Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
DF Oliver

Programming Update #4: Animating the Jack

Recommended Posts

All of us on the project love and have the greatest respect for the old Lucas Arts Adventure game animation. It’s is so expressive, sometimes outrageous and really fun to watch, but it may not be what will fit with the current art direction that DFA is going in.

This is a fair point, and for what it's worth I absolutely love what I've seen of the art direction so far. It's really not hung up on the LucasArts thing, and it's why I bring up people like Aleksandr Petrov who have a very painterly style, at the expense of a fluid frame rate and achieve beautiful results. All decisions have to stem from the overall art direction, which is very strong in this case.

I appreciate the links to examples that people put up. I had even watched some of those videos when doing research for this game. As you see the evolving direction that we are going please put up more links to work that you feel would inspire and add to the conversation. Great work backers!

I've seen 3D animation that is done to look like stop-motion animation, with less fluid movement without all the tweening (Telltale's Wallace and Grommit did this a little bit, to use a gaming example). I wonder if applying some of the same principles here might help avoid that super smooth movement that gives the impression of a flash cartoon might address some of the issues of people like myself and others who don't like that look.

Has that sort of compromise been discussed, Raymond? I'm interested to know what some of the alternatives were.

I actually have had this discussion with Oliver about dropping the frame rate down and seeing what look it gives us. We will try it at some point and we'll try to post the results when we do it. We just want to make sure it improves the look and doesn't take away from anything. There will also be a lot more animation on the polished version so that the program wouldn't be choosing how to interpolate between frames, but the animator will make that choice. That will help it feel like human hands have touched it and not a soulless machine. :)

Thanks for the updates Ray! I know its not nice showing work when its still rough but the insight is really appreciated. Keep up the great work, really cant wait to see more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of my problem here is that Bagel's style has some dimensionality and depth to it, it's a very painterly style. But cutout animation has the effect of instantly flattening these images and making characters look like paper dolls. I wonder if there's a way to address that. Maybe establish some sort of shadowing or depth between layers or something.

Just thinking out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think part of my problem here is that Bagel's style has some dimensionality and depth to it, it's a very painterly style. But cutout animation as the effect of instantly flattening these images and making characters look like paper dolls. I wonder if there's a way to address that.

Well, they're already doing it to some extent with the rim lighting and other lighting effects which aren't present on this animation test. That really is something that we won't be able to properly tell until we actually see proper character art for the game, but I'm sure it's on their mind considering how much work they've done so far on figuring ways for integrating the character with the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Oliver. Really loving these programming updates. Lots of interesting stuff. Do you have a Twitter account? :P

Cheers

C

Thanks dude.

I don't have a twitter account right now. Should I get one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say that you absolutely CAN do stretchy frames with a skeleton in Maya... so you know. Some people think that you are hard limited by the skeleton... you can do squash and stretch and everything in between.

In fact... here's an absolutely wonderful example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do actually wonder whether the framerate itself is having an effect on some people's perception of the art. Could it be that actually it's the smoothness that is some of the reason some people think it looks cheap, and just by halving the number of frames it could be technically worse quality (temporal-resolution-wise) but seem somehow 'better'. This has precedent, such as what I was talking about earlier, where people thought the higher framerate of The Hobbit movie made it look cheap (probably from its association with low-budget TV which actually uses higher framerates than film). Maybe something similar is happening with smooth tweening being associated with flash animation... *shrug*

This is quite interesting I think. But really I don't think it has to do with the actual frame rate, more the quality of motion blur. Also in 2D you can compensate for lack of motion blur by producing stretch frames and this can help you make a smooth move that doesn't feel strobey without using too many frames. High frame rate is great for sports where you might want to slow down and clearly see what happens with fore instants a ball, but in terms of film it doesn't help much. its a great thing when you want to key out a green screen because of a significant reduction in motion blur as well. And it is also great when watching stereoscopic with shutter glasses, because of the alternation and too low frame rate will make you notice the flickering.

