>>724186365
To be honest they both look ass, 2D is an outdated way to develop video games.

>>724186365
Explain please then
I like pixel art but what makes left better than right?
Right looks more detailed

>>724186365
Left might be more impressive, but it's not better looking.

>>724186365
>left is more impressive and better looking compared to the right
It's not.

File: 1751572190668.png (687 KB, 1024x432)

687 KB PNG

>>724186597
Bet you think 2D animation is an outdated way to animate anime/cartoons

>>724186365
Both are going for different feels, left has a limited color palette, likely to evoke an old game look. Right has warm colors, to make the scene moody/cozy.

>>724186982
It depends, most anime does look garish yeah.

>>724187036
Thank you for proving you're a retard

>>724186365
I don't remember GBC games having color/dithering like the left

One has less details and another has greater scope (=more time and effort so more money required) but also more realistic proportions and distances between things. There are also two strange light cones on the right without visible light sources but I guess that's from chandeliers the game does not show.

File: Sword-of-Convallaria-Scre(...).jpg (760 KB, 1920x1080)

760 KB JPG

>>724186365
Right side looks better than left dumbass

File: 2x2_gardens.png (36 KB, 700x700)

36 KB PNG

Pixel art thread?

File: 252.png (1.45 MB, 1910x1198)

1.45 MB PNG

>>724186883
>>724186920
>>724189384
You don't know anything about art

>>724189891
neither do you
lmao

>>724190074
I do, any competent artist will agree with me

>>724190113
You are retarded. Like your art.

>look at how contrarian i am
cool now go back to smelling your own farts pseud

>>724186365
lol ok boomer

File: 1753299834543826.gif (1.47 MB, 360x360)

1.47 MB GIF

>>724190113
>>724189891

>left is better, trust me im a true retardist
>no i cant tell you why

>>724186365
Left follows better grid based image composition rules. It's not a great image, though.
Right could be better if it followed more of them. Personally, I have a problem with the backgrounds and characters lacking a united aesthetic. They don't feel like they belong in the same universe.

>>724186365
Art is fundamentally subjective. Neither is better in reality.

>>724191620
Look at this poor wretch. His pineal gland is totally calcified.

>>724186365
OP's the kind of fag that gets high on his own farts.

>>724186365
>>724186778
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXD-cexA3jE
Left is impressive because it coveys shading and shadows with a limited pixel size.

>>724191886
Classic projection. You’re the one stuck being angry that your pixel art isn’t getting the attention you think it deserves and seeking some form of validation. You’re essentially being a cuck.

>>724192465
>You’re essentially being a cuck.
ummmm, sexual values are subjective. being gigacucked isn't worse than any other action.

>>724186365
the left is raw and limited colors, with a singular pixel size and strict grid. also it uses checkerboarding for shading/blending.

the right has much smaller pixels at the smallest, with more color blending/gradient, which gives it far more detail.

calling the left "more impressive" is laughably retarded. its working with far more limited tools/media. sure its doing a decent job conveying the subject with them, but thats irrelevant. the right is objectively better looking and more impressive. and thats not even mentioning the fact that the right actually conveys perspective and depth, while the left is flat and inconsistent with perspective and lighting.

good bait though.

File: 5vnme256p9uc1.gif (507 KB, 640x512)

507 KB GIF

>>724192903
Nah left is a top performing piece at its size/color palette size limitations, there's literally almost no way to improve it within its constraints, it's very punchy and effective at delivering its intended designs, mood, light etc

Right is painfully generic and boring, with meh contrast and meh designs and meh staging and meh mood all executed in a very unambitious pixel art style that could be massively improved upon within that size and color count, it breaks believability with gradients, and is forgettable and cookie cutter in every way

>>724186365
I kinda like right, the only issue (although it is a big one) is the character design. None of them stand out AT ALL and that's a major gripe I have with pretty much all modern game design.

>>724186365
>having a hard time explaining to people why the left is more impressive and better looking compared to the right
Yeah, it's definitely a difficult thing to do, since you're objectively wrong, and the moment you start telling this stupid shit to anyone, they know you're a fucking imbecile.

