What's with all the indie platformers?

[Saetha]

Secondly is probably the most important part for me, it's the easiest way to make an immersive game world that the player can explore. One could argue that top-down RPGs are 2D games that also offer this, but the difference is that platformers have verticality and traversing an environment is a pretty easy to understand and exciting gameplay mechanic. One big reason we play games is so we can be transported to another world, and as far as I'm concerned the best way to make another world (hah, pun intended!) is through 2D platformers.

Really? Huh. One of the reasons I dislike 2D platformers is because I feel like they actually restrict exploration more than top-down RPGs. I mean, you really only move in one direction. Maybe you can go back, or a few levels want you to travel upwards instead of right or left. But a lot of side-scrollers seem to construct their levels with narrow tunnels meant to herd the player in a very particular direction, where with top-down RPGs you're often thrown into the middle of something and encouraged to explore all around. For instance, compare towns in Pokemon to towns in Dust: And Elysian Tale. Pokemon, you have a town and walk all over. Dust, you have a town and see the entire thing by just walking right.

 

[Dizchu]

Really? Huh. One of the reasons I dislike 2D platformers is because I feel like they actually restrict exploration more than top-down RPGs. I mean, you really only move in one direction. Maybe you can go back, or a few levels want you to travel upwards instead of right or left. But a lot of side-scrollers seem to construct their levels with narrow tunnels meant to herd the player in a very particular direction, where with top-down RPGs you're often thrown into the middle of something and encouraged to explore all around. For instance, compare towns in Pokemon to towns in Dust: And Elysian Tale. Pokemon, you have a town and walk all over. Dust, you have a town and see the entire thing by just walking right.

I'll grant you that top-down RPGs put more emphasis on the exploration aspect than platformers (generally), but with those games the exploration isn't necessarily a challenge without the mazes and monsters and stuff. Vertical space adds a perilous element to exploration, jumping from platform to platform and avoiding hazards provides a very spatial challenge. It has its limits, just like any 2D genre. But it gives a certain immediacy to the environment.

Of course, 3D games are able to blend two-dimensional movement with verticality and are much better at providing compelling environments to explore. The Tomb Raider games get a lot of criticism but what I've always loved about the series is that the environments offer tons of areas to explore, but are also extremely perilous. However as we've all established, working in three dimensions adds a significant amount to the workload and I honestly can't think of a 3D platformer developed by one person, whereas with 2D platformers you have classics like Cave Story.

 

[gsilver]

I just wish that they'd make platformers that are more in-line with the kind of gameplay that I'm interested in... Too many of them are physics-puzzle-based, super-zoomed-out with spikes everywhere, bland graphics, Metroidvania with samey cut-and-paste design, or otherwise just don't interest me.

I want more Freedom Planets, and less of those other ones, please.

 

[MythicMatt]

So, could you throw down a list of features you want? While I'm in the constant stalling stages of getting all the details together for the first, I'll consider seeing if I can push those into a later project.

 

[kris40k]

As yet another wannabe indie dev working on a 2D side-scroller, I'll chime in why I chose it:

[ul]
[li]Simplicity of getting it going. There are a ton of engines out there, and if you want to you can roll-your-own physics engine for a 2D sidescroller and more fairly quickly. The more work you put into it, the better, but you can get going pretty damn quick. RPGs throw a bit more complexity in compared to platformers, but you only make it as complicated as you want.[/li]
[li] 3D Engines like Unity and Unreal 4 are out there to make getting going easier, but 3D does throw in more wrenches that you have to keep in mind. If you are a single developer, there is no one else to catch your fuck-ups, so KISS is good.[/li]
[li]Because Castlevania: Symphony of the Night was the greatest fucking game ever and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise. Ahem, I mean Nostalgia. Its a common among game developers that they make what they love.[/li]
[/ul]

As you can see, most of the stuff people have already said applys to my personal choice at least.

In any case, sorry if you hate the glut of games, but I'm fricking loving it. Currently playing Cally's Caves III and Momodora, Reverie Under the Moonlight and have a huge backlog of others waiting to be played.

You know, reference material...

