Pixel Art style VS 3D graphic, which one do you prefer?

I know that there aren't two things to compare.. they belong to two different ages..

but I would be very interested in knowing your opinion about it.

What graphic style would you use for your game by forcefully choosing between pixelart and 3D? and why? such pros and cons?

I think it depends on a lot of things. What type of game you're making, target audience, is there any mechanic that requires 3D etc etc...

I think it depends on a lot of things. What type of game you're making, target audience, is there any mechanic that requires 3D etc etc...

that is clear, but maybe I explained the question badly..

in a game with the same feasibility, having to choose between one and the other, what graphic style would you choose, and why? pros and cons?

I'm not speak just about aesthetics, but also, for example, the difficulty of animating a mesh rather than a sprite, etc

Personally I mostly use 3d software to create much of my artwork, even if i'm doing a 2D game. I just work a lot faster in Maya, and if you do a 3d model you can just change angle, rotate and deform it to quickly make more variations. I find 3d much more handy as you can use 3d software to make 2d sprites, or use simple 3d objects as reference and quckly draw pixel or 2d art on it. But starting from scratch, for me making 2D artwork takes a lot longer time.

I think animation in 3d is a lot easier also, but maybe that's just because i'm used to it.

Learning 3d software can take a lot of time though as it's a lot more complex, with modeling, texturing, UV mapping, rigging, skinning, animating, lighting, shaders, rendering. It's so complex in some cases that in bigger development studios, there can be one person hired for almost each of those areas.

2d or pixel art is faster to start with I think, and due to the more retro feeling you can get away with a lot. Animations can be just a couple of frames and a bit choppy, it's part of the charm. It doesn't have to be 30 frames per second smooth animations.

So all in all, I think 3d is more flexible but harder. 2d/pixel art is faster and more forgiving but can still look cool.

Personally I mostly use 3d software to create much of my artwork, even if i'm doing a 2D game. I just work a lot faster in Maya, and if you do a 3d model you can just change angle, rotate and deform it to quickly make more variations. I find 3d much more handy as you can use 3d software to make 2d sprites, or use simple 3d objects as reference and quckly draw pixel or 2d art on it. But starting from scratch, for me making 2D artwork takes a lot longer time.

I think animation in 3d is a lot easier also, but maybe that's just because i'm used to it.

Learning 3d software can take a lot of time though as it's a lot more complex, with modeling, texturing, UV mapping, rigging, skinning, animating, lighting, shaders, rendering. It's so complex in some cases that in bigger development studios, there can be one person hired for almost each of those areas.

2d or pixel art is faster to start with I think, and due to the more retro feeling you can get away with a lot. Animations can be just a couple of frames and a bit choppy, it's part of the charm. It doesn't have to be 30 frames per second smooth animations.

So all in all, I think 3d is more flexible but harder. 2d/pixel art is faster and more forgiving but can still look cool.

i agree whith you, also I think I think that in general pixelart requires more artistic skills and 3D more technical skills.

They don't belong to different ages ; it's like saying "paintings" are obsolete because of "sculptures".

Without context, there's no rational way to prefer one over the other : it's not about technique, it's about art direction and "rendition".

They don't belong to different ages ; it's like saying "paintings" are obsolete because of "sculptures".

Without context, there's no rational way to prefer one over the other : it's not about technique, it's about art direction and "rendition".

sorry my poor english, what you mean with "rendition"?

It's more a musical term, meaning an "interpretation", i.e. performance ; applied to other disciplines, the concept means the "translation" of a vision into a realisation and material. Here, it's about conveying the artistic vision into the game, and preference towards pixel sprites or 3d models is not really relevant, as one or the other, or both, could be more suitable for certain types of projects.

It's more a musical term, meaning an "interpretation", i.e. performance ; applied to other disciplines, the concept means the "translation" of a vision into a realisation and material. Here, it's about conveying the artistic vision into the game, and preference towards pixel sprites or 3d models is not really relevant, as one or the other, or both, could be more suitable for certain types of projects.

ok, tx for explanation

I don't think it's just "Pixel Art vs 3D", because we have great examples of non-realistic 3D / Pixel Art in 3D as well like:

Minecraft:

Superpowers example: https://sparklinlabs.itch.io/discover-superpowers

Craft Studio examples: https://sparklinlabs.itch.io/craftstudio

or cell shaded 3D:

Jet Set Radio Future:

Borderlands:

And Pixel Art also has many different styles:

So which one is better is hard to say. I think it depends on the game type, and the level of polish an artist puts in to make it all "seamless" or consistent.

Jayjay sure are lot of substyles, personally i hate voxel stile, but i like all pixel art stiles and celshaded

I know that there aren't two things to compare.. they belong to two different ages..

but I would be very interested in knowing your opinion about it.

What graphic style would you use for your game by forcefully choosing between pixelart and 3D? and why? such pros and cons?

Personally, I find 2D pixel art way better than 3d.

When it comes to games, it completely depends on the kind of game you create. But I must say, 2d pixel art is way tough than 3d. If you learn a user-friendly 3d software, you can easily create stunning models/landscapes etc. in short time. But to create good 2d artwork, you need to be a true artist. The other solution is to create something that is extremely minimal yet appealing.

From a technical standpoint, using pixel art takes way less space and may load easier and faster. Giving that retro feel to your game might be something you want to achieve. It still requires skill to make the artwork and retro games are very popular lately.

I use both 2D Pixel Art and 3D Art (from both my own models and commercially available ones).

Each serves it's own purpose and neither is superior to the other.

... If you learn a user-friendly 3d software, you can easily create stunning models/landscapes etc. in short time. But to create good 2d artwork, you need to be a true artist.

While I respect your right to your opinion, I always take exception to the phrase "true artist" (especially applied in this sort of context) since it marginalizes whole groups of Artists.

Both take True Art Talent to make nice stuff. A True Artist is not defined by the tools chosen to create their works.

I had the same situation with an 2d artist, not pixel-art but just painted stuff in Photoshop. We wanted to do an isometric game and after he started working on some characters , we came to the conclusion that he had to do not 4x times the work, but almost 5-6 times the amount of work for each character (walking cycles from 4 different angles).

The 2nd approach has to make the 3d characters and animations in 3d, paint the UV maps so they look stylished.

I think If I wanna make a pixelart game, I will first model the main characters in 3d, and make the pixelart on top of the rendered animations