>>724192694
If someone truly believed their work was better, they wouldn’t need others to confirm it. The desperation for validation reveals that they’re not just defending their art, they’re defending their identity.

Someone feels overlooked or inferior.
>They cling to a belief that their contribution is actually superior.
>When the world doesn’t reflect that belief, they experience frustration, resentment, and sometimes self-doubt.
>To resolve that tension, they seek validation, often in ways that reinforce the very insecurity they’re trying to escape.

This really isn’t about the art Anon, just admit it. If not to me, then at least to yourself.

>>724193621
Refer to >>724193445 you non-artist

>>724186365
the amount of skill and effort it takes to create something has no intrinsic value whatsoever, if someone likes right more than left then right is simply better, if more people like right than left then right is measurably better looking

File: 1736547198202123.jpg (893 KB, 1128x1080)

893 KB JPG

>>724193749
You can point me to whatever the fuck you want. You're still an objectively wrong, retarded faggot.

>>724193445
>its pushing the limits of its own constraints and boundaries
and the right is still better than it. how well its succeeding at the special olympics is irrelevant when the right is already better. even if the right could be improved because it has less constraints, thats not the issue or metric.

>right is generic and boring SUBJECT MATERIAL
nobody gives a shit how you feel about the subject material. just because left has a dinosaur painting and a bunch of animals and music notes doesnt make it more impressive or better art.
>a very unambitious pixel art style
lmao meaningless buzzwords that convey nothing.
>could be massively improved upon
still irrelevant. if somebody has a billion/trillion dollars at their disposal and they make a 12inch detailed figurine of your favorite character, "wtf why isnt it bigger? i know that you could afford it" is not an argument or justification for claiming that little timmy's monotone chibi sculpture of the character is "better and more impressive".
>forgettable
sounds like you dont actually appreciate art then
>cookie cutter in every way
lots of people being able to do it doesnt diminish the quality of the product, lol. lots of people liking/preferring it doesnt diminish the quality of the product either. you sounds like the bitter pretentious sort of faggot that would say that thomas kinkade paintings are "bad paintings" lmao.

>>724193468
>i dont like it when characters fit their setting
>they need to stand out like kids in halloween costumes or cosplay convention goers on lunch break at a random cafe

>>724189384
>gacha

>>724194272
Peak dunning kruger

>>724186365
Left:
>everything stands out
>doing as much as possible with as little as possible
>character models are unique (except I guess the rabbits/butterflies
Right:
>everything blends together
>reused character models
To be a bit more precise, I think part of the reason there are so many issues with right is that it's trying to do too much. For example, it's nice to see them try with the candles, but the way they light the environment is extremely inconsistent. The colour of the hanging flags is nice, but so at odds with the lack of colour in the rest of the scene.

>>724194456
this has nothing to do with ability or skill though. what are you talking about? its simple semantics.

>>724193359
>wind doesn't reach the grass in the top right

>>724186365
>that many single-use tiles
hm, disqualified

File: E6c5fVsUcAAHmk_.jpg (91 KB, 1465x976)

91 KB JPG

>>724186365
and you say this despite not knowing anything about art at all, curious

if you are so good post your stuff

>>724194682
That grass is too short ya dingus

>>724186365
The color pallet for left ruins it, either the buildings needed to be darker or the foliage needed to be.
As it is now, it hurts the eyes.

>>724186365
Left has a lot more thought going onto it, but once you get the theory down it takes much less effort to put together. I'll admit, I use horrible outdated software for at least a couple projects for that reason.

>>724194606
>everything stands out
because they are bright and contrasting colors.
>doing as much as possible with as little as possible
irrelvant
>character models are unique
that has no bearing on whether the pixel art or general image is of good quality or not
>reused character models
god forbid generic npcs exist. every npc MUST be a unique model, right? lmao
>the way they light the environment is extremely inconsistent.
except its perfectly consistent. the problem you're misunderstanding is that we dont see the light source above the main desk or the long table. that stems from the perspective and modeling.
>The colour of the hanging flags is nice, but so at odds with the lack of colour in the rest of the scene.
you've never hung up temporary decorations before?

