Quote:
Originally posted by Jutocsa:
Quote:
Originally posted by killdevil:
It is much easier to have someones graphics card do the lighting and create the depth in the textures as oppossed to having the 2d artist fake it. A very simple texture can be made to look good with good normals and bump maps. Much easier to create these than fake it in my opinion.
Thing is, your craphic card does the lighning only if you do the proper textures for it. Its the 2D artists job in both cases. Needs the same thinking in most cases, I mean you have to know which parts should have bump, which parts need highlights. No card will calculate that for you, not to mention that would need zillion polygons to make it real. So you have to tell the card with a texture where to do it. Or you fake it onto the diffuse map. Same story, personally i find the first approach a lot more fun, naturally the latter gives nicer result.
I've seen your work mate and you are a true artist. \:\) It is a tough pill for the pure artist ,I know but honestly digital art for games is starting to morph. Now you have folks like me producing good work when I am not an artist. Graphics for games are differnt than true painting in my opinion (apples and oranges). Much of the overall product can be produced with the shader these days (diffuse and specular lighting, shades, reflection, surface texture etc). Take rendermonkey for example. I can take a generic shader and just add my normal, bump etc to the model and I'm off to the races. It is only more work in that you have more at your disposal as an artist. Downside is that you have to learn how to get the most from the shaders and that takes time. To create the same result with just 2d textures in some cases would be impossible. You can't simulate the reflection of surrounding light on a piece of metal or glass with a 2d texture. Well you could, but a shader makes the reflection dynamic.

CSG_Rummy