Graphicks?

[Ben]

Maybe Pokemon was a bad example. Cave Story, then ?

But they're not good because they're sprite games thats the thing, Pokemon is a good game, this has nothing to do with what it looks like infact they're good DESPITE there graphics. They are in no way an argument that sprites have any advantage.

[Raithah]

Well first of all, I was just listing off examples of games I enjoy. Didn't know this turned into an argument .

But you bring up a great point ! Those sprite-based games would be just as good if done in 3D. The only difference is the style.

[Ben]

Well first of all, I was just listing off examples of games I enjoy. Didn't know this turned into an argument .

But you bring up a great point ! Those sprite-based games would be just as good if done in 3D. The only difference is the style.

Counter, Disega and Pokemon would be BETTER in 3D because as they stand they look like arse.

Seriously wich would you rather watch, a battle from pokemon on Pokemon Pearl or the same battle in Pokemon STadium?

[Raithah]

Neither, I enjoy Pokemon for the engaging storyline !

...

Somehow, that actualy tasted bad on my fingers.

But seriously, Disgaea would be completely screwed up in 3D. It has a cartoony style for a rather surreal game; to capture the same feeling in that extra dimension would need a heck of a lot more work and an insane cell-shading engine.

[pie]

I think Pokemon stadium is pretty crappy looking.

[Agrajag]

A lot depends what you mean by 3D graphics. If you mean N64/PS1 era graphics, then I almost universally would prefer sprites. If you mean PS3/360 level graphics, than 3D is probably superior. 3D animation in video games has now reached a point where it actually looks good.

Also, what kind of graphics used is often an artistic decision. Like Okami could have been rendered realistically (and originally was) but they changed it to a cel-shaded cartoony look for artistic reasons (I'm aware that's still 3D though).

Also you pretty much can't have sprite graphics in any game that has three dimensions. So really they only work well in top-down or side-scrolling games. You couldn't exactly make Mass Effect or Mario Galaxy using sprites without severely limited the range of motion of the characters. On the other hand, I think New Super Mario Bros would have been better looking as an all-sprite game (same with Sonic Rush).

[Ben]

But seriously, Disgaea would be completely screwed up in 3D. It has a cartoony style for a rather surreal game; to capture the same feeling in that extra dimension would need a heck of a lot more work and an insane cell-shading engine.

The problem is that Disgaea is ugly as sin. And I don't mean this in a subjective way were everyone has there own oppinions of things so its impossible to make a judgement call.

I mean it in a way that the new one is being made on a system that can produce graphics like this but looks like this

The game is ugly, its not stylised, its not cartoony, its ugly, its using low poly backgrounds, sprites that wouldn't look out of place on the GBA and if the past games are anything to go by the animation isn't going to exactly be top notch or varied (They don't even sit on there seats in the screen I posted before)

Its just lazy. It looks like arse, it could have beautifully renderd backgrounds, some nice high res sprites (Since they obviously arn't using that many animation frames) in the exact same style and the game would look great.

Imagine how rad it would be if the charecters looked like the art on the box
That isn't out of the realm of possibility for the PS3, just look at the new ingame sprites for street fighter 2. But Disgaea went the easy root, put no effort into it and produced a PS2 game that fits on a widescreen.

A lot depends what you mean by 3D graphics. If you mean N64/PS1 era graphics, then I almost universally would prefer sprites. If you mean PS3/360 level graphics, than 3D is probably superior. 3D animation in video games has now reached a point where it actually looks good.

Take it as a generation thing then, would you prefer to look at battles from Pokemon Blue or Pokemon Stadium 1? Scroll up a bit for were I linked to the blue screenshot cause that game was damm ugly.

[Agrajag]

Take it as a generation thing then, would you prefer to look at battles from Pokemon Blue or Pokemon Stadium 1? Scroll up a bit for were I linked to the blue screenshot cause that game was damm ugly.

