The graphics creation test showed that hand-drawn game sprites have a personal note but need much more time then making and rendering 3D models. The initial effort for modeling 3D stuff is higher than drawing equal sprites. The (semi-)automatability of lightning, rotation and scaling outweigh this flaw and make 3D-modeling/2D-rendering the weapon of choice.

I'm still searching for a unique look for Nordenfelt. So I went on experimenting with different 2D styles. Crucial points are:

  • uniqueness
  • eye candy
  • must fit Steampunk style
  • automated image conversion

Most interesting in this list is the automated image conversion. Why is it important? The answer is simple: 

Automate repetitive tasks to become faster.

There will be dozens of sprites in the game. Making their 3D models is bound to individual design, no automation possible. Applying the same graphic style to each of them is boring and time consuming. So I'm heading for teaching my CPU slave how to transform plain 3D renderings into something more fancy.

These are the results from the experiments so far. The first image is the original rendering as seen in the last post:

 

Version 1 Version 2

Version 3 Version 4

Version 5 Version 6

Version 7 Version 8

 

It would be great if you could give me some feedback which one you like / don't like.

 

Cheers,
Thomas

 

Comments  

 
#1 2010-04-16 00:11
I like version 3 best. Although I think version 5 might look better when scaled down to actual game size.
Quote
 
 
#2 2010-04-16 13:02
Quoting Paul:
I like version 3 best. Although I think version 5 might look better when scaled down to actual game size.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I will try some of the graphic styles in the upcoming demo. Animation, rotation and interaction with other objects and the environment will show which style works best.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh