I read somewhere that "Good Pixel Art has Shading."

[Malenko]

Thoughts?

I find that pixel art can be fantastic either way. Sometimes shading can enhance an image or give it more depth but sometimes it can make it look like ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. I mean look at Spiderman in Arcades Revenge vs the Spiderman from Maximum carnage. the MC looks like hes made out of chewing gum. This is pretty fair comparison considering they are on the same system and run the same resolution (please don't say how swell he looks in MvC2 compares to SNES)

I added some crude shadowing to the eyeball enemy for the game I'm working on, but I dont think the zombie I made would benefit much from having a second grey tone along his pant legs

The attached image is mine and while fine for public use Id rather not see it in another commercial product. If you are a pixel artist, this would be a great place to show off YOUR work (hell I might even commission you for help with my game)

[saint]

Can we see side by side with and without shading?

[Malenko]

Can we see side by side with and without shading?

you want me to shade the zombie or "unshade" the eyeball?

[Vigo]

I come from a family with a lot of artists, I can't help but comment. 

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? I guess then it falls upon what kind of feelings and emotions you want to invoke, just like any art. It would be like comparing pointilistic art to impressionistic art. You can't say what style itself is better, but there is a better style for invoking a particular feeling.

I think shading is usually better at invoking a sense of realistic surroundings, or an realistic feeling on entire setting. Like a dark shadowy forest or an abandoned mansion. A less shaded image with bold colors is much more memorable and striking in your mind. You imagination creates a caricature from the simple imagery and intensifies the emotions behind it. Of all the video games I have played, some of the older games scared the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of me the most; they only had a handful of colors and a crappy resolution to use, my imagination did the rest.

[RayB]

Unshaded only really works if you want a very flat 2D look to your game (or a very specific retro look, like "NES style"). I always preferred shaded to add dimension, help define objects as seperate from backgrounds, etc.

The next question you'll be asking yourself then is smooth shading or hard shading?

[Mikezilla]

Haha Malenko, I read that somewhere too. 

I personally like the shading, but only when its done well, when the artist knows what he is doing. Yours looks great, it obviously looks like you know what youre doing, so I would say go with it.

I wouldnt mind seeing an unshaded eyeball though just for comparison. Im visual like that. 

[saint]

Can we see side by side with and without shading?

you want me to shade the zombie or "unshade" the eyeball?

Was thinking unshaded eyeballs to compare with.

[Vigo]

Unshaded only really works if you want a very flat 2D look to your game (or a very specific retro look, like "NES style"). I always preferred shaded to add dimension, help define objects as seperate from backgrounds, etc.

The next question you'll be asking yourself then is smooth shading or hard shading?

I think there are some great games with unshaded art that has a certain feeling of depth, but they were also under certain limitations as well so that is a big reason of why it looks that way. Forbidden Forest comes mind:



Ray, if I remember right you have been a VG artist since the C64 days. Am I Correct? I'd be interested to hear more insight from your point of view on pixel art techniques.

[Malenko]

You can't say what style itself is better, but there is a better style for invoking a particular feeling.

I was told its highly doubtful I was any good at pixel art. Same person stated Good Pixel Art has Shading. If you connect the big obvious dots, I believe they are implying I'm terrible at pixel art because the zombie I posted wasn't shaded. I'd link but the thread got killed


My buddy Sam and I are going for a throwback Castlevania type game / look but our character will be a lot more mobile (crawling, wall slide, shimmy, carrying objects,etc). I know my skill level, not terrible but not epic either. I just wondered what others (especially actual artists) think.

As for an unshaded eyeball, that's gonna be kinda hard to do. What I can do, is when Im done the next base sheet for an enemy, I can post it before and after shading (if I shade it). I attached the sprite sheet for Mario/Luigi from SMB3. Would you say this pixel art isn't good?

[Vigo]

Castlevania? sweet! Not to mention the only downfall of the old Castlevania games was that Belmont was about as mobile as a brick. You game sounds like fun. 

SMB3 is actually a good set of sprites to bring up. They looked great to begin with, they were also redone for Mario All Stars to include a bigger color palette and shading. I think the shading helped make things look even better, but at the same time it changed the tone of the game for me. The world seemed a little too "happy go lucky" and world 8 was not as dark and foreboding. Maybe Nintendo could have shaded everything to look scarier though, I don't know.

[Nephasth]

Good pixel art is in the eye of the beholder...

[Malenko]

Why did you start a thread about shading pixels because you were offended as an artist when you don't have any examples to post??

Other then the fact I did post an example of my work? Or the fact the my work in particular has no bearing on what other people like in terms of shading?

