Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Are Pixel Art Games Easier to Create Than 3d

Are Pixel Art Games Easier to Create Than 3d

  • NN81's avatar

    • Joined 9 Feb, 2017
    • 38 topics • 587 posts

  • 1

I know that at that place aren't two things to compare.. they vest to two different ages..

but I would be very interested in knowing your opinion about it.

What graphic fashion would you utilize for your game past forcefully choosing between pixelart and 3D? and why? such pros and cons?

I think it depends on a lot of things. What blazon of game yous're making, target audition, is there whatsoever mechanic that requires 3D etc etc...

  • NN81's avatar

    • Joined 9 Feb, 2017
    • 38 topics • 587 posts

  • 1

I think it depends on a lot of things. What type of game you're making, target audience, is there any mechanic that requires 3D etc etc...

that is articulate, but maybe I explained the question badly..

in a game with the same feasibility, having to cull betwixt 1 and the other, what graphic style would you choose, and why? pros and cons?

I'chiliad not speak but about aesthetics, but also, for case, the difficulty of animating a mesh rather than a sprite, etc

Personally I mostly use 3d software to create much of my artwork, even if i'm doing a 2D game. I just piece of work a lot faster in Maya, and if you do a 3d model you tin can only change angle, rotate and deform it to speedily brand more variations. I discover 3d much more handy as you can use 3d software to make 2d sprites, or use simple 3d objects equally reference and quckly depict pixel or 2d art on it. But starting from scratch, for me making 2D artwork takes a lot longer time.

I think animation in 3d is a lot easier also, but maybe that'due south just because i'm used to it.

Learning 3d software can take a lot of time though every bit information technology's a lot more complex, with modeling, texturing, UV mapping, rigging, skinning, animating, lighting, shaders, rendering. It'southward then complex in some cases that in bigger evolution studios, at that place can be 1 person hired for almost each of those areas.

2d or pixel fine art is faster to outset with I think, and due to the more retro feeling y'all can get away with a lot. Animations tin can be but a couple of frames and a bit choppy, information technology'due south part of the charm. It doesn't accept to be 30 frames per second shine animations.

And so all in all, I think 3d is more flexible only harder. 2d/pixel art is faster and more forgiving but can however look absurd.

  • NN81's avatar

    • Joined 9 February, 2017
    • 38 topics • 587 posts

  • 1

Personally I mostly use 3d software to create much of my artwork, even if i'm doing a second game. I just piece of work a lot faster in Maya, and if you lot practise a 3d model you lot can just change angle, rotate and deform it to quickly make more variations. I detect 3d much more handy as you can use 3d software to make 2d sprites, or use unproblematic 3d objects equally reference and quckly depict pixel or 2d art on it. Just starting from scratch, for me making 2d artwork takes a lot longer time.

I remember animation in 3d is a lot easier also, but maybe that's just because i'm used to it.

Learning 3d software tin can have a lot of fourth dimension though every bit information technology's a lot more complex, with modeling, texturing, UV mapping, rigging, skinning, animating, lighting, shaders, rendering. Information technology'south so complex in some cases that in bigger development studios, there can exist ane person hired for most each of those areas.

second or pixel art is faster to get-go with I think, and due to the more retro feeling you can get away with a lot. Animations tin can be simply a couple of frames and a bit choppy, it'south part of the charm. It doesn't have to be 30 frames per second smoothen animations.

And then all in all, I think 3d is more flexible but harder. 2nd/pixel art is faster and more forgiving only tin still look cool.

i concur whith you, also I think I think that in general pixelart requires more artistic skills and 3D more technical skills.

  • Refeuh's avatar

    • Joined 28 Sep, 2014
    • fifteen topics • 246 posts

  • 1

They don't belong to different ages ; information technology's similar saying "paintings" are obsolete because of "sculptures".

Without context, at that place's no rational manner to adopt one over the other : it'south not about technique, it'due south well-nigh art direction and "rendition".

  • NN81's avatar

    • Joined nine Feb, 2017
    • 38 topics • 587 posts

  • 1

They don't belong to different ages ; it's like saying "paintings" are obsolete because of "sculptures".

Without context, in that location's no rational way to prefer ane over the other : it's not nearly technique, information technology'south almost fine art direction and "rendition".

deplorable my poor english, what you lot hateful with "rendition"?