I don't know if it is the frame rate that makes things feel cheep or if it is the projection, but I'm used to watch film at 1080p24fps on a plasma and whenever I watch a film at a friends LED/LCD it looks instantly cheaper, even on more expensive TVs. I don't know if this is due to the extra frame emulation or the reduction in contrast, but games look fine on LCDs for some reason. It might also be due to the fact that it is upscaling the 24 fps movies that have motion blur and by that reducing the quality of the blur. Games don't have that much blur in them, because they don't need to. (not talking DOF)

Day of the Tentacle is a great example of that you don't need to animate at a high framerate in order to achieve dynamic movement. However there are some areas that could have benefited by higher framerates in that game, for instants in the beginning when they are in the Chrono John and the background is basically only rotating, but because of the low frame rate it kind of feels more blinky than rotating. In a modern game I would have expected the rotating background to have a higher framerate, but the characters can still be animated on 2s or 4s or what ever. so the game engines actual framerate shouldn't be reduced in my opinion, but enabling splines will make it harder because if the game were to render a frame that hasn't been supervised the rig might break or something like that. It can of course be baked down to a key on every single frame at 30fps and then put to linear or stepped. But I feel that as long as timing is right you don't need all the frames to make movement feel legit.

Flash animation might feel cheap in the cases where it's pretty much cutouts or bending lines, but I have seen well done flash animation as well, the problem is only that some inexperienced animators tend to ignore fundamental rules of weight and dynamics, that's usually what makes animation look cheep, not the amount of fps.

There is also a thing with budget of course, because like Ray said, the Lucas Arts style is expensive especially if you want 30 fps, it's got a lot to do with how much time you can put into every frame, and that's basically why I want fewer frames/second because it means better quality frames in general. If you want 30 fps you have to have some frames done by the computer unless you have a Pixar budget and a 2 hour long game to make. DotT was very inspired by Warner Bros animation and in general that's a very cheap TVesc style of animation, because of exaggerated stretch frames and limited body movement during dialog. The only problem is that it needs to be drawn correctly to work, and I know it is really hard to draw on model as opposed to pose a rig, (yeah I can't draw very well,) and CGI has really allowed animators to emerge without really having talent for more than drawing stick figures. I guess the majority DFs animators don't have a traditional background and it is really expensive to teach a stab of CGI savvy animators to animate in a more traditional sense. They would also need a ink and paint crew probably to clean up the animation. So yeah I get the reason why the choice is landing on a CGI puppet.

-It also has a lot to do with the art style as well; A very detailed character is really hard to draw over while keeping consistent mass. I just hope they make the final rigs more flexible though. I mean some kind of topology on the character drawings should be reasonable, and it will make it much more interesting to animate, at least in my opinion.

If the cloths are drawn in a little higher resolution thane we can see, while the characters are in idle, animators could maybe add some stretch and squash dynamics to them. That's of course a lot harder if the mesh doesn't have topology.

Edit: I might have use stretch frames from time to time, but I think the right expression is "smear frames".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I’m not alone in preferring flipbook-style animation over ultra-smooth animation…

I really like the art presented in the current example, but the way it moves seems a bit too artificial, unlike having each frame individually supervised and refined by an actual person.

Also, and more importantly in my oppinion, capping the frames per second sometimes actually leads to better results (which is probably why I’m more than happy with the choppy-yet-stable frame rate in the old SCUMM games).

Love the art, but I strongly feel that “more FPS != Better”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to say that you absolutely CAN do stretchy frames with a skeleton in Maya... so you know. Some people think that you are hard limited by the skeleton... you can do squash and stretch and everything in between.

In fact... here's an absolutely wonderful example

That's a cool rig :)

I don't know if anybody said it was impossible to do stretchy frames in Maya, but it might be hard to keep it consistent with a high framerate on a budget.

It also is a lot easier with a 3D rig as well because you are then able to use actual lighting.

The game wont run in Maya so all the blend shapes and bone stretches have to be implemented into the game engine as well.

You can do pretty much anything in Maya, it harder to get the stuff out of Maya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm not alone in preferring flipbook-style animation over ultra-smooth animation...

I really like the art presented in the current example, but the way it moves seems a bit too artificial, unlike having each frame individually supervised and refined by an actual person.

Also, and more importantly in my oppinion, capping the frames per second sometimes actually leads to better results (which is probably why I'm more than happy with the choppy-yet-stable frame rate in the old SCUMM games).

Love the art, but I strongly feel that "more FPS != Better".

