Hi /3/, I was wondering what are some good tutorials to follow for low poly character moedeling like pic related (I did read the sticky).I want to know if there are some videos or books I can look up so I (and others) can practice and get better.
>>514029This is great. Thank you very much!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjB3Ao1tNxsa little bit more stylized
>>514028How do you animate a character like that ? I'm guessing armature won't work that well due to the low amount of topology.
>>514294Not very well I'd imagine, that's why early games had the arms separate objects for the arms, like in Morrowind. This model would be great for a statue or something though.>pic related
>>514513huhI never thought about that until now. Now it makes sense why so many old games had disconnected objects for limbs like that.
>>514515I've heard it's because they didn't have skeletal animation and had to select and move polygons instead, so it's easier to select separate limbs instead of limbs connected to each other.
>>514294you actually can animate it with an armature. you just have to be careful with the placement of triangles to help maintain the silhouette while the model is being deformed.
can we stop this lowpoly bullshit?lowpoly is modeling, texturing is 2D>PLEASE GUYS HOW CAN I DO LOWPOLY MODELING, IS THERE A GUIDE FOR LOWPOLY MODELING AS OPPOSING TO HIGH-POLY MODELING
>>514523I think people who would rather paint gravitate towards it because it's easy.
>>514294>>514513Low poly animations can look pretty damn cool. Morrowind has the separate objects for every limb things because of the great variations of clothes, weapons, armor, and races.
>>515414>those robesGod fucking damn is that sexy, you got any more anon?
>>515467It's from Hexen 2. The whole game is like a case study in good looking low poly models and animations.
>low poly modeling as exercise in efficiencygood, good.>low poly modeling for tablet/rts gamesfine!>low poly modeling as an "art style"fucking kill yourself and your meme
>>515489Are you saying that when the pixelshit aesthetic gets tired that you wouldn't like to see low poly ps1/gamecube style indie games?
>>514516Half-Life (original) made a big leap by adding rig based animation to the characters, and they were super low poly. It can be done, you just have to be very careful about how you weight the joints so as >>514518 said, the silhoutte doesn’t crumple when deformed. A lot of models with separate parts used FK for the animation, so you manually translated/rotated the parts. Prior to that, games like Quake used vertex animation. I think even Quake 2 did, this is one of the reasons weapons like the first person view railgun in that game have a ‘waver’ to them.
>>515494>I think even Quake 2 did, this is one of the reasons weapons like the first person view railgun in that game have a ‘waver’ to them.Isn't that because the md2 format has very low precision? Quake 3 used vertex animation as well, and it has none of the unsightly waver/deformation
>>515492Absolutely.It's the same shit as pixelshit
>>515495IIRC, this is true, they were using low precisions approximations for the vertex positioning. Quake 1 used vertex animation for the vast majority of it’s models, and it didn’t have that problem. I think with Quake 2 it was a matter of using lower precision to boost performance on non-acellerated machines, as it was one of the last games (aside Half-Life) to have a general software renderer.
>>515492It's just as pretentious as those so called "pixel" games. You know, the ones that look like a SNES/Genesis game but require the system resources of a modern PC to run. The whole thing is a further extension of the hard-on for nostalgia that's currently trending right now.
>>515534I honestly think high definition sprites like metal slug and such have an aesthetic quality of their own. Low poly 3d on the other hand has one good thing going for it, which is that it encourages dramatic and expressive animations among some other design related things. WC3 characters for are a cool example.now shit for the sake of shit is just that, which indie devs won't care about as long as they get their money
>>515534>>515496clearly you've never ever made a model if you think low poly modeling and texturing is as easy as retro pixel art. I can take <1 min doing a sprite like in VVVVV or Superbrothers & Sworcery, let's see you make a LP model like in the OP in <1 minute.
>>515738oh, and rig it, and give it lots of animations.
anyone using blender, i made this quick infographic for a question that pops up alot of time
>>515747you should also turn off mipmaps in the system settings if you want to get rid of the texture filtering on the model
>>515787isn't that engine related? i think you should also turn off AA
>>515790i'm talking about blender texture painting specifically. in his screenshot the texture on the right is crisp but in the 3d view it's blurred. turning off mipmaps fixes that.