 

[Saetha]

As yet another wannabe indie dev working on a 2D side-scroller, I'll chime in why I chose it:

[ul]
[li]Simplicity of getting it going. There are a ton of engines out there, and if you want to you can roll-your-own physics engine for a 2D sidescroller and more fairly quickly. The more work you put into it, the better, but you can get going pretty damn quick. RPGs throw a bit more complexity in compared to platformers, but you only make it as complicated as you want.[/li]
[li] 3D Engines like Unity and Unreal 4 are out there to make getting going easier, but 3D does throw in more wrenches that you have to keep in mind. If you are a single developer, there is no one else to catch your fuck-ups, so KISS is good.[/li]
[li]Because Castlevania: Symphony of the Night was the greatest fucking game ever and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise. Ahem, I mean Nostalgia. Its a common among game developers that they make what they love.[/li]
[/ul]

As you can see, most of the stuff people have already said applys to my personal choice at least.

In any case, sorry if you hate the glut of games, but I'm fricking loving it. Currently playing Cally's Caves III and Momodora, Reverie Under the Moonlight and have a huge backlog of others waiting to be played.

You know, reference material...

Hm... I guess my problem with the "They're making what they're nostalgic about" thing is that I'm a younger gamer, so I wasn't really around when Sonic and Mario and the like were king. I think "nostalgic video games" and I think Jak and Daxter or Spyro. Why is no one nostalgic about THOSE games? WHERE ARE ALL MY SLY COOPER CLONES DAMMIT?

So, could you throw down a list of features you want? While I'm in the constant stalling stages of getting all the details together for the first, I'll consider seeing if I can push those into a later project.

I mean, don't cater to one person complaining on an internet forum. Make what you think is best. I'm just giving an opinion.

 

[aba1]

As yet another wannabe indie dev working on a 2D side-scroller, I'll chime in why I chose it:

[ul]
[li]Simplicity of getting it going. There are a ton of engines out there, and if you want to you can roll-your-own physics engine for a 2D sidescroller and more fairly quickly. The more work you put into it, the better, but you can get going pretty damn quick. RPGs throw a bit more complexity in compared to platformers, but you only make it as complicated as you want.[/li]
[li] 3D Engines like Unity and Unreal 4 are out there to make getting going easier, but 3D does throw in more wrenches that you have to keep in mind. If you are a single developer, there is no one else to catch your fuck-ups, so KISS is good.[/li]
[li]Because Castlevania: Symphony of the Night was the greatest fucking game ever and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise. Ahem, I mean Nostalgia. Its a common among game developers that they make what they love.[/li]
[/ul]

As you can see, most of the stuff people have already said applys to my personal choice at least.

In any case, sorry if you hate the glut of games, but I'm fricking loving it. Currently playing Cally's Caves III and Momodora, Reverie Under the Moonlight and have a huge backlog of others waiting to be played.

You know, reference material...

Hm... I guess my problem with the "They're making what they're nostalgic about" thing is that I'm a younger gamer, so I wasn't really around when Sonic and Mario and the like were king. I think "nostalgic video games" and I think Jak and Daxter or Spyro. Why is no one nostalgic about THOSE games? WHERE ARE ALL MY SLY COOPER CLONES DAMMIT?

So, could you throw down a list of features you want? While I'm in the constant stalling stages of getting all the details together for the first, I'll consider seeing if I can push those into a later project.

I mean, don't cater to one person complaining on an internet forum. Make what you think is best. I'm just giving an opinion.

Well that is actually what Yuka Layli is all about XD (not sure if I spelt that right)

 

[MythicMatt]

I mean, don't cater to one person complaining on an internet forum. Make what you think is best. I'm just giving an opinion.

It's likely that I won't just drop into a second project immediately without that sort of prompting. And, if one person thinks it's a good idea, others might agree with them. At the very least, it'll make for something to do with all this time I'm already managing badly.

 

[kris40k]

Hm... I guess my problem with the "They're making what they're nostalgic about" thing is that I'm a younger gamer, so I wasn't really around when Sonic and Mario and the like were king. I think "nostalgic video games" and I think Jak and Daxter or Spyro. Why is no one nostalgic about THOSE games? WHERE ARE ALL MY SLY COOPER CLONES DAMMIT?

