|
ANtY
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2011, 03:24:46 PM » |
|
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:  But this in lower res looks way worse  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ANtY
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2011, 10:11:47 PM » |
|
If I would wanted to make a good game yes.
I was animating about 50 units (60x60), for each: attack, getting hit, blocking, walking and something that i don't remember now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lasttea999
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2011, 11:13:30 PM » |
|
I feel like the size (in pixels) and resolution of pixel art is more a stylistic choice. Whether or not it looks "good" is another matter... for, whether or not it looks good can vary from one viewer to the next, although I'd guess that the "better" you get, the wider your range of pleased viewers will become.
Also, whether or not a given person likes a certain style is probably a personal preference, right?
Finally, I get the impression that smaller and larger pixel art both have advantages and disadvantages over each other: with smaller pixel art you have to be more careful about the pixels you place, but you have less canvas room so you have more control. With bigger pixel art, you have lots of space to depict what you need to but often the artist fails to allocate the kind of focus to each element he would be able to with a smaller canvas.
In a few rare cases, you might get pixel art that has a huge canvas and still has had an amazing amount of attention paid to every little part of the piece...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 01:25:57 AM by lasttea999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vinnie
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2011, 11:18:05 PM » |
|
jesus christ, someone nuke this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jetrel
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2011, 01:20:22 AM » |
|
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. Honestly, the "mini-retro" style is losing its indie cred to anyone with a clue, because you know what pops into everyone's mind when they see that? "Wow, hey, your game looks like a ripoff of cave-story/fez." The thing that cave story had going for it was that besides being pixelated, to my knowledge, it really had a rather new and unique look. It had characters made of tiny sprites, but they way they were drawn seemed markedly different from almost any NES/etc platform games I can remember; nearly all of which had very noisy, or outlined sprites. Practically all NES sprites, barring later works by more experienced guys (like kirby), tried to cram way too much detail into too few pixels. I might just not have played enough games, but I can't think of any games Cave Story really looked like. If you use that style, you're dooming yourself to being a clone. I know we'd all love to have the next hit indie game, but "copying cave story" will just thrust you into the "me too" ghetto. Also, it's not a viable crutch for not being able to actually draw. Daisuke Amaya can actually draw; I'd say some half of the charm in cave story came from his portraits, story art and such - you rip all of that out, and you're gutting the emotional "soul" of the game. I mean, if you try and shoot for the indie-retro art thing as though it'll carry your game without you actually having to learn to draw, you're probably going to end up with programmer art. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pietepiet
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2011, 08:08:02 AM » |
|
For a no-budget indie game, though, I think it's a fair assertion that 32x32 fully detailed sprites are pretty large.
For people who don't know how to animate, maybe. 32x32 is pretty damn small. Also if any of you think 16x16 doesn't require effort, you're wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tycho Brahe
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2011, 09:57:54 AM » |
|
Guys, does it really matter?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nahkranoth
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2011, 10:57:46 AM » |
|
Guys, does it really matter?
Amen |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PowRTocH
Guest
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2011, 12:47:55 PM » |
|
Yes it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pgil
Guest
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2011, 01:06:59 PM » |
|
No, it really doesn't matter. But this thread will be 10 pages long by tomorrow nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ANtY
|
|
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2011, 01:27:45 PM » |
|
Yes, it really does matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tycho Brahe
|
|
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2011, 01:33:27 PM » |
|
Guys, please, don't even be sarcastic about it, it will attract the people who actually care a lot, and the whole thing will turn into a massive shitfest.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zaratustra
|
|
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2011, 12:20:54 PM » |
|
There's good pixel art and bad pixel art in every scale. Good 16x16 pixel art:  Bad 16x16 pixel art:  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cthulhu32
|
|
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2011, 12:31:12 PM » |
|
There's good pixel art and bad pixel art in every scale. Good 16x16 pixel art: Bad 16x16 pixel art: 100% agree, pixel art that is well done looks good at any resolution blown up. But unfortunately you can't take pixel art that is hard to distinguish at standard resolution and blow it up expecting it to look better. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rogerlevy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2011, 01:36:53 PM » |
|
Yes, it really does matter.
Man, you know, I'd love to be able to take your argument of "I hate big pixels" seriously but you are just about trolololol |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tycho Brahe
|
|
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2011, 01:37:43 PM » |
|
Yes, it really does matter.
Man, you know, I'd love to be able to take your argument of "I hate big pixels" seriously but you are just about opening up our coat and saying "Alright boys, I'm ready for my multiple stabbings." Thats not helping. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rogerlevy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2011, 01:39:12 PM » |
|
haha yeah maybe. well i quickly tried to rewind and soften the sentiment a bit. too late.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tycho Brahe
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2011, 01:40:28 PM » |
|
I agree, I do like big pixels, especially in things like minecraft, or when you scale up splelunky. All I'm saying is not to be confrontational, it doesn't help the debate. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rogerlevy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2011, 01:48:29 PM » |
|
Well... on one hand there's not much to debate. It's just one guy's opinion and for some reason people are establishing who's on which side. I agree with those who said it doesn't matter. Be nice to just talk about the strengths and weaknesses though. I know! I'll put my money where my mouth is. Big pixels are cool I think because they use the medium's atom of visual expression to obscure, give the imagination something to do. But there are other cool ways too ... like obscuring, blurring, using abstract polygons, or ... even representing something with something else entirely - symbology - something movies and books do. Anyway blurring and stuff is what pixel shaders are for  How I heart them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ANtY
|
|
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2011, 01:55:02 PM » |
|
Yes, it really does matter.
Man, you know, I'd love to be able to take your argument of "I hate big pixels" seriously but you are just about trolololol Man, you know, I'd love to be able to take your argument of "WE ALL LOVE BIG PIXELS, CUZ THEY REMIND US OF SWEET YEARS OF CHILDHOOD" seriously but you are just about trolololol |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Developer
