next »

[Shambrook]

ok so I'm just gunna come out and say it.

I don't get pixel art. When I look at it it seems needlessly complex and not really worth the effort. I mean don't get me wrong I've seen some pixel art stuff wich is damm impressive (That Katamari/Shadow of the Collosus pic springs to mind) but for the purpose of spriting. I just flat out don't understand the appeal. I mean I get that there is deffintly some nostalgia attached. But it seems like everything is done in pixel art and, well it baffles me.

So whats the deal, why do so many of you guys do pixel art? Is it harder programing wise to do sprites that arn't pixeled or what?

[Ivan]

Pixelart boils alot aesthetic concepts down into a minimalist and manageable framework. Color theory, composition, anatomy... all of these things can be practiced within a small square of pixels, rather than an oil paint canvas, for example. Alot of the best pixelartists are also skilled painters because they have a solid grip on these concepts, but given the techno-centric vernacular and space/time limitations of our modern times, alot of them choose pixelart as a medium.

[Massena]

And also I find it easier to code for lower resolutions since if I work with less pixels I can afford to make more mistakes code-wise.

[increpare]

And also I find it easier to code for lower resolutions since if I work with less pixels I can afford to make more mistakes code-wise.

eh?

[ChevyRay]

It looks awesome. Everything seems to have a nice, snug fit when you have a good pixel artist compared to anything else.

And like any art, when it's done right, it is just fantastic to look at.

[muku]

This is an interesting thread for me, because I used to think similarly. I thought pixel art only had nostalgic appeal and was pretty old fashioned, almost obsolete. Well, my opinion has changed. It's probably simply the effect of spending too much time on this forum and being exposed to lots of pixel art in the process, so I got accustomed to it and started to like it, as these things go; but you know how our brain always tries to convince itself that it indeed has rational reasons for the reasons it likes and believes in, so I'll try to put a few arguments out. Also keep in mind that I am no artist, but a coder.

I'd say as far as programming is concerned, there is no real difference between using pixel art or other sorts of sprites. Sure you typically work at a lower resolution when using pixel art (often scaled up), but in the end it doesn't matter much. So I don't think that's an argument.

I also don't quite see your point about it being needlessly complex. Actually I think that if you aren't a talented artist, it's easier to do something which is at least acceptable to look at in pixel style than pretty much anything else. This ties in with the whole DIY ethos that's pretty strong (out of necessity) in the indie scene: even if you don't have someone to make shiny high-gloss graphics for you, you can still cobble some pixels together and make a great game regardless.

Finally, I've definitely come to accept pixel art as a valid artistic choice. I mean, if you look at things like this or this, I just cannot see how one could deny that this is an art form in itself. Just as there are still films being shot in black and white because it works well aesthetically and ties in with the mood of the narrative, I think there are artistic (as opposed to technical or imposed by other limits) reasons to choose pixel art for a game.

[qubodup]

For me, pixel art was the right way, because you, as the artist, can control the graphic (as it has a size which you can overview) and because you can work abstractively using math.

Now I work with vectors, which are not perfect, but future-proof.

PS: Also I started my "aware computer guy"-being as a web developer. Pixel art   and icons went hand in hand and still do mostly.

For me it's not really about the style. I prefer the resolution-independance of vectors in 2d an 3d graphics and would love to be able to describe everything (including textures) in vectors. But we're not there yet.

[moi]

I think people should define what they're talking about when they say "pixel art", the term can designate a wide array of things.
It can designate a stylistic choice but then, the definition is fuzzy and a lot of things can be called pixel art as long as they're drawn.
It can designate the technical aspect, but then everything that is drawn ispixel art (by opposition to , say, pre-rendering or 3d rendering)

[dmoonfire]

I think its purely ascetics. Some people like them, some people don't. The reasons of why they like them may different, from remembering the days of when it was the only type, to just liking big chunky boxes in their images (that's me). I also like proper vector artwork (and that's what I draw), for absolutely similar reasons.

[deadeye]

Pixel art is simultaneously the highest and lowest of the digital graphic arts.  It is the alpha and omega, the primal scream of a newborn silicon dream, and the tidal breath of a weary vacuum tube as it claws it's way towards death.  It is Zen and the Art of Raster Maintenance.

Dig it, daddy-o *plays bongos*

[michael]

i think pixel art is like haiku

[kyn]

We could get into all sorts of arguments here but I don't think there's nothing we can say that could change your mind. Overall I really love pixel art, I don't why, probably it's just nostalgia, maybe it's the minimalism, I really don't know nor am I trying to find an excuse for liking it, but I just do.

I mean, just look at it...

.. it's beautiful.

[Valter]

i think pixel art is like haiku

I like pixel art
pixel art is ever so pretty
it lightens the soul.

