[Once A Villain]

While this question is really about the game I'm currently making, it also pertains to all 2D third-person adventure games. In the case of our game, it is now being made by three people, and the guy who was doing the CG backgrounds is also the guy doing the music and programming. He works a regular job as well, so free time to work on this just isn't his friend right now.

The original style was going to be CG rendered backgrounds with hand drawn characters. It was quite a cool look. However, the guy doing the characters is a good artist all around, and he can do the backgrounds as well in a hand drawn style. Think Curse of Monkey Island or something, but less cartoony. We are thinking of going this route. It helps even out the work load. Team Member 1 does the design doc and all that entails (story, characters, dialogue, puzzles), Team Member 2 does the music and programming, Team Member 3 does all of the art.

So, here's my question, are you guys as interested in that style (which I admit is far more common in indie games and was one of the reasons we were trying to avoid it at first) as you would be with CG backgrounds? Is everything else more important as far as your interest in the overall game? Please let me know...

[MoriartyL]

In principle, I have no preference either way. In specific cases, it just depends on the implementaton. If you've got some brilliant art style combining CG and hand-drawn, then I say go for it. But if you think it's ugly and that hand-drawn will be prettier, I have no problem with that. I just think it should be a decision of quality rather than a decision of management.

[kuze]

^ agreed. Also, it depends on the character of your game. Monkey Island backgrounds in Syberia - I doubt anyone would have liked it. Hand drawn backgrounds in adventure games, they have to look a little cartoonish to be usable for -sigh- pixelhunting. CGs however, have sharp object edges by definition.

[Dasilva]

GC like TLJ would be perfect.

[insane_cobra]

I prefer hand drawn, a lot. CGI is fine as well, but stylized CGI, not photorealistic-aspiring stuff. Of course, you won't have stylized backgrounds and photorealistic characters (unless you're doing Toonstruck ), but I think nowadays 3D is much better suited for realistic styles anyway.

Though I also prefer stylized 3D to photorealistic 3D.

[stuboy]

Could we see some examples of your art style and then we will be in a better position to comment?

[Junkface]

Whichever you can pull off a more interesting visual style with. Like stuboy said, if possible, some examples of what you'd be choosing between would be helpful.

[RLacey]

Agreed with the two previous posts. It's very hard to comment on the effectiveness of the relative styles without a couple of samples.

[Brandon]

As long as the background and the characters look good together, and they don't clash, then it doesn't matter. However, that said, you need a really good CGI artist otherwise CGI can tend to look like... well, crappy CGI. There is way too much crappy CGI out there, stuff with pre-packaged textures, bad composition and lighting, poor modelling, etc.

[Crapstorm]

A truly talented artist can express his imagination far more beautifully with a pen or paintbrush than with 3D computer-generated image software. If you look at the concept art for games like Paradise and Return to Mysterious Island as compared to the actual game images, the concept art (although less colorful) always has superior artistic quality.

It's a lot more work to create a game entirely by hand-drawn artwork, but the potential for artistic excellence is limitless. CG images can look pretty, but there is something intrinsically bland and mechanical about them.

[Tobbe]

I prefer handdrawn, it ives the game so much more personality, sure, you can draw/computerize graphics, but it isn´t the same..

[Ninth]

Who cares? Myst 4 is gorgeous, but Cahallan's Crosstime Saloon is also gorgeous. I say: go for which allows you to express your style and originality in the best way.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Crapstorm

A truly talented artist can express his imagination far more beautifully with a pen or paintbrush than with 3D computer-generated image software. If you look at the concept art for games like Paradise and Return to Mysterious Island as compared to the actual game images, the concept art (although less colorful) always has superior artistic quality.

Er, no. Computer is just a tool, 3D modelling and texturing software is just a tool, pen is just a tool, paintbrush is just a tool. No method is inherently superior to any other. It might be easier and faster to sketch things on a piece of paper (though animating that sketch by hand is usually harder and more time-consuming than doing it on a computer - and don't forget that software is constantly evolving, becoming more powerful and/or easier to use), but with proper dedication and right selection of software, you can create almost anything.

