Is there any advantage to doing 2D sprites for a 2D game the 'old fashioned' way? I'm talking about drawing each frame of the animation by hand (well, not exactly by hand; with some sort of bitmap graphics program) and then assembling them vs. creating a 3D model of the sprite, moving it a little each frame (stop motion) and exporting each frame as a bitmap. I imagine the 3D method is much easier, but will I be able to get the same level of quality and detail with it? If not, would you say the time and effort saved using the 3D method makes up for it? Thanks.

Doing your models the 'old-fashioned' way can give you some finer control over the pixels of your final image.

However, making your sprites by first creating a 3d model has many advantages, once the initial model is completed (which can take quite a lot of time if you're inexperienced). Making changes to a 3d model will be much easier than trying to make the same change to a 2d sprite. Changing the texture of a model is very quick, and making adjustments to the animation can be very simple.

Of course, there aren't any reasons you can't combine the methods. A basic model could be put together with a modelling program, rendered in the various positions, and then saved to an image file. Later, you can make changes to the image with some paint program.

I would say 2d would be easier. I guess it depends on quality of the sprites and how complex your animations are. If you are doing something like a 2d rts, then I would say 3d would be better, but if its just a side-scroller then no way.

The only advantage I see is making them have the "2d" look. Pixel art is a completely different beast than rendered art. If done correctly, it can look very, very good.

Basically, if you have the time and talent, strictly 2D work can look awesome.

Quote:

Original post by Boder Basically, if you have the time and talent, strictly 2D work can look awesome.

For example: Pixel Dragon Tutorial