D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
This was initially going to be a discussion on pixel art and its viability in the future, but I kinda began to ramble for a bit, so, just let me know your general thoughts on Pixel Art in the comments.
As most of you probably know, the pixel art aesthetic is one that is fairly common in most smaller and indie video games today (for better or for worse). Often, games with pixel art get lumped under such blanket terms such as "retro" or "nostalgic," as said games often take inspiration from games released on old systems like the NES, SNES, Genesis, and even the original PlayStation.
However, sometimes I wonder how viable this style will last. As graphics hardware gets increasingly better and more advanced, and as adults who grew up on the aforementioned systems continue to get older, I'm left wondering if the style will ever get dropped, and, if so, how long it will take before it happens.
There's also a chance that the children of today will grow fond of said pixel art in the indie games of today, and will want to use it in their own games, creating a sort of "meta-nostalgia" effect, ensuring that the style will never die off.
We also seem to be entering what D-Pad Studio calls the "Hi-Bit Era, where games are moving past the technical limitations of the systems of yore and are evolving into something of a new style all their own. Looking at it now, this is rather exciting to see. However, I remember getting into a conversation with @HaloEliteLegend on Discord one time discussing the use of pixel-art in video games. I was a bit of a staunch advocate of abiding by the technical limitations of the original hardware (resolution and all), whereas Halo thought it better that games not be mucked down in the setbacks of old.
Looking back, however, it seems that my main problem wasn't really with the technical limitations, but rather with how the art style seems to be used these days. A lot of games I find these days don't make the best use of pixel art. Sprites in these games tend to stick to lower resolutions (comparable to those in NES games, like, 16x16 pixels), even if they use more than, say, 4 colors. Larger sprites (say, 64x64 pixels) in these games tend to have a noted lack of proper shading, making them look rather flat and uninteresting. There's also the fact that many games these days use sprites obviously intended for lower resolutions, then scale them up to fit modern displays, which sometimes results in sprites moving "in-between" pixels, something I'm sure not many people mind as much, but which I (something of a retro-game enthusiast) find very distracting.
Halo also brought up the point that we live in an age where demands are high on 3D Games. Said games must have very high poly-counts and absurdly rich graphics, or else they get labeled as having "PS2 Graphics". And he's right. It seems to have created this rift between 2D and 3D games, where the game is either a high-fidelity 3D game... or 2D. It's a bit ridiculous, to say the least, so I guess that's why a lot of game devs turn to pixel art, one of the easiest to pick up forms of art. Anyone can make pixel art. But not everyone can do pixel art well. And, to be fair, it's a bit much to ask from single-man or extremely small dev teams. So I guess I may be a bit demanding, there .
Still, with this new Hi-Bit era coming upon us, I'm kind of excited to see the quality of pixel art in these games. I kinda have an itch for more games that flow and animate like Street Fighter III, Art of Fighting 3, MegaMan X4, etc. What do you guys think? Is pixel art overused? Does it have longevity? How, if at all, would you go about changing the trends in pixel art you see today?
also, sorry for the ping, Halo
As most of you probably know, the pixel art aesthetic is one that is fairly common in most smaller and indie video games today (for better or for worse). Often, games with pixel art get lumped under such blanket terms such as "retro" or "nostalgic," as said games often take inspiration from games released on old systems like the NES, SNES, Genesis, and even the original PlayStation.
However, sometimes I wonder how viable this style will last. As graphics hardware gets increasingly better and more advanced, and as adults who grew up on the aforementioned systems continue to get older, I'm left wondering if the style will ever get dropped, and, if so, how long it will take before it happens.
There's also a chance that the children of today will grow fond of said pixel art in the indie games of today, and will want to use it in their own games, creating a sort of "meta-nostalgia" effect, ensuring that the style will never die off.
We also seem to be entering what D-Pad Studio calls the "Hi-Bit Era, where games are moving past the technical limitations of the systems of yore and are evolving into something of a new style all their own. Looking at it now, this is rather exciting to see. However, I remember getting into a conversation with @HaloEliteLegend on Discord one time discussing the use of pixel-art in video games. I was a bit of a staunch advocate of abiding by the technical limitations of the original hardware (resolution and all), whereas Halo thought it better that games not be mucked down in the setbacks of old.
Looking back, however, it seems that my main problem wasn't really with the technical limitations, but rather with how the art style seems to be used these days. A lot of games I find these days don't make the best use of pixel art. Sprites in these games tend to stick to lower resolutions (comparable to those in NES games, like, 16x16 pixels), even if they use more than, say, 4 colors. Larger sprites (say, 64x64 pixels) in these games tend to have a noted lack of proper shading, making them look rather flat and uninteresting. There's also the fact that many games these days use sprites obviously intended for lower resolutions, then scale them up to fit modern displays, which sometimes results in sprites moving "in-between" pixels, something I'm sure not many people mind as much, but which I (something of a retro-game enthusiast) find very distracting.
Halo also brought up the point that we live in an age where demands are high on 3D Games. Said games must have very high poly-counts and absurdly rich graphics, or else they get labeled as having "PS2 Graphics". And he's right. It seems to have created this rift between 2D and 3D games, where the game is either a high-fidelity 3D game... or 2D. It's a bit ridiculous, to say the least, so I guess that's why a lot of game devs turn to pixel art, one of the easiest to pick up forms of art. Anyone can make pixel art. But not everyone can do pixel art well. And, to be fair, it's a bit much to ask from single-man or extremely small dev teams. So I guess I may be a bit demanding, there .
Still, with this new Hi-Bit era coming upon us, I'm kind of excited to see the quality of pixel art in these games. I kinda have an itch for more games that flow and animate like Street Fighter III, Art of Fighting 3, MegaMan X4, etc. What do you guys think? Is pixel art overused? Does it have longevity? How, if at all, would you go about changing the trends in pixel art you see today?
Last edited by ,