next »

[DavidCaruso]

I think you're all overlooking the word "evolution" in the title.

Yeah, I like how 8-bit evolved too!



M.U.L.E. (1983)



Ice Climber (1984)



Hang-On (1985)



Castlevania II: Simon's Quest (1988)



Little Samson (1992)



September 11th, 2001 (2011)

oh. alright then.

[Kramlack]

I think you're all overlooking the word "evolution" in the title. It doesn't mean "strict adherence to the original", y'know.

except that """"evolution""""""" doesn't actually apply to a strict set of graphical and/or audio limitations???

Like I said, it doesn't mean "strict aherence" – it's about what has developed ¡"*^FROM^*"! those original 8-bit expressions.

I don't even know how to respond to this. When I was told there was an someone posting bullshit in the 8bit thread, I didn't expect it to be you, rek.

If it doesn't follow the 8bit technical limitations, stop calling it 8bit. Simple as that. I don't care if you call it retro or vintage or whatever, but it is NOT 8bit.

EDIT: Adding to what DavidCaruso was trying to point out I think (with the exception of that 9/11 piece, which I'm still not sure if it's actually 8bit), I think you can 'evolve' the medium so to speak, by finding new art techniques that work within the limitations, as well as just producing better looking art too (see the difference between M.U.L.E. and Little Samson).

I don't believe you can evolve it by breaking it's core values apart.

[Delko]

The problem is most people just wouldn't give a shit about the technical aspect of it. Imagine trying to explain why something is or isn't 8-bit to the typical art student. It would all come off as technobabble and be met with a cool "what ever nerd". Unfortunately pixel art is just seen as a novelty to the real art world(by real, I mean the people with the money and museums), any rules that actually apply to it are just lost on them, since most of it goes over their heads.

[sigfarter]

8-bit is a technical term. It refers to the 256 possibilities.

[Kramlack]

@Delko: This is unfortunately, too true. I try to instruct as many people as I can though on the technical limitations. Sometimes people care enough to actually listen and the results are really sexy (see: Soul Compass).

@sigvatr.: I LOVE that phrase!

[1982]

September 11th, 2001 (2011)

oh. alright then.

I think it is pretty close, not sure about the smoke.

[Kramlack]

The smoke is what I have a problem with, more accurately, where the fire is.

[rek]

I think you're all overlooking the word "evolution" in the title. It doesn't mean "strict adherence to the original", y'know.

except that """"evolution""""""" doesn't actually apply to a strict set of graphical and/or audio limitations???

Like I said, it doesn't mean "strict aherence" – it's about what has developed ¡"*^FROM^*"! those original 8-bit expressions.

I don't even know how to respond to this. When I was told there was an someone posting bullshit in the 8bit thread, I didn't expect it to be you, rek.

I'm flattered to know people are talking about me somewhere.

If it doesn't follow the 8bit technical limitations, stop calling it 8bit. Simple as that. I don't care if you call it retro or vintage or whatever, but it is NOT 8bit.

And that's the issue here: it's semantics. The video is clear that what it's calling 8-bit is a culture that encompasses both the technically-specific (limitations) and the inspired-by (aesthetics), thus my earlier post.

You don't have to like their name for it – they certainly aren't the first to put paintings and chiptunes under that umbrella – but you don't get to dictate language.

[i wanna be the guy]

I think you're all overlooking the word "evolution" in the title. It doesn't mean "strict adherence to the original", y'know.

except that """"evolution""""""" doesn't actually apply to a strict set of graphical and/or audio limitations???

Like I said, it doesn't mean "strict aherence" – it's about what has developed ¡"*^FROM^*"! those original 8-bit expressions.

I don't even know how to respond to this. When I was told there was an someone posting bullshit in the 8bit thread, I didn't expect it to be you, rek.

I'm flattered to know people are talking about me somewhere.

If it doesn't follow the 8bit technical limitations, stop calling it 8bit. Simple as that. I don't care if you call it retro or vintage or whatever, but it is NOT 8bit.

And that's the issue here: it's semantics. The video is clear that what it's calling 8-bit is a culture that encompasses both the technically-specific (limitations) and the inspired-by (aesthetics), thus my earlier post.

