Indies are mastering the small 2D arcade pixel art genre.
I don't think mumbay studios of AAA american companies can make something as 10% as good as the average 2D pixel art arcade modern indie game.
Patchouli defend the library is a really hard level to acquire, even for mumbay studios that can make AAA rpgs in photoscanned Hollywood actors.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
talk some more cris we love your voice!!!
>Pixel art
>AAA games
Chose one moron
which is my point?
AAA morons can't make 2D pixel art games.
Why in the world an AAA studios should limit itself to pixel art in the year of our lord 2020+3?
Just to make you zoom zoom shit and piss your pants?
that's kind of the point.
pixel art is deemed too low level, too old, too antique to be properly taken over by AAA companies.
Which means they wont compete with indies.
Which means indies will keep pushing the skill ceiling off pixel art.
I've seen modern indies that can make better anime shit with pixel art sprites from 3D models than those.
>Why in the world an AAA studios should limit itself to pixel art in the year of our lord 2020+3?
Because I'd be more likely to buy it if they did. Fricking moron.
>well uhm nobody else would-
If that were the case there wouldn't be a market for it that indie devs have a chokehold on.
Pixel art was because of hardware limitations of old consoles and computers that weren't able of calculating too much pixels and colors.
Now an AAA game made in pixel art just makes no sense.
It's like saying that car manufacturers should return to make steam powered cars just because you would buy it lol
we're talking about an art product, not an industrial product.
I've honestly seen some pixel art guys that are more skilled than any 1995 japanese guy on pixel art twitter comunities.
>we're talking about an art product, not an industrial product.
Cars and engines are art too
>I've honestly seen some pixel art guys that are more skilled than any 1995 japanese guy on pixel art twitter comunities.
The problem is that you can be as good as you want it won't change the fact that pixel art is outdated and cheap and is only used by indie dev for this reason while an AAA game with pixel wrt just makes no sense.
Is drawing outdated?
Is manga outdated?
Is 2D animation outdated?
Is oil painting obsolete?
Is baroque realistic art obsolete?
It doesn't make sense to claim art mediums to be obsolete.
Anon, all that types of art was born from itself.
While pixel art in videogames is just the result of limitations. It's not an art type. And it doesn't make any sense for am AAA big production videogame to be in gucking pixel art. It's just ridiculous to think.
my point is more that AAA lack the human talent to pull off pixel art.
Do you think a photorealistic AAA 3D guy can autiomatically make pixel art?
An AAA videogame with big budget won't have fricking pixel art no matter if it's photorealistic or stylized. AAA won't use pixel art because it's an outdated way of doing graphics. The only skill requirements for good pixel art is the ability to make figures recognizable using the few pixels available and it's just not worth the effort if you can make high resolution art that requires more skills and less compromises for no reason.
>AAA won't use pixel art because AAA only cares about whether or not something would be perceived as outdated
Thanks for giving a reason why your argument is moronic. If the newest tech was a haptic feedback sounding rod in your urethra to simulate combat damage with uncomfortable vibrations, would you complain when devs don't force you to shove a metal rod in your penis because not doing so would be outdated?
The problem with you zoom zoom is that while previous generation where passionate about progress, you all developed a passion for regression, which is just the results of all of you spawning in an era of stagnation and confusion where no one actually tasted the advancement of technology.
>no argument, just misused buzzword
Of all the ones to pretend are zoomers, you're going to throw that at people who appreciate the old art styles of games that zoomers love to pan as "clunky"?
I don't like photorealism.
I don't like 3D games.
I have motion sickness so I can't play games with a rotating camera.
I like 2D art.
Any other cope?
And then you can basically buy a knockoff PlayStation 1 that my granny used to buy me thinking it was a real ps1 with thousand of knockoff games from snes and gba from the Chinese store and play that for the rest of your life.
I don't consider a 32x32 sprite more obsolete than a 8k texture.
They're diferent things.
They are literally the same file type, can literally be the same format. The only difference is that an 8k texture has 64.000.000 pixels while a 32x32 texture has 1.024 pixels.
Now tell me this is just not outdated...
I don't think a guy that can draw an 8k painting can do a 32x32 sprite.
Totally diferent skills.
Please have a nice day moron.
2D stylized graphics can also be done with more than 32x32.
>It was so much worse when dev costs were smaller and they could just afford to take the risk of just making a game without designing it around sucking money out of your wallet for years after the fact.
In the old days there was no way of making videogames without taking risks because there wasn't a winning formula. Now videogames are stagnated and even indie dev don't make original games but just derivative garbage taken from old games.
>Games were fun back when you could count pixels with the naked eye
They were fun but now they can be fun without looking like shit.
Videogames have evolved to the point they can tell stories in a way videogames couldn't because of being tied to low fidelity visual. Now you can have everything but you chose to have less because... pixel art is le cool
do you think super mario world looks bad or need 3D art?
morono?
Yeah just compare the original super Mario to the more recent one. If you think the original is still better you suffer from actual moronation.
yeah, because they're pretty much diferent genres, fricking subhuman.
Do you think kof plays the same as tekken and dark souls?
