3 ms·
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with good pixel art, but literally no artist knows how to do it, even when they claim they're pixel artists. The Diablo vs. FFTA
by creshal 10y ago
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with good pixel art, but literally no artist knows how to do it, even when they claim they're pixel artists.
The Diablo vs. FFTA example in the article demonstrates it well: Despite Diablo coming out earlier, while 2D art was very much a well-cultivated thing, the artists just didn't know how to get it right (too low contrasts, too much dithering, …). FFTA, meanwhile, just looks beautiful.
- kodt 10y agoI agree that the artwork in FFTA holds up better today. However I think that had Diablo gone with a brighter color palette, and used pixel art closer in style to FFTA instead of 3D models converted to sprites, it would not have been nearly as successful as it was, nor would it have captured the mood it was going for. I also agree with his criticism of Goldeneye vs Grim Fandango. However, which of those games was more successful? Sometimes good art doesn't sell as well as flashy effects that may look antiquated in 5-10 years.
- jkaunisv1 10y agoSo there exists good pixel art, but there does not exist any artist who can create good pixel art? FFTA was immaculately conceived I guess?
- creshal 10y agoWell, almost no artist.
- Narishma 10y agoI don't think Diablo used pixel art. It looks like they just modeled things in 3d and rendered them to 2d sprites.
- kodt 10y agoCorrect, but I think his argument, and the argument in the article was that they should have used pixel art. Given the technology at the time.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoOTOH, going from 3d to pixel isn't necessarily a bad idea: you just have to do the conversion by hand. This is how id made the artwork for doom: they took clay models, and turned them into pixel art.