Pixelation
Critique => Pixel Art => Pixel Art Feature Chest => Topic started by: Cyangmou on November 23, 2013, 06:12:34 pm
-
So I wanted to ask something which I am questioning myself since a long time, but it seems I don't come to a satisfying answer and yeah, this is intended to be a critique thread, so don't move it to the general discussion board.
With which resolution and charsize would you proceed?
please check the HD versions 1:1 on your monitor
The character sprite I use is currently just placeholder and will be redone, but before I will do that I am interested into thoughts on overall size impression.
If you have a different feeling than my approaches, feel free to do a quick resize.
The bigger version of the char was initially done for a 640x480 resolution (quite useless in the retrospective and either to big or to small to be used for a HD resolution)
since I want to have full HD resolution (1920x1080) I have basically 2 choices
-960x540 displayed with 200% (making the char slightly bigger)
-640x360 displayed with 300% (making the char slightly smaller)
the 640x360 300% seems to have a much nicer "pixely" look, which means, that the game would intentionally read much more like a modern pixel art game, while the bigger resolution definitely has more space for details and looks much cleaner.
My prefered two versions are 960x540 110%char and 640x360 90%char - which one is better? Maybe you have an even better idea for the overall size.
(http://www.abload.de/img/overviewc0y5u.png)
http://www.abload.de/img/300_hdduzfu.png (http://www.abload.de/img/300_hdduzfu.png)
http://www.abload.de/img/200_hdakykj.png (http://www.abload.de/img/200_hdakykj.png)
some gif tests with the sizes, to get a better feeling
the link always leads you to a full HD image
-960x540 displayed with 200%
(http://www.abload.de/img/960_540_2k2xu6.gif)
http://www.abload.de/img/960_540_2_hdwtbio.gif (http://www.abload.de/img/960_540_2_hdwtbio.gif)
-640x360 displayed with 300%
(http://www.abload.de/img/640_360_2auav6.gif)
http://www.abload.de/img/640_360_2_hdbtaw0.gif (http://www.abload.de/img/640_360_2_hdbtaw0.gif)
-
The 110% version looks much cleaner, as you said. In my opinion, the 110% version fits the surrounding much better, the 90% version looks too much like child (size wise).
I'm pretty sure the surroundings are the same on both images, am I correct?
-
110% for the character, or as big as you can, with how huge these resolutions are coming. We don't want the character getting lost in everything going around him.
Bigger character means more focus and prominence, and less space for distractions around your screen for your eyes to get lost into. Well.. I'd say it just feels cozier somehow. And the pixels look more crisp and beautiful if zoomed.
Something about a smaller resolution size with character at 110% just clicks right after testing right away, compared to the other. I could elaborate more, but to go deep into golden ratio calculations or other successful references from other games may be too much for me tonight.
Btw, this is freaking huge.
-
@gamer:
the surroundings are the same yeah.
I added them mainly to give a clue about how big a single pixel looks assets wise and to show how the details work on a screen together with the char.
The not exactly fitting size relationships from char to environment actually don't hurts, it's more about the look of the overall detail level and how much playable space surrounds the character.
@vagrant:
If you have more reference or you come up with an formula, feel free to do so.
I established the character size quite a while back for 640x480 and don't have solid theories how a widescreen changes established character size/tile relationships.
-
Would definitely go with the larger one, considering that you want to go with a 1920x1080 resolution as the maximum. I would always aim everything to fit with the limits of what I have to work with, in your case being a really big resolution size.
A smaller character on a bigger screen resolution would seem awkward, too small compared to the rest of the world; obviously depends on the resolution (i.e a 30x50 character on a 1280x768 resolution would look way too small and hard to follow compared to character let's say double that size, 60x100, on that same resolution).
Incidentally, it also goes the other way around, you don't want your character to be too big on the smallest resolution you have to offer, but I doubt that's going to be a problem.
It also depends on what you're trying to achieve and work with; a smaller character would consequently make the whole world around him look vaster (especially with the resolution of 1920x1080), and would also make your work easier, particularly on animations.
But it also has its downfalls; the amount of detail you can put onto him, and the balance between his size and the max resolution size.
On a lesser note, the objects around the 90% version look somewhat too big compared to him.
-
small one gives me the feeling that I'd be Mr. Nobody in the city, possibly a newcomer. The larger one gives the feeling that the guy owns the place, that he's the one people step back to let him walk uninterruptedly.