In one of those posts there is a link that the Hobbit has been filmed on 48 fps but lower shutter speed to accomedate 24 fps and 3D in the future for 3D at least everything should go to 60 fps because that will make 3D look allot better and feel better on the eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do actually wonder whether the framerate itself is having an effect on some people's perception of the art. Could it be that actually it's the smoothness that is some of the reason some people think it looks cheap, and just by halving the number of frames it could be technically worse quality (temporal-resolution-wise) but seem somehow 'better'. This has precedent, such as what I was talking about earlier, where people thought the higher framerate of The Hobbit movie made it look cheap (probably from its association with low-budget TV which actually uses higher framerates than film). Maybe something similar is happening with smooth tweening being associated with flash animation... *shrug*

This is quite interesting I think. But really I don't think it has to do with the actual frame rate, more the quality of motion blur. Also in 2D you can compensate for lack of motion blur by producing stretch frames and this can help you make a smooth move that doesn't feel strobey without using too many frames. High frame rate is great for sports where you might want to slow down and clearly see what happens with fore instants a ball, but in terms of film it doesn't help much. its a great thing when you want to key out a green screen because of a significant reduction in motion blur as well. And it is also great when watching stereoscopic with shutter glasses, because of the alternation and too low frame rate will make you notice the flickering.

I don't know if it is the frame rate that makes things feel cheep or if it is the projection, but I'm used to watch film at 1080p24fps on a plasma and whenever I watch a film at a friends LED/LCD it looks instantly cheaper, even on more expensive TVs. I don't know if this is due to the extra frame emulation or the reduction in contrast, but games look fine on LCDs for some reason. It might also be due to the fact that it is upscaling the 24 fps movies that have motion blur and by that reducing the quality of the blur. Games don't have that much blur in them, because they don't need to. (not talking DOF)

Day of the Tentacle is a great example of that you don't need to animate at a high framerate in order to achieve dynamic movement. However there are some areas that could have benefited by higher framerates in that game, for instants in the beginning when they are in the Chrono John and the background is basically only rotating, but because of the low frame rate it kind of feels more blinky than rotating. In a modern game I would have expected the rotating background to have a higher framerate, but the characters can still be animated on 2s or 4s or what ever. so the game engines actual framerate shouldn't be reduced in my opinion, but enabling splines will make it harder because if the game were to render a frame that hasn't been supervised the rig might break or something like that. It can of course be baked down to a key on every single frame at 30fps and then put to linear or stepped. But I feel that as long as timing is right you don't need all the frames to make movement feel legit.

Flash animation might feel cheap in the cases where it's pretty much cutouts or bending lines, but I have seen well done flash animation as well, the problem is only that some inexperienced animators tend to ignore fundamental rules of weight and dynamics, that's usually what makes animation look cheep, not the amount of fps.

There is also a thing with budget of course, because like Ray said, the Lucas Arts style is expensive especially if you want 30 fps, it's got a lot to do with how much time you can put into every frame, and that's basically why I want fewer frames/second because it means better quality frames in general. If you want 30 fps you have to have some frames done by the computer unless you have a Pixar budget and a 2 hour long game to make. DotT was very inspired by Warner Bros animation and in general that's a very cheap TVesc style of animation, because of exaggerated stretch frames and limited body movement during dialog. The only problem is that it needs to be drawn correctly to work, and I know it is really hard to draw on model as opposed to pose a rig, (yeah I can't draw very well,) and CGI has really allowed animators to emerge without really having talent for more than drawing stick figures. I guess the majority DFs animators don't have a traditional background and it is really expensive to teach a stab of CGI savvy animators to animate in a more traditional sense. They would also need a ink and paint crew probably to clean up the animation. So yeah I get the reason why the choice is landing on a CGI puppet.

-It also has a lot to do with the art style as well; A very detailed character is really hard to draw over while keeping consistent mass. I just hope they make the final rigs more flexible though. I mean some kind of topology on the character drawings should be reasonable, and it will make it much more interesting to animate, at least in my opinion.

If the cloths are drawn in a little higher resolution thane we can see, while the characters are in idle, animators could maybe add some stretch and squash dynamics to them. That's of course a lot harder if the mesh doesn't have topology.

Edit: I might have use stretch frames from time to time, but I think the right expression is "smear frames".

I imagine that since they know the animation process now they'l focus on designing characters that suit that process best. Maybe that means simplifying the main characters so they can stretch and distort them more without warping the textures. I'm sure they'll create some awesome side characters that make great use of the rig -- I'm thinking someone with a big rigid body like a turtle shell or a suit of armour would look great animated in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking someone with a big rigid body like a turtle shell or a suit of armour would look great animated in this way.

This is true anything very basic and rigid will look great in this style! there would fore example not be a point in animating/rigging redbot in any other way.

And of course the end result is completely up to DFs talented team.