>>724194870
Doesn't look too short. Also doesn't affect the patch parallel to the bottom edge of the screen in the bottom-left corner, doesn't affect the smoke from the chimney, doesn't affect the flowers in the bottom-left, doesn't affect the tree near the left edge of the screen, doesn't affect the butterfly on the flower below the red creature.

>>724193359
>>724194682
>>724194870
the grass near the painter's feet (and near the bear's feet) doesnt move at all, despite the patch in the top right dancing.

>>724195257
What if I pushed my butt against your butt and then shat directly into your butt?

>>724193445
>>724194272
This entire argument is basically the equivalent of deciding which is more impressive, making something as good as it can be with incredibly limited materials, or making something good with incredibly advanced materials.
What's more impressive, making a fire with just a single stick, or finding the proper materials to make an oven in a warehouse full of random bullshit?

>>724189437
>>724186365
if it's so good why dont actual pixelshit games look like this?
>>724193359
>>724193445

>>724195141
>god forbid generic npcs exist. every npc MUST be a unique model, right? lmao
Well when the models are that easy to change because the bases themselves are so generic, then yeah change them up at least a bit. Those character models suck ass.
>except its perfectly consistent. the problem you're misunderstanding is that we dont see the light source above the main desk or the long table. that stems from the perspective and modeling.
No mate. Just no. It's not just the innkeeper that has issues, it's all of them. Get multiple light sources to hit an object and see what happens. It isn't anything like this scene, which again wouldn't be an issue if it weren't so concerned with trying to have correct lighting. The surrounding of every light source has at least one issue, if you used your eyes I'm sure you'd notice it.

Everything else you said didn't even warrant a response, you massive spastic.

>>724195141
Some of the candles don't make much sense, especially the one near the entrance (seemingly provides less light than the others) and the one to the right of the dancer (wrong distribution, especially illuminating the side of the beam at 90 degrees completely evenly). I wanted to mention it in my first post (I'm not him) but that felt like a very minor complaint.

>>724193359
it doesnt affect ANY of the trees, or half of the butterflies, or the chimney smoke, or half of the grass. "grass too short" is stupid and irrelevant because the grass is already moving idly. if it was too short, it wouldnt be moving idly.

as it is, its a cool little spectacle/effect where it happens, but its very isolated and inconsistent.

>>724195407
>Those character models suck ass.
its literally used as a device to indicate that they arent important in any way, unlike the dancer. much like colored hair for main characters in anime.
>Get multiple light sources to hit an object and see what happens
oh man, things arent casting shadows properly! god forbid the pixel shit isnt ray traced! the gradient is too smooth and uniform! oh no! curious, why arent you critiquing the left for casting shadows in 3 different directions?

>>724195413
>the one to the right of the dancer
i'll grant you that the distribution on the right side of pillar is wrong. its too bright, even if we account for the overhead light illuminating that face of it.
>the one near the entrance
the barrel and wall are lit up just fine. there IS some color on the poster wall, but it seems that the moonlight outside supersedes it (as seen by the door's shadow). could the color technique in that area be a little better for "accuracy"? sure. right picture is still the better picture and pixel art though.

>>724189891
Bubsy looks better than any gameboy game. You lost.

>>724196176
The first you mention there isn't shining too brightly on the "wrong" side, it's lighting it up evenly when it shouldn't. Get a candle and try it, had to do it recently so it stood out.
The second is casting light right but the light itself is too weak while the candle looks the same as all others. And it can't be due to draft as the flame has the same or greater height than the rest, and it isn't inclined much either.
I'm not debating which is better, they are doing different things and require different levels of effort due to scope as I've initially said. I also said in the previous post that I consider it minor and few players will notice, fewer still will be bothered by it.

>>724193359
Why do nu indies love over-animated crap?

>>724195867
>its literally used as a device to indicate that they arent important in any way, unlike the dancer.
I meant all of the character models. They all look fucking shit, anon.
>oh man, things arent casting shadows properly! god forbid the pixel shit isnt ray traced! the gradient is too smooth and uniform! oh no! curious, why arent you critiquing the left for casting shadows in 3 different directions?
Again, for the reading impaired, the reason it's an issue on right and not left is because right tries much harder to have that realistic lighting, fails, and it ends up looking uncanny because of it. Left is stylised so errors are much easier to overlook. Fucking hell it's like talking to a toddler. And for the record, I don't think left is particularly great, just better.

