What is inherently wrong with pixel art and retro styled games?
And no the fact that so many indie devs do it is not a legitimate complaint. It's like complaining that all AAA developers use 3D models.
Sure, shit on games with bad pixel graphics all you want. But Shovel Knight is getting dragged through the mud by /v/ for no real reason other than it emulates and older style. The game is great. It's extremely well made. And the amount of attention put into keeping it so accurate to the NES style is impressive.
This just feels like another one of those things where the meaning behind the problem is lost and /v/ just starts parroting shit without knowing why.
There's nothing wrong with it.
But honestly, man- /v/ is not a single person. Why do so many people fail to realize it? Is it that much of a shock for anybody who's new to imageboards?
Pretending the entirety of users on an anonymous imageboard holds a certain opinion is not only uneducated, but just plain illogical.
It;s good if it's done well, however it is done lazily and shitilly 90% and that shitty lazy crap quality is often excused by people who have no idea what good pixel art looks like.
the one critical downside to sprite-based graphics is that it's very heavily dependent on screen resolution in order to look good.
Anything that isn't upscaling by the power of 2 will look absolutely awful.
And it takes a lot more effort to produce 2D sprite animations which is inherently a 1-man job, compared to 3D polygon animation where the workshare can be divided by people.
Nothing is at all wrong with pixel art, nor is anything at all wrong with retro styled games.
What IS wrong is when people use "Retro" as an excuse for making a standard, flavorless titles with incredibly low-tier sprites that would be considered "retro" in 1980. Shovel Knight and games like it genuinely look like titles that I could see myself playing on an SNES. Shit like Thomas Was Alone is deplorable by all degrees.
Many indie devs don't do pixel art that's up to Metal Slug quality, they usually go for the off-palette "lets pretend we have 16 bytes of RAM on an underclocked Commodore 8x16 lel" pixel art with three whole frames because they're lazy shits.
That's what's making pixel art seem so shitty nowadays.
>Shovel Knight is getting dragged through the mud by /v/ for no real reason
>/v/ just starts parroting shit without knowing why
These kinds of comments are just idiotic, and only serve to represent some haughty "Man, everybody's stupid except for me" attitude. Drop it. You're not a special snowflake.
Share your opinions, and discuss individuals' opinions instead of making idiotic blanket claims.
There isn't anything wrong at all with pixel art. The problem is that most pixel artists are just fucking terrible at making pixel art.
Some games get a pass because of what their obvious motivation is, but shit like Fez is just plain lazy. Titles like Shovel Knight and Cave Story are capturing the classic Megaman-Like side-scrolling shooter vibes, and capturing them extremely well.
Shovel Knight looks nothing like a SNES game
Thomas Was Alone looks like every 2D platformer prototype ever designed, ever. It's almost like the guy said "lol who needs actual graffix? I got these collision boxes, SO MINIMALIST! EAT THAT, VVVVVV! I'M SO HIPSTER I SHIT V-NECK TSHIRTS"
Pixel art is fine. It's bad pixel art that's passed off as SORETRO due to lack of artists that's not fine. Like everything on /v/ you need to take everything with a grain of salt.
>And the amount of attention put into keeping it so accurate to the NES style is impressive.
There's no real "NES" style. It looks more like an early SNES/Genesis game than anything. If you want an NES style it's usually a detailed background with flat colored actors.
It could pass well as a low-grade SNES game. Maybe some form of high grade NES title.
It's also how funny people try to excuse the shittiest music imaginable as "It's retro guys, of course it sounds bad because of the limited number of notes"
No fuck you, there were many fucking great tunes that work in that limited number of pitches and notes, just because you are a talentless hack who can't fucking make a song to save your life doesn't mean that "retro" music is inherently lifeless bleeps and bloops.
Are we looking at the same game
>And the amount of attention put into keeping it so accurate to the NES style is impressive.
I've yet to see a "retro" game limit the resolution to 256x240, use only up to 25 colors on a strict 64 color palette, separate graphical elements into 8x8 tiles with 3 colors max, and simulate NES hardware limitations being stressed when too many sprites are trying to be drawn on the screen.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Show me a game that reflects this "NES style".
I don't know why they think using a sound system and just half-assing it automatically means "RETRO MUZIX" and think that theirs is good.
This right here is an absolutely perfect way to capture those vibes of past gaming (in the case of EO, they wanted to recapture Wizardry vibes with their compressed music) without just making garbage chiptune and saying "SO RETRO!" without actually making good music.
super bat puncher, now quit being a ridiculous autist, why not extend what you can do with the hardware while keeping the same feel?
A few years with no animation/art experience, maybe.
A few months if you really coordinate and you have a vague clue on what you're making with some good, prepped concept art, sure.
Decades to emulate the pixel art animations of Metal Slug? You must be really shitty at what you're doing.
This how retro 16 bit looked like.
Now show me indieshit that looks this good.
The only thing wrong is when bad devs use words like "retro" and "8-bit" to cover up their shitty sprite art.
Actual retro sprites, and modern good sprites, are awesome. I just hate seeing those "flat" artstyles and shitty pixel art get praise cause lolsoretro
>emulating something means it has to be exactly the same without using any of the modern benefits of technology
These games are just meant to evoke the same feeling, to be LIKE nes/whatever the fuck games, not identical. Anyone that bitches about this is a fucking autist, it's just a certain "look".
If a game went for low poly 3d to emulate a ps1 game, but had textures with better resolution and certain gameplay elements that couldn't technically be done on a ps1, are you really going to sperg out about how it's not accurate? For being better looking than a ps1 game?
Noitu Love 2
Man, /v/ really is a bunch of fucking plebs
What about 3d pixel stuff?
>the real reason why you're not is because of a lack of talent or effort.
Or, you know, a stylistic choice.
Are we looking at the same game?
>there will never be a game that looks like a german expressionist painting
Except Konjack never spout shit like "retro" or "16-bit".
