That looks nice for fanwork, but the level of detail is clearly lower and the low poly count would animate poorly compared to the originals. It has much lower detail than 3D models found in professional games, too, and I don’t know how much time it took him to make it. Something like that wouldn’t have made as much of an impression as Skullgirl’s hand drawn animations.
SNKP paid their spriters something like 2000 dollars per month IIRC. 16 months = $32000 for the best looking sprites ever. Even counting the 3D models (which IIRC were mostly used for proportion / perspective reference rather than animation) and other related work, the total costs are much lower than top 3D graphics. Even something like Capcom’s latest 3D fighters (which aren’t exactly the most advanced models out there) require large teams and money investments. The characters in SFIV costed between 1 and 2 million dollars. That isn’t something a small studio can afford. Really, if it was better for SNKP to do 3D they would. But seeing how all their 3D games looked quite bad and tanked miserably, going 2D was a good decision for them IMO.
tl;dr: yes, 3D can be cheaper than 2D, but it only makes sense if you can afford to get top 3D models, which isn’t something a small studio can do.
TIME = MONEY. 3D SAVES TIME. YOU PAY PEOPLE LESS BECAUSE THEY WORK LESS AND DO THINGS FASTER.
What. Is. So. Hard. To. Understand.
Skullgirls could save $30,000 PER CHARACTER if they used 3D. HOW IS THIS NOT TALKING ABOUT COST?
It’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about. You haven’t given a single example to prove your point, and despite interviews from ACTUAL developers saying 3D is cheaper, and me telling you how animation works, you still don’t believe me. The person who needs to give up is me, not you.
I think the point is that, with the budget the Skullgirls guys were working with, they would get mediocre/poor 3D. Instead, they got some of the best 2D graphics out there, which can give the game more exposure. I doubt anyone can make a great looking 3D game with ~2 million dollars.
I definitely agree with what your saying. I’m talking on a logistical level, in which case 3D is definitely the faster, easier choice. Whether the studio feels they can match their creative vision in 3D is something else.
To be fair, there are great looking games done with relatively low-poly and simplistic models. Wind Waker, for one.
There’s no argument that Skullgirls was best suited for 2D. But it was always planned that way. If you told the team on day one it’d be a 3D game, I’m sure they would have planned accordingly, and I’m sure in the end it’d be cheaper to produce than the game that we have now. But now we’re talking in rhetoricals. =/
And in terms of other fighting games, there are the Fate/Stay Night fighters found in arcades. They don’t look great, but they use 3D for a reason. It’s obvious they’re lower budget games. There are also a bunch of low-end anime fighting games for PSP. The fact that a low budget game would prefer to use 3D over 2D is indicative of the work required for 2D. If 2D is cheaper then they definitely would have done that instead.
Street Fighter IV is a 2D game with 2D hitboxes. The time saved using 3D to model characters is immense, compared to a game like Crysis where 3D is incredibly time consuming due to the nature of the game and the way the player interacts with the environment and has to see things from all angles.
Unlike you, he’s brought up some valid points, and I can see where he’s coming from.
You just latch onto whoever might be supporting your argument in some vague-ass way, and then suddenly go silent when presented with information.
You just keep mentioning SFIV. CAPCOM dwarfs the Skullgirls team. You have to see how much it would cost for CAPCOM to make a 2D game. You don’t compare someone on newgrounds and his cost to Pixar and then try to extrapolate what would be cheaper. Project scale isn’t even the same.
Skullgirls chose 2D and it works best for their budget and vision. If their vision was 3D from the onset, it’d probably be a different game to begin with, and would still be cheaper to produce in the long run.
There’s also the factor that the public view generally regards 2D as outdated, so many developers choose to go with low quality 3D (like Raizing with Unlimited Codes) rather than with higher quality 2D. But I don’t think any of those games have made a lasting impression like SNKP’s and Arc’s efforts. Even Melty Blood, which has reused low resolution sprites for years, has achieved significant success over there.
Another thing that maybe we should take into account is what the companies are used to make. Arc and SNKP have a history of high quality 2D, whereas a developer like Raizing hasn’t made anything 2D in a long time. They would have to hire extra people to do the 2D, which would be counter-productive for them, and that’s maybe a reason why they went 3D.
How is cost of workflow, manhours, and salaries irrelevant? Please, enlighten me. Ease of process has EVERYTHING to do with cost. Hard things cost money to do. Do you have a job? Do you work? Have you ever seen a project cost MORE because it could be done QUICKER and EASIER? Are we seriously having this conversation?!
Arcsys and SNK do NOT have small budgets either, and they’re smaller companies than Capcom, who throws a shit ton of money at WHATEVER their making. It has a 40 million dollar budget because it’s STREET FIGHTER.
I’d agree with that, but most anime fans prefer animated 2D art because it better matches the source material. 3D here I feel is more out of necessity than aesthetics. Arcana Heart, Aquapazza, and Under-night Inbirth are head and shoulders above Fate, and they went 2D, I’m sure for aesthetic reasons more than anything else.
bchan09, do you see how you keep shifting the arguments to justify the high cost in 3d?