Elin made me pretty upset. beautiful environments, but the characters are fucking garbage and drawn at a different scale (looks like they were deliberately designed to look like sprites that were scaled by 1.5x), and the game has disgusting filters enabled by default.

>>724186365
>more impressive
Sure
>and better looking
No

>>724192118
>limited tools means it looks better
no
left is far too busy and the best they could do within the limits but it doesn't mean it is better.

stop being retarded.

>>724195336
>>724197162
pixel art is literally about discretized constraint. it began that way and is best expressed that way. you get a 1000x1000 resolution and it looks more like a non-pixelated drawing. in that case, just use paint or pencil. that's literally why limited canvases show the essence of pixel art better.

>>724197457
>pixel art is literally about discretized constraint. it began that way and is best expressed that way
And humans started by painting on cave walls, some of those cave paintings are still beautiful, but we as humans have found better materials than stone to paint upon.

>>724197457
>it began that way
no, "pixel art" started by being the best and highest resolution 2d art games could display.
modern pixel art is looking to ape that style with the same constraints, that is not what created those constraints nor the style.
>just use paint on pencil
>that's literally why limited canvases
every single "canvas" is limited in games, by the technical constraints of the day, what systems it is targeting, and the performance requirements of what is being made.
your argument is retarded and simply doesn't make sense.
not to mention that most "pixel art" 60 years ago was physically drawn and converted to digital programmatically.

The goal is to make an appealing looking piece, be that through technical implementation, evoking emotions, or many other avenues, if that is not your goal, then you are objectively wrong and not creating artwork for something but are trying to create for yourself, which when it is a part of a larger project, means you are objectively doing the wrong thing, going against what you agreed to do, letting others down, and dragging their work down.
the left piece is a worse piece visually, regardless of the technical aspects of it, and significantly worse when you compare them.

if you wish to argue its merits then you need to argue its merits for its intended purpose, not for your arbitrary criteria.

File: aspire.png (78 KB, 1204x348)

78 KB PNG

>>724197457
Sucks to suck

>>724198179
wow, a random twitter user said this? must think like this now

>>724198013
>no, "pixel art" started by being the best and highest resolution 2d art games could display.

No difference in what I said. We both know that technical constraint defines pixel art.

>modern pixel art is looking to ape that style with the same constraints, that is not what created those constraints nor the style.

Because this is the essence of the medium. The more you depart from it the more you simply digitize illustration. Economy of pixel is part of pixel art's charm, you pedant.

>every single "canvas" is limited in games, by the technical constraints of the day, what systems it is targeting, and the performance requirements of what is being made.

This goes without saying. No computer has infinite memory.

>not to mention that most "pixel art" 60 years ago was physically drawn and converted to digital programmatically.

That doesn't change the fact that they had to decide on pixel placement, lol.

>The goal is to make an appealing looking piece
Ok.

>argue merits for its intended purpose

The intended purpose of left is visuals for the top-down view, and right is for isometric, but that doesn't change the identity of pixel art, which is pixel placement. They're blocks. Objectively, it is more impressive to do more with less, to depict and convey more with less, and this is why people aim to emulate the form instead of using 10000x10000 canvases to disappear the distinction entirely.

>>724186365
I just wish people would stop calling things "retro" if they aren't actually working within the confines of an older system. Risk of Rain is a good example. If you have 320x200 resolution but have 32bit color and FM audio than you aren't retro, you're pixel art.

>>724186365
You're high on your own farts. Don't worry about not being able to explain it because no one wants to hear it in the first place.

all this whinning and not one game posted that looks like that...

>>724198739
>digitize illustration
pixel art is inherently digital and only exists in a digital aspect
wtf are you talking about.

>Objectively, it is more impressive to do more with less
it isn't doing more though, doing less with less isn't more impressive, and that isn't objective either as that is an opinion. you clearly don't understand what objective means either.


you seem to think that accepting my points as correct means they are not relevant to what you are saying
>yes you are right about that
>but it still isn't the case
you clearly are not interested in a discussion and just want to tell people what you think and have them accept it as right, why make a thread in the first place if you don't want others opinions?
just keep your mouth shut and don't engage with others in that case.