A lot of deliberately trolling threads around here lately..

While the vast majority of blanket statements are false, you are correct, your post is very trolly.

[Mikezilla]

Why did you start a thread about shading pixels because you were offended as an artist when you don't have any examples to post??

Other then the fact I did post an example of my work? Or the fact the my work in particular has no bearing on what other people like in terms of shading?

A lot of deliberately trolling threads around here lately..

While the vast majority of blanket statements are false, you are correct, your post is very trolly.

Relax, its only pinballjim.

[Malenko]

Can we see side by side with and without shading?

 

I find that pixel art can be fantastic either way. Sometimes shading can enhance an image or give it more depth but sometimes it can make it look like ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. I mean look at Spiderman in Arcades Revenge vs the Spiderman from Maximum carnage. the MC looks like hes made out of chewing gum. This is pretty fair comparison considering they are on the same system and run the same resolution (please don't say how swell he looks in MvC2 compares to SNES)

 

Other then the fact I did post an example of my work? Or the fact the my work in particular has no bearing on what other people like in terms of shading?

 

I can't say I was offended as an artist, I dont mind criticism, but you cant really Take "Mr.X" seriously. I'll work on some ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- in the next couple of days just for you peaches :*  I'd love to see some of Mr.X's work if he has the balls/talent to post anything other than someone else's work.

EDIT: unshaded the eyeball. Doesnt really make a ton of sense, cause I said the eyeball needed shading. Put a quick shadow on a zombie frame doesnt seem THAT much better. Does that make 1 zombie good pixel art and the other bad pixel art?

[Xiaou2]

The thread got locked before I could reply.

 The purpose behind the my post, was that "IF" you were a Pixel artist of high caliber, you would have excellent shading.  And if you have great shading.. you would NEVER want that auto-vectorize program to destroy all your hard work.

 Even the most basic non-artists can shade a simple eyeball.  But what about that Zombie?   Is that what you call shading?

 From the zombie picture, I can tell that you do not understand the complexities of light and shadow too well.  For one, theres simply not enough shades.  The limbs are flat with exception to the very edges.  Wheres the shadow under the arms on the shirt? How about under the neck from the chin hang?

 Take a look at the new Avatar I posted.  The "Beast" creature comes from the famous Amiga game, "Shadow of the Beast".  You can see the 3d definition of the muscles, shadows on the rear leg, his clothing, and his ankle bracelet.  Every surface is shaded according to what would happen if it were 3d, and how light would react to those surfaces.  Beast is pretty much nude...   but when you look at some fighting games, and other good pixelized people, you will see actual wrinkles in clothing.

 Pixel art can be done well with no shading.  As said, its an artistic choice. However, regardless.. If you add shading, it tends to make the game look better.

[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]

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?

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.

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.

 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.

[Malenko]

I had typed up this giant retort, but I realize its pointless. You cant constantly insult people and then say "I wasn't bashing anyone" and assume it undoes what you said.

The absolute biggest thing you missed from the now locked "pixel filter thread" is that no one said it would look better, just that it would look better then a simple up-scale with blending.

I would like to see some of the work YOU did, I don't really need you to post work by others, I have google.

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

A bit tangential to the subject, but here is some gorgeous pixel art with an HTML5 spin on it:

http://www.effectgames.com/demos/canvascycle/?sound=0

[CheffoJeffo]

You cant constantly insult people and then say "I wasn't bashing anyone" and assume it undoes what you said.

Sure he can ... he's been doing it for years.

[Malenko]

Xiaou, take a look at what you posted:

I dont knock anyones abilities or lackings.

I can tell that you do not understand the complexities of light and shadow

And lets not forget this Gem:
"Its highly doubtful you are any good at pixel art"


That's why its so hard to converse with you.

With that said.....

You can chose the size of the pixels

No you cannot. A pixel is always 1x1. You can change the ppi and the resolution, but the pixel is 1 by 1. You may have meant ppI/resolution but saying "you can change the size of the pixel" is not accurate.

I spent 10 minutes doing a slightly better shading on the zombie. Keep in mind before you critique that this is 1 frame of an animated enemy in a video game. This is not a single sprite to be used in a web-comic or something so any shading of 1 sprite must be done to the other 50 or so. Also keep in mind the game is probably going to run at a lower resolution than what your desktop is set at right now.

I have attached 2 sheets, in game sized and doubled, both shaded and the placeholder sprite. Can you tell they are both zombies?

[RayB]

Ray, if I remember right you have been a VG artist since the C64 days. Am I Correct? I'd be interested to hear more insight from your point of view on pixel art techniques.

