It really is. I really admire animation, it's a hell of a lot of work, but everyone can feel the magic behind it, even after all these years.
Like said, it's an evolution of paintings, in the sense that one good drawing is already pretty amazing, but a series of good drawings in sequence to give the illusion of movement is really something.
#d animations can be good too, but 2d animations have a certain aura to them. They feel more alive, like you can feel the effort behind every frame. Not saying that 3d doesn't involve great efforts too, but 2d speaks more to the soul, i reckon.
At least in theory, the only difference between animation and games are that one is interactive, and the other is not.
Multiplayer, chats etc. aside, the only thing a game does is play a specific series of animations based on the user’s input. Some games rely heavily on interaction, like FPS games, while others are less interactive. Sometimes games even take away the players ability to act entirely and essentially become short animations, like with cutscenes.
If we reduce interactivity further, we end up with those choose your own adventure animations that pop up from time to time, like this one: https://youtu.be/w4FK85SuwDo
And moving further yet, we just get plain old regular animations.
Clearly, they are on different ends of a spectrum. In short, games and animations would be the exact same medium, only games have the entire extra interaction dimension to play with, which clearly increases the artistic potential of the medium as a whole... Though the added complexity also means it becomes exponentially harder to actually live up to that potential.
Animation really can't do anything live action can't except appeal to younger audiences more easily more easily with pretty colors and simpler shapes.
And even the dry pablum that is the MCU is slowly making it obsolete in that regard
Nah man, animation as an art form has been fascinating people ever since it's creation. Despite being such a difficult art form, it still draws people to it. Truly, animation is the apex of art, for it requires mastery of drawing, anatomy, movement, and design, not to mention it requires a lot of hard work to do. Anyone who likes art can feel it's power
Yes, we know that. But why is 2D animation usually better that 3D?
2d animation is just 3d animation with one less dimension.
3d animation can look and feel like 2d animation, but not vice versa. There isn't a single 2d animation technique that a competent 3d animator couldn't emulate with less effort.
Effort is part of the art. Nobody expects great things of 3d animation, it's just there, it may or may not look pretty and amazing on it's own right, but it does not have the same essence as a (good) 2D animation
Woah, that was amazing. Legit thought it was 3D for a second. See? when 2D is great, it has no comparison
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it has no comparison
Except... 3D animation, especially the ones with a budget similar to that of what the short probably had? don't get me wrong, that clip certainly had a lot of skill put to it, though I don't know if it really refutes anon's point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
its probably rotoscoped. its also not on ones which is why all anime sucks, also because it all looks like its drawn by the same artist
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's 2d perfectly emulating the lifelessness of 3d
Why yes, cel-shading is one technique of many that 3d could emulate 2d animation.
[...]
Because the best cg artists in that country work at vidya studios.
emulate, but not match in quality
2 years ago
Anonymous
>lifelessness
I've seen more of that in 2D TV animation.
>emulate, but not match in quality
Depends on what you have in mind when you bring up 'quality'. Maybe Disney theatrical 2D yeah, though Paperman pulls that off pretty closely.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Captain N putting in 40% more effort is more appreciated than Pixar giving their all in 2018
Remember the 3D Lupin movie? No you don't
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Captain N putting in 40% more effort is more appreciated than Pixar giving their all in 2018
Now this is peak Cinemaphilentrarianism.
3d animation has reached it's peak and Lightyear has proven that. we need to go back to 2d animation and evolve that because it's still stuck in the twos phase.
>3d animation has reached it's peak
Not really. Turning Red and Bad Guys have proven as such.
>it's still stuck in the twos phase.
Only for most TV animation, and that's because a majority of production studios in that field still uphold practices from the dark age like outsourcing.
I do, hence why I've listed it as an example of the potential theatrical 3D animation still has. There's also that one Disney short with the raccoons that uses a variation of the Paperman engine fwir
the thief and the cobbler could work as a 3d 2d hybrid movie, like instead of rendering stages, you animate the characters over floating 3d models in the style of cel layers. the thief has no shadows, so you don't have to render shadows.
It is the natural evolution of still paintings and comic books. We can't go past it.
It really is. I really admire animation, it's a hell of a lot of work, but everyone can feel the magic behind it, even after all these years.
Like said, it's an evolution of paintings, in the sense that one good drawing is already pretty amazing, but a series of good drawings in sequence to give the illusion of movement is really something.
#d animations can be good too, but 2d animations have a certain aura to them. They feel more alive, like you can feel the effort behind every frame. Not saying that 3d doesn't involve great efforts too, but 2d speaks more to the soul, i reckon.
