Cost of 2D games versus 3D *

[zed]

Mod : This thread is a spinoff from the XNA Dust game discussion thread.

And I'd imagine an Indie dev could get a lot more done, alot faster if they didn't have to work with 3D art assets.

In fact its the opposite, 2d is quite a bit more time consuming than 3d WRT the art / animations etc

 

[Arwin]

In fact its the opposite, 2d is quite a bit more time consuming than 3d WRT the art / animations etc

No, it isn't. To be sure, there are some things you can achieve faster with 3D, but:
- that's after a lot of training, including in using some very good tools that are not easy to work with and which you simply can't work without
- that requires a lot of work, among which also building a good 3D engine making your game a lot more complex
- it strongly depends on exactly what you're trying to create. Some things are much easier to do in 3D, other things much harder. But what your background is will make a much bigger difference for you.

Of course the ultimate ambition that you're going for also matters. Rendering a complete 3D world with beautiful realtime lighting changes physics and animation, eventually there's no team of artists that can match what you can do with 3D modelling.

But here's a much simpler question - how many people did it take to create Street Fighter II versus how many people did it take to create Street Fighter IV?

 

[zed]

But here's a much simpler question - how many people did it take to create Street Fighter II versus how many people did it take to create Street Fighter IV?

2 different games one a lot better visually than the other, if you asked how many manhours(workhours) it would take to reasonably accurately do SFIV in 2d Ild say anywhere from 2x->10x.
The chief reason most cartoons are done 3d nowadays is due to it being cheaper (less ppl/effort needed)
In fact a lot of the old 2d games(*) were in fact modelled in 3d + then saved as a 2d image.

(*)Im not talking the days of < 16x16pixel sprites they were handpainted but smaller

that's after a lot of training, including in using some very good tools that are not easy to work with and which you simply can't work without

true If youve never used a 3d program before drawing something in 2d is easier but I assume most/all companies hire ppl that can use the tools, be they programmers/artists whatever.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You really think doing simple (even rotoscoped) 2D images and animation is harder than 3D modeling of characters. Then texture mapping them. Then animating them.

Then you have to make the 3D world. Texture map that. Add in pathing, collision detection, more intricate AI, etc.

And the history of computer developement doesn't support the theory that 3D game developement takes less time than 2D game developement. Nor that it takes less resources (in terms of man hours).

For example could 1 person have done Trials HD or even TMNT 3D (the latest XBLA one) in 7 months? Or even a year?

Dust is 1 guy. 7 months so far AND all while he's also presumably working on his film. Heck I can't even think of a single 2D game that had even remotely as many people working on it as KZ2 for example.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You really think doing simple (even rotoscoped) 2D images and animation is harder than 3D modeling of characters. Then texture mapping them. Then animating them.

Example :

You are creating a beautiful anime game.

1) You spend an hour drawing each frame of a character walking, and at 30 FPS need 30 frames for a 1 second walk cycle. That's 30 hours labour.

2) You spend 5 hours modelling a character, another 2 rigging it and animating it, and then the machine renders 30 individual frames in an hour. That's 8 hours time, 7 hours labour.

Therefore 2D art is harder and more expensive.

Another example :

You are creating a simple game based on sitckmen :

1) You spend 5 seconds creating a frame, taking 2 and a half minutes to create a one second walk cycle.

2) You model a character in 3 minutes, and spend 2 hours rigging it and animating it. That's 2 hours work.

Basically, it all depends on what you're creating, the level required of a 2D artist and the amount of animated frames. Creating a single detailed and rigged model may well be more time consuming than creating a fine hand-drawn artwork (although don't underestimate how long that can take!) but once it's rigged, you can create any number of frames with ease. This is why 2d animation is a dying art, because it's more cost effective to set up a scene and have a computer create the frames in a fraction of the time that it takes to have artists painstakingly paint frame after frame.

 

[zed]

Hmmm some ppl are comparing a pure 3d game with a pure 2d game, As should be apparent with my posts Im talking about emulating the 2d look with 3d models (like SFIV or cartoons)

heres a game Im working on at the moment, its a 2d game yet I use 3d models (simply to save time)
to achieve the same effect using sprites would take (conservative estimate) 100x longer

my last game is the same its a 2d game yet uses 3d models (to save time)

a concrete example, with this game dust, now the walking animation looks a bit cockeyed to go and fix that with sprites would require the person to open up each file delete part + redraw it (hours later theyre finished) with a 3d model u could do the same thing within 5minutes

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Which then makes me wonder what's wrong with game studios now days?

