[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 / qa] [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] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Are there any good tutorials to help me recapture the delicious low poly charm of late 90s video games?
>>
This is very well guarded knowledge.
>>
just make low poly models?
>>
>>701437
I swear we have two anons on this board that are responsible for half of the threads. One of them is a broken record 90's computer graphic wannabe aficionado
who can't be bothered to google how to render using legacy settings and shadertech.

The other one is looking for a silverbullet no-nonsense tutorial videoseries with high production values that teaches in-depth step by step
a secret pornographic workflow that turns your regular CG skills into special porno skills that only can be used for making lewd content.
>>
>>701446
People are too terrified for various reasons to post any of their real work. So it's ironic posting, shitposting, bait posting and so on.
>>
>>701447
My furry porn content gets deleted :(
>>
>>701447
There are people posting their work, even if sometimes we wish them not to.
>>
>>701442

A guy in the illuminati I know knows about it.
>>
>>701461
Bullshit. The Illuminati don't exist. Even if they did exist, what reason could there be for the five to be somehow connected to them?
>>
>>701446
Kek
>>
>>701459
the few good ones get drowned out by the shit
>>
>>701437
back then, models were made in solid separate segments due to shape animation being difficult. make for easy modeling...
>>
>>701437
It has to do with shitty shaders, low resolution textures, low polygon counts, and low resolution screen output.
>>
File: WONMENU.gif (1.99 MB, 635x474)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB GIF
Look up some old 3dsmax books and if you can find them any remaining quake-era tutorial sites. Going in blindly with "just low rez and poly" will not match what was of the era, you have to do your homework on the hardware limitations and methods of such for example:

-Skeletons with hard weight rigging and using overlapping limbs
-quake vertex only animation
-images with limited palletes (quake had a shared palette on everything, Halflife used 8bitindexed BMPs so 256 colors per texture)
-alphatest masked textures and clever use of additive textures. Also use image planes for many details that would be unfeasible for polycount. Also clever techniques such as capping cylinders with a alphatest masked circle image plane (example a pic of a tire for tires, or the end of a gun).
-No pelt UV mapping; unwrap head & limbs with Cylinder projection and manual-tweaking
-limited number of textures/memory
-UV mapping with lots of mirroring and textel density priority (faces have the highest UV space). Additionally half-mirror for asymettrical face details but rest of head/back of head mirrored
-most modelling workflow was box modelling or merging parts carefully and use of Geospheres for rounded shaped, and right down to painstaking per-triangle at times; also don't fall into MUH QUADS ONLY bullshit "lowpoly" that indie idiots that guess what the era was like, take a look at older models and they used tris everywhere and carefully did placement
-simple shading; if going for later era, perhaps a spec map here or there
-textures were mostly painted at their final resolution for maximum sharpness especially for pixel noise/dither/fine detail. Authoring your textures at huge resolution and then downsampling it will cause ugly blurring/lost detail at very low res. Handpaint everything

But most of all, study the models/game you are looking at. Try to get rips of the assets and look at how its built, how its unwrapped, how its rigged, how the textures were done, ect ect.
>>
>>701437
There is no answer, there are no tutorials, there are no guides.

The ways of making these older models were painstaking and developed around dead tools we no longer use. All of the new features and ease of use tools are designed around a completely different work flow and skill set. Textures were done by real artists, now they're just materials from some library or photobashed and slapped on sculptures.

How do I make joints work? Should I disconnect the joints? How do I handle seams with such low res textures? How do I keep my texture's pixel grids uniform so I don't have diamonds next to grids? How do I handle lighting, do I have to disable it all or can I use some without ruining my look? How do I keep my pixel density uniform across assets? How do I texture my environment, do I use repeating patterns or hand draw different chunks?

Making low poly charming assets means ignoring all of the tech and tools that make 3D art easier and more automated, and focusing purely on extremely clean, intelligent polygon work and extremely well designed and color theory based textures.

If I make a model the old way, I can change the lighting or general color vibe at a whim. Not with hand drawn low poly textures, every element needs to flow within the proper color theory or it's garbage.

So good luck mastering low poly modeling, color theory, shape/form, UV tweaking and snapping, painting, and pixel art. As opposed to just molding some sleek overwatch looking cunt out of clay and slapping materials on it until it looks AAA and then attaching it to a premade skeleton full of animations and functionality.
>>
>>701437
Pretty much this >>702134 but you also need 90's hardware to do it correctly because the silicon graphics machine of the day
came with a specific user interface that allowed you to insert polygons at a special 1990's degree angle that would create charming graphics
as opposed to contemporary bloated angles that requires much much higher polycounts and a soulless workflow that only works on a high hz machine.

The rasterizer of old the machines also sampled the pixels in a much more 1990's and charming way that is very difficult
to replicate on a dead and boring contemporary machine that works in a completely different and more non-binary manner of translation
which causes the polygons to look more 90's and flat under a Goraud shader than they do with with a current 00's Gayraid shader.
>>
>>702136
I disagree, you can make modern game engines replicate most of the visual effects of older games to achieve the same look.