I'm just speaking my mind so I don't have to regret not doing it later :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Oliver. Really loving these programming updates. Lots of interesting stuff. Do you have a Twitter account? :P

Cheers

C

Thanks dude.

I don't have a twitter account right now. Should I get one?

Celebrities need Twitters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoying these updates. They are super informative and entertaining, so thanks! You should get a twitter, because I have one, and peer pressure is cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really enjoying these updates. They are super informative and entertaining, so thanks! You should get a twitter, because I have one, and peer pressure is cool.

this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The human eye can only take in around 24 frames per second so going much higher than 30 is pretty much a waste of time. I know they tend to use higher frame rates for a lot of 3D games but that's just to compensate for frames that might get dropped during live rendering as far as I understand it.

That's actually a common myth: the human eye can, it has been demonstrated, tell the difference between 30 and 60FPS. And let's face it, if it couldn't, few developers would ever waste resources optimising their game to run at 60FPS, it just wouldn't be worth the effort to draw twice as many frames in the engine.

Other example: recently the preview of The Hobbit showcased the new camera technology they were using to deliver movie images at a higher framerate than the usual 24FPS (about twice as high, I believe). Audiences came away complaining it looked cheap and the working hypothesis as to why that might be is because regular TV runs at a higher framerate than film (though many TV series are now shot on film rather than on tape), so our brains have been trained to associate high-framerate TV with cheaper production, even though in theory the temporal resolution is higher.

However, 30FPS does produce a nicely smooth looking image and is plenty enough for this sort of game and indeed most sorts of games, so nobody ought to be complaining that this one won't run at 60 ;)

Yeah, alot of newer HDTVs run at 120hz or 240hz, where they basically have some kind of fancy interpolation feature where they add in extra frames to increase the original 24fps to something 2 or 3 times higher. I, personally, hate this effect. It makes the film look like General Hospital. I can maybe handle it for a comedy or something like that, but a serious drama looks silly and completely loses its atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, we are aiming for smooth high-definition animation.

...

2.5D

...

Joints

CAN ANYBODY TELL ME WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM "OLD SCHOOL (adventures) " ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, we are aiming for smooth high-definition animation.

...

2.5D

...

Joints

CAN ANYBODY TELL ME WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM "OLD SCHOOL (adventures) " ???

I WOULD BUT YOU'RE TALKING TOO LOUD Hang on... there.

Yes, there has been a lot of debate about what is classed as 'old school' on this forum, and you're not the first person to have an opinion. By this stage I expect Double Fine rather wish they hadn't used the phrase or at least qualified it somehow.

The problem is, 'old school' means different things to different people. I assumed that they meant that it was old school in the sense that it would be a point and click where you go around talking to people and solving inventory puzzles, so it's sort of in the spirit of those old games, which seems to be the case. Other people assumed it was something to do with difficulty. Other people think it's to do with graphics, or the number of verbs, or the interface or something. Other people think that everything must be just like the old games or else it does not count.

Me, I just want them to make an awesome adventure game, and I'd rather it be a great game in its own right, rather than using nostalgia as a crutch. If you disagree, then sucks to be you, huh? But stop shouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CAN ANYBODY TELL ME WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM "OLD SCHOOL (adventures) " ???[/b]

I think, in this case, what is meant is that it is a real adventure game, as understood by classic definitions of the genre. As in, not a Zelda clone or some other thing that people call adventure nowadays. The very genre, as well as the fact that it is 2D, is considered "old school."

I really want to see some of these Kickstarter adventure games help to revitalize the genre, and they're not going to do that by acting like the only appeal to these games is nostalgia. If they can bring back the concepts and principles that we lost along the way and make them relevant again, that's a big deal to me.

If you want a straight up old school game, though, check out SpaceVenture or Quest for Infamy, which have no intention to update the formula, and will probably be quite old school in every regard.

But Double Fine Adventure, Tex Murphy 6, and Moebius will probably not. They want to make something that will bring in new players as well and show them how great adventure games still are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me, I just want them to make an awesome adventure game, and I’d rather it be a great game in its own right, rather than using nostalgia as a crutch. If you disagree, then sucks to be you, huh? But stop shouting.

I totally agree that nostalgia isn't supposed to be used as a crutch. I really want the game to be successful so it will pull more studios to the genre, but like you said old-school means different things to different people. I think the first Adventure I actually owned was MI3 (because that was the time I actually had a computer that could play games,) but I played adventure games on friends computers and was always amazed by the fact that they didn't require me to be on edge all the time, and actually think instead of just react. I played Indy4 probably the most of all games, and because I was a slow reader it took long before I dived into older games without recorded dialog, but eventually did.

