can we do good pixel art with mouse(no pixel by pixel) and how ?

hi i have only a mouse and i am really bad at pixel art whatever i do i am really bad i need help
i don't want to do minimize graphism to my game pls comment i really need help

 

Pixel art is time-consuming to get done and even more time is needed to get it done properly, especially animated pixel art. My advice would be to learn and focus on vector art and use the various tools available, Spriter Pro, Spine etc to animate.

Unfortunately, pixel art requires an artists mind. If you don't have it you just don't have it.

 

thanks for the advice

 

I personally never got good at pixel art. It feels much more "artsy" to me as compared to 3d modelling for example. With 3d modelling, you can often get away with things you can't when using pixel art(though it applies the other way around as well). In 3d though, you can take a look at all sides of a thing and fix the anatomy, etc... which isn't easily done with pixel art. You have to figure things out more directly in 2d space.

Basically, not saying I'm an artist by any stretch...but I can get much closer to acceptable results from 3d models as compared to 2d sprites. With 3d, I can tell the computer to give a sphere, and it will light it up according to the instructions I give it(moving lights around, etc...). It feels a little closer to coding than pixel manipulation does.

There are also advantages in other ways, for example, that you only have to create the model once, and once you do the animation and texturing, it is a matter of rendering it out. If it doesn't look right, you can make slight changes to the model, and re-render. You don't have to modify tons of pixels, etc... So basically once you get to a certain point, iteration is generally easy enough.

The disadvantages however, lie in that there is much more technical stuff to learn, more steps to get things going, etc... 3d isn't for just anybody, though it may be more for some people than pixel manipulation is.

 

You can do pixel art with mouse, but it is called pixel art because you pretty much do it pixel by pixel.

I would not recommend to focus on vector art, because in my personal opinion, vector art tends to be significantly less expressive and worse looking most of the time.

If you're going to do pixel art, get yourself Aseprite. It is availble on steam and it is not very expensive.

Also working at lower resolutions is easier, because you can brute force your way towards making your sprite look better.

 

thanks for the advice

 

thanks for the advice

 

https://pixeljoint.com/pixels/tutorials.asp

 

Pixel art is pixel by pixel. That's why we call it pixel art. If you aren't willing to play around with individual pixels, you should probably look for another art style.

 

You can make pixel art from low poly 3d assets there a ton of that on the store.

There are many ways todo it and it can even be done in real time. This is first hit on google

 

As MDA was mentioning you can take 3d models, render out an animation while keeping the model centered perfectly, then degrade the actual frame by frame images down to pixels.
It isn't actually what I would call traditional pixel art but does work.

Allot of people don't know this but MANY of the original DOOM games pixel art and assets where originally traditional stop-motion animation using puppets, dolls, and clay that they converted over to pixel art. Kinda like MoCap but for pixels.

EDIT: Here's a little proof of concept I just whipped up out of a 3d tribal model I have. The original model was made (By me) in blender and has around 15k tris so it's not exactly "Low" poly.
After rendering out a very very simple and short wave animation with a solid color easy to crop backround I loaded it into Photoshop, converted it over to pixels while trimming down the palette to 14 colors, then finally turned it into a .GIF

 

This picture is an example of a 3d pre-rendered Asteroid(done in Blender). I also rendered a normal-map for it which I'm using in the shader to have the bullet light it up. It actually has an animation of 32 frames. I didn't mess with cleanup, and don't think I need to primarily because I'm not actually going for pixel art. But, this shows how you can use 3d to create 2d just serving as another example. Yes, I used Gamemaker Studio(pretend you don't see the icon ), and yes, Unity can do the same thing if you use the 2d side with a normal-mapping sprite shader.

 

One issue here is that in this case the animation usually will look bad and will have wooden movement. As you'll be dealing with both limitations of pixelart and problems arising from animating things in 3d.

And "wooden movement that lacks fluidity" is a problem you'll be very likely to hit when animating in 3d.

 

Simply rendering a 3d model out as a sprite does not result in pixel art, and I personally wouldn't call kburkhart84 or zypherem's examples of pixel art. They just look like sprites of 3d models. For example, the rough edges around the sprite and between the quantized colours of zypherem sprite is generally not something you would expect to see in a style where the artist has taken care with each pixel individually.