You have a point there about the age difference. Honestly, a lot of the newer developers are going to more of that age bracket than mine. Likely though, once you start seeing people work in 3D, you are looking at at least a small development shop, and you're going to be working for a boss. Maybe a cool boss that you like, but still a boss, and your not working on your personal project anymore, but your boss's.

"2D platformers are an overplayed genre in the indie world and you can't expect to be noticed or make good money if you do one, even if it's really good. You will not make the next Limbo or Supermeatboy."

This particular line, I can somewhat agree with, however not entirely. Sure, you're unlikely to get the same results they did. You are not going to develop the next Flappy or Angry Bird(s), you're not going to win the Lottery. That doesn't mean its not worth plugging away at the genere if you love it. Time for an anecdote-is-not-data-but-I'm-going-to-tell-you-anyway moment, WayForward Games. Little indie dev shop, has been putting out licensed games for years to pay the bills while working on their own games, namely the Shantae series. Never hits it big, game after game, some success, like Ducktales, but nothing big. Then they do catch the public's eye, launch a Kickstarter which gets like just over $775,000 thrown at them, and now people are screaming for her to be in Smash Bros, she's popping up in other people's games in cameos, and she's actually getting to be recognized. Like 4 games in, and now the IP is getting big.

It can happen, still.

 

[Bad Jim]

Perception bias. You see the imaginative devs like Mojang making tons of money with an original concept, but you don't see the metric ton of uninspired dross made by devs that richly deserve their obscurity, unless you look closely. But AAA games get advertised heavily and you see the good and the bad.

 

[gsilver]

Hm... I guess my problem with the "They're making what they're nostalgic about" thing is that I'm a younger gamer, so I wasn't really around when Sonic and Mario and the like were king. I think "nostalgic video games" and I think Jak and Daxter or Spyro. Why is no one nostalgic about THOSE games? WHERE ARE ALL MY SLY COOPER CLONES DAMMIT?

Things are looking up for 3D platformers recently.
Yooka Laylee, A Hat in Time, Lucky's Tale, and Poi are all promising to various levels.

I think that EA also showed a 3D platformer at E3.

 

[MysticSlayer]

[lots of indies making 2D platformers] WHY? There are other genres people! Did all the indie devs of the world just collectively forget that the third dimension exists? And all suddenly became obsessed with jumping? It seems like everyone and their mother has a 2D indie platformer in development.

A few reasons:

1. Most indie developers are on a budget and can't invest in a lot of money. 2D is a lot cheaper than 3D, and the 2D platformer is a well-tested, proven method for delivering a fun game.

2. A lot of indie developers are built around nostalgia. That includes series like Mario, Donkey Kong, Sonic, Metroid, and Castlevania.

3. A lot of the early "indie darlings" like Braid and Limbo were 2D platformers. The indie scene was basically kicked off by copying popular 2D platformers and/or adding an interesting twist to them.

Isn't the indie dev community supposed to be a font of creativity and experimentation?

No, it never has been, and it may never be that way. A lot of the indie scene is built around nostalgia and resurrecting flash games. Every once in a while, someone will try to do something different, and in some cases they succeed or at least cause discussion. Those games will inevitably be copied. Even then, most "groundbreaking" titles are still building off nostalgia and flash games.

In short, a vast majority of indie games, including successful ones, are rehashes of something old. Exactly how old we're talking about is the only real difference. And for those who don't mind budget games or are drawn to nostalgia, it works.

 

[default]

2. Pixel art is possible without any artistic knowledge (2D art requires some, but is still faster to create.

Bullshit. Ever heard of 'programmer art?' That's where this attitude gets you, and anyone with even a modicum of artistic knowledge will know that you have no clue what you're doing and your game will most likely look bloody awful. Pixel art is a medium just like any other.

I dunno, it's like asking why people still make turn-based RPGs. The genres have certain gameplay dynamics that can't be served any other way. It's not 'lazy'.

 

[Bat Vader]

You've only just now noticed this?

