next »

[moi]

From pixeljoint hall of fame.

Yes in that case the use of pixelart is superfluous because it's impossible to tell the difference from a painted piece.
Pixel art IMHO is good only when you have lo res and/or there is a strong identity of pixelartism being conveyed

[Bones]

Not to mention that pixel art allows for sub-pixel animation.
Which no other form of animation has as far as I can tell.




Which is changing the color of an individual pixel to create a sense of motion.
Or to give it a kind of trail of motion.

subpixel is native to rendered 2D and digitized pictures.
Pixelartist can go out of theri way to use subpixel in their sprites but it's absolutely not something that is limited only to pixel art, and you can do it with painted sprites if you want to.

Yea I understand that subpixels are applied to any rendered digital image or font.
I just mean that pixel art has the most control over the action.

But Xion is totally correct in that subpixels are not needed for larger sprites because there is usually much more motion going on than a 16x16 or 32x32 sprite.

Even at this scale I am noticing sub pixeling in some areas.

[Bernie]

Why pixel art you say? (Again?)

A bunch of things that can speak for it:

Time
It can take less time to make sprites. That probably depends, but having made both 3D models and painted sprites, I think it's the speediest method.

Technical
I tried to make a game in Adobe AIR for mobiles once. Drawing scrolling vector graphics didn't work out in the end. I switched over to tile-based drawing which sped it up quite a bit. That's why I think technical aspects can speak for pixel art.

Nostalgia
I grew up with pixel games - the LEC and Sierra point and click adventures, NES/SNES Mario games and so on. I'm lovin' them pixels.

I don't even know why the choice of presentation is such a big deal. If the end product works, who cares what art style has been chosen?

[Bones]

What original characteristic? A pixel is a pixel regardless of how big the sprite it is.
And what the hell do you mean the medium of high resolution has very little to do with "good art"
I guess you wouldn't know what good art was if it smacked you in the face.

I didn't talk about pixel characteristics, but pixel art characteristics. High or low resolution doesn't define good art, I said that plain technical execution over ideas very rarely provides good art. And to be honest, in case of most high-res pixel art the technical execution is exceptional, but the actual pictures are simply nothing. Again and again the same cliche stuff which we already have seen in other 2D art forms.



From pixeljoint hall of fame.

To each their own?

The artists are only going to draw what they feel like drawing.
As you said it's that very technical execution that I appreciate over a high resolution digital painting of the same figure using layers, filters and brushes and likely a tablet since drawing things with a mouse in photoshop is hard but not impossible.
I could give a two shits if this was a guy puking into the air, if it was drawn with the same execution I would regard it as the same quality.

I also appreciate the likely hood that this was drawn with a mouse and not a tablet, but it could be I mean tablets aren't new technology.
I myself can't pixel technically with a tablet such as AA, but I can sketch well with one.
So this is just my opinion from experience, I know someone who pixeled with an xbox controller.

Edit: What Keo said. 

[anonymous]

I didn't talk about pixel characteristics, but pixel art characteristics. High or low resolution doesn't define good art, I said that plain technical execution over ideas very rarely provides good art. And to be honest, in case of most high-res pixel art the technical execution is exceptional, but the actual pictures are simply nothing. Again and again the same cliche stuff which we already have seen in other 2D art forms.

From pixeljoint hall of fame.

the outcome is not determined by the medium but by the artist.

[DavidCaruso]

We're doing this topic again...? Okay to summarize it's time efficiency + evoking nostalgia. When the reasons are mostly to evoke nostalgia it's dumb, and usually inaccurate/bad too, for example see Minitroid, Terraria, Mega Man 9 (which I'll admit is very very high up in terms of "retro" art quality, but still a regression from the later MM NES games), Half-Minute Hero, NES Left 4 Dead, and more. The worst is when they decide to scale pixelated  sprites into 3D but I haven't seen many of those yet. As always in these threads I also feel the need to emphasize that Lego pixels are baaaaaaad.

also IDK I don't have any real problem telling that PJ pic is pixelart. It's just a more demoscene-ish style. I still see stuff like dithering and other single-pixel details.

[s0]

what the hell didn't someone already start an identical 10+ pages thread about this like... 10 minutes ago?

EDIT: yes and it's still on the front page

also, thread with the exact same title as this one from 2009

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=8204.0

[1982]

the outcome is not determined by the medium but by the artist.

This doesn't mean anything.

[anonymous]

the outcome is not determined by the medium but by the artist.

This doesn't mean anything.

exactly.

[Bones]

what the hell didn't someone already start an identical 10+ pages thread about this like... 10 minutes ago?

EDIT: yes and it's still on the front page

also, thread with the exact same title as this one from 2009

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=8204.0

too slow I already posted that one third post from the top of the second page.

Yes they did, and I recall an even further extensive 21 page thread from Brocklesocks
Should just combine all three topics, and make it a sticky.

[1982]

exactly.

Try harder.

[anonymous]

exactly.

Try harder.

I was just responding to your post, it seemed liked a legitimate answer to me.  so I'm done.

[1982]

it seemed liked a legitimate answer to me.  so I'm done.

Accepted.

[HöllenKobold]

my babby

[Ashkin]

my babby

My eyes are burning, but I can't look away....

[1982]

my babby

This has very nice style and color usage, I like.

But...

The actual content is again completely average. There is no "story" to tell, no imagination, no message, no vision, ...no good art. Sometimes pictures still work without any of this, but this example is way too unfinished looking. The character has not even been placed anywhere inside the frame. If that is supposed to be night or darkness, it would still a lot better if the surroundings would have gotten some artistic touch instead of plain 0 0 0 black.

This would be nice unfinished title screen to some game, but it probably is not.

[Ashkin]

This has very nice style and color usage, I like.

But...

The actual content is again completely average. There is no "story" to tell, no imagination, no message, no vision, ...no good art. Sometimes pictures still work without any of this, but this example is way too unfinished looking. The character has not even been placed anywhere inside the frame. If that is supposed to be night or darkness, it would still a lot better if the surroundings would have gotten some artistic touch instead of plain 0 0 0 black.

Personally, I think it was more of a technical example to show that colours, no matter how bright and unpleasing to the eye they may seem, can be used well by someone with enough skill.

[ANtY]

This has very nice style and color usage, I like.

But...

The actual content is again completely average. There is no "story" to tell, no imagination, no message, no vision, ...no good art. Sometimes pictures still work without any of this, but this example is way too unfinished looking. The character has not even been placed anywhere inside the frame. If that is supposed to be night or darkness, it would still a lot better if the surroundings would have gotten some artistic touch instead of plain 0 0 0 black.

Personally, I think it was more of a technical example to show that colours, no matter how bright and unpleasing to the eye they may seem, can be used well by someone with enough skill.

And enough time, pixelling in high-res takes much more time than digital painting and I'm almost sure of that (never pixelled anything high-res)

[1982]

And enough time, pixelling in high-res takes much more time than digital painting and I'm almost sure of that (never pixelled anything high-res)

I am not going to buy that. When artist makes something, he/she should consider the skill and time available in comparison to what artwork requires. And I am analyzing that particular artwork as it is because that how it was presented.

[Dugan]

my babby

tasty colours!