>>515738Clearly you can't read properly since you bring up completely irrelevant shit.Read the quote chain
>>515813I can read fine. You're sperging out over LP design and calling it lazy and the same as retro pixel art.
>>515874>You're sperging out over LP design and calling it lazy and the same as retro pixel art.I think he's saying, a lot of the time, LP is used as an excuse for lack of quality, in the same way that something like Magicite being called pixel art / retro can't compare to applying the same label to say, Shovel Knight.
>>515534>>515492>>515489Low poly is good for the above mentionned games and pixel art is good if it is good pixel art/or of it is traditional console games, however, the new "indie pixel 8bit" trend is shit and should be exterminated.
>>515887This. Aspire to OwlBoy god tier pixel art, not fucking Terraria rubbish.
What are some games with god-tier low poly 3D?
>>515874>calling it lazyNo. You obviously can't read. Even when asked to read again you still fail >>515489>same as retro pixel art.When used as an artstyle it is exactly the same bullshit. The fact that you like it personally doesn't change that
>>516002>these two unrelated styles are bad and exactly the same cause I said so>I have no argument other than kill yourself ur dumb and I dont like itwell put, very intelligent posts.
>>516011Pretty much yeah.You have offered nothing else. Just "hurr i like it". Well lot's of people like MLP too
>>514128NO NO NO NOShe was absolutely terrible at modeling and topology. An experienced person could learn a thing or two from what she did but beginners will learn AWFUL habits from this.
>>514028Download a bunch of game models from psx, n64, and Saturn games and study the wireframes and topology. Avoid triangulation until you know what you're doing.
>>516015Or you know, that LP style is a break from usual realism, and can free up resources for other things in a game - both for in game processing, and for creating assets since it takes less time than doing high poly, retopo, texturing, etc.
>>516024Oh my god, it's beautiful
>>516025>break from usual realismThen you do a stylized game like Psychonauts or Mirrors edge. Artificially limiting polygon count is exactly the same as pixel shit>can free up resources for other things in a gameThat's great, I'm only talking about artstyle. It seems you're just too retarded to understand people can have more nuanced opinions than "hurr everything with this is bad forever"
>>516016>NO NOwhat would you recommend then?
>>516089https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiIoWrOlIRwright away you will see many differences in the workflowbesides i watched this tutorial alone and i haven't had problems making lowpoly characters since, once you realize it all comes down to moving vertices's,scaling etc, doesn't seem like a difficult task anymore
>>516087stylized is an artstyle you dumb ass.
>>516112I seriously hope English isn't your first language.1. No, "stylized" is not an artstyle. Stylized just means the game is made to look in a specific way. It could be using any artstyle (which is why mirrors edge and psychonauts look completely different despite both being stylized)2. You're not even making a valid point. I didn't say you shouldn't use an artstyle. I just said that the low poly artstyle is fucking shit and the same as pixelshit
>>516109oh I actually was already following this guy's tutorials haha, they're great
>>516126Low-poly can be an legit art choice as long as they know how to go around the polygon limit (same with pixelated art with the resolution and color limit). Those can be used to reflect how artists goes around the limit of their crafts. However, it does not excuse lazy bastards who use lowpoly and pixelart as an excuse to make shity products.
>>516171>Low-poly can be an legit art choiceIt's still fucking gay and for hipsterfags only. Like pixelshit>reflect how artists goes around the limit of their crafts.Except that's not relevant in a video game
>>516190And you are a fucking idiot with a huge bloated ego. You think your subjective opinion about a thing is an universal truth? You are the one who defines a thing?
>>516194>your subjective opinionI haven't said it's anything else. I even said it earlier, retard >>516015 You're the one who tried to make up actual reasons to use it (beyond having shit taste), and it got shot down every time.
>>516190>It's still fucking gay and for hipsterfags only. Like pixelshitgo back to /pol/ Gator.>Except that's not relevant in a video gameIt's aways relevant, just play Shovel Knight.