What's really been interesting to me, in retrospect, is how the genre has evolved technically, but still kept it's familiarity:

I think it really ties down to one aesthetic and it is clarity; In for instance MI1 they had close ups of the characters where that was necessarily and it really helped us to know what was up with the characters. As resolution has increased this kind of get used less and less except for cinematics. And though the in-game animation of MI3 might not be the best, I always have fond memories of the rewarding cinematic you would get when you completed a task. I don't think anybody hates them unless they aren't old school enough. I agree that the design on Guybrush probably wasn't the best choice for previous fans, but to me it was the first time I've seen him, and though I like the look of the older ones better, they had to grow on me.

Back to tech though. I'm going to go over to games where Tim was involved. What I really have liked about them is the marriage of art and tech, where for instance in Full Throttle they started using 3D, but pre-rendered, and it served the purpose in game, because the player never needed to look at anything else. Grim Fandango, I still think it looks beautiful, but Monkey 4 looks awful, having a entire game cast pretty much wearing rigid suits and having hard edged shapes really fits with the skeletons. The only characters that might benefit from higher polygon counts in that game might be Glottis and the other Demons. Psychonauts, action-adventure I know, but artistry vise it goes hand in hand with the tech aesthetic thing; This game still looks amazing in HD, because the characters don't look like real humans. And BL also carries that on in the fashion of having the characters closer to human, but still with some artistic changes that will keep the game valid in even higher resolution, when it comes.

That's kind of like the biggest benefit of using a 3D/vector engine to compile your game art, because pixelation has kind of reduced our perception of the older games, but I always look at them and see what could have been if the tech was there at the time they were made. I think it has been kind of a downfall in quality in games in general, (not just adventures,) after the Lucas Arts era died and where games are lacking these days is in animation. Graphics really aren't the most important thing in my opinion and they will look awful in at most 10 years or so anyways, but having something generally consistent looking with great animation will be timeless. There are many styles of animation, but in my opinion most of the successful ones use most of the "12 Principles of Animation" that came out of Disney in the 30s. So there is no reason to reinvent the wheel here, because these 12 principles can be applied or studied on allmost all quality animation to date. Disney Feature, WB Cartoony, Pixar, you name it, they all look here still 80 years later.

Lucas games, back when they were hand drawn only had the frames they actually made, and that's what made them expressive in the first place.

Adding frames that are basically there for smooth fluid motion really will feel cheap, at least if it's not consistent with the transitions as well.

Back to Old school and when I pledged: I expected a game that takes advantage of today's resolution, but still focuses on story and thinking. If the game would look worse aesthetically than the previous games it will neither be Old-school or pushing the medium forward. If they have to kill the HD resolution in order to do it I'm all for it. Also Sword & Sworcery is a great example on how it also can be done and still look great in HD, but also in that case the animations have been very supervised and are not running on a rig. Yes they are simple, but also beautiful.

Also wan't to say something about the shouting in the forum thing: Who cares!? I guess it has to do with how Old School 'a forum user you are? ;)

If you want a straight up old school game, though, check out SpaceVenture or Quest for Infamy, which have no intention to update the formula, and will probably be quite old school in every regard.

I don't know, at least with Space Venture I think they really want tor apply a lot of new "cool" things to the show, they aren't even humble in therms of still continuing their stretch goals after the Kickstarter ended and having a stretch goal of $675k promises "Pixar-Quality 3D characters and animation" making this look up to be a very short game.

I haven't really known the Andromeda guys before this campaign, but I was open to what they we're doing after already having backed DFA, now I'm not so sure anymore. I think a lot of pressure rests on these fan funded companies, for if they fail they will not only disappoint the fans, but they will also send a message back to the AAA industry that they need a nagging publisher in order to deliver a polished product.

---

Edited some really stupid words... (Thanks Frogacuda, for pointing them out)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sword & Sworcery is a great example on how it also can be done and still look great in HD.

what. are you talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not drawing every single frame is likely actually saving double fine time and money. (This is a good thing, and means the game itself can be better/longer). This is a really modern/normal way of doing this, I do not understand the angry people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm angry.

I'm on the verge of asking DF to give me my money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm angry.

I'm on the verge of asking DF to give me my money back.

