next »

[Udderdude]

On a related note, the reason I couldn't get into Super Smash Land was that the movement of the characters was per pixel, instead of "per square", if you catch my drift.

Altough that might have been fixed since then - I played a demo version.

Judging from the release tralier, it doesn't seem to have been fixed.

It really stands out when you're obviously trying to copy the look of an older tile and sprite, raster-based hardware platform.

[Schoq]

A sub-pixel is a third of an RGB pixel, nothing to be disgusted about.
Pixel artists sometimes use it to mean things that seemingly go "between" pixels, particularly in animation (otherwise it's basically just anti-aliasing.)

[DavidCaruso]

The clashing pixel scales bothers me way, way more than the text being offset by one pixel. Looks really nasty. But I doubt the offsetting would matter to me too much, even in motion (more than the pixelation in general, anyway.)

The ideal of pixel art is that each pixel is carefully and deliberately placed for maximum effect. When you use "enlarged pixels" in one area of an image you're stating at the best way to represent something is as a series of squares, but it usually isn't.

This is a problem I have with pixelated graphics in general but unfortunately not everyone can afford to go for high-res 2D/implement decent TV shaders as an option. Of course ideally I'd be playing all of these games (and emulating) on a good CRT with the programs outputting at native res but I can't do that right now and I don't think Game Maker or other software even supports that, etc.

If you really want to go for the NN pixelly style then prescaling art can probably have some benefits for certain scenarios, e.g. imagine a game where everything normally moves aligned to the grid but then you can activate bullet time and everything halves its movement speed (so it looks smoother.)

[Bloudit]

It bothers me a lot, but I try to ignore it. I'll still try to play a game if it does this, but if it has true scaling, it gets bonus points from me.

Anyways I've created an example of a close up of Mario's foot in a flash game:



Mario and his foot should be in the blue grid along with everything else, but it is only in the 1x gray grid because the Mario sprite is 2x and the brick sprite is 2x. It would be better if the sprites were 1x, but the game itself was resized.

I know everyone here already understands this, but I felt like I had to make it in case some one didn't.

[Azure Lazuline]

I don't really have much else to add that hasn't already been said, but I can link to this at least.

[Quarry]

AIEEEIEEEEE

[noah!]

I don't really have much else to add that hasn't already been said, but I can link to this at least.

It's...it's...beautiful...in its own special kind of way...

i honestly kind of ♡ l o v e ♡ it . . .

(and it's a jpeg too!)

[QuaziGNRLnose]

the "+6" or whatever in the OP is probably in motion though. So if it's scaling rapidly and then disappears it's not too bad.

It can get ugly when mixed resolutions clash constantly though. i mean having them mix because of dynamic/animation/scaling/rotation stuff is understandable, but when you just blatantly mix them like in IWBTG, it looks really gross. It's acceptable when your a 9 year old using klik and play, but if your trying to be legit retro, don't make that background sprite at 3.5x and the foreground at 1x.

[Belimoth]

I might not be opposed to a super lo-fi game moving at a resolution smaller than the graphic's. I think the sprites would have to come to rest aligned with the grid though... not sure the best way to implement that... hmm...