[Xion]

[rant][imho]
I started pixelling because I thought it was the only way to make game graphics. I'd never seen any high-resolution 2d games with painterly sprites or backgrounds, so the idea didn't even cross my mind (keep in mind, I was also like 10 or so, so even if I had known to try, it would have sucked horribly.) The only other means of making game graphics that I knew of was 3d, and I had neither the means nor skill to do so. (If I did I would probably be a very different person than I am now)

So I pixeled, and got sorta good at it. I'm not old enough to do it or like it for nostalgic reasons, really, since most of the games I played as a kid were 3d, but Pixel art still has this classy feel to it, you know? Whereas most 3d games can get away with just having "better," more realistic graphics, with pixel art it's pretty much imperative that you make a conscious effort to bring atmosphere, and style. and lay it on thick, lacking the means to render so realistically.
Also, the thing about it being "needlessly complex" is totally untrue: This saturday I started and finished 4 8-frame animated sprites and an (albeit 1-bit) unrelated mockup. If I had tried to come up with anything as polished and complete in another medium given the same amount of time, I don't think it would have been any easier, but I finished all that in only a few hours.
As well, with something like, say, 3d game assets, you would need someone to model, animate, and make the textures. I mean you could do all this yourself, and I'm sure some do, but that's still three separate skill sets required for a single asset, and if any one of them looks bad, the whole thing is thrown off.
In pixel art, there's only really pixelling and animating, and they can be separate from one another. Take, for example, . The pixel art in that game is good, but the animations honestly look like they were done with little effort. Of course it was a stylistic choice, but it's cohesive and doesn't make the game look ugly. Same with older games on restricted hardware - Mario's runcycle in SMB, I think, is pretty bad on its own as a runcycle, but it's cohesive, and it works, and it complies with the limits of the hardware, so there's no need to make it a more accurate run. Essentially, I'm saying that pixel art is more easy for one person to make every asset needed, tiles characters and all, look passable, as long as it's all cohesive.
It also depends on where exactly your skills lie. If you're a good digital painter but have never pixelled, it's only obvious that you do digital painting and not pixel if you're running on a schedule.
Personally, I enjoy pixel art on a technical level - the simplicity of some sprites, the attention to detail of others, the animations (oh, the animations) and, most of all, how it all comes together.
And then you know how some people are all like "who can actually enjoy putting all those little dots down? It's pointless and masochistic!" That sort of annoys me, 'cause it's not like we're actually placing the pixels one.at..a...time. It's no less complicated or tedious than drawing on paper, really.
[/imho][/rant]

[Thorst]

Pixel art is the native tongue of computer displays.  That will not change unless computer displays change dramatically.  If you think the pixel-grid nature of your computer screen is irrelevant thanks to anti-aliasing and high resolutions, stop for a moment, and compare some text on your computer screen to text in print.  As qubodup said, we are not there yet.

Here is another example.  If you wished to study a famous painting and the museum was closed, would you rather look at the painting as a jpeg, or look at it in a book?

Computers do not display traditional images; they display pixels.  So, pixel art is the only way for an artist to work directly with the medium of a computer display.  This control makes pixel art look undeniably clearer than everything else.

It isn’t nostalgia.  It’s better.

Also, I agree with muku that pixel art is easier, I think because it doesn’t leave room for details that can be tricky to draw.  It is also an easy technique if all you have to draw with is a mouse.

[Zaphos]

Some advantages of pixel art:
- less work to animate
- a less threatening medium to pick up than most others; there's not much required to open ms paint, zoom in, and start clicking pixels, and seems very accessible on the computer w/out needing a tablet or scanner.
- more space efficient, though I haven't seen people complaining about download sizes for a while
- more forgiving than higher resolutions when it comes to smoothness of animation; a two frame walk cycle can look cute and fit with the nostalgia and chunky style, where in high res it would be completely jarring.
- does let you use some naive algorithms (such as pixel perfect collision detection) without worrying too much about how well you're programming.  Smooth, high res 2D animation may also call for some intelligent streaming / memory management.
- With pixel art there is basically never a need for a load time ever, and load times do suck.
- There is an interesting level of abstraction in pixel art -- they can leave more room for players to fill in details and relate to the characters.
- It looks good!

Not sure why pixel art would be considered "needlessly complex" or really any more effort than another method.

[Dacke]

Actually, I've always wondered, why on earth do JPGs do that? Where as GIFs, PNGs and etc leave the image reasonably pristine AND of a similar file size. It seems a little odd, is all, creating different coloured artefacts all over the picture.

And, for that matter, where can I host Bitmaps or GIFs or PNGS? Photobucket won't have any of it.

The minimalism really attracts me, as I think it's only in art forms with strict limitations one truly can approach perfection. Within set limitations, one can search for a perfect expression Without limitations the best one can do is something better than those things that have been done before. Without limitations it's impossible to reach any kind of final, perfected form as the practical limitations you work under will be changed to new, slightly less restricting, limitations in the future.

[Cheater‽]

I think Dacke broke, guys.

[Hideous]

 

[muku]

That's borderline creepy.

But funny, too.