn hard to get faces right. That's probably why so many games resort to 2d face sprites for conversation, besides the "anime influence." Because quite frankly, it's boring watching 3d models "talk" to each other. Persona would have been a lot less of a good game if everything was done in the 3d engine, because the 3d models are so limited.
So yeah, I think when someone chooses 2d instead of 3d, they probably have a fundamentally different goal as to what they are trying to do with their animation, and I like what they do more. Again, this may just be that the game itself just had a lot more attention in its creation, because when you go 2d, you're seriously committing yourself to something expensive. I'm sure SEGA could have saved a ton of money by not creating a brand new engine for valkyria chronicles, but it felt for the first time in a long time that they actually cared about the game they were making. Not to say people choosing 3d development don't care, but something is just different.
Madnis
[12] Conqueror
okay, i'm going to have to break this up so that i can directly address each statement and it'll give some order to what i'm about to say. first and foremost, yes. you do have a point. however, what you seem to fail to realize is that with animation, the ultimate goal is to create something believable. believable doesn't necessarily means realistic. it just means you're able to suspend your disbelief and just go with it. with this mind, understand that both 2d and 3d animation are different tool sets shooting for the same goal. are they vastly different? yes. but the goal for the animator is the same.
first and foremost, if you're wondering why i'm talkin about animation, well.. it's a core process of game design and if you understand this, then you can see why it ultimately doesn't matter if something is 2d or 3d; or you can understand your preference far more. this isn't to say what's better or not, it's to give you more of an understanding, because i feel you said something a little off base and you want to explain to me your preference and that's fine. but just to clear things up and have a broader understanding between 2d and 3d.
i should correct this and say when you shoot for any project in general, you are committed to doing something special. Sad part is, as you work on it, you can realize the crap that you're making, it truly doesn't matter if it's a 2d project or a 3d project. whatever happens, happens afterwards, when the project is received by the people. as for the second part of what you said, you should understand that all that is a part of what makes an animation. Interesting character/ monster designs, how something moves, and expression. the difference is doing a key framed animation costs a lot more and takes more time then going with Mo cap, or motion capture. which is more or less what's used majority of the time in game development. I'll get into that a little bit later. what you're talking about here is more or less the basics of keyed animation.
we're slowly getting to Mocap/rotoscope with this and more or less my gripe with these forms of animation. Put simply, with keyed animation, you have to be over the top. you have to stress and break limbs. exaggerate poses with an emphasis on timing. otherwise, your brain won't make sense of what's being seen and things will just look strange.
That said, comparing a 2d animation to a 3d animation is like comparing apples and oranges. because again it's animation sure, but they're two completely different tools. to give you an example,
watch an old tom and jerry cartoon or looney toons or your disney afternoon. watch them frame by frame. you will notice they use the same frame, twice. sometimes, thrice.. (coco reference). this is what i mean by shooting on twos.
this is done because A: budget. and B: it's time consuming and a pain in the ass to shoot an animation on ones.
now watch Beast wars or some random 3d animation.. notice.. that doesn't happen. because in 3d, it's all shot on ones. in that regard, timing is a bit trickier to pull off in 3d than in 2d.
that said, it's easier to create believable movement with limited frames in 2d because you can skip frames as well. not only can you shoot on twos or threes and still create fluid movement, but you can add sense of speed through distortion of the image. tricks like that is harder to pull off in 3d because your eye will register it almost immediately. that isn't to say that 3d animation is bereft of it's own tricks to create that same sense. it's just harder to pull off, and with most gaming animations done through mocap, even harder. because at that point you're no longer relying on an animator, you're relying on an actor.
this goes back to the animator's goal. Which is? i think i stressed it enough. But at this point, it should already be understood. and if you haven't got it yet, go back an reread the intro until you have that understanding locked down. As i've said before, creating 3d animation is tricky. a lot of the tricks that animators were used to in 2d have to be applied in a different manner, and what's more, a computer is designed for perfection. algorithms, mathematics, and formulas, the basics of code. one thing you have to realize is that animation, thrives on imperfection. if something is perfect, your eye will see it immediately. before i go into this, let me explain something about animation in general.
animation as you should know is an optical illusion. your brain literally tries to make sense of everything it sees. and when it fails, illusions are created. I remember hearing or reading somewhere that optical illusions are misnomers, they should be in fact be called brain failure because that's exactly what happens. your brain also has an understanding of how things move, should or shouldn't move, things is when something is animated completely 100% correct as to how it should move in real life, your brain forms a disconnect. and will tell you, this is not something natural. this is in fact a medical condition and the name of it escapes me. but this is why when you animate something; be it 2d or 3d, it has to have exaggerations and this is why things can't be perfectly centered, or why things move in arcs. and this is why 3d animators have to literally fight their own computers to create that imperfection, because the computer will always strive for perfection. and when things are perfect, it breaks the illusion.
