Sprites VS Polygons

It depends, but mostly sprites just look better if made correctly. Early 3D looks terrible by comparison and only a few games did it right. They would've looked better in 2D.

File: 1322624336805.gif (82KB, 120x139px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 120x139px

>>3096467
Sprites without question. But I think the bar is higher with sprites, it's harder to make them look amazing.

File: Ni-no-Kuni.jpg (433KB, 1280x645px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1280x645px

>>3096467
Polygons have started to look way better than sprites in my opinion, especially with all the variations that shaders can provide. For instance, see pic.

I still am a sucker for some good pixel art though.

File: hammerfest base.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>3096467
Voxels.

>>3096483
that's a polygon

File: 1459055947275.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>3096571
U WOT M8?

>>3096467
Although polygons gave us a lot of new possibilities gameplay wise I would still love to see more pixel based games. More stuff like King of Fighters 13 than Cave Story or Undertale would be nice even if that takes a lot more effort to create.

Pixel art on 16 and 32 bit machines have aged pretty well especially on the Neo Geo.

>>3096467
ASCII

File: snow-white-rotoscope-movies-o.gif (880KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 300x240px

>>3096571
Rotoscoping is still traditional animation.

>>3096467
depends on whether the sprite artist willing to/capable of animating it smoothly over 60 fps.

20th century 3D was pretty ugly.
I survived the PS1 era by playing 2D games on Saturn.

>>3096483
>rotoscoped animation
>completely non-animated head slapped ontop of it

lol.

They actually shipped that?

>>3096921
It's grating on emulators, but looks ok on crt.

>>3096921
No one is really looking at the faces. Plus, what do you expect from Capcom? I was just happy she wasn't another shoto character.

File: hibiki-dissapointed.gif (27KB, 92x112px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 92x112px

I don't hate 3D by any stretch but something about the SF4 and 5 models just makes me incredibly sad

>>3096467
sprites for 2d and poly for 3d
the only way

>>3096467
Sprites obviously. The only good thing polygons offer is it's easier to do alternate costumes. But sprites are so gorgeous already they don't need other costumes.

>>3096897
>20th century 3D was pretty ugly.
Depends.

>>3096897
>20th century 3D was pretty ugly.
Never understood this opinion.

>>3096897
>I survived the PS1 era by playing 2D games on Saturn.

No you didn't. Your first system was a game cube.

>>3096467
Why not both?

Sprites and quadrilateral polygons are more or less the same thing. That's how the Saturn rendered "polygons".

>>3096467
I'm going to be that one contrarian who says polygons, just so you guys can attack me, you're welcome.

>>3096562
This. We're just now reaching the point where 3D can match the best pixel art. It's the same as the difference between CG and traditional animation. There's some gorgeously animated stuff coming out with CG now that the rendering technology is so good.

3D has long been plagued by aliasing, pop-in, clipping, low resolution textures, rehashed animations and areas, and more, even really good looking ones like Wind Waker and Okami that use style to hide the technical problems have stuff that still looks bad.

SFV is a good example of a game with such detailed models and animation that it actually matches what was possible with 2D animation.

I think 3D models actually have a lot of potential for 2D games but we mostly get cheap looking garbage like Sonic 4 and the iOS ports of FFV and VI.

File: 1459209409087.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

If there was any doubt as to the awfulness of polys see pic

>>3098039
At least Ken's hair looks better

File: 1344064046359.jpg (28KB, 263x265px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 263x265px

>>3096467
I like both.

File: harry.jpg (64KB, 360x510px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 360x510px

>>3098043
oh you

>>3096467
16 bit sprites

>>3097990
>rehashed animations and areas
Isn't that also a problem for some 2D games as well?

>>3098128

I think it's a bit more forgivable when everything has to be drawn by hand

>>3098128
Definitely, but areas in a 2D game really only require one artist, whereas in a 3D game you need a modeler, a texture artist, and then a lot more playtesting to make sure it works properly.

It's easier to copy and paste in 2D, but it's also not hard to get someone to spend a few hours drawing up a new background and then just code the tiles.

Sprites because it's like playing a cartoon.
Polygons, retro polygons, is like playing legos, and I don't play legos bc I am not a flamboyant homosexual.

File: 345.png (133KB, 236x307px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 236x307px

>>3098160
>I don't play legos bc I am not a flamboyant homosexual.
Sure you aren't.

>>3098156
>areas in a 2D game really only require one artist

No, not really. You require a background artist, a designer, and several animators. And some guy who then codes it all in; and by that I mean not just making sure that the game runs the animation, but also converting the animation into such a format that the game engine can use, etc. If your animators didn't draw your stuff directly as pixel sprites that can be used as-is, then you also need some post processing (that can range from a fast file conversion to digitalizing animation cels, depending on how the graphics are created).

Of course you can have 1 guy doing all of it but then he better be a real workhorse. And if he is, then he could create a simple 3d game with the same effort.

And copy pasting is as easy in 3d games as it is in 2d games.

>>3097990
>This. We're just now reaching the point where 3D can match the best pixel art.

Pixel art has been around for 20 years longer, and the hardware behind it evolved for a lot longer time, so obviously it has been looking better for a longer time.

Comparing SFV on current consoles to early 3d titles like Tomb Raider, is like if you'd compare Earthworm Jim 2 on the SNES to Pitfall on the Atari 2600.

>>3098203
I was specifically talking about backgrounds/areas.

>>3098215
Well, yeah. I'm not saying the early 3D OR early 2D are inherently bad. I'm saying up to this point good 2D has looked better because there were essentially no technical limits on what you can do. And 3D is just now getting to the point where the technology is there to render all of that great looking stuff.

Like with traditional animation, so much good has been done already because it's been around for 100 years and keeps getting better and better, but CGI has come a long way in a short time. And pixel art pretty much just builds on traditional art and animation, though there were still big limitations until, ironically, the consoles capable of 3D rendering gave enough processing power and display resolution for 2D to be basically limitless.

I don't think either is superior, but it is more difficult to create assets for 3D and because of that I wish a lot of devs would go back to 2D animation instead of doing ugly and bad 3D. Leave the 3D to the pros.

Sprites up until a certain point.

Duke Nukem 3D would not have looked as good with polygons in 1996.

Crash Bandicoot however would have looked like shit with sprites.

>>3096467
i really like sprites like the ones in KOF13
its a shame the online netcode is absolute garbage

>>3097330
Because they did a mediocre job, you expect a high budget game like that to look good, SFV looks like literally any other game

File: kof-xiii_mai-and-yuri.jpg (93KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x338px

>>3099634
I actually really like the way they look. Overall I think III looks the best still because of my pixel boner, but I do like IV and V. At least they didn't move to a completely different art style like KoF did. That broke my heart.

Retro 3D is awful most of the time but it's all about the design of the gameplay and how the devs want to incorporate 3D into it.

Nintendo and Rare did a great job in the N64, and there are 3D 90's PC games that looked great at the time (I think even doom looks good).
Even PS1 has 3D games that look and play well.

2D is pretty much expected to be good because 2D is older than any of us so any competent dev could make a game that looked fine even on the NES.

So yeah it's all about how good are the devs at making the kind of game they were in charge to make, it doesn't has anything to do with which one is a superior technique.

>>3098553
Did you only play the console version? The one on Steam works flawlessly if you want to do online matches.