I hate to say it, but it's been like this since Braid and Limbo hit the scene in the first place.

But hey, don't worry, just like in the AAA space, there are still tons of games that are trying to push the mold, like Aarklash Legacy, Bastion, The Banner Saga, Cloudbuilt, Darkest Dungeon, Dex, Divinity: Original Sin, Eldritch, Endless Legend, Grim Dawn, Hard Reset, Invisible, Inc., Legend of Grimrock 2, Sanctum 2, Satellite Reign, Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong, Starpoint Gemini 2, Superhot, Transistor, Undertale, and Ziggurat.

EDIT: The relative "indieness" of some of those could be debated if you believe that in order to be "truly indie" a developer can't go through a publisher at all, but, well. I think they still count.

Don't forget The Cat Lady and Downfall:Remake.

 

[shrekfan246]

You've only just now noticed this?

I hate to say it, but it's been like this since Braid and Limbo hit the scene in the first place.

But hey, don't worry, just like in the AAA space, there are still tons of games that are trying to push the mold, like Aarklash Legacy, Bastion, The Banner Saga, Cloudbuilt, Darkest Dungeon, Dex, Divinity: Original Sin, Eldritch, Endless Legend, Grim Dawn, Hard Reset, Invisible, Inc., Legend of Grimrock 2, Sanctum 2, Satellite Reign, Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong, Starpoint Gemini 2, Superhot, Transistor, Undertale, and Ziggurat.

EDIT: The relative "indieness" of some of those could be debated if you believe that in order to be "truly indie" a developer can't go through a publisher at all, but, well. I think they still count.

Don't forget The Cat Lady and Downfall:Remake.

Oh, I was just reading off a quick list of the obvious ones I own on Steam. Other people can feel free to chime in with their own suggestions too.

 

[default]

Bullshit. Ever heard of 'programmer art?' That's where this attitude gets you, and anyone with even a modicum of artistic knowledge will know that you have no clue what you're doing and your game will most likely look bloody awful. Pixel art is a medium just like any other.

I never said it's not a medium, I just said it requires no prior artistic knowledge, and it doesn't. It's extremely easy to create pixel art. From my personal experience, it's by far one of the easiest things to pick up and learn.

It's the go to art for my game designer friends, simply because they're not that artistically inclined. You can create good enough pixel art for a 2D platformer while only being able to draw stick figures with a pen and paper.

No need to get so defensive about it.

Yes, and it will probably look bad to any trained eye. To make good art in any medium requires knowledge, experience and practice. Colour, palette, form, composition, energy, fluidity, posing, weight. Once you start animating things it complicates things tenfold. Anyone can pick up a pencil and draw a line, like anyone can put pixels down in Photoshop. But it's more complex than that. Just because you can make it essentially functional does not mean it's good.

Sorry man, but I'm defensive because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and it's something I care about. I'm not a pixel artist but I enjoy the medium very much and ignorant people think it's 'easy' and 'lazy' without any understanding of artistic principles.

 

[default]

Yes, and it will probably look bad to any trained eye. To make good art in any medium requires knowledge, experience and practice. Colour, palette, form, composition, energy, fluidity, posing, weight. Once you start animating things it complicates things tenfold. Anyone can pick up a pencil and draw a line, like anyone can put pixels down in Photoshop. But it's more complex than that. Just because you can make it essentially functional does not mean it's good.

Sorry man, but I'm defensive because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and it's something I care about. I'm not a pixel artist but I enjoy the medium very much and ignorant people think it's 'easy' and 'lazy' without any understanding of artistic principles.

Pixel art requires literally none of these things, not for indie games development, anyway.

Be as pretentious about it as you want, it doesn't change that literally anyone can pick up pixel art and be good at it within a very short span of time.

You're defensive because I'm indicating how easy it's been for me and others to create pixel art for indie games. It's making you feel invalidated.

The skill ceiling for making pixel art is there, but the skill floor is so far below most other art forms that it's ridiculous. It's the reason it's so commonly used by games designers.

Requires literally none of them? Come on dude, really? I'm not saying it's not easy to make pixel art on the most basic level, and yes the skill floor is lower, but making GOOD pixel art is an entirely other prospect and requires knowledge of all those principles I listed above. There's a difference between good simplicity and bad simplicity.