[the gnome]

Insane_cobra is quite right. Well, not quite, absolutely. The real problem has to do with tools/materials being more important than artistic ability/vision, as seems to be the trend in the mainstream video-game industry (community?)

[Crapstorm]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Er, no. Computer is just a tool, 3D modelling and texturing software is just a tool, pen is just a tool, paintbrush is just a tool. No method is inherently superior to any other.

Actually, the opinion I put forward is that the pen and paintbrush ARE superior to the digital tools. Not all tools are equal. I defy you to find a CGI piece that rivals the artistry of, say, a Norman Rockwell painting.

[insane_cobra]

I could show you millions or I could show you none, "artistry" is not exactly an objectively measurable category. Besides, almost everything can be replicated or aproximated in digital form.

Likewise, pen and paintbrush are superior to digital tools only in your mind. They are different tools with unique strenghts and weaknesses and claiming one to be inherently better than the other is nothing but snobbery.

[Crapstorm]

Yep. We're dealing with opinions here. Subjective tastes. Shall we shut down the discussion in case a conflict arises?

[Brandon]

I think that we're straying from the original point. I believe "CG backgrounds" implied 3D-generated CG backgrounds, while "hand drawn backgrounds" implied non-3D-generated backgrounds, whether they are drawn on paper or drawn in Photoshop with a tablet.

Both styles are very different. I would argue that, while 3D-generated CG backgrounds can look very good, it would take a ridiculous amount of talent and time to make a CG background look like a hand-drawn background. And vice versa. It would be kind of pointless as well.

And so, no matter how good your CG is, it remains a recognizeable style. Unless you move into the realm of cell shading, wherein your 3D-generated backgrounds appear cartoon-like and all bets are off.

Let me try to get to a point though. Monkey Island 4 wouldn't be the same if the backgrounds were hand drawn. I wouldn't want MI4 to have hand drawn backgrounds. Gabriel Knight 1 wouldn't be the same if the backgrounds were 3D-generated. And I wouldn't want it to have 3D-generated backgrounds.

The look of your backgrounds and ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, how you are creating your characters and how they will look against the backgrounds, should be determined by the overall mood you want to create with your game. If you're going for an ultra-realistic, precise look (Myst), especially with complicated architecture, 3D backgrounds work well. If you're going for a stylized, cartoonish look (MI4), 3D backgrounds work well. If you're going for a very organic, fantasy or genre look, hand drawn backgrounds CAN look better. But hey, 3D backgrounds can work good as well.

The game creator needs to have an artistic vision, and determine what tools will enable them to see that vision through.

Yeah, basically I don't think I really added anything to the discussion here. I just rambled and re-phrased things that have already been said. But basically, I see it as a non-argument. Both have merits for different kinds and styles of games, and I enjoy both.

Oh, yeah...

Actually, the opinion I put forward is that the pen and paintbrush ARE superior to the digital tools. Not all tools are equal. I defy you to find a CGI piece that rivals the artistry of, say, a Norman Rockwell painting.

If you're saying "CGI piece" as anything made in the computer, for example using a tablet counts, then I disagree. If you're saying "CGI piece" to mean 3D-generated, then I agree... BUT, if you're using the term in that way, then you're also comparing apples to oranges, which is silly.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Brandon

If you're saying "CGI piece" as anything made in the computer, for example using a tablet counts, then I disagree. If you're saying "CGI piece" to mean 3D-generated, then I agree...

I wouldn't say that. Maybe it hasn't been done before (though Clover is certainly doing some amazing stuff with Okami, for instance), but it doesn't mean it can't be done. It reminds me of what Scott McCloud says in the first pages of Understanding Comics:

Originally Posted by Scott McCloud

Sure, I realized that comic books were usually crude, poorly-drawn, semiliterate, cheap, disposable kiddie fare -- but -- they don't have to be!

It's the same with CGI art, even real-time CGI art. The only thing is, programmers are just as important as artists in that case, ie. they're artists, too.

[GoT]

Do u think we'll get to see some art from the topic starter? because im interested to see what they're working on. its a massive thing to make a game so noones should be taken lightly... lets have a look friend, what have you got to show us?