>>516207>go back to /pol/ Gator.I don't care for any of those groups>just play Shovel Knight.Tell me specifically how "reflect how artists goes around the limit of their crafts" is relevant to the gameplay in shovel knight
>>516209>don't care about graphics.Then why the fuck do you care about pixel art and low poly then you dipshit. Jealous that Paul Robertson can make a living making "pixel shit"?
>>516210>don't care about graphics.Never said that, I asked you to>Tell me specifically how "reflect how artists goes around the limit of their crafts" is relevant to the gameplay in shovel knight
>>516211Well, it all comes to simulation of the classic games that they tried to emulate. In shovel knight, it's a mix of color limitation, and low resolution; if you try to mix resolution and have no regards to color limitation, it would look out of place and it ruins the presentation of the game. Sure it would look like it would compete with AAA games if it goes full resolution, but it would take time as well.I could also tell you that a low poly character would look out of place in a high poly environment, and vice versa; Take a look at the MD2 models of Sonic Robo Blast 2:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpPUfCQlta8
>>516214And how is this "relevant to the gameplay". All you're talking about is "look&feel"
>>516215That's the point, nothing in terms of graphic is relevant to the Gameplay besides presentation; same with sound really. In fact, all you need is a set of rules and a win state and there you go, you got yourself a game. You don't need any of that sound and graphics to play a game. You're asking loaded question because you wanted to confirmed what you already believed, that pixel art are no longer needed, lowpoly are for technical only, and to say otherwise is hipster nostalgia google bullshit that only breeds lazy fucks that leech out of the same schmucks that donates to kickstarters and patreon. If you think that Pixel art is shit, then good for you, I'll just say that your taste in self restrained art is shit: same with your opinion on low poly.
>>515489Nice taste of restraint artform, bigot.
>>516221>That's the pointYes, MY point.>only breeds lazy fucksI've said like 3 times above that I'm not calling anyone lazy. How retarded are you?>self restrained art is shitYou got that right. Just make the game look as good as possible in whatever artstyle you want, no need to imitate hardware limitations that doesn't even exist any more and that nobody even liked when they did.>>516222>restraint artformrestraint isn't an artform, it's a gimmick. ASCII drawings can look neat, and you can copy/paste them on 4chan. But nobody except total faggots actually think it's a serious artform.
>>515414I found out the main problem with Lowpoly:They worked back then because the low resolution masked the artificiality of the models themselves. Same could be said about low-res pixel art, they looked their best on a low-res screen.The main reason Low-poly still have a purpose is because of the "level of detail" was still needed to save rendering memory >>516224>You got that right. Just make the game look as good as possible in whatever artstyle you want; no need to imitate hardware limitations that doesn't even exist any more and that nobody even liked when they did.The point is that it's YOUR OPINION. That's why I called you a bigot because you keep insisting that everyone that love pixel art is a faggot.
>>516225>The point is that it's YOUR OPINIONYes, I've already underlined that two times, how retarded are you?>everyone that love pixel art is a faggot.They are. Like everyone who loves dubstep
>>516226>>The point is that it's YOUR OPINION>Yes, I've already underlined that two times, how retarded are you?>>everyone that love pixel art is a faggot.>They are. Like everyone who loves dubstepOnce again to you.But then again you could make this rebuttal: http://www.dinofarmgames.com/a-pixel-artist-renounces-pixel-art/In short, Pixel art became obsolete the moment they increase the screen resolution each generation. Hell, the same could be said about low poly once technology allows it to render movie quality cgi in real time on a smartphone without burning the inside into a liquid mess. TLDR: HD Graphics is the future, go full poly and optimize; fuck this thread and their nostalgia lowpoly pixelated filth and get a fucking job yah hippies, because that's how capitalism works.
>>516224define "artform", define "serious artform"
>>516246>define "artform"expression through a medium>define "serious artform"expression through a medium that doesn't include shitty gimmicks like "I make these portraits using only a canvas my pussyhair and glue" or "I make virtual sculptures but they can't have more than 2K polys for no reason"
>>516255So basically "what I like is serious, what I don't like is not"
>>516265No, what uses shitty gimmicks is not
>>516266That isn't a fucking gimmick. It's a kind of art limitation that relies on nostalgia. While it have a niche in the current generation, the next generations prefer the HD Lifelike graphics; like living toys and such. Lowpoly and pixel art have no place in the future, stop living in the fucking past.