Consider that a AAA 2D title never took anywhere near the manpower of a AAA 3D title. KZ2 had upwards of 50 people working on it at various times. And I've heard of some titles using upwards of 100 people. Spread over 3-4 years, that's much more manhours than even a relatively complex 2D title like Diablo II or Fallout 2.

Granted, I'll take a 3D rendered version of something like Diablo II, but some genre's I think are better served with stylistic high res 2D sprites.

And as to Dust, I shudder to think of the generic 3D models he'd have to use and the incredible downgrade in visuals that would result in.

Regards,
SB

 

[Arwin]

Example :

You are creating a beautiful anime game.

1) You spend an hour drawing each frame of a character walking, and at 30 FPS need 30 frames for a 1 second walk cycle. That's 30 hours labour.

Let's not forget though that 2D artists can and know how to use computers too these days.

2) You spend 5 hours modelling a character, another 2 rigging it and animating it, and then the machine renders 30 individual frames in an hour. That's 8 hours time, 7 hours labour.

Therefore 2D art is harder and more expensive.

That sounds completely off. Surely characters like Nariko in Heavenly Sword or the five main characters in Uncharted took months of work each even by just the modelling artist (model shapes, shaders, textures, etc.), let alone the work by the animators / motion capturing (still quite expensive) and so on and so forth.

And that's assuming that you can even achieve the level of the 2D artist, which still isn't always the case.

Of course you're also right in that once you've got a great piece of 3D art, you can do much more with it. This is why 3D is definitely the future, and content creation is going to be easier and easier. But it's still a tonne of work.

I'm sure Laa-Yosh could add some useful information here.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Let's not forget though that 2D artists can and know how to use computers too these days.

'Hand drawn' could well be on computer.

That sounds completely off.

Sure. My random figures are only illustrative. Plus modelling and rigging all depends on model detail and comlpexity. You can take as long or short an amount of time as you want, according to requirements. I could model and rig a subdivision blob character, a sort of primary-school plasticine man, in no time, and render it with AO certainly a lot faster than I could draw an equivalent quality 'photorealistic' picture. Creating an animation would be much, much faster.

There's also the option in 2D to use pieces to assemble a character and animate them individual, like many Flash animations.

Lots of options. It's down to the developers to pick an art-style, have a budget, and make the choices. I don't think any one class of game, 2D or 3D, is inherently cheaper. Take a dead-simple game like Space Invaders. You could spend weeks modelling super-detailed aliens, or painting fabulous artwork aliens. Or just use simple 3D box characters or rough hand-drawn sketches.

 

[zed]

Surely characters like Nariko in Heavenly Sword or the five main characters in Uncharted took months of work each even by just the modelling artist (model shapes, shaders, textures, etc.)

you get months to work on a single character, hmmm perhaps I should get a job modelling

ppl are still not comparing apples to apples, to do something like killzone2 or heavenly sword with sprites will take? (I dont know literally centuries of manhours + wont look as correct as the 3d version (I dont even wanna think about the storage requirements, blu-ray wont be enuf )

>>1) You spend an hour drawing each frame of a character walking
+ then the producer goes, actually I think I like the guy to wear shorts instead of jeans
2d artist, 'wahh!'
30 frames of run, 20frames of walk, 20frames of jump etc, frame by frame have to be changed,
a week later, 'there finished'
producer - 'nah I've changed my mind, give him speedo's'
contrast this with a 3d model, change the base texture once + its all done.

the only time in an apples to apples comparison that 2d will produce work quicker is in a extremely simple game. eg minimal animation + lighting etc

WRT diablo
'i listened to a blizzcast the other day and the lead artist on diablo 3, who also worked on diablo, was saying how much more slugging away and more work there was on diablo 2 because of the 2d factor, rendering out 8 directions for every animation becomes an insanely tedious and long process. so for diablo3 being 3d they have had a lot more freedom and more time to create more content.'

 

[Arwin]

ppl are still not comparing apples to apples, to do something like killzone2 or heavenly sword with sprites will take? (I dont know literally centuries of manhours + wont look as correct as the 3d version (I dont even wanna think about the storage requirements, blu-ray wont be enuf )

snip

WRT diablo
'i listened to a blizzcast the other day and the lead artist on diablo 3, who also worked on diablo, was saying how much more slugging away and more work there was on diablo 2 because of the 2d factor, rendering out 8 directions for every animation becomes an insanely tedious and long process. so for diablo3 being 3d they have had a lot more freedom and more time to create more content.'

