next »

[danlthemanl]

I've been getting into Pixel art lately, and I've discovered the magic of 16x16 pixel art.
If you take any 16x16 picture and scale it 200x or 300x it looks 1000% better than before!! You don't necessarily get the detail of higher resolution textures but you get a more retro look, that I find fascinating.

Pixel art *awesome* Scale:

[DecapitatedOrk]

I agree. I've decided to go on a similar path with my project, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Should I just run my project at a lower resolution? Or should I simply enlarge the image? The latter seems like a better option then the former since the former seems to just increase file size, however I'm not sure how the latter is going to affect the actual development of the project.

[ink.inc]

Or should I simply enlarge the image?

If you mean to scale the actual art assets, don't. It's bad form. Just run the game at a low resolution, and scale the game screen by an integer.

[ANtY]

I'm tired of this fcking retro-style
Why not make a game with normal graphics?

[PowRTocH]

I'm tired of this fcking retro-style
Why not make a game with normal graphics?

Have to actually be able to draw, too much work, no free indie cred, take your pick.
If it's any consolation I agree with you.

[JoGribbs]

Who decides what's normal?

Watch

because It pretty much says what I want to say.

[ANtY]

The worst is that ppl love this style which require almost non work, when it's really ugly for me

[JoGribbs]

I think the assertion that it requires no work is patently false and honestly kind of offensive.

EDIT: Do you mean pixel art in general, or just the lo-fi-esque blown up stuff?

[ANtY]

I think the assertion that it requires no work is patently false and honestly kind of offensive.

EDIT: Do you mean pixel art in general, or just the lo-fi-esque blown up stuff?

second option

[Lee]

I disagree with that I don't think the image you posted is very good (sorry but it's not, the forms aren't clear the colours aren't great and the head is almost perfectly square on one side) and real low-fi stuff isn't that great either (especially things like passage now that I do see as being a lack of artistic effort). but 24*24+ is amazing if done well, for example see some of paul robertson's work (scott pilgrim game, and his pixel movies for example):


Also I think there's a problem with screen resolution, the higher the screen resolution the less readable low-fi pixel art becomes and then people have to start using 2x zoom to just have a readable sprite, I think when that's the case you need to start working with larger sprites.

Also saying pixel art is crap I do think is offensive, I'm actually ashamed most people see a 2d pixel game and think it's crap and only play "high detail" 3d games (unfortunately many people incl. my best friend is this way... artistically ignorant idiots).I'll just leave this link here;
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixels/new_icons.asp?ob=rating

[danlthemanl]

24*24+ is amazing if done well, for example see some of paul robertson's work

I agree with you for the most part, but not everybody is as good as Paul Robertson, I'm mostly speaking toward those who don't have much artistic ability (like myself). If I could make those beautiful 24x sprites than I most defiantly would, but of course everybody has different tastes.

[phubans]

Yes, I've been employing this "trick" for years... I don't get games that use pixel art sprites at high resolution or games where the view is the whole room 

[nahkranoth]

(sorry but it's not, the forms aren't clear the colours aren't great and the head is almost perfectly square on one side) and real low-fi stuff isn't that great either (especially things like passage now that I do see as being a lack of artistic effort).

Isn't it about what your goal is? Artistic effort is key ofcoarse, and maybe the example danlthemanl posted isn't the best example. But in what way? I think it's the way he renders a human being; that isn't one of the best examples then, so he missed his goal. But because of that you simply cannot say that 16X16 is a bad size to make pixel characters. It's maybe not the most detailed size (like your examples), but minimalistic art isn't bad perse. It's about what your goal is with it, and how you achieve that goal.

[ANtY]

Also saying pixel art is crap I do think is offensive, I'm actually ashamed most people see a 2d pixel game and think it's crap and only play "high detail" 3d games (unfortunately many people incl. my best friend is this way... artistically ignorant idiots).I'll just leave this link here;
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixels/new_icons.asp?ob=rating

Bro, read my posts again pls. I didn't say anything like "pixel art is crap", I was talking about this retro-resized-fat-pixel-style.

[SundownKid]

I don't think resizing sprites is a devious 'trick' to make it look retro... it was, and still is, pretty much just a necessity brought on by the need to see smaller sprites without expending a huge amount of artistic effort on making all the sprites 32x32 or some other gigantic size. Most people would rather see a game at a visible size than strain their eyes to look at a tiny game on their big monitor or TV. People draw the art for games at a size that is workable - they don't have a mandate to make the art as large as whatever screen it is going to be displayed on. How does making an entire game's worth of 16x16 sprites not take any effort?

[ANtY]

I don't think resizing sprites is a devious 'trick' to make it look retro... it was, and still is, pretty much just a necessity brought on by the need to see smaller sprites without expending a huge amount of artistic effort on making all the sprites 32x32 or some other gigantic size. Most people would rather see a game at a visible size than strain their eyes to look at a tiny game on their big monitor or TV.

32x32 is a giantic size? wow, i didn't know that. 

[MaloEspada]

jesus christ, someone nuke this thread.

and onto the op: 16x16 doesn't always look good. in fact it's REALLY HARD to make something 16x16 look good.

[SundownKid]

I'm just generalizing - it really depends on the skill level of the artist and the amount of effort they are willing to put in. For a no-budget indie game, though, I think it's a fair assertion that 32x32 fully detailed sprites are pretty large. What I want to know is what exactly you mean by "normal graphics". How are sprites "abnormal"?

[PowRTocH]

32x32 isn't large at all.

Making a full game of 16x16 sprites takes some effort, but not as much as making a full game of 32x32 sprites.

Clarity of detail is achieved easier at larger resolutions than smaller ones.

To anyone with an eye for skill, using tiny extremely enlarged sprites often comes across as lazy. Usually this is of no concern to the artists, are just trying to cut their losses by not having to make a lot of assets or learn to draw.

Paul Robertson is overrated.

-Cow's Axioms Book 1 Verse 1

[Lee]

You don't have to chose between 32x and 16x, and I appreciate under time constraints lower res stuff is easier to create, also you don't have to fill up as much space as possible, you just have to make it look good, here's something I did a while ago when dealing with sprite size for a game, I found this was the smallest I could get and have a decent face:

this is a higher res version to show how I wanted the face to look, I think the above gets the most important details from it:

Paul Robertson is overrated.

I agree and disagree... His movies are awesome and the game looks fantastic, but I'm not much of a fan of his sprites and stuff on there own, I don't even like the animations I posted that much I was just showing them as an example because it's the only thing that came to mind.