>>514028Low Poly Pixel shit have no Future.Give up on this nostalgia indie shit and join the capital collective.
>>516268>>516269>[insert art style] has no place in the futureas if you plebs are even in the place to be concerned about catering to the needs and fashions of the future mainstream gaming marketsthere are millions of kids who play fucking minecraft despite not even having something to be nostalgic about, countless number of popular games that don't even have or don't rely on HD graphics, and here you are whining about such petty shit as a mild minimalistic art stylization and it being "not cool" anymoreit's hard to even fully describe how delusional you people are
>>516276>as if you plebs are even in the place to be concerned about catering to the needs and fashions of the future mainstream gaming markets>there are millions of kids who play fucking minecraft despite not even having something to be nostalgic about, countless number of popular games that don't even have or don't rely on HD graphics, and here you are whining about such petty shit as a mild minimalistic art stylization and it being "not cool" anymore>it's hard to even fully describe how delusional you people areTell that to: >>515489
>>516268>art limitationI already said that's a gimmick>relies on nostalgiaDoing something because nostalgia is pretty much the definition of a gimmick>>516276>mild minimalistic art stylizationNo, minimalism is an actual art style, it has nothing to do with limiting pixels or polygons for no reason.
>>516314>No, minimalism is an actual art style, it has nothing to do with limiting pixels or polygons for no reason.>limiting>no reasonIt's pretty much the reason of minimalism, m8, you are yet again projecting your opinion based on a fallacy of "not true art style".
>>516315Wrong again. Minimalism means you use simple shapes/colors/whatever, It does not mean you artificially limit whatever you're doing to some random number for no reason, you're still making it look as good as possible. This is a fundamental difference that you can't get away from. And it's what separates minimalism which is an actual artstyle from pixelshit which is just a gimmick for fags.In fact minimalism is often the opposite of lowpoly turds, because since you're using so few shapes you put effort into making them look as good as possible. I.E smooth surfaces with thousands of polygons rendered at 10,000x10,000>fallacy of "not true art style".It's not a fallacy, there's a fundamental difference as I just explained
>>515489Pretty much this.If you can do highpoly-medpoly models and bake, you can do lowpoly. Literally nobody will hire anyone that does exclusviely lowpoly, unless they're a lowpoly only studio. And even then don't get surprised if you get outplayed by the big boys who can do more than 1 thing.
>>516322You refused to acknowledge that pixel art and lowpoly are art.In fact, they're justified as an art style, in the same way abstract at is; lifelike paintings made obsolete by photography, so why not go abstract to remind people that they're looking at a painting? Same with lowpoly models reminding people that they're looking at polygons, while pixelart reminds audience that they're looking at pixels. There's no harm in that in the same way there's no harm in making stick figures.I assumed the main reason you refused to accept that fact is because you're sick and tired of games that use those art style getting all of the attention lately. You see them as cheap stunts for attention whores to make them feel special, and it will only breeds smugness throughout the many generations to come.
>>516323Or if you can sculpt a model and retopologize it for animations, then you'll be able to optimize said model for video games. Aim for movie CGI if you want to survive
>>516331>You refused to acknowledge that pixel art and lowpoly are art.Because they're not>they're justified as an art style, in the same way abstract at isNo, there's still core differences that you're too stupid to understand. And abstract isn't even an artstyle, so you're uneducated too."abstract" paintings aren't made "to remind people they're looking at a painting", I don't even understand where you got this shit from. People paint in various styles because they like the way it looks. Hyper realistic paintings are less art and more a demonstration of technical brilliance, thus still impressive. So the core difference is still the same>[abstract] does not mean you artificially limit whatever you're doing to some random number for no reason, you're still making it look as good as possible.>you're sick and tired of games that use those art style getting all of the attention latelyI don't really care for video games>You see them as cheap stunts for attention whores to make them feel speciaYeah that's one aspect of it
>>516341You shot yourself in the foot there,because the same could be said about pixel/lowpoly art: people like them for how they look.