Honestly I would rather have Blue's graphics than Stadium. At least sprites look like finished drawings, 95% of N64 games look like a blind guy was making the models, and then stopped halfway through.

[Ben]

Take it as a generation thing then, would you prefer to look at battles from Pokemon Blue or Pokemon Stadium 1? Scroll up a bit for were I linked to the blue screenshot cause that game was damm ugly.

Honestly I would rather have Blue's graphics than Stadium. At least sprites look like finished drawings, 95% of N64 games look like a blind guy was making the models, and then stopped halfway through.

Do you remember what most of those 'from behind' sprites looked like? Half of them I could barley tell what pokemon it was. Pokemon Stadium was damm gorgeous by 64 standards on the other hand.

[Agrajag]

Maybe you're right, but its a completely unfair comparison because at the time there was no way to produce those kind of graphics on a handheld (even the DS can barely make N64-level graphics).

In general my point is that I would rather have polished, finished looking sprites than blocky 3d models.

[Ben]

Maybe you're right, but its a completely unfair comparison because at the time there was no way to produce those kind of graphics on a handheld (even the DS can barely make N64-level graphics).

The same is true of the 3d from that era, it isn't fair to judge them by todays standards.

In general my point is that I would rather have polished, finished looking sprites than blocky 3d models.

See that has nothing to do with sprites vs 3D that has more to do with wanting a well produced game instead of a lazy game.

What really pissed me off about Pokemon Pearl was that, Other pokemon games on the DS looked better then it. Pokemon Pearl was just lazy. It's the same beef I have with Disgeae, I don't care if they want to do it in 2D, I care if the games are lazily produced. Pokemon Is. There are plenty of games on the DS wich out do it with gorgeous sprites, elaborate backgrounds etc. Look at some of the other 2D rpg's comming out on the DS.

Look at Children of Mana it has better looking sprites, way better looking backgrounds, and ran at a smoothe frame rate when there were heaps of monsters and magical effects on screen at once with another person playing as well (Frame rate hitched with more then two people but it was in no way unplayable) Compare that to Pokemon wich came out after CoM and... well yeah, what the fuck were they doing?

[Raithah]

So Ben, you agree that 2D can be done beatifuly, as can 3D ? Awesome.

[Ben]

So Ben, you agree that 2D can be done beatifuly, as can 3D ? Awesome.

I take it you've never clicked on the link in my sig then

My oppinion is that neither are inherntly superior or inferior, the important thing is the overall art direction and the effort and dedication put into any peice.

[Matador]

On the other hand, I think New Super Mario Bros would have been better looking as an all-sprite game (same with Sonic Rush).

The problem with 3d in those game is that they didn't take advantage of the properties of three dimensions. They just used it to make it look prettier, which we would only know if we saw what those game looked like with spites instead. This is the same problem I had with FF3 DS [although that did eventually use it in the environment towards the end]. Zelda for the DS uses 3D much better, even though it doesn't look as good as it might have with sprite characters.

Sprites used in 3D [as in all particle effects] are used when 3D rendering of those effects would look even worse or slow down the processing of other game elements. In that case, it's problem solving. Part of any medium is using an element to solve a problem. Not to use it for the sake of using it. That's one of my problems with every CGI movie that isn't by Pixar [with the exception of cars]. Graphics have to have a reason other than just looking cool. It has to be part of the art direction. An element or tool has to have something superior to an alternative that enhances the experience. That's why I support great looking visuals in Mass Effect even though I don't support them in other games. Not because I'm a fanboy [which I am], but because Bioware is using that approach to create an emotional connection between the player and the game characters. 3D has a lot more to offer than sprites often do for gaming. It's not that sprites games aren't awesome. It's that sprites aren't as flexible as games need them to be.

[Raithah]

How about incredible graphics being used in games such as Crysis ? If run at a high enough quality, camouflage used by enemy soldiers actualy works. Occasionaly you can't even see the guys standing three feet in front of you.