He just does his pixel art the he likes it to be never giving excuses and explaining shit.
And guess what? The result is fucking amazing.
Are there any recent games that have sprite art on the level of Metal Slug games?
I'm kinda confused why people shit on Thomas was Alone. Its not a game trying to be retro or anything. The minimalistic choice was done on purpose and even has a story reason behind it.
it's frequently used as an excuse for lazily made graphics and frequently looks worse than art from actual retro games that had effort put into them.
though the graphics are unimportant, and a lot of great games use the style.
>got into videogames during the ps1 and n64 era during college
>never really gave a shit about nes or snes era stuff, don't hate them, but don't have as much fondness for them
>mfw everyone is nostalgic for something you don't "get"
The inherent issue modern pixel art has to overcome is the motivation behind using that style.
Originally, it wasn't a choice, but a technical limitation for games to look like that. Consequently, devs worth their salt would try to max out what they could within those limits e.g. high quality animation, clever use of the color palette...).
"Retro" pixel art in a conscious choice to limit yourself - instead of pushing the envelope (like the devs were doing when they created the art you now try to emulate - and that's the key term), you are regressing.
Thus, even when the motivation behind "going retro" isn't laziness, there is an inherent artificiality present in this choice that has to be offset by, for example, artistic effort, reliance on gameplay, or, more esoterically, "capturing the spirit".
I'd love to see more like this. Like, that looks like it'd be at home in the arcades running on some 1992-era Sega or Taito board that you couldn't get anything near an accurate home port of until the Saturn and PS1 came out, it gives off that "advanced" feeling.
I already have KoF
Voxel art will probably never really approach pixel art quality because it's a whole other dimension of work. Unlike traditional 3D modeling, which makes use of all sorts of rendering tools, if you approached voxel art the same way you approach pixel art (by paying attention to every single visible voxel) you would go insane before you ever finished anything of note.
it kiiiiind of has, just not at the level most indie games operate, it's mostly artists on forums who're getting into it.
Except it's not. You won't find wide resolutions and full on 60 fps animations in retro games. As well as he doesn't limit himsellf in colors, shading and transparency effects.
Modern retro graphics look like shit, for the sake of being shit. I doesn't look good, and I don't have to know why. It just doesn't look good ,and I don't like pixels for being pixels or "retro feel" because it sure as fuck doesn't give that feel. I'm not going to talk about graphics like I know thing in art or computer design.
Now that I have the moment, hello mommy, and fuck you, starbound.
Sadly they lost their backs on it and will probably never bother again. Plus ASW found a cheaper way to make their games look like anime so BBCP is probably the last time they'll use sprites either.
>no one will ever, EVER try emulating beautiful amiga graphics ever again
>no one will ever, EVER do the sheer magic that Psygnosis did
>Using that meme shit on Zdzislaw Beksinski
The problem is that pixel graphics can be absolutely amazing, they can be detailed and animations can look superb. But most indie devs go "Well I can't be fucked with all that so here's a blob of 20 pixels with a 2 frame walk animation and a 2 frame attack animation. I call it "retro minimalism"".
People shouldn't try emulating when they don't know how it works. I've had enough of one pixel width legs.
You have shitloads of tools today, do something else, stop clinging to the past you can't imitate.
>what's wrong ...
Because the vast majority of the time it looks like something done in MSPaint and very poorly. And/or pixels of different fucking sizes. Also pixels non-orthogonally oriented like a damn flash game, thereby defeating the style of having pixels in the first place.
>instead of pushing the envelope
Sometimes it's not really about pushing any envelope; it's about making something serviceable for the game. Having this sort of expectation for 2D art to continue pushing the envelope in the wake of current demands for game resolution just isn't realistic anymore. It's extremely expensive and time-consuming to make high resolution quality 2D art and this just isn't something smaller developers can manage.
>that feel when I talk about KoFXIII not making money and I spent like $20 total on buying it twice
I don't even remember how I got it discounted out the ass on console launch.
>be it pixel or low poly 3D, someone will shit on your game because you don't have a Jew budget
>might as well ignore these dumb sluts and make what you want to make in the best way you can.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 8/16/whatever bit. And that's ok. You interested in learning the difference between games actually designed to look like that era, and shit like Konjak's games? Or just looking to sling some shit around on /v/ for fun?
Not really. The amount of work to make just a single animation in Xrd is as tiresome as making sprites. There was article about this and I could go on but it would take way too long.
They mainly did it for visual impact and BB won't get same treatment anytime soon.
Also I really don't like that weird lighting on new KoF sprites. Makes everyone look like cheap 3D model
There's nothing wrong with well-done pixel art.
The issue is that a lot of shitty indie devs go "m-my game is retro, that's why the graphics look shitty" and it's like, no, your game would look like trash next to any high quality retro game, you're just a piece of shit dev that didn't want to hire a proper artist.
>Two more frames than OP's pic
>A hundred times more fluid and beautiful, seemingly connected in all the ways that it should appear
What magic did those people employ when they made their games?
Zdzislaw Beksinski. Pronounced like zgee-suave
It's become a joke.
What you posted is beautiful.
Modern "pixel art" is horrible and devs rarely get it right.
Pic related that's a good example of today's horrible pixel art.
God damnit are you niggers still arguing about this? I thought /vr/ settled it. Everything before 1999 is retro.
Which means shit doesn't have to look like an atari game.
Lol you nerds can never stop bitching about shit.