>>516342>people like them for how they look.Yes, and those people are faggots falling for a cheap gimmick without artistic merit. That's what I've been saying all the time. You either have problems reading or you recently entered the discussion and decided to just make assumptions about what I think. In any case you're mong
>>516341>>You see them as cheap stunts for attention whores to make them feel special>Yeah that's one aspect of itNo, that's the sole reason.Everything is art. From menstrial blood paintings to pixel art, those are form of art made by people who expess themselves in their own method. Those may be nonsensical, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't applaud them for their creativiy.Once again, "no true scottman fallacy". Kill yourself bigot.
>>516345Then I call you a bigot for expressing that closed minded opinion.
>>516347actually not. art follows certain guidelines, they teach those guidelines at every place that teaches art, and when you study art you also have art theorytl;dr you don't invent anything, you just roll the wheel back to a time where people managed to make art look pretty with 300 polygons and amazing photoshop skills
>>516350And that's still art.Lowpoly and pixelart are still art as long as they used those same guidelines that you just mentioned. Tell me one reason why those are no longer considered art?
>>516353because its an hypocritical attempt to bank on nostalgia fags
>>516347>Everything is art.Even so, some of it is just "cheap gimmicks without artistic merit"> it doesn't mean that you shouldn't applaud them for their creativiy.It's neither creative nor worthy of applause. You can't even make that argument seriously because if everything's unique then by definition nothing's unique>>516348Ok, I guess. That doesn't change anything about your meme
>>516322>Minimalism means you use simple shapes/colors/whatever>It does not mean you artificially limit whatever you're doing to some random number for no reasonDon't you see the contradiction of your own words? This is literally the reason of minimalism - using simple shapes, in this case. to create a specific artistical piece.Based on what you consider "good" it's "no true scotsman" yet again
>>516363>Even so, some of it is just "cheap gimmicks without artistic merit"It still have artistic merits, mostly because you're confusing MSpaint pixelshit, with legitimately good pixel art. Same with low poly crap with actual good lowpoly art.>>516358Same with traditional art, which can be easily replicated on a fucking cintiq.
>>516350So if art doesn't follow some arbitrary guidelines it's "not true art", right?
>>516363>Everything is art.no>>516386>Same with traditional art, which can be easily replicated on a fucking cintiq.
>>516387well there is something called aesthetics, i think its built on that.some things look good while others don't
>>516389Your "a e s t h e t i c s" are still quite subjective in many ways though. And even if something is not aesthetical by some specific measures it's still art.
>>516386>It still have(sic) artistic meritsno, I explained why twice: >>516322 >>516341>legitimately good pixel art>actual good lowpoly artDoesn't exist. It's fundamentally flawed as per above.>>516388>noI was just going with him for the sake of argument. Even if all the retarded assumptions he makes were right, he's still wrong
>>516393Look up Paul Robertson.
Guys shut the fuck up for a second. How do I make a game with [ A E S T H E T I C S ] like this?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF_a6qMeWP8
>>516415If you don't know the answer to that, maybe you should search for a simpler question.
>>516415learn 3d from 12 year old mouthbreathers on youtube
>>516415Well the geometry should be obvious but almost all of that look comes from the shaders. With out looking at it too closely that is probably a modern engine with custom shaders that are unlit and told to do very specific things. For example the shadow is probably a poly cast below the player object that has a shader that tells it to draw pixels in screen space, not world space, but only on specific layers. The flickering floor plain is more screen space, world space trickery. Then there is a whole lot of colour grading and per pixel effects layered on top of that to give the CRT vibe.The aesthetic is a product of hardware limitation that used to exist so unless you want to write your game from scratch in assembly, imposing period accurate limitation on the kind of math you can preform, the easiest way to achieve this is by dressing up unity or your choice of engine with lots of little details.
>>516394Look up not being retarded. Like I said, it's a fundamentally flawed gimmick. That doesn't change no matter who's doing it.Also the fact that you think some generic action montage pictures are impressive enough to change my mind just shows how pleb and uneducated pixel/polyfaggots are
>>516463Its not a gimmick, we told you that in detail. Damn you're an edgelord.
>>516464>we told you that in detailAnd I explained how you were wrong, you can't just ignore that unless you have something new to add
>>516466No we told why you're an edgelord.