>>724196863
>They all look fucking shit,
sounds like you have shit taste and/or are being a petty bitch about some tiny/irrelevant bullshit.
>it ends up looking uncanny because of it
its nowhere near the levels of realism where anything should be "uncanny". giving the left a free pass because "its SUPPOSED to look like shit. it has greater limitations, so shitty is the best that it CAN look" is not an argument. "trying its best" is not an argument.

if you genuinely think that the left looks better than the right, that seems indicative that you have stunted development where brighter colors and cartoons simply appeal to you more inherently. another possibility is that the simplistic style feels less offensive to you because it feels more closely to what you would be capable of doing/visualizing, so it feels more comfortable, while the right is "trying too hard" and makes you feel inferior because you could never make or visualize something of that caliber/scope.

>>724197457
>pixel art is literally about
imposed pretentious standards are pathetic and irrelevant. the right is more appealing and impressive than the left.

>>724200272
I'm talking to a zoomer, aren't I? Your opinions are trash and you're a pedant. This isn't even my thread.

>>724198179
sounds like what was "genuinely" in their heart was niche or bad. if you're looking to make art as a business, then you obviously have to make something that appeals to buyers, either by being what they want and relate to, or something SO good that the quality speaks/sells for itself. just because it was "genuine" doesnt mean it was inherently good quality.

>>724200808
>I-I-I didn't actually say that!!!! It wasn't me!!!!
>hahaha i'm not retarded, it wasn't me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nigger you have put yourself in a situation where either you are obviously trying to cover it up or you were larping as someone else and trying to argue their opinions for them because you agree with them, or why else would you be replying to this chain of responses?
so anon, tell us which flavour of retard you are, can't wait to see you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

>>724200652
You have bad taste and no standards. Go look at paintings if you dislike pixel art.

>>724198739
>it is more impressive to do more with less
no it isnt. you limitations are irrelevant to the quality of the result. the quality speaks for itself. thats why metal slug looks phenomenal while mario land 2 pales in comparison. mario land 2 had more restrictions, why isnt it more impressive and better looking? because its not that good.

>>724186365
Brighter colors and more contrast on the left. Not hard to explain at all

>>724201050
your autistic fixation that you feel the need to defend is nothing more than imposed pretentiousness. it does not translate to quality, merit, or how "impressive" something is.

>>724201051
>no it isnt.
Yes, it is. Pixel art is about mastery of limitation.

> you limitations are irrelevant to the quality of the result. the quality speaks for itself. thats why metal slug looks phenomenal while mario land 2 pales in comparison. mario land 2 had more restrictions, why isnt it more impressive and better looking? because its not that good.

I can agree that limitation doesn't automatically equal quality, but the general principle is true and we see that in the animations fluidity, sprites and master level pixel placement you see in the fire emblem sprites.

Fire Emblem is 240x160
Metal Slug is 320x224

You'll have combat encounters occur in the Tavern in SoC. If you fight in that village i assume it warps you into a battle screen wholly detached from the dancing grass and furry villagers.

i think op is talking about the impressiveness of utilizing more constricted tools to its utmost compared to the usage of newer tools not benefiting from artistic techniques of prior works of the medium. compare mgs3 and mgsdelta's halo jump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOKSqCuU7w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QNG7vo5U0g
yeah visually, delta has more textures and shit, but the impressiveness came from being able to portray this scene of this caliber on the ps2. its what makes the mgs3 halo jump amazing and what makes the delta halo jump a waste of time. personally, i think op's left and right are simply differences of art direction and shouldnt be compared. i just wanted to try deciphering what the fuck op is trying to get at.

>>724201542
>>724201051
So in other words skill produce more quality results in lower resolution than in higher resolution, before you degrade due to sheer technical impossibility. Metal Slug wouldn't be Metal Slug if it was rendered with full fidelity to a drawn picture rather than a digitized approximation using pixel blocks.

The difference from digitizing an analog drawing, which is what a certain pedant in this thread doesn't understand.

>>724201782
>uhh the op is saying, definitely not me
>a completely different person, who I am not at all

>>724202491
im not. im struggling to see the point he's trying to make and im about ready to give up and just conclude he's brown.