When you make what you want the best way you can, your work tend to turn out fucking awesome.
they don't exercise the limits of what's possible
the reason 3rd Strike is still a critically accepted game is because the software still doesn't run perfectly on every device, boasting slowdowns, input delays and other stuff. It doesn't make sense to have ultra stylized pixels that don't stretch the possibility of what is applicable in a game. Graphics are supposed to come as a takeaway from the other parts of game, rarely do graphics bolster the experience. People SELL video games through the native design of a game, but rarely do they take off because they are visually pleasing, the engine and capability of the game takes care of that. You can look like Metroid Prime, God of War 3, and Final Fantasy XIII, all amazing games visually but the graphics don't actually sell the experience, they are part of the reason the game is strong, but it would be heresy to say they're all about the visuals.
tl;dr pixel art is amazing and looks great but if they don't give way to some other dimension of possibility like FEZ it's just like every other indie game gone retro
>The amount of work to make just a single animation in Xrd is as tiresome as making sprites
Absolute bullshit. You better find that article because I doubt cel-shaded 3D compares to this.
His style is much closer to oldschool arcade games (where lots of color, transparency effects on some boards (I think Taito had transparency effects on their boards, can't think of other manufacturers that did), and high-framerate animations (because arcade budget and memory capacity) were all common) than oldschool console stuff.
it's still retro, just in a way that focuses more on quality (no one would look twice at an arcade game that wasn't eye-catching at the time of release)
the last bastion of quality
netcode's shit on console
most FG players don't do PC
>that feel when this is the reason no KOF2002UM for PC
>talks how pixel art can be good
>posts flash shit
I think I'm gonna vomit.
because they treat pixel art as a ticket to put no effort in character designs, for ground background, and/or items. Pixel art can be fucking beautiful, but indie devs don't use it to it's full potential. Thats the problem with it. that and >>250279929
You need a certain number of players to sustain or grow a playerbase or else people will quit because they can't find other people to play with/the game is perceived as dead and you bleed down to nothing.
>/v/ is not a single person
Why do people keep saying this? He's obviously talking about the majority opinion on /v/. Are you so dense that you have to take everything as literally as possible?
I only have a problem with cheap and lazy minimalist pixel art. Especially when it's scaled up so the pixels displayed on screen are more than the "artist" (to use the term loosely) ever placed by hand when they created the content in the first place. Pixel art with actual effort and draftsmanship put into it, where each pixel in the source image is an actual on-screen pixel, is fine.
That said, it's conceivable that eventually screens will have such tiny pixels that scaling things up for final display will be okay, but we're not there yet, by and large.
Awesome, thanks man I love these stuff
Scaling is fine, depending on the style of game. If the game's style looks good enough, give me huge fucking bosses with limbs that move in and out of the screen like this is on the 32X.
if it looks like a bad 5200 game and you're doing that shit, we have a problem
I'm so fucking hype for this. It's legitimately good looking, visually.
better not play like shit
This is a perfect example of how graphics don't sell a game.
Alpha is an amazing looking game, but the polish of the game sells it more than the visuals, the feel of supers, the lifebars and so on make people go "oh man Alpha 2!"
Only enthusiasts get up to say man I can't wait to study the backgrounds in Alpha. I mean I wasn't an enthusiast when I did that, but I was the rare exception.
Even this is good. Neo-Geo had to get a new board every time they delivered a Metal Slug, to offer more complex, more powerful sprites. I don't mind pixel art being generous or grandiloquent but why it has to seem exceedingly simple is beyond me, why it also has to not like, push the limits of the game is also beyond me.
One of the reasons pixel art for modern games doesn't look as good as older games is pretty simple and glaringly obvious.
Indie games are typically made by a small team. One person to maybe three on average. Most of the games that look fantastic are made by whole teams.
Now I know there are exceptions which are made by one guy and it looks fantastic, but they're just that. Exceptions. Hell, even Noitu Love 2 which was shown as an example is a ridiculously short game. And I guarantee that part of the reason is due to how much the guy had to animate.
2D animation, especially fluid and detailed animation is very very time consuming compared to 3D. So its not surprising when one aspect is lacking compared to others when the artist has to pull double or triple duty.
I've never been fond of this style of "animation." Why does the outline of the sprite brake randomly on frames? I know the reason, mind, moving parts of the sprite around like a flash animation just looks shoddy compared to hand-made animations. Shit reminds me of those terrible "moving" Gen V pokemon sprites that have about two actual frames drawn.
>Indie games are typically made by a small team. One person to maybe three on average. Most of the games that look fantastic are made by whole teams.
In other words
Today every fucker who can make sprites (even if they're shitty) thinks he's an artist and goes on to make a game or at least make the "art' for a game
think the main reason why i hate most of it is that they don't understand why precisely retro games have a specific feel, it's based on the limitations of the hard ware
there's so much "8 bit" indie garbage out there that in fact uses 24 bit color and infinite palette colors per sprite
Guilty Ger was made by the one guy with his small team, and it still looks amazing compared to some other games we have today. Your game could just as easily look like Pokemon or Yume Nikki and people would still enjoy it, there's not a single reason why you have to have a game with detailed sprites that doesn't come up with the best of them.
These look amazing, the only problem is that characters/objects like these are usually so minimally animated. That flying ship thing isn't animated at all aside from the jets and the robot's animation is mostly just moving the arms without redrawing anything. Get some pixel art that well done WITH fully redrawn frames of animation and that's truly impressive.
Speaking of which, that's what was so great about Metal Slug games, they had big, hand-pixeled characters that were indeed fully animated for the most part, with frames aplenty.
>Guilty Ger was made by the one guy with his small team, and it still looks amazing compared to some other games we have today.
I'm sorry but the original Guilty Gear has always looked like ass.
It was that way for gameplay purposes as his arms move all over the screen, and for cool destruction effects.
Metal slug 7 was also cheaper so they used that kind of animation more often.
The backgrounds are alright.
PSX sucks dicks at 2D so that comes into it as well.
As stated, there are exceptions to it. However, not everyone who makes a game has an art background, or is able to expend that much effort to make a game. Since making one in general where you have to program on top of everything else is rather time consuming.