>>516467Dube he is just bate at this point.
>>516467Don't seem to recall, maybe you've got me mixed up with some other anon, maybe because I don't pay attention to subhuman namecalling.If your "argument" has now been reduced to simple namecalling I guess it's your way of admitting you were wrong
>>516469Sorry about that.Its just that I truly believe pixelart and lowpoly does have artistic merits; the problem is that bunch of hacks use pixelart and lowpoly as an excuse for making shit. Therefore, pixelart and lowpoly are a kind of digital art that was sadly been smeared as gimmicks due to the shit stains that have no artistic values.
>>516483>I truly believe pixelart and lowpoly does have artistic meritsBut they don't. And it has nothing to do with the hacks attracted by it. It's a fundamental property of the "style"
>>516484It's not a style either. Making artwork pixel by pixel doesn't classify as a style, but a method. Same with making low poly models.What it ain't is a viable artwork for a profolio. sure, pixel artists find work like Robertson; but no one will hire low polygon atists since the cgi clients look for people who can make models that were not only detailed, but also can be animated as well. If you're looking for a job in cgi, look into sculpting and retopologization of models; then you can focus on lowpoly as a means of optimization.You can impress people with your low-res artworks, but it won't help you when it comes to job hunting.
>>516489>What it ain't is a viable artwork for a profolio. sure, pixel artists find work like Robertson; but no one will hire low polygon atists since the cgi clients look for people who can make models that were not only detailed, but also can be animated as well. you can clearly animate pixelart. You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even play any vidya
>>516394>paul robertson>good pixel artI like his stuff but he's not that great. It's mostly his animations that make it interesting.Look up fool, elk, helm, ptoing and cure amongst others. There are so many others that are way better than paul robertson within the medium.
>>516489>It's not a style either.That's why I put in in quotes retard>You can impress people with your low-res artworksonly plebs
>>516484>this art isn't art, so says I! NOT ART!>>516489>this water color isn't a style, it's a method using drippy colored water! NOT ART!If you've ever looked at an actual game artist's portfolio (there's WoW and Riot artists with DA accounts) you'll see that they show off a variety of styles from low poly to high poly. I hate that you filled this fucking thread with "muh what is art" bullshit.
EVERYONE STOP FIGHTING RIGHT NOWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>>516489Low poly artists wouldn't be looking for cgi work you fukken dingus. A lot of them work on mobile games because your 10 million triangle zbrush sculpt ain't worth SHIT if you can't convert it to an animatable <1000 triangle mesh.
>>516520>because your 10 million triangle zbrush sculpt ain't worth SHIT if you can't convert it to an animatable <1000 triangle mesh.You're implying it's at all difficult to quad-draw a low poly mesh on top of your sculpt and then bake a normal from the high to the low. It literally takes a few minutes and you're golden.
>>516519Jesus Yamato is right; lets migrate from this shitvile: >>506480
>>515489abstraction and specifically geometric abstraction has been prevelant in art for over a hundred years. And nostalgianot that you're pathetic excuse for a series of statements warrants a sincere response
>>516495Read the quote chain before you reply>>516528Same goes for you.see >>516341 >>516322 is particular
>>516573 I think >>516495 already did and has scolded said chain for derailing the discussion.
>>516574But it's already explained why he's wrong in the chain
>>516575No, he explained that the whole "what's art" is bullshit since art itself is subjective; no one is wrong because of said fact.
>>516577But it's not subjective that low-poly memes are a gimmick without artistic merit. Nobody really cares how some faget anon defines a word.
>>516580>meme>fagetNo one will take you seriously with that language.
>>516583>dull people who look superficial words instead of the actual arguments will not take your seriouslyfix'd
>>516584This proves you know nothing about art, or good arguement; not compare to those people: >>516495 >>516492 >>516489 >>516391 >>516385 >>516389Argue with them instead dipshit.
>>516586>This proves you know nothing about artYou switched topic to wording, not art retard.Also those posts have replies already. Read before you post
>>516587Not all of them: >>516391 >>516385 >>516385Try again.
