Don’t get me wrong, I love the creativity that comes from having such a limitation. And back when it was a necessity, and you could count the color palette on your fingers, some pixel art was amazing. But it was largely about trying to transcend those limitations. For example, it was very common to use antialiasing as much as possible, because you’re trying to make things look good despite the pixellation.
Whereas the aesthetic of modern pixel art tends to be about making things as clunky and jaggy as can be, so you can really check out those pixels, or showcase that crappy color palette. Conspicuous pixellation is untrue to its origins. It also makes game objects less recognizable, sacrificing utility for an aesthetic.
I know there are people who like it, which is fine, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be criticized, and so far I have seen no counterpoints to the criticisms I have raised.
I was wondering how pixelation actually adds utility to the game. But I’ve looked at a few screenshots and Rimworld doesn’t seem particularly pixelated to me. Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes here, because Rimworld does have “pixel art” in the sense that it’s drawn pixel by pixel, and it does have the simplistic style that’s common in pixelated games. But it’s displayed at reasonably high resolution so it’s not noticeably pixelated.
What I’m bitching about is games like Stardew Valley where they have committed to fewer pixels on screen. The simplistic style with higher resolution in Rimworld is clear and functional. What I’m saying is that pixelated games would be better if they did the same.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the creativity that comes from having such a limitation. And back when it was a necessity, and you could count the color palette on your fingers, some pixel art was amazing. But it was largely about trying to transcend those limitations. For example, it was very common to use antialiasing as much as possible, because you’re trying to make things look good despite the pixellation. Whereas the aesthetic of modern pixel art tends to be about making things as clunky and jaggy as can be, so you can really check out those pixels, or showcase that crappy color palette. Conspicuous pixellation is untrue to its origins. It also makes game objects less recognizable, sacrificing utility for an aesthetic. I know there are people who like it, which is fine, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be criticized, and so far I have seen no counterpoints to the criticisms I have raised.
For example, Rimworld uses pixelart for utility before aesthetic.
Btw, aesthetic vs. ästhetik; what english volks do just to not use Umlauts.
That’s interesting. I’ve never played Rimworld, how does that work?
I’m not sure i understand what you mean. It’s a minimalistic style.
I was wondering how pixelation actually adds utility to the game. But I’ve looked at a few screenshots and Rimworld doesn’t seem particularly pixelated to me. Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes here, because Rimworld does have “pixel art” in the sense that it’s drawn pixel by pixel, and it does have the simplistic style that’s common in pixelated games. But it’s displayed at reasonably high resolution so it’s not noticeably pixelated.
What I’m bitching about is games like Stardew Valley where they have committed to fewer pixels on screen. The simplistic style with higher resolution in Rimworld is clear and functional. What I’m saying is that pixelated games would be better if they did the same.
Got it, thanks.