You are correct, Casull. Using cartoon shading, we would not need textures for most things.

As far as using 2D backgrounds in some places... I don't think that would help us much. They likely did that in Zelda 64 to save space. I am pretty sure most of those scenes were actually 3D modelled, but just pre-rendered (like the scenes in FF7-9 were). We won't be space limited, so it will probably actually be easier to use fully 3D scenes everywhere.

The only way 2D would make sense at all is if we did everything using blocky sprites, like in the SNES FF's... which would not bother me one bit. I loved those games. :)

"Non-photorealistic rendering" refers to any rendering algorithm that is not designed with the intention of producing realistic images. So, cartoon shading is, in fact, non-photorealistic rendering. Is there a specific algorithm you were referring to? If so, I'd like to know what.

As for cartoon shading looking like it was drawn with crayons... That doesn't make any sense to me. Do you think anime looks like it was drawn with crayons?

Back on the old forum (or was it the old old forum? I can't find them) I had posted some links to some really cool movies done with cartoon shading that did not look childish in any way... does anyone remember those links?

Link doesn't work, btw. Server being weird or something? And sorry Temp, I don't remember those sites, wether they were on the old forums or the FF9HQ forums.

Yeah, get that link working. I would like to see some pictures of what 3der's definition of "cartoon shading" is, because I was under the impression that anime used cartoon shading, and I like the look of that.

Errr... It's not an opinion thing. Non-photorealistic shading is a defined concept in computer graphics. It refers to any shading algorithm which does not seek to produce photorealistic results, including cartoon rendering. That's all I was saying.

I am not sure what you mean about cartoon shading causing deformation of meshes. Cartoon shading does not have anything to do with the shape of a mesh.

Anyway, yeah, it is quite possible to do realistic shading without texturers, if you just have high polygon detail. The fourth picture on your site looks very nice indeed, but you'll notice the detail levels are quite high. If you can model stuff like that, great... but somehow I don't think we'll have enough combined skill and manpower to model a whole world and everything in it at that level of detail. Cartoon shading allows us to drop the detail quite a bit without making a noticeable difference, since large areas generally have a solid color anyway.

In the defence of Cell (cartoon) shading:
http://www.gamespy.com/asp/image.asp?/previews/june02/darkcloud2ps2/9.jpg

Ok, here's my 2 cents as the new guy. Personally, I love 3D. If used properly we can go a long ways with it. However, we have to keep in mind how much harder it's going to make things for us. For example, do we have anybody skilled in making 3D models? The programming itself, as Temporal is probably away of, will be a lot more complicated, especially if we want to make the engine ourselves. We also know that sprites are a lot less intimidating to contributes then textures and skins. I'm new here, therefore I have no idea what we're capable of, so my apologies if I'm underestimating you guys. If we can do it, go for it.

2D is not to be underestimated either. It's a lot more accessible and easer to contribute to, we can also make it look pretty darn nice. However, I don't see any game play advantages other then nostalgia.

PS: If we go 3D, I agree with the cell shading idea

"deforming the mesh" may be a bad choice of words. The mesh itself will remain the same, however cell shadeing effects how the mesh is textured and lit.

Here are the things that we considered when designing Ecclesia RPG...

_2D_
easier, more portable (we planned on getting the game running on consoles, at least the Dreamcast), more detailed artwork (you can get away with a lot of stuff in 3D that you can't in 2D)

_3D_
more work, need for a good engine (which would limit our number of target platforms unless we built our own), more versatile

We debated this quite heavily. I initially pushed for 2D because I wanted to see the game finished in the near future. But the guy writing the story and gameplay convinced us to use a hybrid system like the one in Final Fantasy Tactics.

We decided that even a hybrid approach would leave us with a lot of work, so we also adopted the idea of developing the plot completely inside of the battle engine (again, like FFT). We could use 2D sprites (on 3D billboards, drawn from 4-8 angles) although they would limit the amount of zooming and lighting effects that we could do. But perhaps most importantly, a 3D playing field would give us our most important objective: a complex and enthralling battle system (we planned on making the dynamics even more complex than FFT).

After time I've come to the conclusion that while the decision between 2D and 3D does indeed shape all of the rest of development (aside from perhaps music), the game would be equally enjoyable in either medium. As much as I like new 3D fighting games such as Soul Calibur, I still enjoy _well animated_ 2D fighters put out by SNK and others. As much as I enjoyed Grandia II and Final Fantasy Tactics, they both tie for 1st place with Final Fantasy IV on my list.

I think the most important thing to decide now is: what medium is necessary to 1) get across the story accurately and 2) provide the desired gameplay.