Better yet, do you not think that Namco’s or Tecmo’s 3D fighter’s initially required bigger budgets than a SNK or ArcSys 2d fighter?
Now I do know there are benefits in the animations being reused in sequels for Namco’s and Tecmo’s sequels, but even with that; I still think they are more expensive to produce than any SNK or ArcSys 2D fighter sequel.
Although I wish we had actual numbers so we can compare.
And if SFIV or Skullgirls were aiming to be hyperrealistic 3D fighters I’d agree with you.
But they’re not.
SFIV and Skullgirls have a simplified cartoony style. The stages have zero player interaction and can only be viewed from one side. They are 2D fighters that happen to use models for sprites. The reason Tekken has higher costs is because it’s in true 3D, and is aiming to be super realistic.
Remember this thread is about SKULLGIRLS and my point is all about TRADITIONAL 2D FIGHTERS. Not the same thing.
The cost of doing Skullgirls in 3D is no Tekken. There will be no hyperrealistic textures. There will be no super high end cloth and hair effects. There will be no intense blur and HDR lighting. This is not Crysis. The art style and type of game it is means that this particular game will be cheaper. You’re comparing a game designed to be a 3d showcase with a game that just happens to be using 3d.
I didn’t say 3D in general was cheaper. Something like Crysis will always be more expensive than Blazblue. I’m not necessarily arguing with that. I’m saying 3D SKULLGIRLS is cheaper. 3D 2D FIGHTERS are cheaper. ESPECIALLY ones with a design and art style like this one.
And just for kicks, think of how many moves each character has in Tekken. Now imagine trying to make HD spritesheets out of that. For every character. Every game. Including every balance and tweak. I don’t think it’s even feasible to begin with. The time cost of tweaking and doing all that in 2D is ridiculous. The fact that it’s a 3D fighter is probably the ONLY reason why Tekken has as many moves as it does.
Apparently this ease of process of high quality 3d isn’t as cost effective as high quality 2D, despite it’s other benefits.
Everything else you said were logical fallacies. However I’ll entertain you. I’m a Senior I.T. Recruiter that recruits Mid level to Senior level IT Professionals for Fortune 500 corporations, and mid size companies. I deal on a regular basis with the hiring and maintenance of full time, permanent employees as well as contractors,but that’s neither here nor there. It should be pretty obvious that 3D requires more IT proficient individuals that are paid more than any number of hand drawn animators that are notoriously paid low wages.
3d SF, sure. 3d KOF, sure. But 3D SG, not so much. Maybe parasoul would be cheaper because everything about her remains the same, but how would you even begin to deal with all the rubber band that goes on with Samson, double, etc. if you were using 3d?
I understand your point, but SG is probably the worst game you could pick to try and make it.
If you’re thinking 2D animation = low paid wages and 3D animation = highly trained tech people, then I can see why you’d think the way you do.
But that’s not really the case. A trained 2D animator can be paid just as much as a trained 3D one. You can outsource 3D animators to a sweatshop just like you can outsource a 2D one. The skillset is actually very similar. 2D vs 3D can’t be calculated if you’re going through this line of thought.
However, 2D DOES almost always require MORE people than 3D. This is where my cost argument comes in.
It all comes down to what assets you have to create and what you’re setting out to do visually.
I’ll use Guile as an example.
Street Fighter has 6 normal moves + 6 jumping moves + 6 crouching moves + 3 flash kick + 3 sonic boom + all his movement (9 animations) + 2 blocking
We’ll leave ultras out for now.
So that’s roughly 35 animations.
35 animations are much faster with a rigged 3d model than doing it all by hand in 2D. One person can do all these animations by himself faster than several people doing it in 2D.
Notice how many moves there are. Each move may have multiple punches and kicks within. And that’s not counting the TONS of movement animations. The reason this can be done at all is because they’re using 3D. 2D would be ridiculous, and Tekken has over 40 characters.
So speaking on FIGHTING GAMES ONLY, yes. Animation costs alone will save you a boatload of money by going with 3D.
I’ll agree. But if the knew they were going 3D it probably wouldn’t be designed the same way it is now. Squash and stretch in the characters is the advantage of 2D, and the reason why they’re willing to suck up the cost to do it this way.
Bchan009, I already know and fully understand what you’re saying and even agree to most of it. At the end of the day, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the cost. However you do make a good point about the art style being used.
I’m pretty certain Mortal Kombat 9 was made on a huge budget as well. Now they obviously went for a more realistic use of textures since realism has been their style from the outset.
I will say that bchan009 has actually provided evidence to back his claims. He’s linked actual interviews, time stamped quotes, and referenced people in the animation field. lightskinswin, you’re enlargements have involved trying to compare costs for companies that are grossly different in size and scope and your latest argument boiled down to " I work in a field totally unrelated to animation, I’ve made the assumption that 3D animators are more computer proficient and paid much more than 2D animators are."
The level of debate hasn’t even been close.
Edit: Is everything suddenly center justified for everyone else?