Ehh, the thread's turned ugly. I don't have any real insight because I followed the same path most artists from late 80's did: I strived to be as detailed and realistic as possible. That meant that as soon as we had larger palettes available, we went for shading of some form or other. The only time I'd hold back on full use of the palette would be to keep a cartoon style, and even then, I'd use as many colors as possible in order to anti-alias jagged edges. NO ONE wanted pixels to show.

Then, if you look at lots of games from mid-to-late '90s you'll see graphics that were rendered in 3D modelling packages like 3D Studio v4, for the ultimate in realistic shading (though the "look" of that style was often ugly in hindsight).

Between the shaded eyeball and non-shaded I prefer the shaded version. It has dimension. IMO cartoony styles work best in high resolutions so that you have smooth outlines rather than pixels showing. But that's my taste.

Here's a game I bought on XBLA that's super-pixellated but it works in a cohesive overall style:


Whatever you choose Malenko, give yourself a palette limit so that everything is consistent. Also, I'd recommend you shade in steps. For example, the way you've shaded the zombie head doesn't look quite right. Start with a single shadow color and "shape" the head with it. Then you can go in and smooth it down using one darker version of that color, and one lighter. (Or stick to the hard-edged style of shading).

   

Shading with hard edge and few colors (gives dimension but keeps cartoon style):
http://dribbble.com/shots/98253-Cartoon-Bulldog-Shading-Highlighting

Soft shading (takes much longer to draw in pixels):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60512996@N02/5519817511/#

I just found this tutorial. He (or she?) uses the same sort of steps I used to for 16bit art:
http://www.wayuki.nl/tut-shading.php

[Xiaou2]

I take it you didnt bother to click the link or read?

 
Attack

I think they got it this good and they are just gonna stop working on it cause that makes perfect sense.

Unnecessary attacking sarcasm.

Cant see the forest for the trees?

More attack.

My return reply?  No attack.  No sarcasm.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up vectorizing pixelated Japanese porn.

Trying to be insulting again?
Your post is equal parts GeneSim (artistic intent), Chaddles (I know because I am one) and the worst, part you (rambling) with a hint of PBJ (generic douchbaggery but at least his funny sometimes). I think this is exciting because I'm a pixel artist, working on a lame throw back game and I'd like to see what this game does to MY art. Go draw your stick figures, kk?

 And now he gets the full Assault Gatling Guns out...

And so I FINALLY reply in the same manor, taking the position of playing in the mudd with the pig.

 So, POOR little Malenko, who cant take my opinions without jumping down and attacking me 6 ways from sunday... is crying because I bit back?   AND, I dint post just any random insult. I posted the honest facts of the matter, and on my opinion of your current ability...
YET, I was nice enough to provide you with some examples And constructive Criticisms (although rather light, due to your attitude).

 Then we get

"Also, if you really want to know why I poke fun at you, it because in 1 thread you complain how you bruise easy from some genetic deficiency and in the next you want to fist fight Cheffo and follow that one up with how you hit a guy with your toe hard enough to knock him down. On top of all of that? NO sense of humor. I poked fun at donkbacka before he poked back and was pretty funny. He doesnt get butthurt anytime anyone says anything about him. Hes generally more liked on here then you and he said Centipede isnt a classic! lol"

 Well buddy...  Thing is, when I was training hardcore back in my 20s,, I was in good decent shape.  My health has only recently took a dive in the last few years.  Food alergies I didnt realize I even had... got very severe... so typical hardcore training was leaving me with accumulating injuries, because they wouldnt heal fast enough.  It doesnt mean I cant dish it, or take it.  But Id certainly fail as a career fighter... let alone having to deal with typical training clashes.  Shortly before class stopped, Id hit the sandbags so hard that I ruptured both fluid sacks in my elbows... which really sucked.

 And no, to be accurate, I didnt knock the guy Karate guy over.  I stopped him cold from entering... stunning him with a fairly light toe-stab to the inner thigh.  Basically, his leg went numb for a second.

 As for my sense of Humor, I have one, but I reserve it for people who are actually friends.  Not people who intentionally bash and beat down. Also, I dont need friends who are so uncomfortable with themselves that they have to start crap with others. To me, thats not really much of a friendship.   You were probably the type of 'friend' who drew in black marker all over your sleeping buddies body for 'kicks'.  Dont think for one second that I have to like you or anyone else, nor have to deal with your attitude and games. Im not like your little spineless self-depreciating punching-bag pals.