I'm not being 'pretentious' and I don't feel 'invalidated' for whatever reason you think I would be. If people could more easily make art for their games that is functional and looks good I would be thrilled. There's no reason to be rude mate. Sorry that I jumped the gun and called your opinion 'bullshit', it was uncalled for.

I'm just trying to help you understand that pixel art has artistic merit and requires more skill and understanding than people give it credit for. There is more to it than you think, especially to someone who likes art and knows what they are looking for. Pixel art is definitely used in bad, lazy ways, but there is so much depth and potential to the medium it makes me sad to see it squandered and have such a bad reputation.

I mean, look at some of these:

That's the stuff that sticks in my head and makes me go 'wow'. You can make functional, basic art for your game but it will most likely not leave an impression on people. That might not be your priority, and that's fine too. But to say that this stuff requires no knowledge or skill is a baffling opinion.

 

[Saetha]

Yes, and it will probably look bad to any trained eye. To make good art in any medium requires knowledge, experience and practice. Colour, palette, form, composition, energy, fluidity, posing, weight. Once you start animating things it complicates things tenfold. Anyone can pick up a pencil and draw a line, like anyone can put pixels down in Photoshop. But it's more complex than that. Just because you can make it essentially functional does not mean it's good.

Sorry man, but I'm defensive because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and it's something I care about. I'm not a pixel artist but I enjoy the medium very much and ignorant people think it's 'easy' and 'lazy' without any understanding of artistic principles.

Pixel art requires literally none of these things, not for indie games development, anyway.

Be as pretentious about it as you want, it doesn't change that literally anyone can pick up pixel art and be good at it within a very short span of time.

You're defensive because I'm indicating how easy it's been for me and others to create pixel art for indie games. It's making you feel invalidated.

The skill ceiling for making pixel art is there, but the skill floor is so far below most other art forms that it's ridiculous. It's the reason it's so commonly used by games designers.

Dude, take it from a (former) art major - ALL art needs things like composition and color to be good. Even pixel art. The principles might have to be applied differently, but we call them "the principles of design" not "the principles of everything except pixel art" for a reason. They're the basic things you have to know and understand to make good art, even if only intuitively. Like, I don't think you have to be sat down and given a lecture on these things to be a good artist. We can get a feel for them just practicing in your free time. But all good art makes use of these things, even pixel art, and they take time and practice to learn. Even if you took the "pixel" out of pixel art you'd still need them to make a visually interesting game. Being pixel art doesn't suddenly turn a bad color palette into a good one, or a shitty background composition into a Picasso painting.

There's a difference between good pixel art and functional pixel art. Yeah you can make something recognizably human in pixel art without a whole bunch of practice. But making a genuinely good looking sprite requires knowledge of the basic principles of design and how they can be applied to the medium.

Like, given the number of absolutely shitty pixel artists I've seen, it doesn't seem like something you can master in five minutes. Otherwise you'd think there'd be more games with great pixel art out there.

And honestly, if you think that things like a good palette and composition aren't needed to make pixel art games, then I don't think you or your friends are making very good-looking pixel art games.

 

[default]

Spoiler

Dude, take it from a (former) art major - ALL art needs things like composition and color to be good. Even pixel art. The principles might have to be applied differently, but we call them "the principles of design" not "the principles of everything except pixel art" for a reason. They're the basic things you have to know and understand to make good art, even if only intuitively. Like, I don't think you have to be sat down and given a lecture on these things to be a good artist. We can get a feel for them just practicing in your free time. But all good art makes use of these things, even pixel art, and they take time and practice to learn. Even if you took the "pixel" out of pixel art you'd still need them to make a visually interesting game. Being pixel art doesn't suddenly turn a bad color palette into a good one, or a shitty background composition into a Picasso painting.

There's a difference between good pixel art and functional pixel art. Yeah you can make something recognizably human in pixel art without a whole bunch of practice. But making a genuinely good looking sprite requires knowledge of the basic principles of design and how they can be applied to the medium.