You don't have to like their name for it – they certainly aren't the first to put paintings and chiptunes under that umbrella – but you don't get to dictate language.

we're all speaking french right now because i said so, i dictate language now just because that's the way it is

[Kramlack]

@rek: I'll stop trying to dictate the language when people stop dragging one of my favourite art mediums through the dirt.

EDIT: Go read Schoq's post again, he's pretty much made my point for me.

[Richard Kain]

8-Bit is a technical description. It refers directly to very strict palette limitations. If you wanted to further refine the definition, you could apply it to individual hardware specifications. Not all 8-Bit consoles had the same limits. Some of them allowed more combinations, and some less.

When you have a video that is produced to either educate or inspire, it makes sense to do...I don't know...research on the subject that the video is about. And any cursory research on the term "8-Bit" would have provided the video producers with all the technical information they needed. This isn't obscure or hard-to-find information, it is a well-documented subject. Their failure to properly label the content they are presenting is just lazy production.

[DavidCaruso]

I think it is pretty close, not sure about the smoke.

I got the reference, the main point (other than that I thought the juxtaposition was funny) was that "8-bit style" went from Little Samson all the way back to Punch-Out (actually I think that 9/11 screen looks a bit worse, mainly due to the different colors.) Anyway, I basically agree with what Kramlack said in his post after mine. I actually can't think of any (non-mockup) examples that "evolve" 8-bit console visual restrictions off the top of my head, which is kind of weird when you have stuff like this being done on a pure unmodded 2A03 in the music department.

Also, smart people do dictate language in the long run. Just saying!

[HernanZh]

I think it is pretty close, not sure about the smoke.

Whaaaat. I thought the guy drew the 9/11 picture himself, but he took almost all assets from Punch Out. Isn't that like...plagiarism?

[1982]

I think it is pretty close, not sure about the smoke.

Whaaaat. I thought the guy drew the 9/11 picture himself, but he took almost all assets from Punch Out. Isn't that like...plagiarism?

No,

it is called art.

[JWK5]

I think they've confused the words evolution and exploitation.

[PompiPompi]

Wait they are all just musician? Where are their games? I also couldn't figure if all those games are just old commercial games, or games they made themsevles.

[VortexCortex]

@sigvatr: 8-bit is a technical term, it doesn't refer to the 256 color palette, unless you're talking 8 bits per pixel.  The term generally refers to the processor word size of the machines used at such time.  The palettes were limited to much less than 256 colors on these machines.  However, many systems like the C64 had scanline interrupts where you could change the palette on the fly to generate some broader selection of colors per screen.  8-bit also is used somewhat incorrectly in reference to CGA (4color / 2bpp) and EGA PC graphics (16 colors, 64 in the palette -- 4bpp), since the hardware with such graphics typically had 16 or 32 bit word sizes.

I agree "pixel art" would be a better term.

I'm preaching to the choir here... So, instead, have a short introduction to the history of the demoscene (part of which still carries on the evolution of true "8-bit" creations, and the overall concept of pulling off amazing feats in extremely limited mediums -- despite the common consensus that the demoscene is dead).
Note: I don't agree on all of their example selections, but it should give sort of an idea, and is far better than the crap video this thread is about.

Edit: enable CC for the non-english parts, if you so desire.

[1982]

despite the common consensus that the demoscene is dead

Okay this is completely offtopic now, but there are two different demoscenes. The one that hangs into past, is not dead yet. But the real demoscene, which was all about pushing the limits of given systems is dead. In the link you provided, there was good example of this. There was 64kb demo for PC platform. While nice feat, completely useless technology given the computing power of today's computers. Demoscene used to be on top of software technology, but nothing like that today. Sure software innovation happens all the time, but it is not inside context of "demoscene" anymore.

To me, demoscene is dead.

[VortexCortex]

@1982: <-- Look...  Ok, then look ^ (a whole thread about pixel art).  Talk about hanging onto the past.  Not that I think that's really what's going on at all, but really now?  Is SIGGRAPH dead to you as well?  If not, think about that for a moment...

If the demoscene is dead to you, then it must be a freakin' unkillable zombie.

[Graham-]

incidentally this thread made me search google images  
http://www.google.com/search?q=hipster+meme&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch

I laughed out loud at least 3 times.