next »

[rebelholic]

Hello,

I have a plan make 2d platformer game with pixel art (unity 5) for PC platform. I am still confuse about size for tileset between 32x32 and 64x64. Could anyone give recommendation for tileset size so can suitable for modern resolution when scaled to 1920x1080?

[BomberTREE]

The usual pixel resolution I go for is 16x16 since you can really pack (fake) a lot of detail without spending too much time.
A LOT of magic can be made with 32x32 aswell, but it highly depends on your skill and time.

[aamatniekss]

You should just try out drawing something first in the said resolutions. Making something pretty in 64x64 or even 32x32 resolution, takes a LOT of skill. If you're new to pixelart, better try making something with 16x16 resolution as a base. It's much easier to pull off.

[Sik]

And here thinking it'd be about pixel density (which is what determines how much detail you can pack in a given amount of space). For the resolution suggested, I'd go with a pixel density of 384×216 (which in fact is exactly 1/5 of 1920×1080, which is nice). Note that this is somewhat higher than most pixelart indie games, but it's way much closer to the pixel density of old systems (near exact, even).

As for tile size, I'd go with 32×32. I find 16×16 to be too small for building levels (at least if you pretend them to be larger than a few screens), while 64×64 is too huge to be usable. Remember you *can* make tiles out of smaller graphics (e.g. 8×8 or 16×16). As for text, I'd go with 8×8 (spacing included) for characters.

[chriswearly]

Of course, you can do a game at a non-base-2 tile-map. So 10x10, or 20x, or 46x. Whatever looks good, and plays good.

[BomberTREE]

^That

It's all about what you're comfortable with.

[surt]

Of course, you can do a game at a non-base-2 tile-map. So 10x10, or 20x, or 46x. Whatever looks good, and plays good.

Only if you want to risk drawing the wrath of the Binary Gods.

[Sik]

Yeah we aren't in the era where that brings down performance (especially when you consider it'll just be converted to floating point to be passed to the GPU), but I gotta say, the ability to split right in the middle (or quarter) can't be understated. Depends on the artist I guess.

[rebelholic]

And here thinking it'd be about pixel density (which is what determines how much detail you can pack in a given amount of space). For the resolution suggested, I'd go with a pixel density of 384×216 (which in fact is exactly 1/5 of 1920×1080, which is nice). Note that this is somewhat higher than most pixelart indie games, but it's way much closer to the pixel density of old systems (near exact, even).

As for tile size, I'd go with 32×32. I find 16×16 to be too small for building levels (at least if you pretend them to be larger than a few screens), while 64×64 is too huge to be usable. Remember you *can* make tiles out of smaller graphics (e.g. 8×8 or 16×16). As for text, I'd go with 8×8 (spacing included) for characters.

Oh I see, its mean a pixel density of 384x216 suitable for native screen on my game and after that we can upscaled to 1920x1080 or whatever on resolution setting when in-game later, right?
Another question, can we use tile size with mix sizes such as 16x16, 32x32, and 64x64 in one scene?
 

[diegzumillo]

It's all about information density. The speed of the character will determine how many new things enter the screen, the speed of the things that enter the screen also matter etc. After all is said and done, trial and error is your best friend, like everyone else said

[chriswearly]

And here thinking it'd be about pixel density (which is what determines how much detail you can pack in a given amount of space). For the resolution suggested, I'd go with a pixel density of 384×216 (which in fact is exactly 1/5 of 1920×1080, which is nice). Note that this is somewhat higher than most pixelart indie games, but it's way much closer to the pixel density of old systems (near exact, even).

As for tile size, I'd go with 32×32. I find 16×16 to be too small for building levels (at least if you pretend them to be larger than a few screens), while 64×64 is too huge to be usable. Remember you *can* make tiles out of smaller graphics (e.g. 8×8 or 16×16). As for text, I'd go with 8×8 (spacing included) for characters.