That said I do agree with you that some people should expend a bit more effort in their stuff.
if in-game, those arms rotate in real time, it's fine
if they don't, someone was too lazy to clean up those edges
Eh? GG1 played like ass, but looked pretty good for a PS1 fighter. Actually looked like it was made for the PS1, rather than being full of cuts.
It's style (in terms of graphics and sound) is closest to the TG-16, but its actual execution is more like a Genesis game.
Personally, I never liked seeing pixel art get blown up ever. Not even when Mode 7 was the big cool new thing. It just completely kills the appeal that imagery where every pixel was placed by hand has in the first place.
possibly, but there's some effects like the trails from the fireball launcher that would cause some serious slowdown. while some of the effects look simple, play any snes game that has a lot of garbage on screen at some points (gradius III is a good example) and you will see slow down as well as flickering
I'm a huge sucker for scaling effects.
motherfucking Galaxy Force II and OutRun and the like were my lifeblood
based 1998 sega
You don't even need an art background nowadays. If you wanted to, you could design a game around the idea of pong or breakout and add a creative twist. It'd sell like crazy. It doesn't have to be gorgeous, it just has to look like it can stand with what else is out there.
How do you even achieve something like this? Do you first draw it properly and then pixelate it or do they do it pixel by pixel? I never understood the process behind pixel art
Considering what this thread is about, I'd say that some people will complain regardless.
I do believe overall people should try to do better with their graphics, and not use RETRO! as an excuse to not do much, however I don't believe that they should be held to the same standards as games made with teams either.
Yeah, those are the kind of counts where I'd say it's more work, at least personally. Even if I'm shooting low, things tend to come out at PS2-level poly counts then I have to cut them down. So it'd actually be less work to just go for that. Also the higher counts make it easier to deal with UV mapping, in my opinion.
That said, to be clear, at a certain point it gets to be way more work too. I'm just saying that to me, the sweet spot for easiest poly count to pump out and look good is about 2,000 or so, I can do that in one sitting. To do anything less than that in the name of low art budgets seems counter-productive in terms of efficiency and looks worse to boot.
I always thought these backgrounds were painted first and then digitized.
and then painstakingly edited to look good
It'd be more than fine on the 32x.
sound would be an issue if you didn't do it in software though, since Cave Story's sound is FM-like but not actually FM (also, uses 8-9 channels)
I know this was an hour ago but Super Bat Puncher doesn't simulate NES style. It's NES homebrew and actually works on a real NES.
Also, it was never finished and hasn't posted an update in 3 years. RIP
This guy was a lot of fun to fight, really cool animations too.
I really wish this retro fad would end already so we can at least get to making early '90s-level art.
You have to draw what you want and then you do it like an ink print. You apply your base colours to each area then you start applying layers of each colour until it looks good.
depends on the scale, but for something like that they probably started with extremely basic outlines of everything, then basic colors, then basic shading. they just work their way up layer by layer
The problem is that Shovel Knight is a pixel art NES-style platformer that has had many pixel art platformers come before it, that really sucked. So people are going to dismiss it out of hand, despite it being a really good game.
I want some low-poly games.
Thanks for the answers
I never thought about the effort that went into these backgrounds while playing
They're around, but out of legitimate inability to do better.
PS2 era had the best graphics imo.
Even compared to today, games then felt like games. They had fully mastered 3D, had access to beautiful 2D like in Odin Sphere. They didn't try to be hyper realistic or anything. They tried to be games, tried to take you to a different world.
You don't see that any more.
If this is yours, it isn't a bad start. It just needs to be, literally and figuratively, more animated. Real walking uses the pectorals and waist. More frames and at least slightly exaggerated body movements are the key to good looking animation overall.
I defy you to find any thread on a controversial subject that goes the exact same way every time.
Factor this by time of day × shitposters, and you have "/v/".
There's nothing inherently wrong with pixel art: I just hate it when indie devs make games that look like ass with the excuse that it's supposed to be "retro" when in reality no retro games look like most indie pixel garbage. Of course graphics are secondary to whether the game is just fun or not, but it's pretentious and disrespectful towards actual pixel artists to pretend your shit graphics are a homage to older games that actually look good. It's understandable than an indie dev might not be able to afford making good graphics for their game, but I'd just like them to be honest and say the graphics look shit because their budget is peanuts, not because it's a conscious stylistic choice.
This topic is not controversial, at least not on /v/.
Modern pixel art is shit.
Phil Fish is a jackass
SJWs are ruining vidya.
Sure, there are a few retards who say otherwise but always exist for every topic ever. That doesn't make every topic controversial
I'm not trying to attack retro indie games. I'm just pointing out that Super Bat Puncher isn't a style choice. One anon asked another to name a game that *simulated* NES specs exactly to prove that no indie devs completely follow the limitations. Super Bat Puncher was named as an example of a game that simulates NES specs and I'm just pointing out that the game wasn't a simulation. It's a real NES game not a style choice. And the anon who said "no one follows the limitations exactly when they don't have to" is correct.
low-res pixel art when the game actually runs at a high resolution is cancer
the smallest distance a sprite should be able to move is the length of one of its pixels
You're right, you should give up and stop fishing for compliments with your worthless art.
There are rarely controversial topics on /v/. After a topic has been discussed for some time a majority opinion that most people conform to will establish itself.
Ask /v/ if Dark Souls is hard or if Gone Home and Fez are good games. You'll have a pretty one-sided thread, even though the majority of people outside of /v/ don't hold this particular opinion.
The few controversial topics on /v/ don't go the same every time because that's how discussions on controversial topics go by definition. When someone says "Why does /v/ think..." he obviously implies it's not a controversial topic.
Its a minor pet peeve of mine, but I absolutely hate it when people do this. If you look at the pattern on her skirt, it never moves. Its like her sprite is layered over a static pattern which has transparency over her skirt. So when she moves it only shows a different part of the static pattern, but never moves with the image.
