3 ms·

It's interesting to consider why pixel art is still around. Obviously it's not just retro nostalgia. One reason is that self-imposed constraints (both resolutio

It's interesting to consider why pixel art is still around. Obviously it's not just retro nostalgia. One reason is that self-imposed constraints (both resolution and palette) are known to boost creativity and result in more consistent art. Another reason is that some gamers actually want low-resolution graphics, they can use imagination to fill in the details. Personally I consider pixel art a very bad return-of-investment from artist time. This product tries to solve it, but given examples are very hand picked. I'd like to see how more complex situations are handled, like scaling of eye and touching/overlapping assets. Also, most of editor features would be better to have in runtime so that assets can respond to changes in lightning.

setr 8y ago
At least part of it, I think, is that its easier to program a 2D game than a 3D game (and most pixel art is 2D), and its easier to have consistent and tested animations for pixel art than 3D art (far fewer frames, no tweening, less interactions, etc). It puts more of the burden on the artist, and less on the game developer. I'm not quite sure about this, but I believe its also a lot easier to have a more performant game with 2D art than 3D, for both custom and standard game engines (outside of say, abusing unreal engine into a 2D pixel-art game), and I'm pretty damn sure its easier to have "acceptable" artwork out of pixel artwork than it in blender. ie misunderstandings of human anatomy shows up in both, but its a lot clearer in 3D than a low-res pixel art. In other words, its time-consuming, but less skill-intensive, for sufficient results. If you have an artist who actually knows their shit, and a programmer/pipeline who can deal with it properly, you're probably better off with 3D (in terms of production rate), but if you're running solo and only really know one or the other (or perhaps neither?), pixel art is likely much easier to actually produce something. >Also, most of editor features would be better to have in runtime so that assets can respond to changes in lightning. I can't really think of any pixel-art game with properly dynamic lighting; at most a color pallet for light/dark areas, and maybe an opacity filter near special-cased objects like torches. Most granular really being two-pallet, with it switching colors at a pixel-scale due to a torch, which is just radially applied. But like actual directional light, I can't really think of. Some 3D games with low-res qualities ie Devil Daggers, but nothing for 2D pixel-art
- veli_joza 8y ago
  There is this popular 'trick' for 2D pixel art to use normal maps for dynamic lightning. I call it a trick because it uses 3D hi-res technology (shaders) to enhance 2D lo-res artwork. There are several indie pixelart games that use this effect and also many tools that help you create normal maps from pixelart. Here's an example: https://www.codeandweb.com/spriteilluminator https://www.codeandweb.com/spriteilluminator This shows there's a need for such feature. Embedding this editor's capabilities into engine would enable more control over result and more creative freedom.

setr 8y ago

At least part of it, I think, is that its easier to program a 2D game than a 3D game (and most pixel art is 2D), and its easier to have consistent and tested animations for pixel art than 3D art (far fewer frames, no tweening, less interactions, etc). It puts more of the burden on the artist, and less on the game developer. I'm not quite sure about this, but I believe its also a lot easier to have a more performant game with 2D art than 3D, for both custom and standard game engines (outside of say, abusing unreal engine into a 2D pixel-art game), and I'm pretty damn sure its easier to have "acceptable" artwork out of pixel artwork than it in blender. ie misunderstandings of human anatomy shows up in both, but its a lot clearer in 3D than a low-res pixel art. In other words, its time-consuming, but less skill-intensive, for sufficient results. If you have an artist who actually knows their shit, and a programmer/pipeline who can deal with it properly, you're probably better off with 3D (in terms of production rate), but if you're running solo and only really know one or the other (or perhaps neither?), pixel art is likely much easier to actually produce something. >Also, most of editor features would be better to have in runtime so that assets can respond to changes in lightning. I can't really think of any pixel-art game with properly dynamic lighting; at most a color pallet for light/dark areas, and maybe an opacity filter near special-cased objects like torches. Most granular really being two-pallet, with it switching colors at a pixel-scale due to a torch, which is just radially applied. But like actual directional light, I can't really think of. Some 3D games with low-res qualities ie Devil Daggers, but nothing for 2D pixel-art

veli_joza 8y ago
There is this popular 'trick' for 2D pixel art to use normal maps for dynamic lightning. I call it a trick because it uses 3D hi-res technology (shaders) to enhance 2D lo-res artwork. There are several indie pixelart games that use this effect and also many tools that help you create normal maps from pixelart. Here's an example: https://www.codeandweb.com/spriteilluminator https://www.codeandweb.com/spriteilluminator This shows there's a need for such feature. Embedding this editor's capabilities into engine would enable more control over result and more creative freedom.