[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



I just want to make shitty low-poly models like pic related but my results really suck.

Any tutorials or images showing good low-poly workflow?
>>
>>559981
>download various lowpoly models
>study topology
>create own models
>repeat till death
there you go anon
>>
>>559981
>wanting to model something from 20 years ago that looks like shit
>not wanting to model realistic af models

Renaissance Art > Contemporary Art

Why you want this anon?
>>
>>559995
>Why you want this anon?
I... I don't know...
>>
>>559981
A lot of low poly PS1/N64 era models have interpenetrating geometry, for simple animation that's pretty much key to the style.
>>
>>559981
you're falling for the most common art delusion that style is a replacement for skill.

low poly is an abstraction and you fist need to understand the human form in order to create appealing simplifications of it. people who make good low poly stuff are simply good artists working under a self-imposed limitation. it's not a shortcut.
>>
>>559999
Checked. The only reasons to go low poly is for performance or if you're trying to capture a very specific aesthetic.
>>
>>560042
i wouldn't study anatomy like a doctor just to make lowpoly characters that take 5 mins to create
>>
At least make """""stylized""""" low poly models if you're so determined to go low-poly.

It's probably not a popular opinion around here, but I think PS1 era models are piss ugly.
I understand that they had to be because of the technical limitations people had to work around at the time, but you really have no excuse to be striving for something that was created as a result of hardware limitations.
>>
>>560050
if you have a thorough understanding of human anatomy and proportions, then your results will improve.
>>
>>560051
the game would be put together much quicker, and low poly could complement the art style, depending on what it is.
>>
>>560051
You are right. Even back in the day it was kinda ugly.
>>
>>560067
Load of crap, the more appealing low poly characters have simple cartoon designs. All realistic attempts at anatomy at this low of a poly level, resulted in characters that looked like robots with human faces painted on their heads.

Anatomy is not a requirement for cartooning, that's a huge misconception.
>>
File: lowpoly.jpg (824 KB, 2229x1440)
824 KB
824 KB JPG
When it comes to low-poly models, good textures make a world of difference. I want to go as far to say that a texture is the most important aspect of a low-poly model.
>>
File: polybreno_1500.jpg (111 KB, 1500x1500)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
>>560093
>All realistic attempts at anatomy at this low of a poly level, resulted in characters that looked like robots with human faces painted on their heads.
ok bud
>>
>>560101
OP is talking about video game low poly, not fucking retro hipster low poly.
>>
>>560093
its really obvious when you don't understand anatomy and try to make cartoons. it looks like shit. you're retarded if you think no one notices; artists will be able to tell you're trying to cover up a lack of skill and non-artist will just think it "looks weird" or unattractive
>>
>>560105
I know this is hard for a lot of you CG guys to understand but you don't need a knowledge of anatomy to draw Bugs Bunny or Mario,
>>
>>560110
This is hands down the most retarded thing I've read today, and I've been on the internet all day.

If you're implying that the artists that created bugs bunny and Mario did not have years of training and practice, you're an idiot. If that's not what you're trying to say, you're probably still and idiot.
>>
File: BillNolan.jpg (27 KB, 400x305)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>560111
Ok, it's fucking clear to me you've never drawn in your life. Here's the drawing process of the godfather of the American animation cartooning style Bill Nolan. Sure there is some observation required in realizing that things can be simplified as spheres and tubes, but if you think think this takes a Da Vinci amount of anatomy studies, you are retarded.
>>
>>560111
A lot of cartoonists and comic book artists who could be considered the originators didn't have formal training. And that aside the reference material for anatomy back then certainly wasn't as good as today's.

Anatomy is a very specific field of study and it's not really an essential drawing skill like construction. Like let me put it this way. If you know human anatomy maybe it'll help you a bit with animals, and it won't help you at all with insects. If you want a heavily stylized human to look good you can base it off anatomy, a good and proven foundation, or you can come up with something that looks good to you, which is still possible.
>>
>>559995
>>560046

And this answers his question how exactly?
>>
>>560103
>~-=*"video game low poly"*=-~ vs ~-=*"retro hipster low poly"*=-~
>implying there's even a difference between the two besides "muh stylization"
polycounts are polycounts my uninformed friend. You could cut 50% of those polys and still have it work, as well.
>>
File: burtman.png (811 KB, 2217x1159)
811 KB
811 KB PNG
>>560125
suck my motherfucking dick
>>
File: zvVsnPn.png (445 KB, 1280x737)
445 KB
445 KB PNG
>>560130
nope
>>
>>560125
>implying there's even a difference between the two

"old game" low poly and "hipster" low poly are completely different techniques with different aims. the former is about conveying maximum detail with limited resources and little to no lighting. the latter is about intentionally accentuating a "low detail", "geometric" look without actually caring about polycount, and it often depends on modern lighting like global illumination, ao etc to look good.

>polycounts are polycounts

look at any "hipster" low poly scene tutorial on youtube. they add geometry for every little detail so it's actually very high poly, plus it looks like shit in fullbright. it's the complete opposite of what you would to to create locations for a ps1 game or a quake level or whatever. in "old game" low poly you would have extremely basic shapes with intricate texturing.
>>
>>560046
I love this aesthetic too

I've got no modelling experience but I'm kinda interested in doing a similar thing
>>
>>560096
Isn't banjo vert colored?
>>
>>560000
This is a really good insight. Thanks.
>>
Does /3/ have an archive? I remember an interesting thread about low poly chibis about a year ago.
>>
>>561427
going off that picture that certainly looks like it except that belt and necklace string look like textures. not sure about the eyes.
>>
>>560124
These are the only two logical reasons I can think up for going low poly.
>>
>>560130
You just got told, nigga. A turbosmoothed hi-poly does not equate to a topology-smart box-model. Kids today be thinking Low-poly is a style when it's actually an art.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.