To be fair, on those topics at least, a lot of people who are of a dissenting opinion tend to be well.. I hate to use the term, but more casual or leaning one way or another.
/v/ tends to 'hive mind' at least partially because of two reasons. One that people aren't censored heavily here, so its easy to say things and not get banned for an opposing opinion, and two, lot of people here have been playing games and are passionate about games.
My answer was on pixel art, not on retro styled games.
By the way, everyone can create something shitty with as few tools as possible and call it minimalistic. That doesn't make it okay.
Problem with these threads is they inevitably devolve into circlejerking over the same fucking gifs we've ALL been seeing in these threads for fucking years.
We get it KoF / Metal Gear / whoever got it right, but instead of reposting the same shit can we ever move past it and look towards some new shit?
Pic related, trying to find OC in these threads
And to add to this, actually minimalism actually looks good when it's done properly. Unfortunately, just like retro, minimalism has become an excuse to pretend your shit graphics are a stylistic decision.
>There will never be a new Light Crusader with graphics like this.
Yeah, that bugs me too. Not just in that sprite, but in the occasional cartoon that does that effect. The static, immobile pattern totally clashes with the illusion of movement elsewhere.
Speaking of nitpicking and stylistic preferences, the pegleg thing she's got going on bugs me. I don't even like undersized hands and feet (for example, that's my biggest issue with Wind Waker style,) but she's in that more extreme version where there don't seem to be any feet at all. Never got the appeal there at all.
Shovel Knight, for example, has a pretty valid 'retro' style, as it is pretty faithful to actual old games and isn't completely fucking retarded looking. (I've never seen gameplay or played it though so I can't judge the gameplay)
The problem lies with games like this looking nothing like actual retro games and just using the 'retro' style as a copout for shitty graphics
>/v/ tends to 'hive mind' at least partially because of two reasons. One that people aren't censored heavily here, so its easy to say things and not get banned for an opposing opinion, and two, lot of people here have been playing games and are passionate about games.
Those are not the only reasons in my opinion.
4chan and by inclusion /v/ is counter-culture. People on /v/ started claiming Dark Souls wasn't challenging after the difficulty on the game started being greatly exaggerated by the media and casual players. /v/ hates Gone Home with such a passion because it got undeserved acclaim by mainstream media. Dark Souls isn't as easy as most people on /v/ claim it is and while I haven't played it Gone Home is most likely not the absolutely godawful game people make it out to be.
Another reason is that many people who post on here make /v/ a part of their identity, so they conform to popular opinions whithout questioning them and reject opinions that don't fit the identity.
I've never said there aren't controversial topics on /v/, but I don't feel like VtmB, PS:T and DF are particularly controversial. You've got the occasional guy who doesn't like those, but the games are beloved by the majority of the board.
Yeah, that's how it used to be with Morrowind and Planescape as well. Then the new generation decided that reading is for faggots.
Also new DF is weeks away from release (according to Toady which doesn't say much but still...) and I rarely get to see any DF threads (maybe 1 every 1-2 days).
These are dark times, you just don't know it yet.
>accurate to the NES
there's a huge article about how they basically broke ALL the rules when it came to programming a game for the NES. The only thing that came close to being similar to the NES was the music, which itself was WAAAAY too big to fit within a NES game cartridge
When I go back and play say, SNES games, I think they still look pretty great. However, if there's one regard in which I'd say they didn't age so well, it's the generally low amount of animation frames characters have. Like, when I went back and played Chrono Trigger again, it turned out I somehow remembered everything moving more smoothly than it actually did. The overall character animation was just plain chunky. To tie this into the actual topic, my point is that I wish these retro pixel art games would retroactively fill that gap. I can only assume the low frame counts were due to cartridge size issues, but these days, you could make SNES-looking games with soooooo many frames of animation per character, thus keeping the appeal of those older visuals without the weaknesses they had. I'd be all over that.
Well this is the last one i have.
I know this gets thrown around a lot, but I'd legitimately like to see you do better if it's so easy. I'm not saying you need to be a master artist to judge this kind of stuff but don't act like the artist came out of nowhere and knows nothing.
I say this in every thread like this, but if it's so damn easy, why is no one from /v/ capitalizing on the style? I know there were some real shitpiles like passage that genuinely are made by shitty artists who are using the low res artstyle as a crutch, but don't lump games like S&S in with those hacks.
>Terraria is once again in Steam Top 10 most played games of the day
It's art doesn't do much for me but it's not the focus of attention.
My point is, it doesn't have to be good if it's not the main attraction of the game. Just decent.
The X series has always been my favorite simply because of its visuals and amounts of
should I start bumping with art?
When did I say it's easy?
Why the fuck can't you mongoloids learn to read?
They promised more than they could deliver
They promised almost daily updates and people expected good updates. Instead,they got shit that add nothing to the game.
The company spends money on a new dev team to start working on another game (some pirate MMO)
The company rented some office in London with a huge rent cost. It's like they only want to spend money, just not on Starbound.
Please quote the post which said that.
Chucklefuck moved the entire team to London and wasted plenty of time and dosh doing that. There was also silent news that some staff left.
Oh yeah they have an office puppy now too.
Indie games should stop doing pixels and start doing low poly models.
At the risk of revisiting the constant "why aren't you making a game" threads, the issue is that you can't make a game with art alone and art skills are all I have. Just doing the art alone for a game would be more than enough work, throw in programming too (which I have no aptitude for at all,) and even if I -could- program competently eventually, it'd take years and years to make a game. And that's ignoring how I'm paying my bills until if and when I finish the game to sell it.
Basically, at least some of us aren't doing it simply due to lack of programming skill and not having enough money to hire a programmer.
The issue with pixel art is that high quality animated pixel art is actually pretty hard to pull off due to the artist essentially having to draw each frame individually to make it look nice. That means for most indies, they have to stick to either low quality art, or high quality art with almost no animation.