 

This is a thing that applies even if you aren't using 3d for pre-rendering sprites, though I think it gets worse in this case. The cool part about doing it as renders instead of real-time is that we can use any tools available in the modeller to make things better..in Blender, that includes things that would normally have to be baked into the animations, like driver usage, animating things that aren't normally animated, like materials, and plenty of other nifty things, like hair, metaballs, modifiers, etc...

This is 100% accurate. If you lower the resolution and do some palette limitations, it may give the ILLUSION of stereotypical pixel art, but IMO the definition of pixel art is about the creation process in a literal sense, not the result. The 3d suggestion is more about an alternative to art in general instead of actual pixel art. It is technically off-topic though since the OP asked specifically about pixel art, though they also emitted a bit of a cry for help that wasn't specific to the art type .

 

I would have to disagree with you. So long as you know what your doing and not being SUPER lazy and moving only 1 bone.
(As I did for the prototype proof of concept)
It isn't hard at all to achieve fluid motions in blender. Especially considering the power of the timeline editors/keyframe systems.
I could easily spend a day and make that little pixel tribe guy dance with the grace of a flower petal dancing on the wind. But If I am gonna put that much effort into something like that, somebody had best be paying me for it.

(As for the rough edges and quality? I spent an hour on this and have never made anything close to pixel animation in my life. I am 100% certain though there are ways and methods to convert raw low res images over to direct vector pixels. And had I spent more than a little under an hour to make that little guy trust me. He would have buttery smooth edges. I just wasn't gonna dish out that amount of effort to show a concept.)

 

Sorry, I just used it as an example, I didn't mean to criticise your artistic skills in any way.

Pixel art has a particular "look" that is more than just being pixelated. It is traditionally the result of drawing sprites pixel-by-pixel, but there is no reason you cant create it using other methods such as rendering out 3d models and processing them (MDADigital's examples, for example, do a decent job of looking like pixel art). It just takes some additional care and effort to try and capture that particular sort of look.

 

It depends on exactly how you define "pixel-art." Most times I've seen it discussed, the definition is more about how it is made than the final look. The way it is made is quite literally at the pixel level. This doesn't mean you can't modify more than one pixel at a time, rather the shortcuts taken are more about saving clicking on single pixels, not calculating things for you(like using photoshop brushes that do AA in 50 colors). And pixel art can be as small as 8x8 and as big as thousands by thousands of pixels(though bigger images take massive time if done as pixel art).

I have seen other define it the way you do however, with it being about the style of the end result. I see the merit in that definition, even if it isn't my preferred definition. But like I said, at the least from what I've seen of the discussion, if you aren't modifying the pixels directly, it isn't really pixel art, even if it looks like it. I'm sure this community is full of opinions on the subject and I'm sure they will soon follow my post either way.

 

By the time you know what you're doing you would have years of experience as a professional animator, and then the question would be - why are you trying to do pixelart.

I would recommend to grab OLD tom and jerry cartoon and try to repeat what you see in 3d. It is incredibly, incredibly HARD.

Spoiler

Doll animation (doll, not clay), paperdoll animation, vector animation, and 3d animation are prone to wooden movement, because the model is constrained to a fixed form.

A drawing is not constrained by a fixed form, because of that, it is easy to deform the model to accomodate fluid movement.

Trying to make 3d look like 2d is difficult, as explained, for example, here.

Spoiler

Additionally, long time ago I heard advice of professional animators and that was to first animate the scene in 2d, and then work on it in 3d.

I also recommend to check this video, as iti s related to pixel art in general.

Spoiler

Especially if you "never did pixel art in your life". As the point is to express what you had in mind using limited resolution AND palette. If you just render a 3d model and worry about sharp edges- that's not really a pixel art.

 

If you want to make 2D mouse-only art, then vector art is the way to go.

Otherwise go 3D.

A short hike, is a 3D game that uses downscaling to give a pixelart-esque appearance.

Ori and the blind forest all the characters are 3D rendered to look 2D.

Multiple ways to go about it, but you will need an artists mind to make art. Changing the method wont solve that.

 

I would say, lets see you do the same. Grab an old Tom and Jerry and recreate what you see in SNES pixel art style? Lol. I bet it would be "Incredibly HARD."

Wooden movement lacking fluidity you say?

I get it though. Pixel art master race. Your 2d art is always better than 3d, there is no way 3d animation could ever be as good as traditional 2d. *Winks*

 

As far as I can tell, you've run out of arguments and now are trying to be sarcastic. Which is not the best behavior. We're all adults here. Also, why not pick up Earthworm Jim or Alladin?

