There probably isn't a definitive answer, but my first reaction to this question was that 2D sprites would be much quicker to create, since 3D modelling, texturing and rigging and so on looks vastly more complicated. However I noticed a post on the help wanted forum for a project which is using 3D models to create pre-rendered sprites for a 2D game. Is this approach recommended? I suppose it depends on the artist but also on the number of unique animation frames per character. If you have lots of characters that can re-use the same skeleton then the 3D approach starts to look better, particularly for isometric games. Presumably the 3D modelling itself can go a lot faster if you don't have to worry about hi res textures and the poly count so much. I was thinking of creating my own sprites for my game, making reasonable progress on pixel art and know very little about 3D. So I wondering if this is worth pursuing.

Ultimately it depends, not just on the scope of your project, but also on the look you're going for. There are "looks" that you can't easily achieve with 3D models, and other looks that you can't easily do with spriting.

3D models have a large initial investment, as you have to create a complete model and rig it before you can make any animations. However, once it's rigged, making new animations is fairly straightforward, and it's very easy to tweak existing ones.

Sprites, in contrast, have a more or less constant cost per frame of animation. You can rapidly create a few frames, but if you want to have thousands of frames of animation, then you're looking at a lot of work.

If you're more comfortable with pixel art, then go for it. I would suggest, however, that you download Blender (a free, open-source modeling program) and give 3D modeling a shot, just to see if you like it. You should at least make an informed decision. Personally I prefer 3D modeling; I'm just more comfortable there. My drawing skills are not my strong point, though I do make rough sketches before beginning a model.

If you plan on making simple animations than sprites are faster in the long run than 3D modeling. However, if you're making more complex and longer animations 3D models are the best choice. You wont have to redraw each frame and movement like 2D sprites.

Given the information you provided, I would say stick with 2D sprites. Since you say you have very little knowledge of 3D, I wouldn't advise using it for your game.

By isometric I'm assuming moving in 4 diagonal directions. If you mean moving in 8, then spriting is going to take a lot longer. If your character is only moving in 4 diagonal directions, you really only need to draw two of them, and then mirror. (fixing any mirror issues of course)

The time it's going to take for you to learn how to 3d model, rig and animate is going to greatly exceed the time it's going to take you to just draw up the 2D sprites.

There is one trick you can use if you are having difficulty drawing your 2D sprites in certain poses or angles. First just make a simple proxy 3D model of the character. This is just the basics, no sculpted in details or facial feature or anything crazy like that. Just a nude body and head. Then you can rig this fairly quickly and animate/pose it quickly in order to get better reference for your 2D drawings.

For example, a lot of people draw 2D characters at incorrect angles. Many quarter or 3/4th view games use characters seen from a straight on view. Like when you see a game that lets you see the front and top portion of a building, yet only the front portion of the character.

In order to get a true camera view angle of your character, it helps to get that camera angle in a 3D program and use the 3D model as your reference, drawing over it to achieve better results.

Good luck. :)

As someone who has done isometrics both ways (hand drawn and 3d rendered) I emphatically recommend going the rendered 3D approach. Especially if your artistic skills are shaky. In my experience, it is far easier to achieve acceptable results using 3D than it is using hand drawn, and the time spent is significantly less. As an example, this little beauty of an iso tile took me a couple iterations and probably a grand total of 4 hours with a paint program to draw by hand. By comparison, this one only took me maybe an hour and a half in Blender. Granted, at that point I had a month or two of experience with Blender and there was a bit of a learning curve, but once that is out of the way it's no problem.

I will honestly never go back to hand drawing anything. Just my two cents.

Your example is good for your situation... however it's a little different with characters. Also your 3d example looks very 3d... it takes quite a bit of effort to make it look more like a hand drawn sprite and less like a 3d model with some bumpy textures applied to it.

Depending on the look he's going for, this could be a good thing or a bad thing. My job pretty much consists of making 3D stuff look 2D so I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying there are more steps involved. One big factor in getting a more hand drawn thing is to turn down how much light is affecting the surfaces of your 3d model. The more 3d lighting you have on the model, the more 3d it's going to look.

In my opinion, my point is even more valid for characters, considering the relatively greater complexity of drawing organic creatures as opposed to static world objects.

Quote: I was thinking of creating my own sprites for my game, making reasonable progress on pixel art and know very little about 3D. So I wondering if this is worth pursuing.

Since you've already gotten the simpler answers, I'll just throw in some food for thought: Why are you concerned about the art? Presumably you are not an artist, so you should either be a) hiring an artist or b) not worrying about how the art looks.

If A, 3D is most likely the better choice. If B, you should just scribble in some sprites and focus on programming. You can always reskin a game once its done, anyways.

Maybe he wants to make everything himself. That's certainly how I felt about my earlier projects. And these days, it's not so much that I want someone else to do the art, as that I'm willing to accept help from others. It's because I wanted to make everything myself earlier that I now have the skills needed to make acceptable graphics myself.

Thanks for the replies.

I was planning on making everything myself, it's not as though I have a commercial deadline to hit in six months, this is just something I'm doing in my spare time for fun, although having said that I would like to actually finish the game eventually.

So it sounds like 3D could be worth investigating. My game is mostly about battling spell casters so it would be quite cool to have really complex dramatic casting animations, although not essential. On the other hand I'd quite like it to have a more sort of "painterly" style if that's a sensible term, which may or may not be suitable for 3D.

I downloaded Blender anyway and had a good play. Lots of good documentation on the interface and tools, although I'm a bit unclear on how the modelling process actually goes. I quite like sculpt mode.

Quote:

here is one trick you can use if you are having difficulty drawing your 2D sprites in certain poses or angles. First just make a simple proxy 3D model of the character. This is just the basics, no sculpted in details or facial feature or anything crazy like that. Just a nude body and head. Then you can rig this fairly quickly and animate/pose it quickly in order to get better reference for your 2D drawings.

I see what you mean. Has anyone heard of a program called Poser? It's quite expensive but it sort of looks like a sort of digital equivalent of one of those wooden mannequins.