However, I dont actually mind the art as much as the fact that most indie games are boring platformers. It's one thing to accept that a programmer may not be able to create the best art ever, but to fall back on such a boring premise is so lazy.
What does that have to do with Sword and Sworcery though? No where in any if the dev's description of the game do they claim it to be retro or NES inspired, in fact they rarely even mention the art style, it just is what is.
My point is that you're making blanket judgments and instantly writing off games by good artists who choose to do a minimalistic style for a particular game, because some asshats called their shitty looking game retro.
i like pixels
i like low poly
i dont like realistic stuff
im sorry that this causes you so much pain vee. heres a picture of a cute girl. i hope its enough for an apology.
If it's 2D, I don't want anything below SNES-level graphics. if it's 3D, I don't want anything below PS2-level graphics. Those represent the points where 2D and 2D hit the minimum power to look truly good.
I actually really adore the sword and sorcery art style, it's not setting the world on fire with talent or anything, they just went for a nice clean style which works and looks unique enough.
Textures are more important than poly count.
Nigger what are you even trying to say? Just because they don't praise the art or don't even mention it themselves it's okay?
It's ugly, it's disgusting, it's not something I'd expect to see these years and that cannot change.
>BUT IT'S MINIMALISTIC
No, it's shit. Minimalism still required some effort in order to create a nice result. This was just sloppy work.
Sure, if you think a man shitting on his hand and then rubbing his shit on his chest is a work of art then of course this couls also be considered "art", "good" or whatever you want it to be
Simple 3D models can look great with some nice lighting effects and colouring, animating them is another story though. Not impossible for a developer to get good at quite quickly though even without art experience considering the very tech minded focus of 3D animating.
>by the way, everyone can create something shitty with as few tools as possible and call it minimalistic
>inb4 I'm wrong because the words "everyone can do it" weren't in the post word for word
Why make the poly counts super low but then have higher texture resolutions than say, PS1 games ever had, plus other stuff like texture filtering and AA that games of that era wouldn't have had either? Either go authentically retro or don't go retro at all.
>implying those of us who want good graphics also want realism
>everyone can create something shitty
Learn to read nigger.
Everyone can create SOMETHING SHITTY. Not SOMETHING GOOD. I'd personally feel ashamed to release such a thing and call it "my creation".
I fucking hate you so much.
Fuck you, it looks good you fucker. I'm sorry that you have a bug up your ass about low res art. You can zoom in to any screenshot down to the most pixelated level possible and say it looks like crap.
I was so angry when I played VVVVVV for this very reason.
They want you to think you're playing a C64 game down to the fucking fake load menu (which should take about fifteen minutes longer, but whatever), and then the soundtrack is generic indie game blips and blops, completely missing the SID chip's unique characteristics and the different methods composers had to use that made the C64's music so famous.
My entire point is that you think that S&S game looks shitty and was easy to create. I bet you couldn't even make something as good as that shit, as effortless as it seems to you.
>Titles like Shovel Knight and Cave Story are capturing the classic Megaman-Like side-scrolling shooter vibes, and capturing them extremely well.
Cave Story wasn't even an attempt to go for the 'retro' style, it's just that's all the author could do. Not to mention he started work on it in fucking 1999, when 320x240 was a perfectly reasonable native res for a one-man indie game.
I want a new Custom Robo that looks like this.
I'm willing to cut the indie crowd some slack in regards to low budgets and all that. It takes a lot of work to make the best graphics possible on the newest hardware. Still, considering the advancements in technology and tools, I'd say it's reasonable to set minimal expectations. Especially in regards to 3D graphic creation, things are sooo much better than they used to be. It's not nearly as hard to make PS2-quality 3D content now as it was back then, so small teams should be able to manage.
> I bet you couldn't even make something as good as that shit, as effortless as it seems to you.
Why would I try do something I know I'm not good at? Why would I do what that guy/those guys did?
Holy fuck, are you one of those people who actually believe anyone can do anything they want? Because that's not true, you know.
Why do you keep shifting your position? Is that game so shitty looking that anyone can make it, or is it not shitty looking and requires more effort and skill than you can produce? It can't be both, you can't just play the victim when it's convenient for your argument.
my megaman images aren't really adding much to the thread so i'm gonna stop.
in the meantime i'm gonna leave you guys with one more picture and some relaxing music
can anyone find robo-felicia in here?
>>I want some low-poly games.
A lot of devs use grainy, pixellated graphics because their budgets wouldn't allow them to make games with clean graphics that don't look like soulless korean iphone games.
And I'm okay with that. Not everybody can be Vanillaware.
>I'm willing to cut the indie crowd some slack in regards to low budgets and all that.
Cutting slack on anyone you pay for a product is not productive. Indie or not, I expect every company to deliver the best possible finished product they can even if it means putting practically everything they have into making it. Go for broke, or don't bother. I have no qualms on paying the full price for a game, but I have everything against paying five bucks for an indie game in sales that doesn't even try to be anything special but something the dev just wanted to make. Fucking chucklefucks the lot of them.
I just don't get the appeal of low-poly aside from nostalgia, in which case I'd assume you'd be nostalgic for all graphical limitations of that era. Just seems really arbitrary to only care about the poly counts themselves.
Personally, I have TONS of nostalgia for how games used to be so much less realistic in the good old days, just not so much for the limited graphics old cartoony games were realized through. I'd kill for a world where games had the same style of about 20 years ago but using the hardware of today. Unfortunately, only Nintendo seems to be doing that with Mario games.
And the WiiU isn't even the hardware of today.
Oh, we trying to talk about Retro 3D Models?
I always like how Orcania of Time Stuff Work, really, and tried emulating its style.
How did I do?
My god, you really are retarded, aren't you? I'm arguing with aretard here.
Okay, last post you'll get from me.
>Why do you keep shifting your position?
I'm not, you're just a retard and don't get what I'm saying.