It's the painstaking process of making the models, limiting your toolset, and keeping all game models uniform in style that is difficult.
>>
>>702134
>Making low poly charming assets means ignoring all of the tech and tools that make 3D art easier and more automated, and focusing purely on extremely clean, intelligent polygon work and extremely well designed and color theory based textures.

Well said.

Probably one of my favorite examples of great art design and color is Vagrant Story. The texturework and use of what limitations of the PS1 hardware is astonishing.
>>
>>702346
Beautiful game. Silent hill, MGS, Mega Man Legends, the PS1's lack of texture filtering created some truly beautiful games.

I find myself missing that look. It was like being inside a living painting, with the dense, textured brush strokes of pixel art drenching everything in art and purpose. Every image hand made, every color hand picked, it was truly a time of living art.

Now it's all just photorealism, or shiny plastic looking cartoon dolls.
>>
>>702053
do what this guy said, but also keep in mind modern technology. you don't have to do half the things he said, but you ABSOLUTELY should have overlapping limbs, and hard weight rigging. you also need some understanding of 2d texturing, and good art skills, but i'd guess you can still bake down bump maps from high poly models, into a low resolution.
>>
If you are in the need of 3DS Max books. Contact me here, this knowledge is not really that complex.
>>
>>702451
Ironically, oftentimes newer games are hard to play due to a lack of visual distinction. When everything is a photo-realistic drab color palette, and we don't have the advantage of stereoscopic vision, everything gets lost in it's surroundings, just like camouflage breaks up an outline.
>>
>>702609
This is something I've been thinking about a lot and trying to nail down. My theory is that immersion in a video game comes from the interactivity of the simulation, the clarity that the game world communicates to the player with visually, and the music/sound FX.

By this measurement Minecraft is more immersive than the Witcher 3 or Assassin's Creed. In Minecraft there is a high level of interactivity and universal rules that every facet of the game follows, this is clearly communicated to the player with simple, blocky elements, all of which you can interact with or destroy and the sound / music perfectly fit the mood.

Let's take another example, If I am a thief trying to find a key in a mansion, a modern game will be required to highlight the key, make it glow, show it on my radar, use x-ray vision, because this mansion will no doubt be filled to the brim with intricacy and dust and every table will have countless little items such that the player cannot walk into a room and actually find the key without a bright cue, the game is failing to visually communicate with the player now. The result is that the player rushes through the mansion looking for the glowing object and never really "sees" the complex artwork and details dressing the mansion, he's just seeking the glowing objective.

Now let's imagine the same scenario, but with a low poly simplistic aesthetic. Each room has sparse, blocky furniture, there are a few vases and objects on desks, but when you spot the key, you spot it by your own skills because it's a chunky low poly asset. The visual design is communicating clearly to the player. The player is actually looking at the room with their eyes to spot the key, they are no longer on auto pilot they are in that room trying to solve the objective.

A game with bright, chunky retro pixel 3D graphics can visually communicate to the player far better than a photo-realistic modern game.
>>
File: meigs-1982.png (7 KB, 640x400)
7 KB
7 KB PNG
>>702872
I recall reading something along these lines when it came to flight simulation. I forget if it related to early personal computer simulations, or to the ones used to train actual pilots but the basic argument was that internal consistency of the simulation and the level of detail provided was the most important factor in making the simulation effective. Pilots (and plane fans) know what a runway looks like and their brains are very good at filling in the gaps when you have a computer draw a flat shaded rectangle with a number and some lines running down the centre. To be able to use real visual navigation charts to a satisfying degree, all you really need is the major roads (draw a white line), rivers (blue line) and hills (a green pyramid). Despite being low fidelity, since everything is internally consistent the results can be quite satisfying.
>>
>>702875
It's like the simpler the shapes and the more distinct the colors, the better the information flows to our brains. There's a reason why Nintendo's characters are more iconic than any other "mascot" around. The end goal of a simulation is to make the player feel like they are really "there" and for some reason we all kept thinking the path to immersion was greater visual fidelity, and I think we were all wrong.

I feel like I'm there in Minecraft, I feel like I'm watching a movie in Uncharted 4.

Thief 1 did a great job with this, Everquest, Mega Man Legends, Ocarina of Time, Gothic 1 / 2.

Gothic 1 does it really well, you go into someones hut and it's just a small chest where they keep their things, a table and chairs and a bed. The NPC will sleep in the bed, sit at the table and eat, and put his goods in his Chest. This feels like a real room b/c the NPC uses it, and you can do the same, you can sleep in their bed, rob their chest or sit at their table. The Elder Scrolls games get the interactivity down, but their art direction is muddy and dull, they lack good use of color and visual communication.

Simplicity, clear visual design, and universal rules of interactivity are the basis of a really immersive game. Hopefully devs start to realize this before it's all interactive movies.



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.