Well but is that comparing apples to apples? You'll never hear me say that 2D art is the best way to create a 3D game. I was talking about 2D art for 2D games.

Obviously, Isometric view in a 2D game makes things harder, but Isometric view is already sort of 3D.

Now again, I'm not saying that 2D art creation is the be-all-end-all! That'd be silly! I'm just trying to point to its strengths and what we've lost in the process of embracing 3D.

I think the most exciting innovations in graphics design in games will come through innovations in content creation. I really like the sculpt mode for instance. I could imagine that people get as comfortable with that as actual 2D painting eventually, and I think the future could hold some interesting innovations. I've actually been musing on a new approach to modelling and storing modelling state that may well be a really good new way to do things, and if I can think up something like that (I'll create a new topic for it), I'm sure others can and will.

 

[zed]

Well but is that comparing apples to apples? You'll never hear me say that 2D art is the best way to create a 3D game. I was talking about 2D art for 2D games.

yes sorry that was more aimed at silent budda who was comparing a 3d game vs a 2d one.

coincidently I saw this article today on gamasutra an age of empires postmortem

like I was saying a lot of 2d games actually used 3d models + then converted to 2d sprites

All of the 2D sprites in AoE began life as 3D models. Age of Empires contains 20MB of in-game sprite graphics. Even though all of the displays are 2D, we decided early on that all of the graphics in the game would be taken from 3D models.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24767

another issue to keep in mind is with sprites the games resolution choice is more limited than with polgonal models (whilst retaining the same quality)

hey Im a fan of 2d games, just look at the last 2 or 3 games Ive made.
But what Im doing is embracing the best of both worlds, a bastard child of 2d + 3d if you like.

look at that dust game, unless the protagonist is lame in one leg, then the walking animation is cocked up, If he decides to fix it in 2d its gonna require a *lot* more work than if he had used 3dmodels. Hell for all I know perhaps he did use 3d models!!

 

[Pete]

But here's a much simpler question - how many people did it take to create Street Fighter II versus how many people did it take to create Street Fighter IV?

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare SF4 to BlazBlue or KoF 12?

 

[Colourless]

In the old days things were much more limited as far as memory sizes, resolution and colour depth. Making a sprite for 320x240 with 4 bit colour is a hell of a lot simpler than making a sprite for 1280x720 with 32 bit colour. Since the 90s companies were using 3D rendering (Donkey Kong Country, Ultima 8, Command and Conquer) or clay models (Doom) to automatically generate sprites.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

look at that dust game, unless the protagonist is lame in one leg, then the walking animation is cocked up, If he decides to fix it in 2d its gonna require a *lot* more work than if he had used 3dmodels. Hell for all I know perhaps he did use 3d models!!

Actually if you watch closely both legs are animated for the protagonist in Dust. It's just that the legs are placed in virtually the same locations that it appears to not move. But it does, and looks fine once you realize what's going on.

He's gone for a Japanese animation sorta run/move styles for his leg movements.

Regards,
SB

 

[Iron Tiger]

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare SF4 to BlazBlue or KoF 12?

I was following the development of SSFIIHDR, and they had to have lots of animators drawing the sprite animations concurrently, while in SFIV, they could have had a few people modelling and texturing the characters, and a few people doing the animations. The animations are interchangeable, as evidenced by modders of the PC version. If somebody wanted to have Zangief fighting in Chun Li's style on SSFIIHDR, they'd have to manually redraw all those animations. The way SF gameplay works, they could probably pose to each critical hit position, and tween every frame in between at runtime.

This is not to take anything away from the work done by the SFIV team, because the look of the models, the texture work, and the animation is all top notch, but in my eyes it seems simpler to do. There's no way they would have even attempted to make all those costumes for each character if they had to do it in 2D.

 

[Danalys]

I think the main difference between SFII and IV would be close up detail. Imagine the size of the sprites that would be required just to mimic that in 2d. That's where the cost is.

That's intresting about Doom using clay models.

 

[Nesh]

In the old days things were much more limited as far as memory sizes, resolution and colour depth. Making a sprite for 320x240 with 4 bit colour is a hell of a lot simpler than making a sprite for 1280x720 with 32 bit colour. Since the 90s companies were using 3D rendering (Donkey Kong Country, Ultima 8, Command and Conquer) or clay models (Doom) to automatically generate sprites.

Are you sure they used clay models for Doom? The proportions arent exactly accurate from each angle of the model