> Is that game so shitty looking that anyone can make it
> or is it not shitty looking and requires more effort and skill than you can produce
No, I can produce that effort and I'd guess I have that skill.
However, it looks horrible. It looks disgusting. It takes some effort of course (so does lifing your little finger) to do it but it looks so disgusting that I would be ashamed to tell anyone I created it.
Conclusion: everything takes some effort but not everyone is cut ouyt to do any job they want. This is the reason why we've got a bajillion indie vidya studios releasing horrible crap
There's nothing at all wrong with it. Done right, it's fantastic. When someone is doing it because of a sense of nostalgia, and they want to contribute to the artform, it's a thing of beauty.
The problem is indie devs have a habit of just finding a gimmick that works and is easy to replicate, and then shitting out a thousand different games that follow the same asinine formula. Some of them make it even worse by attaching some philosophical or political message to it, when really all they're doing is repeating a formula. It's really fucking cynical and disgusting, and it pisses people off especially when it's "retro" because it feels like they're using their childhood memories to swindle them.
Cave Story is a thing of beauty. One guy made it for fun, just to show what could be accomplished with a program not meant to make that kind of game, then released it for free. Eventually companies came calling wanting to make money with it, and he would have been a fool to tell them no, so now he's pretty well off from it.
But it's the same problem the film industry has. Indie devs are basically the Dreamworks of video games.
Minecraft is a success, suddenly there's forty games that are all variations of it.
Dark Souls takes off, suddenly the indie devs switch from insanely difficult platformers to roguelikes and dungeoncrawlers.
I could list maybe forty different indie retro 2d pixel platformers.
Just look at the entirety of fucking kickstarter.
For the most part, no attempt is made to produce art, sometimes they're little more than flash games. They're just cynical cash grabs.
>Dark Souls takes off, suddenly the indie devs switch from insanely difficult platformers to roguelikes and dungeoncrawlers.
dark souls was neither of those things at all though
Pixel art used to be the best that could be done with the technology, and the people who did it were pros.
Now people with no talent cover it up by using a less advanced medium and marketing this "retro" style to people to young to remember when devs put effort into pixel art.
I just think it's a really interesting style. Of course, actual retro low poly was pretty crap most of the time. I don't think anyone is going to sit there and tell you that Smash Bros 64 was a good looking game.
They were not that bad, really. Some games are nearly Game Cube tier in presentation. My main love though is the Orcania of Time/Majoras Mask art style for the models, were all the enemies have glowy eyes; I think its charming!
Depends on the game engine I guess. If you're just talking making them pretty there's no real limit. You could put a 4k texture on one if you wanted. Obviously you wouldn't do that in a game engine because the load for that would be crazy.
High quality indie grafix
So you're just talking out of your ass then.
>everyone can do it
They obviously can't, or that would be the baseline for indie games, when it's obviously well above the baseline. I've seen much, MUCH shittier looking games from people with no talent. That game actually looks good, I'm tired of people taking the piss out on it because it was ported to PC after the shitty faux retro phase had overstayed its welcome. Obviously when you zoom way the fuck in it starts looking like crap (as every game does) but the game itself never does that.
Vehicles tend to be stuck in one position considering they're large, solid machines. The most animation they could have is maybe some bobbing back and forth to shift around the shading.
I wonder how lighting shades on simple textures how does that work. how does it smooth out does the whole low poly thing just light up or can you light up half of it like with a beam of light that only covers a pencil's length
Dark Souls definitely had rogue-like elements. No, you didn't lose items, but you did lose souls, and all the enemies come back whenever you rest.
And any action rpg where you go through dungeons is a dungeoncrawler. That has a pretty loose definition.
"Game A is successful and then gets tons of copies" has been happening since loooong before indie devs were a thing. Don't blame bandwagoning on them.
Plus, I don't even think it's such a bad thing, my favorite version of a particular game is almost always a copy that came later and fixed the problems the original trailblazer had. Props to the innovator, but I'd rather play the game that did it better than the game that did it first. Speaking of which, I still want more Minecraft clones because there still isn't one that's done what I want with the potential of the Minecraft formula.
That said, three fat guys can and have made better games than team consisting of hundreds of people backed by millions of dollars.
The Zelda, one of the biggest adventures even in nowadays, was made by a team of ten people who multitasked in less than a year.
The devs have flat out said they tried to make it look and feel as much like an NES game as possible but limiting themselves to archaic limitations for tradition was stupid and I agree with them.
Can read more about it here
The whole point of indie development is supposed to be being free of big businesses that churn out low risk derivatives for financial reasons.
If they're just pooping out copies of currently successful games they may as well go fuck themselves.
It's funny you post sprite art from Mercenary Kings, which looks great and is done by a talented artist, but the game itself is literal ass.
Which is the exact opposite case for most games, quality developers with shit-tier artists.
Lack of resources is certainly a factor. The amount of work that goes into making good pixel art takes an ungodly amount of time, which may not be feasible for a small development team.
>It's a fucking book, not a video game
>This combat is horrible
Are some of the "problems" mainly used to bash the game.
And no, I'm not talking just about a few shitposters. The next time you see a thread read it.
There's nothing wrong with pixel art as long as it is to a high graphical standard. We used to have 8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit sprites. Now, since we don't have the limiting factors of the 80s and 90s, we should be churning out hi-res sprites if we're going to be using them at all. We can get all of our sprites to look like KoF13 if we just put in a bit of effort.
It's actually just a few shitposters anon.
There's some reason why you have such a skewed view of the situation, and I'm guessing it's because you're too sensitive and take the bait too easily. Shitposter's delight.
If they poop out a copy that I like more than what else is out there, that works for me.
Besides, I ultimately agree with your valuing them as an alternative to the world of mainstream gaming failing to make the kind of games I specifically want. The problem is that by and large, indie companies aren't making what I want either. Unless there are indie devs making games that look like, say, Darkstalkers that I'm just not aware of. It's great that they don't have marketing suits forcing them to put in gritty realistic bald space marines, but they usually waste that creative freedom with other entirely different problems.