Like, given the number of absolutely shitty pixel artists I've seen, it doesn't seem like something you can master in five minutes. Otherwise you'd think there'd be more games with great pixel art out there.

And honestly, if you think that things like a good palette and composition aren't needed to make pixel art games, then I don't think you or your friends are making very good-looking pixel art games.

I never said that you can't apply it, I said that it doesn't require it. Plenty of good looking games don't have all that much thought put into their pixel sprites. Because, when you hit the level of simplicity of these low resolution sprites, you lack the room to implement many of these things.

Spoiler

Yes, and it will probably look bad to any trained eye. To make good art in any medium requires knowledge, experience and practice. Colour, palette, form, composition, energy, fluidity, posing, weight. Once you start animating things it complicates things tenfold. Anyone can pick up a pencil and draw a line, like anyone can put pixels down in Photoshop. But it's more complex than that. Just because you can make it essentially functional does not mean it's good.

Sorry man, but I'm defensive because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and it's something I care about. I'm not a pixel artist but I enjoy the medium very much and ignorant people think it's 'easy' and 'lazy' without any understanding of artistic principles.

Pixel art requires literally none of these things, not for indie games development, anyway.

Be as pretentious about it as you want, it doesn't change that literally anyone can pick up pixel art and be good at it within a very short span of time.

You're defensive because I'm indicating how easy it's been for me and others to create pixel art for indie games. It's making you feel invalidated.

The skill ceiling for making pixel art is there, but the skill floor is so far below most other art forms that it's ridiculous. It's the reason it's so commonly used by games designers.

Requires literally none of them? Come on dude, really? I'm not saying it's not easy to make pixel art on the most basic level, and yes the skill floor is lower, but making GOOD pixel art is an entirely other prospect and requires knowledge of all those principles I listed above. There's a difference between good simplicity and bad simplicity.

I'm not being 'pretentious' and I don't feel 'invalidated' for whatever reason you think I would be. If people could more easily make art for their games that is functional and looks good I would be thrilled. There's no reason to be rude mate. Sorry that I jumped the gun and called your opinion 'bullshit', it was uncalled for.

I'm just trying to help you understand that pixel art has artistic merit and requires more skill and understanding than people give it credit for. There is more to it than you think, especially to someone who likes art and knows what they are looking for. Pixel art is definitely used in bad, lazy ways, but there is so much depth and potential to the medium it makes me sad to see it squandered and have such a bad reputation.

I mean, look at some of these:

That's the stuff that sticks in my head and makes me go 'wow'. You can make functional, basic art for your game but it will most likely not leave an impression on people. That might not be your priority, and that's fine too. But to say that this stuff requires no knowledge or skill is a baffling opinion.

You linked me to some exceptional pieces, which were clearly made by people who are proficient in other artistic areas, however, that level of knowledge isn't required to make indie games.

2. Pixel art is possible without any artistic knowledge (2D art requires some, but is still faster to create.

You can create good enough pixel art for a 2D platformer while only being able to draw stick figures with a pen and paper.

I've literally never stated that you're going to be creating phenomenal masterpieces, but I'm stating that you don't need any prior artistic knowledge in order to create good looking pixel art. You can easily be an indie games designer without ever having touched a pencil in your life, and I indicated this as part of the reason we get a lot of 2D pixel platformers.

You're really getting defensive over nothing...

Even the most simple and basic RPG sprite art still requires understanding and application of these things if it's going to look any good, or even be clear and readable enough to be barely pleasant to look at. Honestly if anything the importance of these principles is heightened because your form of expression is limited and you are working with such small, abstract spaces and figures. You might not notice these things, but others do.

It's not 'nothing' to me if it's something I personally care about dude. I see enough sloppy, busy and messy pixel art games that it makes me wonder how widespread this kind of attitude is. The only reason I'm so defensive is because, again, pixel art gets this bad reputation it does not deserve and I like the medium very much.