 
 As for my Opinion, I seriously doubt that if you ran a game like Magican Lord through the vectorizor... that it would look better than scale & interpolation.  Even the simple Dolphin example doesnt look right.  Nor does the microchip.  And those are mere objects or extremely low complexity.  The only thing it can handle well, is straight up Back and White such as Space Invaders.  And as I said, even with improvement, the results will never be up to par.  IMOP, wouldnt be better than SI.

 Rays last link is more in line with good pixel shading.  However, even that one is overly simplistic and inaccurate.  He shaded as if the light was pretty much coming from in front of the body, but then posts a lightsource in the upper left... which really isnt used.

 Yet... if you look at the very top of the page, on the left side border, is a more refined woman who is shaded so much better.   Now, more than likely, the instructional was merely made to incite beginners... because realistically, to try to explain shading surfaces of the body as it was drawn on the top-left image, would have taken an book worth of examples.

 But, theres always hope.  Theres tons of how-to-draw books that show how to shade properly.  It takes a bit of practice with mere pencil, let alone trying to go at it with pixels.


 And yes, when I was stating that when designing a game today, you can choose to make pixels any size.. I meant block/pen size.  Instead of drawing single dots for images.. you might use a 4x4 square for everything drawn.   PPI tends to be more a term used for printing... and while you could say that its similar to what I described... PPI does not denote that pixels have to be grouped.  But anyways, the points remain, regardless of (easily understood) interpretations.

[RayB]

Dude, take a breath. 

Rays last link is more in line with good pixel shading.  However, even that one is overly simplistic and inaccurate.  He shaded as if the light was pretty much coming from in front of the body, but then posts a lightsource in the upper left... which really isnt used.

It was very common for late 80's graphics to have that kind of "front on" lighting because sprites are flipped horizontally for left/right direction changes. If your shading is too strongly showing a particular direction, then the lighting is all wrong when the sprite is flipped.

There was also the advantage of being able to do stuff like draw half an object, and just flip "tiles" in an object to make the other side of it, like the barrels here:

[CheffoJeffo]

C'mon Ray -- you know that Xiaou2 breathes through his eyelids!

And you know better than to respond to his expert posts with silly little things like facts and experience!

 

[Malenko]

You quoted me both out of order and out of context   Par for the course I guess.
Its not an insult because you DIDN'T read the link (at least until after I said you didn't)

PPI tends to be more a term used for printing...

I know right? I wish one of the world foremost photo editing software suites would let you change it when working with digital images/art



Tell ya what, lets play a little game, just between you and me. Lets see which of us can keep our replies to topics on ANY section on this board under 50 words for the longest. Quoting others in your reply counts. Starting right after this post.




GO!

[Xiaou2]

It was very common for late 80's graphics to have that kind of "front on" lighting because sprites are flipped horizontally for left/right direction changes. If your shading is too strongly showing a particular direction, then the lighting is all wrong when the sprite is flipped.

There was also the advantage of being able to do stuff like draw half an object, and just flip "tiles" in an object to make the other side of it, like the barrels here:

 Come on Ray, you know that I know why center lighting exists & was used.

 However, its also the least realistic, and least artistic.  Id have to count, but Im certain that its also the least used form of game shading as well. (not counting clones of course)

 My point was, was that the demo used was done to show basic ideas of shading. Its clear the girl can shade well, as her other 'dolls' are lit in various ways.  That its much more difficult to explain that kind of shading, and requires a lot more in-depth knowledge and experience.  As such, relates to the topic at hand... knowledge of such things would produce a better understanding of how poorly such images would be translated by a non-human.


 Cheffo, stick to what you know best.  What is that btw?  As it certainly isnt pixel art from what I can tell.  Ahh thats right... its adding worthless comments that dont pertain to adding valid and useful information.  Check.

[CheffoJeffo]

Cheffo, stick to what you know best.  What is that btw?  As it certainly isnt pixel art from what I can tell.  Ahh thats right... its adding worthless comments that dont pertain to adding valid and useful information.  Check.

Actually, it seems to be pissing you off ... so, since you made the request ...



 

[Xiaou2]

Awe, poor defeated cheffo is upset.

 Serves him right for opening his flap trap without any knowledge or experience on the subject.

 Remember BUDDY, you are the one who chose your classic pile on move, rocks from afar tactic.  If you think Im going to sit there and let you spew your garbage attitude at me, your mistaken.

 Instead of being obnoxious and useless, you might try doing something more productive.

[saint]

<-- Getting tired of locking threads. Would people who want to argue please get a room or use PM? kthxbai.

 

[Malenko]

all he does is ruin threads. I'll save you the trouble and lock this for you.