Those sprites are 3D models projected as sprites.
also making amazing spritework takes massive amounts of animating and artistic skill
its not a thing where technology just makes it better
There are a lot of bad pixel artists. Plus nobody wants to code a game with actual limitations like the old consoles had to. Pretty much what everyone else has said in this thread.
On top of that, I feel real innovation doesn't exist with modern indie developers. There are a handful of exceptions, but the pioneers of video games had to work with a lot of constraints and I think those constraints brought out more creativity for the time. Today's innovators not only have it easy, they can crib a lot of their gameplay from old games people forgot or never heard of, making it their own and getting away with stealing other game's ideas. So it's not just pixel art itself, it's the whole damn indy scene wrapped around it that contributes to a feeling of bullshit.
>A bit of effort
I don't think you have any fucking idea how much effort goes into making sprite-art like this.
Or maybe you just decide to disregard everyone who disagrees with you as a shitposter.
I can't stand Deus Ex's graphics and I stopped playing the game 3 minutes after I started just because i couldn't stand them. Sure, I could be considered just a shitposter but it's my honest opinion.
And that is not relevant to your original point at all. A pixel artist can have all the talent they want, but without someone paying them, they won't be able to spend two years making graphics for a game.
If you're only counting gameplay, sure.
3 fat guys making a playable game with graphics as detailed as Metal Slug with decent sound/music? You should probably have the best artist, coder and musician that the gaming industry can offer or a near-infinite budget and time.
Also let's not forget that there are no jobs for pixel artists these days, since the only people who want pixel art are indie devs who don't have the budget to hire artists (save for very very few exceptions like KoF). Most of them are amateurs now, and while some are very talented, the pool is obviously smaller.
Well yeah, if you want it to look better then it's going to take more time.
The KoF sprites were drawn from 3D models used as a subject and then shaded better. That's not to say you couldn't draw something from scratch with no point of reference that looked just as good, it'd just be a bit harder is all.
I do. We're basically excusing laziness if we settle for less than Hi-Res sprites. I know it's hard to do but it would pay off. Sprite art looks amazing if done right, as you've just proven with your image.
I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that laziness and lack of skill isn't the only factor that contributes to shit graphics. Pretending budget and time constraints have nothing to do with it is retarded.
>Or maybe you just decide to disregard everyone who disagrees with you as a shitposter.
What the fuck kind of backwards logic are you vomiting up here?
I'm arguing that these so called "shitposters" are a minority, not that they don't exist.
Personally, I think being purely hand drawn is part of the appeal of 2D. Whether you render sprites straight from 3D models of just kinda rotoscope them or whatever, you've killed the appeal of 2D in my opinion. And it's not just a matter of principle, when I first saw KoFXIII something immediately felt 3D CG about it. The volumes and such were too perfectly consistent for hand-drawn visuals.
Eagerly awaiting the relaunch of DFO so I dunno also looking forward to ToS
>Zelda and GG have the same graphical quality as Metal Slug
Those games don't look bad by any definition of the word, but really Anon? Really?
Taking a loan to develop a game you can't guarantee will be successful is beyond retarded. Good graphics aren't necessary to make a good game. The real problem with indie games is that most of them are uninspired garbage, not that the graphics suck.
When people complain, they are complaining about the lazy terrible pixel art, just like anyone would complain about bad 3D models.
What you have there is pretty good. Looks like it's from the Scott Pilgrim game. It's very lively and full of character.
Most indie shit don't really understand pixel art, and make generic looking shit for the sake of OH SO RETRO. Even well established companies like Ark System tend to have lazy animators with a bunch of missing frames in Guilty Gear and Blazblue.
how can hand drawn sprites still be sprites if you can't even sprite it down your little gullet?
>Taking a loan to develop a game you can't guarantee will be successful is beyond retarded.
Then what's the use? It's business and if you're not there to make a selling game, there's no reason to be in the business.
To bolster this, I can say from plenty of first-hand experience that indie devs have absolutely god-awful budgets. But that doesn't just go for pixel art, they pay terribly for everything. It's a pleasant surprise if you can end up making minimum wage when all is said and done. Still, they really are the absolutely only market for pixel art these days, so it is real bad. Even a few years ago you might get mobile device developers with half-decent budgets needing pixel art, but once mobiles became 3D capable, that was it. So who wants to really invest in mastering pixel animation when you're looking at doing it for like, $3 and hour?
KoF was always more of a pixel representation of 3D than cartoon anyways, just at a much lower quality level.
Main point of 3D is to be able to tweak poses easier than sketches or physical models anyways.
There we go, that's more like it.
That's a technological improvement, not an artistic one.
GGX has less sprites, they have minimalistic shading and as someone else said, they are missing a few frames. Compare that to the MS sprites posted earlier.
I think a lot of people on /v/ were happy to see a game that had challenge. I don't think anyone viewed it as hard. It is just a game that didn't hold your hand.
But then again there are those people on /v/ who are not very competent at games.
Yes, it feels much better that way
I'm not that guy you're arguing with but yeah ASW is kinda cheap. They don't have big budgets and they're surviving on 3DS shovelware between their big games.
But anon, Metal Slug had a whole tema behind it.
How can the bright artists of our age compete with that when they're on their own?
Obviously they shouldn't become better, you should just lower your standards.
Yeah, I always found KoF to be overall too rigid looking for my tastes. Fabric folds looked like they could cut you if you weren't careful. Still, when they went to using actual 3D models to base sprites on, it just made the stiff, rigid feel even worse than ever.
There have been more than what you have been seeing. Also I never knew us /v/ to shit on text based rpgs.
Simply for the reason that you can have great dialogue and conversation pieces you wouldn't be able to afford with voice acting.