the second part, is your own understanding. Like I said, your brain tries to make sense of everything it sees. with 2d animation, it recognizes a drawing. Because of that, your brain can be more forgiving one what it sees. with 3d, as i've said before, has a stigma of trying to mimic reality. Therefore, your brain also recognizes this, so if the animation breaks from that, your brain forms a disconnect. the animation then fails.
so then, what's the best way of creating this illusion? by relating it to the stuff you know that exists within the real world and creating a correlation between the animation and what you know. Why does the creature in the Last Guardian look and feel so real? Because the animators studied the shit out of cats and dogs and translated it onscreen. your brain creates that correlation and thus creates a successful animation. Understand this rule holds true for both 2d and 3d. But because of 3d's stigma, it feels like it's pushing that envelope even further. because in 2d you can draw the general broad movements and it'll register, but with 3d those general broad movements will for that disconnect. So you have to push those imperfections further, so you can have that same "natural" feel.
in terms of game design, 3d games tries to immerse you in that world. Like with their animations, they want that same belief. Because again, if they have these wondrous animations but the gameplay doesn't follow suit, your brain can form that disconnect and it'll take you out of the game completely.
I think this is what's happening when players who played these 2d capcom fighters or 2d games and then see them realized or translated in 3d. seeing these 2d tricks and what your brain is used to registering in 2d is now all of a sudden in 3d and your brain forms that disconnect, and turns you off of the experience.
but if want to throw out names of games that stand out where you can appreciate the art style... i can name several.
Journey. Asura's Wrath. Bastion. i can go further with Okami being a wonderfully cellshaded game. Look at Outland. these are all beautifully looking games that aren't simply trying to mimic reality. as my friend said.. "in terms of art direction, Bioshock Infinite is a breath of fresh air."
This goes along the lines of what i said earlier about illusions and to add to that, my biggest gripe with mocap and rotoscope. This is because when something tries to go out and mimic what's actually real and not try to use what's real as an conduit, your brain recognizes this and it'll register as something awkward, strange, and can even be freaky to watch. that's because reality doesn't translate well into animation. in 3d, you need to have those extra nuances, those subtle imperfections to make it feel natural. and because mocap tends to capture only the broad movements, it doesn't register as something completely natural. you need the animator there to key frame those imperfections. In game design, that doesn't always happen so you're stuck with this awkward ass animation, however, the actors have gotten better. and 3d models aren't really limited at all... so I don't know what you're talking about there..
also, it's less time consuming to animate textures than to rig or create blend shapes for models.. but then, it's easier these days to set up decent rigs including facial rigs. so even that is kinda invalid as an actual gripe or mark against 3d. like i said before, everything you can do in 2d, you can do more or less in 3d. and as for Persona, Catherine would like a word with you.
personally, no disrespect to studio 4 degress Celsius, I would have preferred the game with just that 3d engine. because the 2d really does stand out, and that 2d is more or less for cut scenes.
and for shits and giggles,
because if anyone was able to capture the anime look and feel of Naruto, it's Cyber Connect 2.
and scene. There isn't much i can say to this that I haven't said before. only that preference goes towards what you feel as great game design.
first and foremost, if you're wondering why i'm talkin about animation, well.. it's a core process of game design and if you understand this, then you can see why it ultimately doesn't matter if something is 2d or 3d; or you can understand your preference far more. this isn't to say what's better or not, it's to give you more of an understanding, because i feel you said something a little off base and you want to explain to me your preference and that's fine. but just to clear things up and have a broader understanding between 2d and 3d.
i should correct this and say when you shoot for any project in general, you are committed to doing something special. Sad part is, as you work on it, you can realize the crap that you're making, it truly doesn't matter if it's a 2d project or a 3d project. whatever happens, happens afterwards, when the project is received by the people. as for the second part of what you said, you should understand that all that is a part of what makes an animation. Interesting character/ monster designs, how something moves, and expression. the difference is doing a key framed animation costs a lot more and takes more time then going with Mo cap, or motion capture. which is more or less what's used majority of the time in game development. I'll get into that a little bit later. what you're talking about here is more or less the basics of keyed animation.
we're slowly getting to Mocap/rotoscope with this and more or less my gripe with these forms of animation. Put simply, with keyed animation, you have to be over the top. you have to stress and break limbs. exaggerate poses with an emphasis on timing. otherwise, your brain won't make sense of what's being seen and things will just look strange.