Making fluid movement in 2d is easier than in 3d. Significantly easier.
Setting up animation doll for pixel art characters is very time consuming, and is not a justifiable expense when you're doing something like a mario sprite which has 2 animation frames.

Additionally, the reason why drawing pixel art is easier than 3d render is because due to low number of pixels, you can brute force it. Place a dot, see if it looks closer to what you had in mind, and if it looks slightly better, keep it, otherwise reverse.

This can't be done with high resolution or vector art, and it can't be done with 3d. And in case of 3d animation, an animated manikin will have too many degrees of freedom to fiddle with.

Also, like I said - a recommended workflow to get a good 3d animation is to animate it first in 2d with a stick figure, and then make 3d actor match the moment.

 

Wait what? Noo animating pixel art is a pain. Animating a skinned mesh is much easier. I think most artists would agree

 

They were referring to the cartoon, not the game. I have to agree that animation is much more complicated in 3d than 2d, if you are trying to get something squishy, juicy, etc... Rigid 3d geometry doesn't lend itself to that, you have to make it happen. But with pixels, you can directly place the pixels, make some changes, etc... And yeah, your sarcasm is not the best way to make yourself appear correct. I've personally stated I do better with 3d than pixels, but I promise it has nothing to do with trying to say animation is easier there than pushing a few pixels around.

Earthworm Jim is a hell of a good example. From what I saw, it didn't get good reviews when they made the 3d versions....wonder why? Maybe it had to do with a lot less of the nice squishy, goopy, animation stuff. When doing pixels, you can simply change colors and push things around...in 3d, its much more painful to mess with changing materials like that, and geometry doesn't stretch and squish the same way with just bones...you generally have to do things with direct vertex skinning(Shape Keys in Blender). Unity supports this, but it adds another layer to an already complex system of course.

In my opinion it depends on what stage you are on and what the animation is. If it is a basic walking thing, it isn't so hard in 3d(although it may have the wooden movement problem). But if you want juicy squishy stuff, its suddenly much harder. However, if you get into iteration on something, pixel art becomes harder sometimes. A simple change to the color of a shirt, or the hair style of your character, for example would mean repairing lots of animation frames if you already had them done. But in 3d, it can be as simple as modifying a texture and re-rendering in many cases. So yeah, I'd say it depends on what you are doing specifically.

In my case, part of the reason I find 3d easier overall is because I don't have to calculate lighting, etc... I still have to worry about correct anatomy(though its easier in 3d for me to do that). And my skillset is also better tuned to 3d than 2d. But that's a personal thing, not necessarily a thing about it being harder or easier.

 

Yep. And even with blend shapes, you're constrained by existing topology. Basically, stuff like continuous werewolf transformation is not a problem in 2d, but it is incredibly hard to do in 3d. The GDC lecture I linked explains some of this, basically, guys that were doing Xrd sign had to put in some heoric efforts in order to make their characters work. Becaue they shapeshift and deform in cartoon manner.

 

Really the point I am pressing is that with either format, 2d pixels, or 3d models the quality and "fluidity" can be achieved.

The defining factor for both, is the amount of effort put fourth to create those animations. If you put fourth little effort, both pixel and 3d look rigid, and lacking fluidity.

I honestly enjoy both formats and think they are both equally valid for making fluid animations. One or the other isn't better, It all depends on the artist wielding them.

 

I don't see myself attempting that animation in 3d anytime soon. The closest I'd do right now would be to fake something, either hiding it with smoke and mirrors, or since I'm doing pre-rendered stuff it would be easy enough to swap meshes in the middle and make shape keys from the two meshes that look similar and swap at that exact point in time. But even then the material swapping would be pretty difficult. This is a good example of something that would very much be easier in 2d unless the person simply had no 2d skills and was highly proficient with 3d.

 

"Can be achieved" does not mean "can be achieved easily". The point I am pressing is that difficulty differs greatly across format. An in 2d medium the difficulty is lower.

2d art has even exercise for it - gesture drawing. It does not translate into 3d. Give it a try.

In 2d a basic sketch can be done in 30 seconds or less. A pose of a stick figures can be done in a few seconds.
In 3d it ain't happening. Because the speed is so high, with a software that has onion skin support you can quickly draw and redraw frames till they look right in motion.

Also a good modern example of an animation that is very hard to do in 3d is Cuphead. Here it is.