The new super Mario world wonder is basically an evolution to the formula of the original super Mario. It's not different genres, it's just an evolution to the same formula.
You're so right anon, we need to spend half a billion dollars making character models from millions of polygons in 8k, how else are they going to justify selling you half the game for 70 dollars on release and then milk you for 30 dollars every few months in accordance with the battlepass roadmap? Thank god we live in a world where publishers are sure to spend millions to use high-end tech for the sake of just using it.
It was so much worse when dev costs were smaller and they could just afford to take the risk of just making a game without designing it around sucking money out of your wallet for years after the fact.
AAA studios need to keep the lights on so no they are not interested in making lower budget games. An indie studio can do this because they dont need to support their current staff. Firing people is also not a solution because then they can't go back to making 3d games (which do make a lot more money than 2d games).
>they have to keep the lights on so they need to suck my money out of my wallet
They focused too much of money-making and not enough on game-making for me to be interested in their product at this point, and your mother drank too much while you were in vitro if you're actually going to argue for subsidizing shitty anti-consumer business practices just for the benefit of publisher CEOs getting a better bonus at the end of the year.
You can keep sucking AAA dick just to make sure those publishers keep their bonuses, I'm not interested.
>passionate about progress
I never lost that passion, I just have higher standards for what constitutes progress. I don't consider the "improvements" to graphics in the last 10 years to be anything worth celebrating. They've come at massively inflating the costs or production and passing along enormous costs to consumers, for a fraction of the benefit of graphical and technical leaps that occurred 30 years ago. The leap from 2D to 2.5D to 3D was progress I consider well worth making. The leap from 1080P dynamically rendered open world maps to 4K dynamically rendered open world maps with slightly better reflections and shadows isn't even comparable. It's progress that exists just to sell you a more expensive GPU and another generation of consoles, it doesn't actually offer you anything.
Games were fun back when you could count pixels with the naked eye, the fidelity of graphics has pretty much no bearing on how good a game is, when you come down to it. Focusing on graphics at the expense of everything else, which is what AAA has been doing for over a decade, just leads to obscenely wasteful budgets wasted on beautifying a turd.
>I never lost that passion
You don't understand what drove the pioneers of sprite art to create.
>pixel art requires drawing skill
>european and american schools not longer teach drawing because it's all 3D now
oops.
seems AAA has not talent to make pixel art.
>outdated way of doing graphics
And yet pixel art games is still being made. I don't give a damn what AAA companies make because it's always slop and I rather they steer clear of pixel art so they won't kill the genre/style like they are doing with 3D
Graphite drawing was born from limitations. The newest tech you're jacking yourself off to to replace pixel art is born from the current level of limitations. Every type of art takes limitations and works around them to make something that looks better for it, instead of worse.
So should every game after those two have just been battle royales? Did you miss the point that hard?
>why would you do that?
If you think it looks better. If you don't think it looks better then the art style doesn't appeal to you. Wow was that so fricking hard to figure out? You don't like it and you want to pretend it's worse in some objective way as an art style, which is categorically fricking moronic.
You have to realize those guys had tighter deadlines and hardware constraints, even those arcade games.
>It's like saying that car manufacturers should return to make steam powered cars just because you would buy it lol
It's not like that because a car is a tool that mainly serves an objective use. Art is a product meant to be enjoyed for subjective value. The style of the car is subjective and you wouldn't say that it doesn't make sense for new cars to borrow from older styles, because you're a moronic hypocrite. Or maybe you would if you're just a complete moron.
>AAA game made in pixel art doesn't make sense because other technology exists
That's as dumb as saying that making any games in other genres don't make sense because battle royales exist now. Not every game would be best if it was a battle royale, the same way not every game looks best if it was in the exact same art style using whatever the current new-thing tech is.
>That's as dumb as saying that making any games in other genres don't make sense because battle royales exist now.
You're so confusional. Pixel art is not a genre. Indie dev turned pixel art which was a limitation into a genre because it's cheaper and requires less skill. But an AAA game with pixel art is just not an AAA. It's just an old way of doing things that requires less resources.
>but but but then it wouldn't be a AAA!!!!!!!!!!
Who gives a shit what people want to call it? Make the game in the art style that fits it best. If you don't like pixel art then you wouldn't feel it's the best choice, but how fricking cucked do you have to be to avoid using what you would otherwise see as the best art style so that it can be classified as AAA slop?
Battle royales weren't possible in the past due to technological limitations so games as artistic products should make the choice that is most in line with modern tech and never do anything in other genres by your shit logic.
>If they wanted to make a 2d game they would just use as much resolution the memory would allow.
>If they can use more, memory, they have to!
moron.
>Doing pixel art today is purely for aesthetics
That's every stylistic art choice in the end, moron. You look at what you can do, and decide that this is the best choice stylistically. Do you look at art that intentionally leaves out or limits certain color choices and go "oh wow what a fricking antiquated piece of trash don't they know that BLUE exists?" That's you, a mongoloid.
>Battle royales weren't possible in the past due to technological limitations
Battlefield 1942 and joint operations had massive multiplayer matches way before Fortnite existed. homosexual.