 

[Saetha]

Spoiler

Dude, take it from a (former) art major - ALL art needs things like composition and color to be good. Even pixel art. The principles might have to be applied differently, but we call them "the principles of design" not "the principles of everything except pixel art" for a reason. They're the basic things you have to know and understand to make good art, even if only intuitively. Like, I don't think you have to be sat down and given a lecture on these things to be a good artist. We can get a feel for them just practicing in your free time. But all good art makes use of these things, even pixel art, and they take time and practice to learn. Even if you took the "pixel" out of pixel art you'd still need them to make a visually interesting game. Being pixel art doesn't suddenly turn a bad color palette into a good one, or a shitty background composition into a Picasso painting.

There's a difference between good pixel art and functional pixel art. Yeah you can make something recognizably human in pixel art without a whole bunch of practice. But making a genuinely good looking sprite requires knowledge of the basic principles of design and how they can be applied to the medium.

Like, given the number of absolutely shitty pixel artists I've seen, it doesn't seem like something you can master in five minutes. Otherwise you'd think there'd be more games with great pixel art out there.

And honestly, if you think that things like a good palette and composition aren't needed to make pixel art games, then I don't think you or your friends are making very good-looking pixel art games.

I never said that you can't apply it, I said that it doesn't require it. Plenty of good looking games don't have all that much thought put into their pixel sprites. Because, when you hit the level of simplicity of these low resolution sprites, you lack the room to implement many of these things.

Spoiler

Yes, and it will probably look bad to any trained eye. To make good art in any medium requires knowledge, experience and practice. Colour, palette, form, composition, energy, fluidity, posing, weight. Once you start animating things it complicates things tenfold. Anyone can pick up a pencil and draw a line, like anyone can put pixels down in Photoshop. But it's more complex than that. Just because you can make it essentially functional does not mean it's good.

Sorry man, but I'm defensive because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and it's something I care about. I'm not a pixel artist but I enjoy the medium very much and ignorant people think it's 'easy' and 'lazy' without any understanding of artistic principles.

Pixel art requires literally none of these things, not for indie games development, anyway.

Be as pretentious about it as you want, it doesn't change that literally anyone can pick up pixel art and be good at it within a very short span of time.

You're defensive because I'm indicating how easy it's been for me and others to create pixel art for indie games. It's making you feel invalidated.

The skill ceiling for making pixel art is there, but the skill floor is so far below most other art forms that it's ridiculous. It's the reason it's so commonly used by games designers.

Requires literally none of them? Come on dude, really? I'm not saying it's not easy to make pixel art on the most basic level, and yes the skill floor is lower, but making GOOD pixel art is an entirely other prospect and requires knowledge of all those principles I listed above. There's a difference between good simplicity and bad simplicity.

I'm not being 'pretentious' and I don't feel 'invalidated' for whatever reason you think I would be. If people could more easily make art for their games that is functional and looks good I would be thrilled. There's no reason to be rude mate. Sorry that I jumped the gun and called your opinion 'bullshit', it was uncalled for.

I'm just trying to help you understand that pixel art has artistic merit and requires more skill and understanding than people give it credit for. There is more to it than you think, especially to someone who likes art and knows what they are looking for. Pixel art is definitely used in bad, lazy ways, but there is so much depth and potential to the medium it makes me sad to see it squandered and have such a bad reputation.

I mean, look at some of these:

That's the stuff that sticks in my head and makes me go 'wow'. You can make functional, basic art for your game but it will most likely not leave an impression on people. That might not be your priority, and that's fine too. But to say that this stuff requires no knowledge or skill is a baffling opinion.

You linked me to some exceptional pieces, which were clearly made by people who are proficient in other artistic areas, however, that level of knowledge isn't required to make indie games.

2. Pixel art is possible without any artistic knowledge (2D art requires some, but is still faster to create.

You can create good enough pixel art for a 2D platformer while only being able to draw stick figures with a pen and paper.

I've literally never stated that you're going to be creating phenomenal masterpieces, but I'm stating that you don't need any prior artistic knowledge in order to create good looking pixel art. You can easily be an indie games designer without ever having touched a pencil in your life, and I indicated this as part of the reason we get a lot of 2D pixel platformers.

You're really getting defensive over nothing...

Could you... maybe give some pictures of what you're talking about? Good looking pixel art that doesn't employ these things?