That said, comparing a 2d animation to a 3d animation is like comparing apples and oranges. because again it's animation sure, but they're two completely different tools. to give you an example,
watch an old tom and jerry cartoon or looney toons or your disney afternoon. watch them frame by frame. you will notice they use the same frame, twice. sometimes, thrice.. (coco reference). this is what i mean by shooting on twos.
this is done because A: budget. and B: it's time consuming and a pain in the ass to shoot an animation on ones.
now watch Beast wars or some random 3d animation.. notice.. that doesn't happen. because in 3d, it's all shot on ones. in that regard, timing is a bit trickier to pull off in 3d than in 2d.
that said, it's easier to create believable movement with limited frames in 2d because you can skip frames as well. not only can you shoot on twos or threes and still create fluid movement, but you can add sense of speed through distortion of the image. tricks like that is harder to pull off in 3d because your eye will register it almost immediately. that isn't to say that 3d animation is bereft of it's own tricks to create that same sense. it's just harder to pull off, and with most gaming animations done through mocap, even harder. because at that point you're no longer relying on an animator, you're relying on an actor.
this goes back to the animator's goal. Which is? i think i stressed it enough. But at this point, it should already be understood. and if you haven't got it yet, go back an reread the intro until you have that understanding locked down. As i've said before, creating 3d animation is tricky. a lot of the tricks that animators were used to in 2d have to be applied in a different manner, and what's more, a computer is designed for perfection. algorithms, mathematics, and formulas, the basics of code. one thing you have to realize is that animation, thrives on imperfection. if something is perfect, your eye will see it immediately. before i go into this, let me explain something about animation in general.
animation as you should know is an optical illusion. your brain literally tries to make sense of everything it sees. and when it fails, illusions are created. I remember hearing or reading somewhere that optical illusions are misnomers, they should be in fact be called brain failure because that's exactly what happens. your brain also has an understanding of how things move, should or shouldn't move, things is when something is animated completely 100% correct as to how it should move in real life, your brain forms a disconnect. and will tell you, this is not something natural. this is in fact a medical condition and the name of it escapes me. but this is why when you animate something; be it 2d or 3d, it has to have exaggerations and this is why things can't be perfectly centered, or why things move in arcs. and this is why 3d animators have to literally fight their own computers to create that imperfection, because the computer will always strive for perfection. and when things are perfect, it breaks the illusion.
the second part, is your own understanding. Like I said, your brain tries to make sense of everything it sees. with 2d animation, it recognizes a drawing. Because of that, your brain can be more forgiving one what it sees. with 3d, as i've said before, has a stigma of trying to mimic reality. Therefore, your brain also recognizes this, so if the animation breaks from that, your brain forms a disconnect. the animation then fails.
so then, what's the best way of creating this illusion? by relating it to the stuff you know that exists within the real world and creating a correlation between the animation and what you know. Why does the creature in the Last Guardian look and feel so real? Because the animators studied the shit out of cats and dogs and translated it onscreen. your brain creates that correlation and thus creates a successful animation. Understand this rule holds true for both 2d and 3d. But because of 3d's stigma, it feels like it's pushing that envelope even further. because in 2d you can draw the general broad movements and it'll register, but with 3d those general broad movements will for that disconnect. So you have to push those imperfections further, so you can have that same "natural" feel.
in terms of game design, 3d games tries to immerse you in that world. Like with their animations, they want that same belief. Because again, if they have these wondrous animations but the gameplay doesn't follow suit, your brain can form that disconnect and it'll take you out of the game completely.
I think this is what's happening when players who played these 2d capcom fighters or 2d games and then see them realized or translated in 3d. seeing these 2d tricks and what your brain is used to registering in 2d is now all of a sudden in 3d and your brain forms that disconnect, and turns you off of the experience.
but if want to throw out names of games that stand out where you can appreciate the art style... i can name several.
Journey. Asura's Wrath. Bastion. i can go further with Okami being a wonderfully cellshaded game. Look at Outland. these are all beautifully looking games that aren't simply trying to mimic reality. as my friend said.. "in terms of art direction, Bioshock Infinite is a breath of fresh air."
This goes along the lines of what i said earlier about illusions and to add to that, my biggest gripe with mocap and rotoscope. This is because when something tries to go out and mimic what's actually real and not try to use what's real as an conduit, your brain recognizes this and it'll register as something awkward, strange, and can even be freaky to watch. that's because reality doesn't translate well into animation. in 3d, you need to have those extra nuances, those subtle imperfections to make it feel natural. and because mocap tends to capture only the broad movements, it doesn't register as something completely natural. you need the animator there to key frame those imperfections. In game design, that doesn't always happen so you're stuck with this awkward ass animation, however, the actors have gotten better. and 3d models aren't really limited at all... so I don't know what you're talking about there..
also, it's less time consuming to animate textures than to rig or create blend shapes for models.. but then, it's easier these days to set up decent rigs including facial rigs. so even that is kinda invalid as an actual gripe or mark against 3d. like i said before, everything you can do in 2d, you can do more or less in 3d. and as for Persona, Catherine would like a word with you.
personally, no disrespect to studio 4 degress Celsius, I would have preferred the game with just that 3d engine. because the 2d really does stand out, and that 2d is more or less for cut scenes.
and for shits and giggles,
because if anyone was able to capture the anime look and feel of Naruto, it's Cyber Connect 2.
and scene. There isn't much i can say to this that I haven't said before. only that preference goes towards what you feel as great game design.