next »

[Cow]

As for me, well, I'm not gonna drop pixel art any time soon.
It's what I am good at, it's fun to make, it's simple, it makes cohesiveness easy, its abstraction connects to the imagination, it's easy/quick to animate.
Seems like a pretty obvious choice to go with for games. I don't know why anyone makes games with anything else.

This and everything else Frankie said are my thoughts.

Yeah it's bad if close-minded fuckos complain about your art being "pixelated" but I wouldn't want those people playing my games anyways.

[oahda]

I have a history of pixelling but no particular love of it above any other type of art.

In my experience I actually pixel slower than I draw more free-hand in GIMP or something, so that was actually a reason for me not to pixel stuff when there was this mobile game I was making that I didn't want to take forever. And then I kinda played more with that sort of style and came to enjoy it too.

I still pixel for jam games sometimes. Sometimes free-hand. Sometimes 3D. A lot of the time I get someone else to do the graphics, in any style. Anything goes!

[rhill]

and there's a weird disconnect between the detail of the sprites and the flat-colored, detail-less backgrounds.  (Like the backgrounds nearly suggest a vector game in their lack of detail, and that highlights the wonky pixels of what's in front of them.)

I kind of like it, to me it comes across more as "contrast" instead of "disconnect." Like it's a way to contrast the foreground and background.

Though I've only looked at the screenshot, so if the game looks worse on the phone, I'll have to take your word for it.

[RedHickory]

Pixel art is a style that people are free to appreciate or not.  If you make a game and feel like it didn't sell as well as you wanted because people didn't like the style, that's just sort of tough cookies.  Try to make something more people will like better next time, if that's your ultimate goal.  If you just appreciate the technical aspects of pixel art and enjoy the idea of tricking people's minds into seeing detail that isn't really there, stick with it and screw the naysayers.  Either way, do what you like, but don't bother with telling me about all the people who just don't get it.

[DifferentName]

Try to make something more people will like better next time, if that's your ultimate goal.

That's what he's doing. The point of the article is not blaming people that don't get it, it's acknowledging that fact, and blaming himself for not doing a better job as an artist. I thought it was a really good article, especially for myself as I'm considering doing pixel art for my next game.

[cosmologosaurusrex]

I think the pixelart from his game in the article was at such a high pixelcount that it was in an uncanney valley. Low pixelcount and players roll with the style, but high enough pixelcount and it does not serve a purpose and would be better of highresed.

[Sik]

I think the pixelart from his game in the article was at such a high pixelcount that it was in an uncanney valley. Low pixelcount and players roll with the style, but high enough pixelcount and it does not serve a purpose and would be better of highresed.

This is why with Sol I went with 384×240 even though I knew the engine could easily cope with much higher, because if I went with say 768×480, people wouldn't get it and demand 1920×1200 instead, at which point there's risk of struggling because it's a software renderer and also would lack all the niceties such as texture filtering (despite the fact 2D games have no excuse for it in this day and age).

Of course you should question the use of a software renderer in the first place, but remember I had to start development at a time when my video card was busted and the only other one available was an integrated S3 chip with 32MB of memory and OpenGL 1.2. I'd rather take the CPU which was 2.4GHz and therefore could push some good software rendering easily.