What's with all the indie platformers?

[default]

Spoiler

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.

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.

The most simple and basic RPG sprite art doesn't require any understanding and application of artistic principles. You're wrong there. As I've indicated before, it's pretty common for indie developers to go to pixel art for their game aesthetics because they have no knowledge of these things.

I never stated that you can't have artistic knowledge to create amazing pieces of pixel art. I stated that it's not required to create pixel art which is good and functional enough for indie games development. It's really a chore to keep pulling this back to my initial point.

And you're getting defensive over nothing because I've said nothing for you to be defensive about. The skill floor for pixel art is really low, to a point where it's accessible to just about everyone. You're trying to argue that the skill floor is high enough that you need to be a proficient artist in order to create pixel art that's good enough for indie games.

The skill ceiling is as high as any other medium. I've never denied that.

Sorry dude, but what may look 'good enough' to you may not look 'good enough' to other people.

You saying that to make good, even functional pixel art even at the most basic level literally requires zero understanding of design principles is extremely misinformed. I've said why I think so.

 

[default]

snip

 

[retsupurae yahtsee]

There are plenty of excellent and challenging indie platformers which justify their popularity and significant number, like Super Meat Boy, 1,001 Spikes, Fenix Rage, Super Mario brothers X, Guacamelee, VVVVVVVV, Pills4Skills, Not a Hero. There are plenty of great games in other genres: Adventure games like The Tesla Effect, Randal's Monday, Dropsy, Space Quest Incinerations and Vohaul Strikes Back, Broken Age and Time Gentlemen Please; R.P.G.s like the Binding of Isaac, Cthulhu Saves The World, Two brothers and the Real Texas; and action adventures like Hotline Miami 1 and 2, Aquaria and Aquatic Adventures of the Last Human. There is plenty of variety if you know where to find it.

I say that the lazy ones are not the pixel artists, but modern ones: Modern games are often colorless, use generic characters like humans and aliens that look like humans, use realistic, featureless settings and lack charm. Pixel art games usually have weird and memorable settings and characters.

 

[default]

Yes, but what you're not getting is that making effective and good-looking pixel art (on what is basically an objective level) requires knowledge and application of design principles no matter how simple the sprites or art style are. You might not consciously care about this stuff but your mind does. This isn't artsy expressive shit, these are near universal psychological rules and tendencies understood over thousands of years by artists and designers all around the world. The way your eye takes in an image, processes and comprehends it. Colour psychology, composition, contrast, pallette, animation, weight, form. All of these are required principles for making good pixel art (art of any form, really) even on the simplest possible level, even if you're just using them instinctively. Ask anyone who makes images for a living or even has a passing interest in design and they will also tell you so.

So I may be mistaken (key sentence there, before you exclaim that I'm strawmanning), but this seems as if you're arguing that with no prior experience, people just instinctively apply the principles to their art.

So, in other words it's saying you don't need any prior artistic knowledge in order to create pixel art for indie games.

You can create good, functioning sprites with no prior knowledge or experience. As I've explained before, it's the reason it's the go-to artform for indie developers. I've never onced argued that you can't go into pixel art with prior artistic knowledge or experience. If you do so, your art will almost always be a lot better than someone who was inexperienced. The simple fact is, the skill doesn't REQUIRE experience in order to create pixel art that's functioning enough specifically for indie games.

No, they don't instinctively apply these things to their art. They may have a rough idea of what makes a good image, but being able to execute it is another thing entirely and requires practice and experience. Just because you know in theory how to play baseball doesn't mean you can do it well, right? Same thing here.

If you do not apply the principles of design even on the most BASIC level (I mean as simple as 'this background is red so I will make this character blue') it will most likely look bad to anyone with a clue. Everyone else who doesn't even really care about visuals will find it hard to look at after a while or find it hard to figure out what the game is trying to communicate for reasons they probably can't quite explain.

Your argument keeps changing. You've gone from 'good' to 'functioning', and I'm fine with that. You said that pixel art does not require any of the principles of design, and now you say it requires no artistic experience, which is also true. But it will not be good unless you practice. You don't get anything for free.

Yes, people do go to pixel art because it is easier than drawing to make the bare minimum for your game. But the medium doesn't matter. Design is a universal constant from community centre handouts to bathroom tiles.

I snipped my last post because I'm done talking to you and I'm just repeating myself now. Have a good day man.

 

[default]

Your argument keeps changing. You've gone from 'good' to 'functioning', and I'm fine with that. You said that pixel art does not require any of the principles of design, and now you say it requires no artistic experience, which is also true. But it will not be good unless you practice. You don't get anything for free.

My argument hasn't changed at all. In fact, I've mostly been repeating the same few points.

Good and functioning then, I've been repeating that for ages. Apologies that I missed out an adjective once? You're arguing thay you need to be a fucking artistic genius to make pixel art. That's wrong. I've continuously said that you can have artistic talent to create pixel art with, but it isn't a required factor to create pixel art that's good enough for indie games.

It's tiring at this point. How many times do I need to repeat this? Sorry that your hobby is an entry level art form. I never said that you can't have talent for it. But there is a reason that it's the go to artform for non artistic indie developers.

Once again, the skill ceiling is as high as most other art form, but the skill floor is very low.

Why do you keep going for personal attacks? It's childish and rude. I'm not even a pixel artist. I'm not talking about skill floors or ceilings here, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

All I'm saying is that you will NOT make good art in any medium if you do not follow the principles of design in at least some capacity, which you blatantly said are not needed for good pixel art. I think you just misunderstand what they even are and how basic and simple they can be. And learning how to use these things is artistic experience, even if you're just making flyers for your bakesale in Microsoft Word. You don't have to be a genius, I never said that.

'Functioning' is the most nebulous term you could use for this. Different coloured squares on a black background is technically 'functional'. I just think we aren't going to reach any kind of agreement here because there's no measure for what you consider 'good enough for indie games' and what I consider 'good enough for indie games' with our backgrounds and understanding of images. I personally think from my experience that following the principles of design in any capacity or level of skill is required for creating a 'good' image. They are rules and tendencies universally followed by designers across cultures over thousands of years for a reason, because they are important even for making the simplest kind of art 'good'.

I think we've argued about this enough though.

 

[kris40k]

The only issue here is that you're so defensive that you're perceiving it as me shitting all over a medium. Shit, you're so defensive that you're perceiving something that I'm saying as an attack?

Read back. I made a simple statement saying "you need no prior knowledge in order to create pixel art good and functional enough for indie games", and you went into a frenzy. Half of what you're saying is even irrelevant to my point.

Look guys, its pretty clear to anyone watching this from the outside that you two are just differing one what you mean by "good". Kibeth, you said it was possible to "...create pixel art good and functional enough..." and Digi7 is just calling bullshit on the "good" part. He's not disuputing that no one can make a pixel art game with some shapes made of pixels that somewhat resemble things, just that it's not something that can be considered "good" by any stretch of the imagination. I can agree with him on that.

Of course, there is no accounting for taste. What looks like shit to Digi7, someone else, like maybe you, Kibeth, may say is "good". Maybe Digi7 has impossibly high standards of "good" pixel art. Whatever, you've both made your points several times.