A few questions about the perceptual 2D and 3D problem...

NNapperC · 20 Feb

Hello, I am a designer focused on 2D animation and game design. People around me often ask questions about these topics. One common discussion is that 2D animations can be created in 3D programs by applying 2D effects, resulting in an animation that appears visually 2D.

Additionally, it is possible to create purely 2D animations using software like Spine and other 2D-based animation programs. However, some argue that instead of drawing scene angles and compositions frame by frame, they can speed up the process and work more flexibly using 3D modeling. They also claim that cutting and rigging visuals for 2D animation takes time, whereas 3D modeling allows for a faster workflow.

Of course, this approach can lead to large file sizes in games, which is not always ideal. I also recognize the importance of artistic vision, design spirit, and craftsmanship in animation. However, I love 2D animation, and I want to strengthen my perspective on this matter by hearing your thoughts.

1) Since 3D-based programs can create games that appear 2D through visual effects, why is there a need for this approach?

2) Could the speed and flexibility provided by 3D-based animations lead major studios to fully adopt this method, reducing the production of traditional 2D animation?

3) If the differences between traditional 2D animation and 3D-assisted 2D animation become indistinguishable to the audience, will artists be pushed entirely towards 3D workflows?

Thank you!

Spinebot · 20 Feb

The approach of using 3D-based programs to create games that appear 2D is often driven by the desire for flexibility and efficiency. 3D models can be manipulated to create different angles and perspectives without redrawing each frame, which can save time and resources. This method also allows for more dynamic camera movements and lighting effects that are more challenging to achieve in traditional 2D animation.
While the speed and flexibility of 3D-based animations are appealing, major studios are unlikely to fully abandon traditional 2D animation. Each method has its unique strengths and artistic qualities. Traditional 2D animation offers a distinct aesthetic and charm that is difficult to replicate with 3D techniques. Studios often choose the method that best fits the artistic vision and storytelling needs of a project.
Even if the differences between traditional 2D animation and 3D-assisted 2D animation become less noticeable to audiences, artists are unlikely to be pushed entirely towards 3D workflows. The choice of technique often depends on the desired artistic style and the specific requirements of a project. Both 2D and 3D animation have their place in the industry, and artists will continue to use the tools that best suit their creative goals.

NNapperC · 20 Feb

Spinebot There are many people interested in Spine. But they seem a little confused. I would like to give two more examples of questions from those around me.

1) While 3D techniques can be used to create 2D visuals, specialized software like Spine 2D offers advantages such as precise control over 2D animation, lightweight file sizes, and a handcrafted feel. Especially in mobile and indie game development, these tools are preferred for their flexibility and efficiency. Do you think Spine 2D and similar 2D animation tools will maintain their relevance in the industry? Or will their importance diminish as major studios seek more efficient workflows?

2) As studios prioritize efficiency, 3D-assisted 2D animation techniques are becoming increasingly popular. However, Spine 2D provides a streamlined and optimized workflow for rigging and animation, making it a strong alternative, especially for mobile games and indie projects. Do you think investing in Spine 2D and specializing in this tool is a viable long-term strategy? Or will animators need to integrate 3D tools into their workflow to stay competitive in the future?

Nate · 21 Feb

Note it's just "Spine", not "Spine 2D".

Besides the aspects mentioned above like artistic style, size, rendering performance and simplicity, etc, it's important to note that 3D can be very time consuming. You postulated that 3D has faster workflows. While it depends on the project's needs, I think this is rarely true. The 3D pipeline often consists of multiple specialists, while 2D is more approachable for small teams, or even a single person. It's awesome to have a super detailed animated 3D model that you can view from any angle, but creating that takes a lot of effort. If you are doing something where you can make full use of that effort, it can make sense. Otherwise it can much easier to paint 2D detail than it is to model it all in 3D. In many cases it isn't necessary to view from any angle, so extra effort to enable that is wasted. Also, animating in 3D can require a lot more effort.

A lot of animation is about how the end result looks, not about being physically accurate. Even in 3D, animators may need to deviate from being physically accurate, similar to the "tricks" employed in 2D to achieve a particular look. Cheating perspective, exaggerating motion, and other tricks in 2D are quite easy, but in 3D that can be difficult or impossible when it needs to look correct from all angles. This gives 2D advantages across many art styles, with a handcrafted feel that can be appealing and makes for unique branding.

For an example, consider what it would take to make this Spine game in 3D and achieve the same look:

Even projects from top studios with huge budgets that are very 3D heavy still employ 2D for visual effects, UI, stylized sequences, promotional assets, etc.

The benefits of 2D make it a good choice for many types of projects. 3D can be amazing and has its place too, but 2D is in no danger of becoming obsolete.