 

There is an insane amount of animation knowledge that goes into making cup head.

For a indie it's much easier to use skinned mesh and buy mocap animations. We use umotion to clean and alter the mocap.

Mocaps are always too exaggerated even in big AAA productions. Idle animations look like the character just sprinted an entire marathon and are struggling to get air.

 

The easiest approach is pixel art. Then 2d paper dolls.

Because using skinned mesh requires you to learn how to model, rig, texture and uv unwrap.

 

You can Kitbash too. Our method is buying mocap on the store and clean and retrofit using umotion. Probably the easiest method if you are not an artist.

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/animation/umotion-pro-animation-editor-95991

 

Specifically in the case of using 3d for pre-rendered, you can sometimes skip some of the steps that are normally associated with it. Some models go through a lot more than is necessary, like doing a sculpt and retopo lower poly. If you are pre-rendering, you could just render the sculpted version. That asteroid I have above has over 3 million verts...not sculpted though, but created through subdivision, and all the detail was done using displacement textures(which is why it needed so much geo to look OK-ish). For animated models, you may want to have better control, but even then, you don't have to worry about poly budget at the least.

And then, when it comes to texturing, it also depends on the asset. Some things can get away with procedural textures, layering a few basic things that come included with Blender's Eevee renderer. And you may not need UVs either since you can use generated ones. And even if you do handle UVs, you can typically map the lowerpoly version of meshes if you are doing subdivision, instead of having to apply that subdivision and then do UVs.

And for animation, yeah, you can't really skip the rigging parts...but other options are available that you couldn't normally use, like animating modifier values for cool effects. In Blender, you can animate about any parameter on anything, so its quite easy to animate changing things over time that aren't just physical positions...this includes things like strengths on displacement textures and other modifiers, colors, etc... in materials. You basically have the whole power of the rendering engine at your disposal since for this specific use case you are pre-rendering things instead of just using the models elsewhere.

***************

That said, I 100% agree that in general, pixel art is going to be a lot easier than 3d. Right now, I find 3d easier, but that's me personally. I find it a little more technical and less artsy. There are "technical" things I can do in 3d that don't apply in 2d(like I describe above). Some day I'll spend some time and learn pixel art though, no idea when.

 

Good to see that other people noticed this too.

 

Even Cuphead still resorts to short looping animations with little to no variation. You can literally watch the sprite's animators go through the states. I would imagine that is due to how long it takes to do those kind of animations.

One of the boons of 3d model based stuff is after you get the initial set up and rigging done you can easily make longer animations with several loops, blending, and even calculated physics based IK.
You do need to invest considerable effort to make the initial model and get a good rig made. And then you also need to have a least a little coding knowledge to get the procedural IK stuff going.
But after that.... Is all butter. Once you have it all set up, you can pump out animations and loops just as fast as any traditional 2d artist.

(EDIT: Forgot to add. I agree 100% on the Mocap stuff. It's not a bad tool. But lazy people use it as a crutch. And anytime you use a tool as a crutch you are making yourself weaker.)

 

What about squishy stuff, things that aren't doable with just bones(IK or otherwise)? Your point about pushing out animations once you have a rig, etc... are valid and I agree with them...but it isn't all clear sailing either unless you are fine with only bone animation. You will need to do things that directly affect vertex shapes. Just having rigs done won't let you easily create a werewolf transformation(as mentioned above) for example.

 

Is not exactly rocket science. Though does take some math. And that looks pretty low effort. Imagine if you put as much effort into a squash and stretch system as a traditional 2d animator would put into a frame by frame equivalent of it.
Of course you could go back afterwards and make the ball bounce in different directions off of different surfaces and angles with relative ease.... The 2d guy still has to draw every single one of those frames.

Also we should mention the bane of 2d animators. Panning shots that wrap around the char forcing them to calculate and redraw perspective every single frame. I don't 2d much but I have listened to enough well known 2d animators to know those are a pain to get right.

Sure you need to expend different amounts of effort in different areas, but it all adds up. The effort for quality equation equals for both 2d and 3d depending on the person using the given format.

It is a misconception and untrue to say one is inherently easier or of higher quality than the other. And I hate misconceptions.
If everyone here was saying that 3d is easier and better than 2d I would be trying to support 2d animation instead.