Old school adventure is a genre, you can make an old-school sidescroller with modern graphics. Just as you can make an old-school adventure game with modern graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fore instants MI1
fore instants in Full Throttle
fore if they fail

Seriously, dude?

I don't know, at least with Space Venture I think they really want tor apply a lot of new "cool" things to the show, they aren't even humble in therms of still continuing their stretch goals after the Kickstarter ended and having a stretch goal of $675k promises "Pixar-Quality 3D characters and animation" making this look up to be a very short game.

The stretch goals in that campaign are silly. All of them except the EFIGS translation have intentionally been moved beyond the realm of possibility. They will not hit any of them, they're just cute ideas designed to motivate a few extra paypal donations.

Anyway, SpaceVenture will have nice high-res graphics, but it will be very old school in every other respect, including having verbs and even a text parser, as well as the ability to die. I expect it to appeal less to the mass audience than it does to hardcore fans of late 80s/early 90s adventure gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm angry.

I'm on the verge of asking DF to give me my money back.

You can't ask for a gift back. You didn't buy a game, you donated to an artist who agreed to share his work with you.

Tim was very clear that the game would have hand-painted art by Nathan Stapley and that he didn't want it to have a retro look and that it would essentially be like what he would have done had they continued to make adventure games at LucasArts, not like what they already did.

Kickstarter is not for you. Kickstarter is a platform for people who believe in the artist's right to make his own creative decisions, and are willing to support him in that even if those decisions aren't the choices he would make. I certainly don't agree with the decision to do paper doll animation, but I would never act like I had the right to tell them what to do. Backing a project is an inherent risk, with no guarantees. If you aren't comfortable with that, then you should really stay far, far away from Kickstarter in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm angry.

I'm on the verge of asking DF to give me my money back.

You can't ask for a gift back. You didn't buy a game, you donated to an artist who agreed to share his work with you.

Tim was very clear that the game would have hand-painted art by Nathan Stapley and that he didn't want it to have a retro look and that it would essentially be like what he would have done had they continued to make adventure games at LucasArts, not like what they already did.

Kickstarter is not for you. Kickstarter is a platform for people who believe in the artist's right to make his own creative decisions, and are willing to support him in that even if those decisions aren't the choices he would make. I certainly don't agree with the decision to do paper doll animation, but I would never act like I had the right to tell them what to do. Backing a project is an inherent risk, with no guarantees. If you aren't comfortable with that, then you should really stay far, far away from Kickstarter in the future.

Well said. Plus, you should probably wait to see some actual in-game art before you decide everything is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fore instants MI1
fore instants in Full Throttle

Seriously, dude?

Yeah seriously, no, I just write the way I talk and if my browser doesn't put a red line under it I really don't think twice about it. Thanks for pointing it out because that's awful. :)

Sword & Sworcery is a great example on how it also can be done and still look great in HD.

what. are you talking about

Sword and Sworcery uses pixelated characters and to keep that consistent they have to draw every frame, if the characters were attached to a vector rig/skeleton the pixels would from time to time turn and be angled, kind of like you see in those 8 bit game spoofs on Youtube. Even with these pixelated simple characters you could see what was going on at all times. Of course this style asks for more detailed characters, but that means more work for the animators because mistakes get more visible.

Not drawing every single frame is likely actually saving double fine time and money. (This is a good thing, and means the game itself can be better/longer). This is a really modern/normal way of doing this, I do not understand the angry people.

No, it's not a modern way of doing things. There isn't any point in having smooth movement if the character moves like a robot, adding a rig like that only gives you these robotic frames for free, of course you can animate breakdowns and adjust the curves to get better in betweens, but my suggestion is to cut the curves all together and just use keys and breakdowns I won't mind it being choppy as long as it isn't robotic or poppy.

I played Mechinarium yesterday, and the style kind of worked well for that game, but I always liked the cartoons in the characters thought bobbles more than the in game animation. they were generally more expressive even though they we're just black and white sketches.

I'm all for detailed drawn backgrounds and I don't think that animating on 4s will make the game look worse, I know that the rig solution might be the best option for this game because of the detail in the characters, and the writing at Double Fine will probably be what distinguishes this game from most of the other games out there, I really liked the look in the last Creative update, with the exception from some of the popping due to the rig here and there. So the only thing I'd rather see being done as the project has reached this point is that instead of working on graphs DF actually priorities what's needed on screen. So they can make a lot of animation, instead of removing pops out of the "super smooth new way of animating TM".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...