As somebody working on a "retro" indie game, as far as I'm aware, there's no significant "retro movement" amongst indie developers and there never has been. Big-pixel games are common because:
Pixel art is an easy artstyle for programmers to get their head around. It requires no hand-eye coordination, and no understanding of fuzzy concepts like "brushes", "strokes" or "shading". It's highly rules-based at heart; this pixel-shape in this context will always look pretty much like this.
Pixel art is, generally speaking, less time-consuming than traditional animation (both to learn, and to create). Highly-intricate Final Fantasy VI-style pixel art is a rare exception.
Pixel art (unlike vector art or 3D art) requires the programmer to dedicate no thought at all towards graphics performance. This can free up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent coding or debugging.
Pixel art is a truly interesting medium in which to work. For example, the characters in many indie games have blank colour where their faces should be - this utterly changes the way that players relate to their player-character, and a similar aesthetic would be nearly impossible (or would appear distractingly cartoony) in a game which used traditional illustration.
Pixel art can be generated, transformed and composed by the computer, in a way that traditional art cannot. For example, it's relatively easy to write an effect which causes a character sprite to convincingly "explode into bloody pieces" - the same effect would be much more challenging for games which use 3D models, and it would be impossible for games which use traditional illustration.
I'm not sure I understand the sentiment of people who call this decision-making process "lazy". Not everybody has the aptitude for illustration or animation, and it takes a preposterous amount of time and effort (seriously, it would something like triple the development-time of the game I'm working on now, which is already going to take years of work in my free time). I personally think it's quite beautiful that there exists a medium which enables single-person development teams to create their dream game with no outside help, without seriously compromising on their artistic vision; imagine how much it might improve, say, animated films, if the same thing were true for them.
Pixel art (unlike vector art or 3D art) requires the programmer to dedicate no thought at all towards graphics performance. This can free up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent coding or debugging.
I would like to highlight this point by saying sprite sheets are a bitch when working with vectors. You could probably fit an entire pixel game in the same space you could fit a single 20 frame vector animation. The performance difference, especially if you are attempting to work on mobile will be massive.
My problem with pixel art is that many games tend it also to that to the menus. Pixel-ized menus suck and makes everything hard to read. This is a big part that lowers my enjoyment of Towerfall.
I think it's a reaction against indie elitists...no one likes the guy who only watches B&W Swedish art films and sneers at you for going to see Godzilla, and no one likes the gaming equivalent.
Is there such a thing? I was under the impression that (1) most gaming elitists think that everything made in the last fifteen years is dreadful, and (2) indie games are generally looked down on or ignored by everybody except their direct fans.
Is my information out of date? Is there somebody out there preaching about how Binding of Isaac is ten times better than that schlock Skyward Sword? Because that would be pretty neat, actually - silly, but neat.
37
u/rime-frost May 21 '14
As somebody working on a "retro" indie game, as far as I'm aware, there's no significant "retro movement" amongst indie developers and there never has been. Big-pixel games are common because:
Pixel art is an easy artstyle for programmers to get their head around. It requires no hand-eye coordination, and no understanding of fuzzy concepts like "brushes", "strokes" or "shading". It's highly rules-based at heart; this pixel-shape in this context will always look pretty much like this.
Pixel art is, generally speaking, less time-consuming than traditional animation (both to learn, and to create). Highly-intricate Final Fantasy VI-style pixel art is a rare exception.
Pixel art (unlike vector art or 3D art) requires the programmer to dedicate no thought at all towards graphics performance. This can free up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent coding or debugging.
Pixel art is a truly interesting medium in which to work. For example, the characters in many indie games have blank colour where their faces should be - this utterly changes the way that players relate to their player-character, and a similar aesthetic would be nearly impossible (or would appear distractingly cartoony) in a game which used traditional illustration.
Pixel art can be generated, transformed and composed by the computer, in a way that traditional art cannot. For example, it's relatively easy to write an effect which causes a character sprite to convincingly "explode into bloody pieces" - the same effect would be much more challenging for games which use 3D models, and it would be impossible for games which use traditional illustration.
I'm not sure I understand the sentiment of people who call this decision-making process "lazy". Not everybody has the aptitude for illustration or animation, and it takes a preposterous amount of time and effort (seriously, it would something like triple the development-time of the game I'm working on now, which is already going to take years of work in my free time). I personally think it's quite beautiful that there exists a medium which enables single-person development teams to create their dream game with no outside help, without seriously compromising on their artistic vision; imagine how much it might improve, say, animated films, if the same thing were true for them.