• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

137 Neutral

About PBnFlash

  • Rank
  1. 3D models vs 2D sprites: what's more expensive?

    It really comes down to the game, but 2d tends to have pretty linear costs for quantity, and exponential cost for quality, and you can see what you're getting pretty quickly.    3D stuff you really need to put a lot of work into modeling, texturing, rigging, etc before you start really "seeing" it. However once you have a nice rig, even with a bad animator, your screen shots will still look nice. I'm not going to say 3D animation is easier, but after a certain point it definitely is faster.    Basically, you get what you pay for, and that goes double for 2D animation.    On most small projects, 2D assets will probably be cheaper. 
  2. How does the perspective work on those sprites?

    All 2d games need to cheat perspective some cheat quite a lot. How thick is the wall between the swordsman and the wizard? Where is the vanishing point in this scene?   Why doesn't a 3/4 run look weird? Well it kinda does. You really can't make a scene consistent and scroll. So you need to use tricks to keep the weirdness to a minimum.        Basically it's nether the sprites are made independent of the scene some have all their animations at 3/4 angle, some don't.   Do an image search for "sprite sheet" and see the ways people approach the problem. 
  3. How does the perspective work on those sprites?

    It's really common to cheat a little and get characters to face the camera a bit.  http://waveengine.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/timspritesheet.png   You see it all over the place, it's much easier to read a face in at 3/4 than in profile.  http://s3.amazonaws.com/hypertextopia/public/uploads/13355/two20business20men20are20standing20outside20talking20uid2013.jpg   Real people face each other when they're talking, but actors are taught to face a little out towards the camera or audience.    I'm sure many games switch to a proper profile during movement animations, but almost all of them face the character to camera a bit during idle animations. 
  4. Character Design without bilateral symmetry

    If you're planning on taking biological inspiration, it's worth noticing that star fish eyes are just barely better than light dark sensors. And they don't have Radial symmetry for redundancy, in nature redundant systems are a rarity. Starfish regrow limbs if they loose them, and they're almost blind anyways and move mostly by smell so loosing an eye or a leg really doesn't slow them down much.     I suspect 5 limbs feels right to you because, if you blur your eyes a little humans kinda sorta look like they have 5 fold symmetry. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Patrick_Star.png   I think 5 fold symmetry on something simple like that kinda is falling back on the bilateral human like creatures. 
  5. Character Design without bilateral symmetry

    I don't think there is any lack of ideas that break the mold with body shapes. I think the big problems are more along the lines of, mocap or prosthetics are really hard, and bilateral symmetry is one of the quickest ways to judge attractiveness. So you make a creature that breaks bilateral symmetry, it costs a lot more, has an unconvincing gait, is hard to do well at all, and people have an instant dislike of it. That said, SciFi books don't have any of the drawbacks so I recommend looking up fan art for popular SciFi books if you want really off the wall aliens. For example The commonwealth saga has aliens that have radial symmetry. http://www.spore.com/static/image/500/046/707/500046707235_lrg.png Although some artists fall back onto old habits. http://www.nigredostudios.com/images/highRes_0013_immotile_art.jpg http://dreamworlds.ru/uploads/posts/2010-03/1268567022_concept__elder_thing_by_king_rastel.jpg Asomov I'm sure had some good ones, I'm trying to think of any fantasy stuff that goes in that direction and I can't really think of anything. Lots of classic sci fi. Probably the best example of someone breaking symmetry is the Mote in god's eye, that creates a literal asymmetric zoo. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hn4FylFsFEg/T2X3aEYQKWI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/1XuQAgPqM_o/s640/Motie+Engineer+Rogan+Hazard+character+design+.jpg http://th08.deviantart.net/fs36/PRE/f/2008/288/3/6/brown_by_SebasP.jpg http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/crustgroup/21152339/224980/224980_original.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3340/3226893114_9be98cf101_z.jpg But again, the more appealing ones are closer to the ones closer to symmetric. http://aramink.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/motie.png (yikes) Uh, real creatures http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/files/2008/11/fiddler-crap-600.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-itH6HjTlUTA/TWW9g7y6YSI/AAAAAAAABC0/AQ2wMzxYjBo/s320/flounder-600.jpg http://dj003.k12.sd.us/images/sponge_haliclona_bay2k.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k6eeB1_t1Wc/SfZ766qtCJI/AAAAAAAAAV4/g15GfTnsvZE/s400/pistol+shrimp.jpg http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf138/p138p02.gif http://s190.photobucket.com/user/americanwildlife/media/Mammal/Z-freeartlicence-narwhal.jpg.html Oh wikipedia, looks like I got most of the big ones, but some cool birds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_featuring_external_asymmetry Then you've got the wonderful world of creepy mutations.