  • Refeuh's avatar

    • Joined 28 Sep, 2014
    • 15 topics • 246 posts

  • 1

It'south more a musical term, meaning an "interpretation", i.east. performance ; applied to other disciplines, the concept ways the "translation" of a vision into a realisation and material. Hither, it's about conveying the artistic vision into the game, and preference towards pixel sprites or 3d models is non really relevant, as one or the other, or both, could exist more than suitable for certain types of projects.

  • NN81's avatar

    • Joined 9 Feb, 2017
    • 38 topics • 587 posts

  • one

It'southward more than a musical term, meaning an "interpretation", i.e. performance ; applied to other disciplines, the concept ways the "translation" of a vision into a realisation and material. Hither, it'due south near conveying the artistic vision into the game, and preference towards pixel sprites or 3d models is not really relevant, as one or the other, or both, could be more suitable for certain types of projects.

ok, tx for explanation

  • Jayjay's avatar

    • Joined xviii Mar, 2008
    • 26 topics • 2,315 posts

  • 1

I don't retrieve it's just "Pixel Art vs 3D", because nosotros have peachy examples of non-realistic 3D / Pixel Art in 3D as well like:

Minecraft:

Superpowers example: https://sparklinlabs.itch.io/discover-superpowers

Craft Studio examples: https://sparklinlabs.itch.io/craftstudio

or cell shaded 3D:

Jet Set Radio Future:

Borderlands:

And Pixel Art also has many different styles:

So which 1 is better is hard to say. I retrieve it depends on the game type, and the level of polish an creative person puts in to brand it all "seamless" or consistent.

  • NN81's avatar

    • Joined 9 Feb, 2017
    • 38 topics • 587 posts

  • i

Jayjay sure are lot of substyles, personally i hate voxel stile, but i similar all pixel fine art stiles and celshaded

  • karan316's avatar

    • Joined 24 Nov, 2013
    • viii topics • 41 posts

  • ane

I know that there aren't two things to compare.. they belong to two different ages..

but I would exist very interested in knowing your opinion nearly information technology.

What graphic style would you use for your game by forcefully choosing betwixt pixelart and 3D? and why? such pros and cons?

Personally, I detect 2D pixel art way better than 3d.

When information technology comes to games, it completely depends on the kind of game y'all create. But I must say, 2nd pixel art is manner tough than 3d. If you acquire a user-friendly 3d software, yous tin can easily create stunning models/landscapes etc. in short time. Just to create good 2d artwork, you need to exist a truthful creative person. The other solution is to create something that is extremely minimal notwithstanding appealing.

  • RanKiyomi's avatar

    • Joined nineteen Jan, 2018
    • 1 topics • 4 posts

  • ane

From a technical standpoint, using pixel fine art takes way less space and may load easier and faster. Giving that retro feel to your game might be something you want to reach. Information technology still requires skill to make the artwork and retro games are very popular lately.

  • Rodak's avatar

    • Joined 9 Mar, 2018
    • 2 topics • 29 posts

  • 1

I use both 2D Pixel Art and 3D Fine art (from both my own models and commercially available ones).

Each serves it's own purpose and neither is superior to the other.

... If you learn a user-friendly 3d software, you can easily create stunning models/landscapes etc. in brusk time. Only to create skilful 2d artwork, you need to exist a true artist.

While I respect your right to your opinion, I e'er take exception to the phrase "true artist" (especially applied in this sort of context) since it marginalizes whole groups of Artists.

Both have True Art Talent to make nice stuff. A True Artist is not defined by the tools chosen to create their works.

  • Cipriux's avatar

    • Joined 27 Feb, 2013
    • 49 topics • 550 posts

  • one

I had the same situation with an 2d artist, not pixel-art but just painted stuff in Photoshop. We wanted to do an isometric game and after he started working on some characters , we came to the conclusion that he had to do not 4x times the work, just nearly 5-six times the corporeality of work for each character (walking cycles from 4 different angles).

The 2nd approach has to make the 3d characters and animations in 3d, paint the UV maps so they look stylished.

I recollect If I wanna make a pixelart game, I will first model the main characters in 3d, and brand the pixelart on top of the rendered animations

curnowenambriat.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.construct.net/en/forum/game-development/game-development-design-ideas-25/pixel-art-style-vs-3d-graphic-130296