Oh I see, its mean a pixel density of 384x216 suitable for native screen on my game and after that we can upscaled to 1920x1080 or whatever on resolution setting when in-game later, right?
Another question, can we use tile size with mix sizes such as 16x16, 32x32, and 64x64 in one scene?
 

Sure you can. But don't. It will look horrible. Once you find a pixel size/density, stick to it, for everything.

[FrankieSmileShow]

I would really recommend 16x16. Its very, very common, so if you look for examples and inspiration, you are bound to find a lot of examples in both the NES and SNES era that uses the same sizes, giving you a huge amount of stuff to look at in all sorts of styles and color depths.

For the same resolution, smaller tiles means you can mix things up more easily too. I've been wanting to go with 8x8 for a while, ive always been attracted to some NES tiling where the actual tile size is smaller than the apparent one. Castlevania 3 is a game I often use as an example for this:


See, there are patterns in the tiles that kind of indicate a 16x16 grid, especially those big obvious orange or teal blocks, but in reality the tiles are 8x8 in size.
As a result, they can "break up" 16x16 tiles into four quarters and seemingly add detail to them that way. They can also break up this obvious pattern with the ground tiles, which make em look really organic as opposed to those regular orange ones. And they do cool things like find a secondary use for those grass detail tiles, as also moss on the background wall or on a statue, or hanging down from a ledge in the back or foreground, or simply use tiny all-black single tiles as holes in a brick wall or shadows under platforms/stairs.
Since those gaps are smaller than the perceived tile size, it really feels like its a "hand-drawn" detail, but nope. Just some clever, creative tiling. This sort of stuff looks so cool, I love it. I really want to do something with this sort of look someday. Goddam I love that game!

One big issue tho is, I mainly use Game Maker for stuff, and its room editor is really not meant to be used with small tile sizes like 8x8. Although they added a zoom function to the main map view (at least, jeeeze) the actual tile palette cant be zoomed-in, so you got to squint really hard when you want to pick a new tile, or you use the windows magnifier tool or something. Not really ideal...

[rebelholic]

I would really recommend 16x16. Its very, very common, so if you look for examples and inspiration, you are bound to find a lot of examples in both the NES and SNES era that uses the same sizes, giving you a huge amount of stuff to look at in all sorts of styles and color depths.

For the same resolution, smaller tiles means you can mix things up more easily too. I've been wanting to go with 8x8 for a while, ive always been attracted to some NES tiling where the actual tile size is smaller than the apparent one. Castlevania 3 is a game I often use as an example for this:


See, there are patterns in the tiles that kind of indicate a 16x16 grid, especially those big obvious orange or teal blocks, but in reality the tiles are 8x8 in size.
As a result, they can "break up" 16x16 tiles into four quarters and seemingly add detail to them that way. They can also break up this obvious pattern with the ground tiles, which make em look really organic as opposed to those regular orange ones. And they do cool things like find a secondary use for those grass detail tiles, as also moss on the background wall or on a statue, or hanging down from a ledge in the back or foreground, or simply use tiny all-black single tiles as holes in a brick wall or shadows under platforms/stairs.
Since those gaps are smaller than the perceived tile size, it really feels like its a "hand-drawn" detail, but nope. Just some clever, creative tiling. This sort of stuff looks so cool, I love it. I really want to do something with this sort of look someday. Goddam I love that game!

One big issue tho is, I mainly use Game Maker for stuff, and its room editor is really not meant to be used with small tile sizes like 8x8. Although they added a zoom function to the main map view (at least, jeeeze) the actual tile palette cant be zoomed-in, so you got to squint really hard when you want to pick a new tile, or you use the windows magnifier tool or something. Not really ideal...

Thanks for your explanation. How you can setup pixel resolution for enemy boss like your screenshot above? I think its bigger than 16x16 maybe 64x64.

[aamatniekss]

Well, you just draw the boss on a 64x64 canvas. And it will all be good. But just don't go drawing it on 16x16 and then scretching it out so it's 64x64, that's what you want to avoid.