 

You are talking about the simpler things though, like a ball. That can be done with a few scaling operations...but other animations are very much not going to be done with simple scaling. And that said, even just with scaling, you have to mess with the materials to so they don't end up ugly. A lightly more complex example is a bouncing human head. The general shape can be done with scaling, but the nose and ears won't look right, so those have to be done separately. Then what about the facial expression? That's still a simple one, what about the fore-mentioned werewolf transformation? Do you have a quick and easy 3d solution for that one? I prefer 3d, but I don't have a solution that would be faster than the 2d version of drawing the frames.

Now this part, I 100% agree with. Its another part of why I prefer 3d, as iterations like changing angles are much simpler once you have the model animated and the material done well.

On this we partly agree. Quality...is very much an opinion kind of thing. Difficulty...not necessarily. If you count on previous experience(like in my case I flow better in 3d than 2d), then yes, we can agree. But if you are simply starting from zero with no experience, I guarantee pixel art will be easier than 3d modelling, and will take less time to learn. Now, if you wanna make it higher resolution 2d stuff instead of pixel art, then the discussion can very much change. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm really thinking that despite the difficulties you mention with pixel art, most artists that are equally familiar with both will agree with me on this. And remember, this is coming from someone who flat out prefers working in 3d.

This is turning into a pretty good discussion in all honesty. Its hard these days sometimes for people to disagree and it not turn into a name-calling tantrum fest

 

Actually, I have not had a chance to mess around with it yet. But I had an idea for a 3d rig inspired by an older horror movie called "The Company of Wolves". I am not gonna link the vid because it is extraordinarily graphic and features some PTSD fever dream lvl body horror. It's easy enough to google though.

Essentially in the movie, they have an animatronic puppet of one of the chars head, his mouth splits open and a wolf's head pushes out from inside of him.
Something like that using two different models. Have the second one emerge from inside the first one as the first one peels back and melts into the second model. If you are just animating then you can have the models both exist in the same space since performance isn't a issue but if you wanted to implement it in a game you would need to crop the model that wasn't visible at the time. Or maybe even disable it altogether.

Would take some time to set up, but once the system is hashed out you could have any kind of were-beast by simply changing out the models and making some small tweaks.

 

It seems like you would be animating the material when this happens(on the first model). What about if you wanted the model to actual rip apart at some kind of seams, possibly rolling up on the edges, like the paper in this picture. That would take more than just small tweaks. You would have to somehow morph the geometry into position. Its doable of course, but isn't nearly as easy as translating a few bones around.

That said, if I personally were doing it, I would likely fake something. I'd have some kind of special effect cover one changing to the other, and maybe the most I would do is have the first scale to the size of the second just before changing them(behind the curtains). Another trick would be if you wanted to do it a little more "magical" and use Blender cast modifier. You could apply that modifier to turn the two meshes into sphere and then set that as Shape keys. Then you could make the animation morph the first into a sphere, then change meshes, and morph the second mesh away from the sphere. If you do it right, you won't even notice the material changing in between.

 

That's what you've been saying so far, pretty much.

Advantages/disadvantages of all those techniques are well known. 3d allows you to alter character and keep the animation. Or all animations. It also allows you to rotate a complex object easily (it will have distinct 3d look, though, and will be easy to spot).

2d, however, is not constrained by anything. So you can draw anything, and draw anything transforming into anything else. With 3d such sequences are extremely hard to do, and require meticulous planning ahead, and here you're losing advantage of using 3d medium. Likewise, toon transformation rigs are not trivial to setup, and do not accomodate for infinite number of possibilities available in 2d.

Here are some examples of extreme 2d transformations which you are unlikely to have ever seen.

Be aware that viewing may cost you some sanity points.

(scroll to 1:25)

Spoiler

Scroll to 1:25.

Spoiler

Going back to pixel art, setting up an animation puppet for traditional low resolution graphics is generally not worth it.

3d starts having benefits when you need a LOT of frames with character that remains the same. Or if there is a need to keep the animation and change the outfit often. Or if you need to see the character from many different angles.

