Notgames Forum

This is related to the old Retro styles & immersion (axcho ) thread http://notgames.org/forum/index.php?topic=44.0 (http://notgames.org/forum/index.php?topic=44.0) but I didn't want to dig up an old topic so I made a new one. Check this out:

http://www.effectgames.com/demos/canvascycle/?sound=1 (http://www.effectgames.com/demos/canvascycle/?sound=1) (I'd recommend Google Chrome or Firefox 3.8.6 - don't even try with IE).

Personally, I think Myst, for example, would have been far more beautiful and impressive if it had used art like this than cheesy Bryce-esque 3d stills. Specifically take a peek at "Island Fires - Dusk" and "Magic Marsh Cave" for a hint of what a Myst game could have looked like with 8-bit graphics. I'd call this stuff immersive. It's certainly gorgeous.

I actually had similar ideas popping up in my head when I first saw this a couple weeks back, how immersive they are and how they feel just like scenes from some unfinished adventure game. Some of these images are absolutely stunning, and it's even more impressive when you consider the technique.

I think one thing that makes these so cool is that they are pretty much animated paintings. I wonder if it's possible to get that painterly feeling into a 3d-environment...

Technically it's not all that difficult to replicate in 3D, but it simply won't feel the same as soon as you start moving the camera.

Interesting that you use the term "painterly". To me this technique / aesthetic embodies the exact opposite .. apart from a distant resemblance to Pointillism :P

I think it is painterly in the sense that they create immersive landscapes. And the reason wy they are so succesful is, I think, that they're not trying to do anything else. The colours, the compositions, the animations, the sounds, all contribute to this one thing: immersing you in the scene. The "mistake" that Myst made was to add gameplay to this. By doing that the focus of the experience got diffused. You were basically distracted from enjoying the environment by the puzzles and the mysterious story. Sometimes minimalism in form is the shortest route to maximalism in impact.

I think the same effect can be achieved through any technology. Fully normal-mapped real-time 3D as well as static 8-bit 2D. It's a matter of art direction. With one caveat: we have a lot more experience with animated 2D images than we have with living worlds. This is why it may be more difficult in 3D. Not because the technology forbids it.

Wow. :o Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention - I've never seen anything quite like this before, and I really want to see this sort of style as part of an interactive world...

Why do you want that? A 3d environment, that is.

::)

You quoted from the wrong person, Utforska was the one wondering ..

Even though I favor 2D games, there are reasons to do 3D. You can convey scale much more effectively in 3D. Take Shadow of the Colossus for example.

This pixel art isn't incompatible with 3D. I mean, the scenes depicted are more 3D than 2D. They are just rendered in a pixel art way. There might be a way to render a 3D scene with pixel art like that and still have it be fully 3D.

It's the difference between creating a world and creating a picture of that world. Realtime 3D brings a completely different -and new- level of aesthetics. I'm sick of people downplaying its revolutionary importance as if it were a mere technical gimmick. 2D Graphics are nice. But realtime 3D is huge, is revolutionary. It's not because it's difficult technically and artistically, that independent developers have the right to look down on it. At this point, developing in realtime 3D may seem too complex and expensive to really treat it in a "punk" sort of way. But that doesn't mean realtime 3D equals "glam rock". Don't underestimate it. And, perhaps more importantly: don't dare to contribute to the annihilation of what's probably the most important artistic technology ever. There was cave painting, then there was oil on canvas, then printing and then realtime 3D. Art history in the making. Rejecting it is a crime to humanity.

Indeed. All you need is a clever shader.

Given that all our current output media are 2D (even stereoscopy is a sort of 2D), any representation of a 3D world is, in fact, pixel art.

Exactly! :D

It's about the underlying logic / calculations, not the ( limitations of the ) output device.

Other people have already answered this very well.

What I dislike with most 3d, the way it looks today, is that the presentation of the world is very objective. 3d rendering is almost always about pure math - you're computing how a certain 3d model would look from a certain angle. A painting is usually a subjective presentation of a scene.

If you make a painting, who cares about whether you got lights and shadows mathematically correct? It's about the mood and atmosphere, not the accuracy. Celshading is an example of how you can ignore the mathematical accuracy and go for beautiful results - there should be more ways to do it, to emulate paintings or completely new graphical styles.

Cell shading is just as mathematically accurate as the default pipeline ;) But I know what you mean .. instead of a accurate representation of our physical world, processing it in a way a painter does can add allot of charm & identity.

Not that realism can't be nice.

(http://www.leepricestudio.com/images/painting01.jpg)

Self Portrait in Tub with Chinese Food
Oil on Linen, 44” x 44”

Yeah I realized right after posting that "mathematical" wasn't the right word at all. "Physical" maybe.

I don't believe it has to be. I know we're trying to find a subjective way of using realtime 3D.

Would you say the same about photography?
In my mind, computer-based 3D is situated somewhere between photography and painting: it can render things realistically, but all its material is synthetic.

There's something very nice about realism, though, I think. Because we, the viewers, are real. And we connect to other real things very naturally. This is especially true for simulation of materials. Something oil painting can be very good at, maybe even better than photography.

Stop looking, it's called deferred rendering :)

For those that are not familiar .. it's basically a two-step render approach. Imagine Dali / Klimt / Kandinsky sitting outside in a field. First you render the actual ( "real" ) scene that they see around them, then you use that data to render what a painting of that scene would look like using their specific aesthetic / technique.

I am not "Dali / Klimt / Kandinsky".
Therefore "subjective" for me cannot be in their style. :)
I'm talking hand-work! Massaging the machine.

You're welcome to swap any of those names with your own ;)