Main > Everything Else
I read somewhere that "Good Pixel Art has Shading."
Xiaou2:
Heres some nice Pixel Art examples...
1) Froggies. Drawn by a former Pixel artist that worked for the Marble Insanity Project that I was helping to direct. George was partially color blind.. so once in a while I had to clean up the odd mixed color. However, his shading ability was quite amazing. As was his overall artistic ability.
2) Shadow of the Beast enlarged.
3) Georges Slinkys, and the Marbles were done by Me.
4 & 5 - Some GBA game?
6) Magican Lord
SavannahLion:
--- Quote from: Vigo on June 15, 2011, 12:28:45 pm ---Interesting question to be asking now, years after video game art has any real constraints with color or resolution. Isn't pixel art right now an intentional limitation?
--- End quote ---
It's interesting that no one else is really bringing this up. When you're not chasing the gun, I would imagine the limitations (whether forced by the hardware or self imposed by the artist) would be the first thing to consider when constructing pixelated art. In other words, the 320x200x16 limitation of the C64 is comparable to the GBA limitation of 240×160x215 in the same way cars created thirty years apart are comparable.
In any case, the thing to avoid is the opening shot of Turma da Mônica na Terra dos Monstros which is what I think X and PBJ are squawking about. I'm not entirely sure, I don't really read their entire posts anymore.
Xiaou2:
Again, the words were taken out of context, in an argument about some auto-shader program that was supposed to make classic games look better. However, all it really did was butcher the images.
Yes, pixel art today is an intentional limitation. You can chose the size of the pixels, as well as limits on the colors used in shading.
In reality, all digital art "IS" pixel art, as its made up of pixels. However, its not generally called Pixel art.
Real Pixel Art takes much more skill to create, due to the limits on colors and pixel size. And because of the limitations, the creations tend to have a more artistic appeal, as they are more 'interpretive' rather than merely photographic in nature.
I personally am not that good at pixel art. I can shade very well with a pencil, (and have good color ability)... but pixel art take a lot of practice and much more work... and Im just not that dedicated enough. Then again, Im more of a technical or 'forced' artist, than a natural artist. Which is why I generally stick to concepts and designs. I can help guide artists, but it takes me 50x as long to do the same task as a natural does... and not get half as good of an ending result. (Which is why Id rather give a Natural artist the job of working from my crude concepts, making them 1000x as wicked as they would otherwise be)
Example of Handing it to a Pro:
A) My general concept sketch forming.
B) Removed poor leg configuration
C) Clean up lines, and fix & finish details.
D) Sent to a REAL artist, & he returned it with major improvements I never would have been able to do so well.
E) My slight modification with more realistic colors (esp. for the games style), and adding the other needed leg.. .as well as background (not really seen here *cropped* )
No, its not pixel art, but merely an example of knowing when its better to get help, rather than attempt something well outside of your strengths. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
Howard_Casto:
You know, as a psuedo-artist, I can apprecite the asthetics of pixel art and for certain projects I could see it be fun, but then again.. in terms of indy games (pc games, not the ones with hardware limitations) it kind of makes me a little mad.
Back in the day game developers struggled to create a fairly realistic image with a very limited resolution and color pallette. Their goal was to make the most photorealistic 2d game that the tech could support. Now we finally have hardware capable of doing a full 1080p game with full resolution 2d graphics and what do game developers do? They either jump ship to 3d, make ugly "flash-like" vector graphics, or decide to go back to their gaming infancy and purposefully devolve their artwork to 8/16 bit.
Again, I'm not knocking the artform, it's the over-use of the asthetic in indy games that gets on my nerves. Big box developers are never going to take the risk to do a full-on hidef 2d game... but if an indy developer did it and was succesful at it, perhaps it would start a trend in the industry.
But who am I complain... I'm barely a competant enough programmer to make the simplest of games and my artwork (which I pretty much stopped doing 10 years ago) isn't up to snuff for a full game nor could I make enough of it to fill one.
Just for the record though in terms of the artform itself, pixel art is VERY difficult to pull off (I sure can't do it) and anyone starting out in the craft shouldn't be bashed, but rather encouraged. Those guys in the 8/16 bit days were insainely talented, and they worked at thier craft for several hours a day over the course of years. For someone doing it as a hobby, the learning curve is quite steep.
Xiaou2:
To be clear, I wasnt trying to bash anyone. Even though I myself was getting bashed.
The message was that anyone well versed in pixel art wouldnt want their efforts destroyed. The way I conveyed my point was harsh, but that was after the mud slinging took place.
I dont knock anyones abilities or lackings. However, I dont stand for people basing and attacking me... especially when they are not getting the point, or skipping right over it in order to throw another rock.
I myself can draw decently, and can shade well too. But Pixel art, Im not cut out for it. I wouldnt recommend anyone who isnt a very good artist to even bother with it... cause if you are not adept at basic shading, lighting, shadow, and color work... then the results are more than likely going to be very poor. Stuff my brother made on our C64, blew my mind. It was totally effortless for him. (besides the actual labor process) Hes the real artist of the family. Im pretty much just a technical artist.
--- Quote ---Back in the day game developers struggled to create a fairly realistic image with a very limited resolution and color pallette. Their goal was to make the most photorealistic 2d game that the tech could support.
--- End quote ---
Actually, I dont know if I really agree with that at all. You see, Artist simply try to make something look good. It doesnt mean they are going for photorealism. In fact, a lot of artists love to tweak reality, because in fact, reality is kinda boring. A good example in the modern sense... would be Avatar. The CGI jungle was far more beautiful than any you would ever encounter on earth in even the best of situations.
That of course being slightly extreme of an example, cause its impossible to find such beauty here. However, there are many cases of games looks that are tweaked to make it interesting, rather than purely realistic.
My personal Favorite is Outrun. No matter how many yrs have passed, it still looks good and is fun to play. The pixelized nature of the graphics makes it look more like an oil painting interpretation. Which is timeless and artistic. Where as many modern 3d car games look generic and crappy.. and dont hold up over the years.
Even Outruns Successor 'Outrunners', just doesnt look right. Its part cartoon, part photographic... and makes it look and feel really strange. The mixing of the media types clashes too hard.
I do agree that Id like to see some games as hidef 2d however. And Ive often wished to see a fighting game thats digitized 2d in hi-def, rather than 3d mocap. I envision it looking like a blueray Jackie Chan film like Return of the Drunken Master... but with full control-ability and fluidity.
That said, Ive no problem with pixelated works, or even vector games. My main concern is the actual gameplay... and todays games just dont cut it for me. I have more fun and challenge playing the 16 bit console games and Mame arcade games.
I also have issues with modern Vector & shooter games, merely cause they stuff way too much onscreen. Too many explosions, line trails, etc... so that you can barely see a darn thing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version