 

Bringing up various transformations as a "problem" for 3d is a bit of "moving the goalpost" I think. Extremely limited use gimmick, especially in case of game art.
If we look at "classical" animation, such morphing effects are almost exclusively used on flat shaded characters and happen at relatively low frame rate
So, if a 3d character model is flat shaded(or cel shaded), it will be easy to use model switching for such effects since there wont be any shading artifacts to worry about. For any situation which doesnt require mesh switching, shape keys will be enough

 

Take much more practical situation: character using any sort of customisable equipment, not just costume. Or adding new combat moves to existing character. 3d wins hand down. Or character having any sort of tattoos, or wearing patterned fabric.Thats enough to send "infinite possibilities" of 2d down the drain

 

The gimmick is tied to making movements and poses that do not feel stiff. Because 2d allows characters to easily deform to accentuate movement. Deform in any way animator can envision.
In case of 3d models, before you deform anything, you will have to envision all the possible deformation you're going to need, and plan and accomodate for them.

By the way, this applies to realism as well. Because another area where this restriction shows up is simulation of musculature. This pretty much is never done in video games, and requires insane amount of work to properly work in 3d.

An example of that can be found in Ghost in the Shell - in the "Tank Destroying Scene" (which can be found on youtube).

"The Thing", Husky transformation. Then compare with CG version from later. THe CG one doesn't have even remotely similar effect.

Shadows.

 

Characters do not need to deform to accentuate movement. You can get the same effect with just the pose keyframes. Depending on style, "squash and stretch" might even look totally out of place. Why this preoccupation with a single "rule" of animation which is more of a stylistic choice? There are other animation techniques such as anticipation and overshoot, which can be used to improve bone animation

Modern game engines have everything required for that. Driven shape keys + displacement map + 2 models (outer layer with animated transparency mask). "You have to envision all possible deformations" is a moot point since all examples you gave were made by teams of professionals over months, obviously with lot of iterations preceding it and everything envisioned up front. You are acting like 2d indie games have scenes with comparable quality just because it is 2d.

Ok, at this point you are just arguing for sake of arguing. Where is 2d here? Or seamless morphing? Better analogy, this is several different 3d models made in expensive way, then slapped together in the sequence using lots of jump cuts =P

 

They don't. Modern engines are missing a key piece of technology - which would be animated 3d models that do not have topology, or volumetric models. While you can approximate the result with shape keys, the result will be suboptimal and setup will be time consuming.

Do you have experience with gesture drawing? Or with 2d drawing?

Because while I wouldn't claim to be a "professional", I do have experience with all those areas. 2d drawing, pixel art, 3d modeling, rigging, and animation. So I'm actually speaking from experience, and not inventing bullshit out of thin air.

I feel like that part isn't getting across, and same goes for my attempts to explain what the problem is.

 

There is literally nothing in those shots that would require volumetrics or any kind of future technology. Provided that the transformations arent interactive in some way, same principles will apply to both 2d and 3d (switching between drawings or several meshes, both will be time consuming but 3d can speed up few moments). And I was learning 3d animation extensively past few years, including topic of transformations. If everything goes well during this week, I might even render a gif or two illustrating possible solutions.

 

I asked you, specifically, if you have experience with 2d art and gesture drawings. Because having experience in those in addition to experience with 3d, would provide a different perspective compared to what you'd get if you only learn 3d. Yes, it is important.

And the answer to my question, judging by your response, is a "no".

So I advise to learn basics of drawing and practice Gesture Drawings in order to expand your horizons.

-----------

Alright, at this point, the discussion is clearly going in circles and I'm neither enjoying it nor getting any information out of it. Also it feels like I'm talking to a wall.

I'm out.

 

Ok, sure with your level of enlightment, you do not use same keyframes as mere mortals :-^

 

Just a quick point....video games are in a pretty literal sense "interactive video" so in some cases there is going to be interaction. But yes, I know most animations aren't necessarily interactive, I just thought the statement was ironic since we are discussing video games.

It seems like we just gotta agree to disagree on this. As said, the topic is pretty much played out, and nobody is going to be able to convince anybody else to change their opinions.

Your sarcasm doesn't make you look good. You never did answer the question, if you have real experience with 2d art. All neginfinity is saying is that they do have such experience, and you didn't answer, and instead respond with this sarcasm. Sad...... And it isn't that I don't agree with lots of your points....it just seems like if you don't "win" the argument you throw a tantrum.

 

I was thinking in the context of videos posted in the thread. Hard to imagine them as anything other than cutscenes. Triggered by the player maybe, but the transformation/gore sequence is likely going to be predetermined. So keyframing the shape keys should work just right

I know, it was petty. I do not work on drawn 2d animation myself, I only read several books on animation and got an impression that the most of the principles are applicable to any media. So @negifinity would just continue brushing off my points because working with 2d allegely gives him some secret knowledge. There is no use debating such position