-
640x360 and 100% character size looks best imo.
-
If you feel that 300% works fine in terms of chunky pixels then I'd say go for it. You'll be needing to reduce workload however you can and the pixel-tech is more than good enough to stand up to the lower resolution I think. The 90%/300% scale feels more intimate while 200% gives a better overview. I prefer 300% but depends how important you feel good overview is I guess?
-
960x540 , Character 100%
I'm using Full HD IPS LG MONITOR
Your work looks very good!
-
The pixel art feels much more purposeful at 640x360. At 960x540, there's aesthetically no reason not to use HD art.
Another thing to keep in mind is that 640x360 will also scale perfectly to 720p!
-
Show us a mockup with the updated sprite from the other topic. I like the 640x360 with 90% or 100% sprite.
-
since the proportions of the char changed it seems that this also affect sthe readability by a lot
the 720p is a valid argument
goldenratio seems to be useless for this
(http://www.abload.de/img/newchar_640_360fyd9n.png)
640x360 goldenratio (http://www.abload.de/img/newchar_640_360_goldejofxt.png)
640x360 HD (http://www.abload.de/img/newchar_640_360_hd6oehq.png)
(http://www.abload.de/img/newchar_960_540dxdpu.png)
960x540 goldenratio (http://www.abload.de/img/newchar_960_540_goldezec69.png)
960x540 HD (http://www.abload.de/img/newchar_960_540_hdtncmf.png)
-
The pixel art feels much more purposeful at 640x360. At 960x540, there's aesthetically no reason not to use HD art.
Another thing to keep in mind is that 640x360 will also scale perfectly to 720p!
What he said.
In many ways, making the pixel art bigger would mean.. The workload for any sort of usable or functional setting would go as high as Mt. Everest.
Nevertheless, 640x360 looks better.
..And here I thought my own project was big enough, at 352x240. Admirable, sir. :o
-
The pixel art feels much more purposeful at 640x360. At 960x540, there's aesthetically no reason not to use HD art.
Another thing to keep in mind is that 640x360 will also scale perfectly to 720p!
What he said.
In many ways, making the pixel art bigger would mean.. The workload for any sort of usable or functional setting would go as high as Mt. Everest.
Nevertheless, 640x360 looks better.
..And here I thought my own project was big enough, at 352x240. Admirable, sir. :o
640x360 indeed looks better, since the bigger resolution just reveals too much in my opinion.
the 720p is an argument which mustn't be overlooked.
So basically I have no other choice than using 640x360.
The environment workload however always depends on how big your world is. If you have a fantasy world with multiple climatic zones, lots of maps and stuff a generic RPG has, that resolution would kill every project from the graphical workload.
However if there is just one city with some remarkable locations, there is a high chance of reusing stuff over and over without getting boring. It's just all a big design question and about reuse.
I can do 2-3 trees for a city and use them over and over and a single bottom texture for all the streets. If I have instead a vast fantasy world I will need at least 20 different trees and more than 50 different bottom textures.
The design has to be done anyways for every single asset, outworking an asset once you have the design in this resolution takes 1.5 to 3 times longer than with a 16x16 tile approach.
And tbh the whole thing is highly theoretical and experimental. If I'd go with a common approach the resolution question won't be that important.
Most RPG games use smaller characters, mainly because most modern RPG games have action battle systems and you need the overview for the fights, for that the current char would be to big for 640x360.
Adventure games and some sideview fighting games use characters which are even bigger than half the height of the resolution, and it's also fine
(http://emultest.free.fr/screenshot/gbaswordofmana1.png)
(http://www.games10.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/581161701_c71fe51260_o1262211279.png)
(http://www.tentakelvilla.de/mm/maniac-1.jpg)
if we remove the (outdated) black menu we theoretically end up with a widescreen
I think how big a character finally is depends on all the directions you can move and how the action in the game works, if you can move in all 4 directions the character shouldn't be bigger than a third of the screen height.
An interesting thing is also the height at which the character is displayed. Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow for Example uses big Characters with 3-directional movement and it always felt right
(http://de.games.konami-europe.com/media/de/000140499.jpg?gamePlatformInfoId=148)(http://www.the-nextlevel.com/media/nds/castlevania_ds/castlevania_ds10.jpg)
So regarding to these observations:
I moved the char 16px down from the middle to get more space at the top, slight chance, but completely different feel of spacing
(http://www.abload.de/img/640x360_charmoveddown2uc86.png)