Yes, we know that. But why is 2D animation usually better that 3D?
>why is 2D animation usually better that 3D?
In certain aspects, not really, especially the TV kind nowadays.
I hate to break it to you, but games have much more potential than animation does. It can do everything animation can, and a lot more.
That doesn't mean games live up to their potential, though.
>Games can do everything animation can, and a lot more
Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious.
At least in theory, the only difference between animation and games are that one is interactive, and the other is not.
Multiplayer, chats etc. aside, the only thing a game does is play a specific series of animations based on the user’s input. Some games rely heavily on interaction, like FPS games, while others are less interactive. Sometimes games even take away the players ability to act entirely and essentially become short animations, like with cutscenes.
If we reduce interactivity further, we end up with those choose your own adventure animations that pop up from time to time, like this one: https://youtu.be/w4FK85SuwDo
And moving further yet, we just get plain old regular animations.
Clearly, they are on different ends of a spectrum. In short, games and animations would be the exact same medium, only games have the entire extra interaction dimension to play with, which clearly increases the artistic potential of the medium as a whole... Though the added complexity also means it becomes exponentially harder to actually live up to that potential.
>animation has much more potential than animation
Huh?
Animation really can't do anything live action can't except appeal to younger audiences more easily more easily with pretty colors and simpler shapes.
And even the dry pablum that is the MCU is slowly making it obsolete in that regard
Nah man, animation as an art form has been fascinating people ever since it's creation. Despite being such a difficult art form, it still draws people to it. Truly, animation is the apex of art, for it requires mastery of drawing, anatomy, movement, and design, not to mention it requires a lot of hard work to do. Anyone who likes art can feel it's power
>Animation really can't do anything live action can't
Nice joke.
It's more like the opposite, animation cna do everything live action can, and much more.
Also reminder that 2D>>>>>>3D, and i mean both live action and 3D animation.
2d animation is just 3d animation with one less dimension.
3d animation can look and feel like 2d animation, but not vice versa. There isn't a single 2d animation technique that a competent 3d animator couldn't emulate with less effort.
>There isn't a single 2d animation technique that a competent 3d animator couldn't emulate with less effort.
Prove it.
Effort is part of the art. Nobody expects great things of 3d animation, it's just there, it may or may not look pretty and amazing on it's own right, but it does not have the same essence as a (good) 2D animation
>Effort is part of the art.
And guess what 3D animation takes a lot of to look good.
>emulate
>3d animation can look and feel like 2d animation
anime cgi is worst cgi
Why yes, cel-shading is one technique of many that 3d could emulate 2d animation.
Because the best cg artists in that country work at vidya studios.
>but not vice versa
Woah, that was amazing. Legit thought it was 3D for a second. See? when 2D is great, it has no comparison
>it has no comparison
Except... 3D animation, especially the ones with a budget similar to that of what the short probably had? don't get me wrong, that clip certainly had a lot of skill put to it, though I don't know if it really refutes anon's point.
its probably rotoscoped. its also not on ones which is why all anime sucks, also because it all looks like its drawn by the same artist
It's 2d perfectly emulating the lifelessness of 3d
emulate, but not match in quality
>lifelessness
I've seen more of that in 2D TV animation.
>emulate, but not match in quality
Depends on what you have in mind when you bring up 'quality'. Maybe Disney theatrical 2D yeah, though Paperman pulls that off pretty closely.
Captain N putting in 40% more effort is more appreciated than Pixar giving their all in 2018
Remember the 3D Lupin movie? No you don't
>Captain N putting in 40% more effort is more appreciated than Pixar giving their all in 2018
Now this is peak Cinemaphilentrarianism.
video games
Tru!
3d animation has reached it's peak and Lightyear has proven that. we need to go back to 2d animation and evolve that because it's still stuck in the twos phase.
>3d animation has reached it's peak
Not really. Turning Red and Bad Guys have proven as such.
>it's still stuck in the twos phase.
Only for most TV animation, and that's because a majority of production studios in that field still uphold practices from the dark age like outsourcing.
>not realizing the true kinography of The Bad Guys
I do, hence why I've listed it as an example of the potential theatrical 3D animation still has. There's also that one Disney short with the raccoons that uses a variation of the Paperman engine fwir
the thief and the cobbler could work as a 3d 2d hybrid movie, like instead of rendering stages, you animate the characters over floating 3d models in the style of cel layers. the thief has no shadows, so you don't have to render shadows.
abloo
abloo ablooo
Nah, that would be video games. It combines art, animation, music, and you can interact with it.
it really is