Why would anyone do that other than playing off nostalgia? Indie shitters do it because its easier than 3d. Indies have also devalued its use so now games with that style are seen as cheap.
a steam car is a novelty just like pixel art in modern times would be. Its not needed to do anymore. If they wanted to make a 2d game they would just use as much resolution the memory would allow. Doing pixel art today is purely for aesthetics and is like people riding in a horse and carriage around central park.
If they did they might actually make a good game for once. Can't have that.
Weird because the best pixel art is made from 3d models
See: Factorio, HoMM3 or Breath of Fire 4
Yea its kind of like how 2d animation is dead in the west. Its not taught in schools anymore and its associated with lower budget games. If Capcom did a 2d mega man game again would anyone pay $70 for it? Doubt it, you would expect it to be a buget game for $40 or less so why bother?
2D in general is dying or dead because it needs artists instead of interns who churn out crappy 3d models for half free.
get a job cris and also have sex
The only good pixel art that ever happened was because it was the best artists squeezing all they could out of limited hardware. When you think of good pixel art games of the past, that was the technological peak of that visual style at the time.
Nowadays it's just like hipsters trying to capture the magic of vinyl. Far less talented people trying to alchemize lightning in a bottle. You can't force art-through-adversity.
I love how gays always declare that there's not newer developments in pixel art tech.
like if pixel art hasn't evolved into their own branch.
I never said that you little gaygolini. Plenty of pixel games still look good (Underrail) without being soulless nostalgiabait (Sea of Stars)
THIS IS A CRIS THREAD
DO NOT REPLY
You are replying to a mentally moronic Colombian
No indie pixel slop hipster trash tops Metal Slug in animation nor design.
Pixel art games that looked good were AAA games of the era. It took a team skilled devs to make those good pixel grafix.
"AAA" of course used to be much, much smaller budgets instead of the studio guzzling a billion dollars with hundreds of employees doing...what? We're not sure but HR insists we have to keep them for certain reasons.
no but AA can
>Indies are mastering [...] pixel art
No.
Pixel art arose as a style from the technological limitations of its time, and the ambition to create games that looked good.
Modern indie pixelart generally lacks the ambition to impress the viewer: it aims to emulate the style of old pixel art, which is usually first misinterpreted by the artists viewing old pixel art on LCD screens instead of CRTs, then "improved on" by making the sprites look more detailed - and this usually fails because the indie "artist" is not classically trained and has no sense of composition or what makes something good to look at.
I have yet to see an indie pixel art game that looks better than Super Metroid.
PatchCon is nearly 20 years old my dude
You could have picked literally anything else to compare it to other modern games.
Luna Nights was 4 years ago, Mystia's Izakaya 2 years.
No one is going to buy a 2D pixel game for $60 in 2023
Most 2D pixel games nowadays don't sell well
a game with a 5 usd castlevania pixel art pack from itch.io made 15 million usd.
lightning in a bottle. That's not repeatable. Some games just blow up because of streamers.
would you say 100k sales is a failure?
It depends. If you're an indie dev it's a quite successful but if it's supposed to be an AAA game, it's a complete failure.
Wow its almost nothing compared to a AAA game, who cares
Would you say 3 million sales is a failure for a AAA?
This is about as close as it gets to both "AAA" and "pixel art"
3 million for an AAA is a failure. Octopath isn't an AAA game but It's more of an A game. Development cost where very low so 3 million is acceptable.
Why does it need to be $60
Cause AAA devs dont want to make cheap $5 2D pixel games
i quoted the wrong post, shit
There *is* a point where the progress of graphics tech stopped being impressive.
I hold that Halo 3 is one of the best looking games ever made, and would suggest no game from the PS4/XBONE or PS5/XSEX console gens matches what Halo 3 accomplished.
The use of prebaked lighting effects, the efforts at realism, but also the slight surrealism inherit in the subject matter of the game created something that visually I think can be called almost perfect. It's a masterpiece.
Games like Red Dead Redemption II, nu-God of War, and Last of Us II look "good", on a technical level, but the subject matter they depict is both mere realism, and kind of ugly.
When it comes to indie games, they might use a style like pixel art, but most aren't aiming to be technically impressive or to depict impressive subject matter.
You have exceptions like Brigador (mech game with sprite art created with 3D models with extremely fluid 60fps animations), Signalis (blending low poly 3D with a variety of visual styles and a strong artistic vision to create something more than the sum of its parts), or Cruelty Squad (incredibly strong vision rendered intentionally primitively: with the intent to assault the senses). Cuphead is another obvious and extreme example of incredibly technically impressive animation work. All these games manage to look interesting without being at the bleeding edge of technological progress.
Here's another: Holstin is incredibly slick and has a technically impressive gimmick of switching from a top down semi-isometric 2D perspective to over the shoulder 3D gameplay.
?feature=shared
But not a lot of 2D pixelart indie games manage to intrigue me. Celeste I can admit looks interesting for its gameplay, but the artstyle is ugly as frick.
Unreal 1 and Unreal Tournament '99 pretty much ended big push towards realistic 3D. Games like Crysis were just logical conclusion of pareto principle, adding the last 20% onto Unreal's 80%.
Yup