File: meme.png (198 KB, 839x580)

198 KB PNG

>>724202013
In less words

>>724186597
fpbp

>>724186597
resetera is two blocks down in case you wanna cry about your game journo gig back in the 90's

>>724193445
>it sucks but the medium sucks so it's good

>>724186365
>>left
>vivid, saturated, lively, well-balanced. visuals pop thanks to shading
>>right
>stretchy, lack of delineated outlines. may be higher res, but objects not as "detailed." glow looks bad and soft shading clashes with pixels and is too soft
I can see why

>>724186365
>Left is actually better because it sucks for external reasons
This is what happens when an autist becomes an artist, then becomes obsessed with minutiae and the process rather than the result.

File: sinistrals.png (38 KB, 536x290)

38 KB PNG

>>724201542
pixel art isnt even about "placing pixels" like pearler beads because plenty of pixel art that you undoubtedly praise was made with tools that click and drag and fill. its about looking pixelated. thats it. now if you wanted to argue that the picture on the right wasnt "pure" because it "uses blending tools" or whatever, you might have a point to make. but i dont know HOW it was made, and i dont think you do either.
>the animations fluidity
size/resolution has nothing to do with animation, and you're fucking retarded.

would you honestly say that the bottom sprites look better and are more impressive than the top ones in this picture?

>>724202990
>objects not as "detailed."
the word you're looking for is "distinct". they are definitely more detailed.
>shading clashes with pixels
>is too soft
pick one. complaining that the color changes are too gradual so you dont have pixelated borders of distinctly different/contrasting colors doesnt make it not pixel art. just because it has a greater color palette and resolution than what you traditionally think of for pixel art doesnt mean that its "clashing" or in any way "bad pixel art".

>>724203574
>size/resolution has nothing to do with animation, and you're fucking retarded.

It does, and it does so doubly when working within technical constraints, fool. Making frames and animating the top sprites is more labor intensive and more memory-intensive to load.

Just accept you're wrong.

>>724204232
no it doesnt. just accept that you're wrong. https://x.com/i/status/910925773736894464

>>724204232
also, all you said was "its hard and bigger". you didnt say whether they they are better looking or more impressive. answer the question.

>>724204438
I'm not clicking on that shit, you pedantic little faggot. Go back to twitter. You probably haven't even made a single sprite in your life.

>>724204593
well it didnt like me linking reddit, so i linked that one instead. you can just google "pixel mario walking fps" and click on the first video. 3fps vs 24fps. or you can look at the twitter one and see a 4fps vs 12fps of a different sprite. same sprite, same size, vastly different fluidity.

sure, you can argue "over animated" and "needlessly exaggerated motions", but thats not the point OR what you said first. you said that size directly correlates to animation fluidity and quality. you're objectively wrong and laughably retarded.

>>724193445
These are the retards who will enter any thread about art or tech, screech about limitation breeding creativity, and then get mad at indie games inspired by PS1 games that don't do something as retarded as limit themselves to as many polygons as the PS1 could have on screen at once.

>>724205649
>"limitation breeds creativity"
>*develops progress and does it better*
>"NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!!"

I really fucking hate the Gameboy/GBC Zelda games.

>>724205587
>you said that size directly correlates to animation fluidity and quality

Nope. Never did.

File: 1443918428262.jpg (65 KB, 680x509)

65 KB JPG

>>724206403
>Nope. Never did.
>>724201542
>the general principle is true and we see that in the animations fluidity
>>724204232
>>size/resolution has nothing to do with animation, and you're fucking retarded.
>It does, and it does so doubly when working within technical constraints
lmao

>>724186365
Both look good. Right looks better.

-t. Actual pixel artist.

File: 2750999471.gif (1.89 MB, 640x358)

1.89 MB GIF

>>724206180
Your arguments are vacuous because you don't have the context and don't know shit about game production.

>>724205649
.45 PARABELLUM BLOODHOUND is doing that that and nobody's telling them it looks like shit or its wrong. I think you just need to be ...better.

>>724207086
what kind of work do you do, anon? do you work on games? indy stuff? just commissions and random art/subjects? any animation?