>>516588They bring up shit already dealt withRead before you post
>>516590I READ ALL THEM.Here's the thing: You said tha pixelart and lowpoly are gimmicks meme with no artisitc merits if this is a fact. It is Not a fact and it's your fucking opinion. I know artistic merits because I know a shitty pixelart and shitty lowpoly models when I see one. Hell, pixelart is recognized as an art genre, and low poly art can still be made good as long as they're put time, effort, and research on their craft.I read both your post, we all read your posts. >>516495 thinks your posts are bullshit, so way to miss the fucking point.If you believed that pixelart and lowpoly are shit that have no artistic merts what so ever, then we respect that belief; but don't go around preaching it like it's the truth.
>>516593>I READ ALL THEM>[as] if this is a fact.Well you're either lying or you have grave reading difficulties>>516226>I know a shitty pixelart and shitty lowpoly models when I see oneThat's easy since it's the only kind
>>516594>focusing on fucking grammar instead of the arguments Nice priorities.
>>5165961. I take it you have grave reading difficulties then since your writing wasn't my point2. Top kek irony >>5165833. Typos (missing a word) and grammar are different things
>>516593why are you so mad?are you mad because highpoly is not within the range of your capabilities? get a life anon
>>515489 here.Look, as much I would want to continue this "arguement" over retroshit art, this has gone long enough. All I could say is learn to make fully detailed models with good topology above all else; only resort to this low-res garbage when it comes to optimization for games and platforns with shitty processors. Don't you fucking dare go back to that retroshit because it will hold back the progress we're making with cgi; not to mention it will encourage hacks to skip art school and create shit like Minecraft and Dontrel Dolphin. Fuck your lowpoly pixelshit: Go full hd, and for god sakes, learn how to fucking sculpt.
>>516603Why are you lying?
>>516603>art school>usefull skillsayy lmaobrb making games with cubes in 3d max to stop the progress you personaly are making with cgi
Look at all these faget trying to defend their shit. Boxshit and pixelshit are for nostalgiafags and nothing more; you can't deny that. There is no Art Style: it's Art or Shit. Boxshit and pixelshit are shit, because they made by shithead who don't challenge themselves to do real art; the same pansies who never grows up and live with their fucking parents instead of getting a fucking job. And all those "everything is art" or "art is subjective" are fucking excuses for this kind of shit. If you want to be great, aim for the top; don't settle for those shit because you'll end up like these pretentious shit heads.
>>516613Aren't you a pretentious shithead for claiming your definition of art is the only correct one?
Jesus everloving Christ, if you spent as much time arguing over low-poly being shit or not on politics, we would have already fired the fucking nukes.I like it. Other people I know like it. It's an art style, a good art style that isn't pretentious or contrived in any way. It reminds me of old games like Silent Hill or Spider-Man, back when designers had to put care and effort into the way games looked despite their limitations. What is your fucking problem with that?
>>516979>a good art style that isn't pretentious or contrived in any waywrong as explained above
>>517028All I see is the word "shit" plastered over aggravated reasoning with no factual basis.
>>517072>All I see is the word "shit"maybe becasue you can't read properly>no factual basisYeah, you can't read properly
>>517077I count the word "shit" 9 times in >>516613
>>516979Then you and your friends are pretentious hipsters. Take off your nostalgia googles and realise that there's no excuse for pixel art and other low-res crap.Sculpt, topologize, and optimize; that's the real 3DCG way.
>>516979Read the entire thread next time.Pixel art and lowpoly are gimmicks banking on nostalgia and nothing more; to say otherwise is delusional.
>>516195there's like 5 different people refuting your shitposts, calm down sperg. we get it, you get super butthurt over low poly, no one really cares.
What is the point of this thread
>>517169>there's like 5 different people refuting your shitpostsand there's two people me and >>517163 telling you to read before you post and make a fool of yourself
>>517170My Opinions Are Fact: The Thread
>>517170Faget want to take the easy way out and make box crap, so he asked everyone to give him tutorials on making said box crap; they complied until >>515489 tell said faget and everyone else who like this retarded crap to fuck off. Thus the Anon of enlightenment have to explain why limiting yourself is shit if you don't have any reason to do so besides banking on nostalgia.
>>517170some guy sperging over his dislike for low poly style and demanding everyone share his opinion