AuthorTopic: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites  (Read 14623 times)

Offline skw

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Stuck in the Nineties.
    • View Profile
    • Johnny Theodore Customs

Re: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites

Reply #10 on: March 28, 2009, 05:31:34 pm
For sure, yes -- if we're speaking of downsized versions with a meticulous pixel lay over (so there's no such thing as simple resizing and keeping to the shitty resample where the big part of a picture is completely lost and all the details run together creating one big mess).  Pixel art pieces, at least as I see it, are in most cases less realistic in appearance than pre-rendered stuff -- they use shortcuts and generalizations at a massive scale, and they are mostly used and paid for in cases where no strict realistic outcome is necessary.  Fallout wasn't one of these.

But generally, yes -- pixel art is way more clean and neat a technique in terms of detail application and esthetics.

What's more on to MK and digitized sprites, I remember a few moves that were impossible for a model to perform (like the splits) were pixeled by hand (and that means you had a detailed digitized part savagely mixed with pixel art -- all done in a REALLY sickening way).  Just recall Johnny Cage.
Quote
Even a common man by obtaining knowledge becomes a Buddha.
sexual content, click at your own risk! https://www.facebook.com/szumprodukcje /also known as skurwy

Offline huZba

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • MekaSkull
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/19396.htm
    • huzba
    • View Profile

Re: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites

Reply #11 on: March 28, 2009, 07:51:03 pm
I don't think you could do starcraft better with pixels, not without an unreasonable amount of work anyway. If you know what you're doing you can get 3D rendered stuff look really good. The work is also easier to control when you can do global changes on your sprites. Realistic ambient occlusion is just a button press away, consistency and editing is easier. I'd like to shun the idea that everything 2D is better if it's made with pixels. Moving up in resolution and colorcount, proper alpha blending with antialiased edges makes rendered stuff work better(though at this point you probably have enough power to do realtime 3D). Most problems come from restrictions and bad art direction that leaves the final product with things that corrode the illusion of the gameworld. Things that contradict with each other. If a sprite looks like it's made in 3D, then it's a major contradiction when the graphic then behaves in a manner that reveals it's 2D-ness. Pre-rendered 3D sprites can be the worst enemy for immersion.

Games like diablo, planescape: torment, sanitarium work allright i guess, but there's this staleness in the graphics. Increased graphical fidelity in lighting and texture creates a break in illusion when it's so static. Your artistic choices create a dimension that needs to be filled enough on all fronts.

Mortal Kombat is awesome because it looks so stupid though.

Offline baccaman21

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 549
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • It's critique, don't take it personally.
    • View Profile
    • Linked In

Re: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites

Reply #12 on: March 31, 2009, 07:09:16 am
see my latest post... ;)
Buy the book - The Animator's Survival Kit by Richard Williams

www.burnzombieburn.com

Offline Redshrike

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile

Re: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites

Reply #13 on: April 01, 2009, 12:46:05 am
Has anyone mentioned Mario RPG?  That was made from models, and it has a nice, clean look.

Offline Tuna Unleashed

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 471
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites

Reply #14 on: April 03, 2009, 03:56:13 am
I think renders worked in the past, back in the SNES days, due completely to the wow factor when games like Donkey Kong Country and the like came out. Everyone was like "WOW, its like 3D, truly the pinnacle of graphics", but since then its become nothing at all to see true 3D so it really has no purpose other than pumping out graphics faster.

Offline .TakaM

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • Fetch Quest

Re: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites

Reply #15 on: April 03, 2009, 12:14:44 pm
The Donkey Kong Country games are pretty much the only games with pre-rendered sprites I can stand.


I don't think pre-rendered sprites have any advantages over hand pixeled sprites other than the time factor.
Basically, you can achieve the same sloppy results as a pre-render by hand pixeling, there's no good reason for this, but the point is the opposite can't be done.
Life without knowledge is death in disguise

Offline Mike

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +0/-3
    • View Profile
    • Scribble onto the Abyss

Re: pixelled sprites vs pre-rendered CGI sprites

Reply #16 on: April 03, 2009, 01:03:19 pm
I didn't like DKC prerendered graphics then and I don't like them now.  I never believed it looked even close to 3D.  I'm all for drawing the art out by hand like Vanillaware did with Odin's Sphere, or pixeling by hand.

However I think it's ok to use a 3D model for pose references and maybe tracing animations off them by pixeling over them completely; maybe for complex rotations or something like that.

Also to add to this discussion; I really hate how in the DS Kirby games the backgrounds are not pixeled but instead its like a picture thats been drawn and pasted in.  It just feels outta place.