>>724206863

>size directly correlates to animation fluidity and quality

Did I write that, bitch?

File: 1442115934527.jpg (98 KB, 800x682)

98 KB JPG

>>724207203
>i didnt write those words exactly, even if that was my point
>checkmate
lmao just take the L, retard.

>>724207343
There's no L to take. The original point was that Fire Emblem did more with less and that proves the principle. You're just pointing to higher resolution assets and sperging about it. You don't make games or make pixel art.

>>724207494
>fire emblem
you never said which one or what sort of animations specifically
you never said which metal slug you're comparing it to or what animations specifically.

regardless, that all irrelevant, because you directly correlate having smaller resolution as the reason for the "animations fluidity" when that has nothing do with animation. animation has both direction and fps to consider, which are completely separate from size/resolution. if you looked at the mario walks, that would be blatantly obvious.
>You're just pointing to higher resolution assets and sperging about it.
im just stating facts. you're pointing to lower resolution assets and sperging about it, lmao.
>You don't make games or make pixel art.
i dont need to in order to understand how animation works or whether something is better looking and more impressive, lmao. i sincerely doubt that you make anything. if you do, post some stuff that you make and prove it.

>>724207963
>regardless, that all irrelevant, because you directly correlate having smaller resolution as the reason for the "animations fluidity" when that has nothing do with animation. animation has both direction and fps to consider, which are completely separate from size/resolution. if you looked at the mario walks, that would be blatantly obvious.

Resolution DIRECTLY affects how these things are expressed in the first place, so all that shit you wrote is posturing.

Obviously the skill of the sprite artist is going to be the thing that determines fluidity and quality in the pixel art, but the original point was the demonstration of the principle, that FE's battle animations are far more impressive because of the limitations upon it, and its general artistry.

Some shithead like you is going to look at Metal Slug's more resolution and frames and think its categorically better. FE's battle animations are better.

>>724186365
Right looks too clean. Left looks busy in a lived in way but still is readable. The left covers its repetition well. The right is confident in its visual style, and the repetition in the environment is more obvious but the right is also very well detailed. In truth what doesn't work here isn't the environment. It's the characters. The characters look very stock with slight color differences in some cases, the eyes look strange. I've seen this level of detail done with a better art style for the characters. There's something that just feels wrong about it. Even the three characters that don't look like copy pastes still somehow look too similar to the copy paste characters.

I'm probably doing a bad job of explaining it.

>>724208648
>all that shit you wrote is posturing.
look at the mario walks. you have no argument because they're the same size with wildly different animations. you should consider suicide.
>are far more impressive because of the limitations upon it, and its general artistry
see: >>724203187
your fixation on external bullshit is irrelevant to the result. you're literally just a screeching autist, incapable of understanding why other people dont value the same things that you do. well, that, and also a retard for not understanding how animation works.

>>724208926
the characters standing out, and specifically due to the large, vertical eyes, not receiving the same level of detail as wood grain, glass bottles, or marbled steak, is a very valid critique. you did a good job conveying your point. it probably due to characters having animations, while the other things are static, but you're right that it still stands out a little funny. i still find it to be the better looking picture though.

i disagree that the left covers its repetition well. it doesnt really cover it much at all really. only some of the shading (which is still inconsistent with the rest of the work) of the rocks is any different, mostly the back mountain wall and only a little bit of the right mountain wall, and the bottom border of leaves.

>>724209006
Your conception of animation is basically isolating FPS. That's not all there is to it. So while I may be an autist that cares about certain particulars, you seem to not be able to connect the dots here.

File: grindelwald-switzerland-v(...).jpg (113 KB, 640x799)

113 KB JPG

>>724186365
Id be happy with both. I miss comfy.

>>724207494
>Fire Emblem did more
Wrong.
>with less
While that can be impressive, all that matters is the final product. Are you the kind of retard that pretends handheld games are as good as console ones?
>I'm an artist!
No one cares unless you're a good artist. Post something you've actually made, or shut the fuck up.

>>724186365
The only thing the right is missing is hard shadows. I see one, by the saloon doors.

File: 112278954064.gif (286 KB, 220x158)

286 KB GIF

>>724209785
FE's got great art, great gameplay, and the handhelds games exemplify both better than the console shit. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippie.

>>724210008
>FE's got great art, great gameplay
Thanks for the laugh, fake artist faggot.

>>724189437
when can AI do this for me

>>724186365
Why the fuck does Animal Village look like a fucking palette explosion? The colors were muted and didn't look like ass.

>>724209487
>you're just isolating fps
lmao cute deflection, but i also mentioned direction. having more frames doesnt necessarily create a more readable or fluid animation. also as seen in the 3vs24 mario walk, the direction of the animation (what with the bouncing hat and such) can easily be argued as "too much" and "unnecessary" making it look stupid.

regardless, the point of showing you two very different animations, one much more fluid than the other, was to illustrate and prove you wrong that size/resolution played no part in one being more fluid than the other. even giving you the benefit of the doubt about fire emblem vs metal slug (you still havent given specifics) with FE being better and more fluid, that is most likely attributed to the direction and/or fps of metal slug's animations. size is not causation. so no, you're fundamentally wrong and retarded.

>It's better because it's harder and therefore more impressive
So you're a big Dragonforce fan, Anon?

>>724186597
>t. early 2000's developer

>>724210609
that is ai

>>724186365
>Right is an actual game
>Left is just a concept art re-imagining of a Zelda game
It's retarded to even compare them since you aren't going to see someone make an entire game that looks like the left

>>724186365
I mean, it's just different styles.

>>724186365
I like right better, but would appreciate it more if there was more variation in characters there.

>>724210826
prove it

>>724210894
>he can't spot ai
ngmi

>>724189384
Agreed, OP is a troll.

>>724188620
They don't, OP is posting some weird, jank ass fanart and acting like it's from the original game. Right has really well integrated lighting that doesn't fuck up its style and actually looks decent, regardless of how realistic (or not) the light propagation is. Anyone with eyes can see that.

>>724189891
The original, monochrome art of Link's Awakening *does* actually look good, but you didn't post that, you posted this messy abomination of pixels that isn't in the game but is trying to pass off like it is.

>>724210740
Do better next time. I can't babysit you kids forever.

imagine trying to tell someone else what looks 'good'. you also tell them what tastes good too?
kek

>>724211119
i accept your concession and admission that you are wrong and have no valid argument/points.

File: file.png (257 KB, 962x963)

257 KB PNG

>>724186365
this sucks actually

>>724212482
really sucks that this person is working on monster crown instead of this kino

>>724186365
i get it. Left is probably from old console where it was impressive to pull this off. Like Fire emblem on GBA still looks fire, at least for me. Or even Advance wars then i look the remaster on switch and it's shiet, at least not appealing looking.

Left isn't even a real game. Holy shit this board is fucking retarded.

>>724195340
because it's just "art for art's sake". if you were to play an actual game with that kind of look, it's not fun because it's harder to actually see what's what, and your eyes would be tired within minutes.

>>724186365
ah this bait thread again, the algo has determined if was time for it

>>724209603
this immediately plays in my mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeEkhSpkoZg
and I'm sure I'm not the only one

>>724212482
Why is it so green?

>>724213814
its ai

File: 1564038630576.jpg (239 KB, 690x388)

239 KB JPG

>>724196648
because they don't actually play games

the image you quoted has the same energy as this

>>724186365
Bloom is one of the biggest cancers in video games and modern pixel/HD-2D games suffer from awful lighting in general and shitty colors. Even something that otherwise does a good job like Stardew Valley is ruined by ugly fucking character sprites and portraits.

>>724188138
Not him but modern anime is fucking atrocious. Bloom and other shitty effects flying around all over the place, ugly coloring and lighting (shitty coloring and lighting is a problem seemingly in all forms of modern visual entertainment), the fact that everything that's not a central character in a scene is very likely to be ugly 3D assets, especially anything mechanical, and barely touched up at that. Awful camera work. It's really, really ugly. Digital killed 2D animation in general but it was especially bad on anime given how notoriously ugly and muddy early digital anime from the 2000s tends to be.

>>724193445
left is shit at readability desu
less is more
its supposed to be game, not where is wally puzzle

>>724214440
stardew valley looks like shit
awful color choices
for everthing else I blame octopath traveler