That would be a good analogy, except it doesn't quite fit the situation. What if Cyangmou posted artwork on a forum for programmers. The programmers would look at the art and go "Alright... now how are you going to code this?"
Similarly, when you're talking about pixel art 3.0 on a website dedicated to artwork by only showing us a program... the artist tend to go "Alright, now where's the pixel art? You've shown us how the tool works, but we've seen nothing that warrants the description 'pixel art'." Obviously, no one is asking for a 3D Mona Lisa. But we haven't even seen the tiniest crumb of artwork, just some doodling to experiment with the tools.
I am not speaking on behalf of anyone except myself. Seeing is believing. Do a tiny demonstration of your idea, even if it's just a 5 minute piece of work, like a small model of a birdhouse or a car or a tree. And then show us how this is pixel art. That has a lot bigger impact than trying to convince people through words.
That would be a good touche, except what others would do wrong in attitude does not justify your own. Rather I would criticize them the same, if they treated his project there like mine was treated here. Ideally, the coders would say: "I'm quite curious about trying to code this. challenge accepted!". or maybe, "this looks pretty fun, but could be hard to code.", or "I noticed a couple things here about your artwork, and that got me thinking about...", or "I'm not sure I understand you, could you clear this up? there might be a problem you haven't considered yet, from my experience." or "not sure if this is the next big thing as you make it sound, but sounds interesting anyway. at least this or that I liked so far, another thing I didn't like", or "would be fun to have a next big thing to play with. would be cool if we could make this work for once.". If he went to a gamer forum, they would say "Oh god, I so wished you could somehow make this work, that could be so cool, very promising art, my imagination goes nuts, even though I'm not sure the gameplay would actually work out."
At any case, if they responded the way you did, he'd not go there anymore. So is that it? You can try back each other up on this.
I can't blame you for being overly sceptical, or not liking it or having no interest in it. I can just tell you if I'm feeling right being here.
It's one thing to ask me out about the tool, because it's unclear yet, to figure how that works for you.
But that's really not how that went down here. No really, there's something else going on here.
To me, the attitudes rather come across as: "I'm looking for anything that confirms my suspicion of why this shouldn't work."
Instead of: "sheesh, would be fun to have something new to play with, hell why not, now let's see if we can make this work"
As to how pixel art of it would look: go to PJ and look at any pixel art there. you could have painted that on the 2d surface of a 3d wall in the tool and exported directly into bitmap, to the very same result, the same .png or .gif. This is regardless of all the 3d stuff you could also do otherwise. What makes the tool a "pixel art 3.0" simply is the principle of being able to do any 2d pixel art as well as 3d voxels, in the same work space, with the same workflow, the same code and data structure, platform specification independent. Is it better than any other pixel tool? nope. is it better than any other voxel tool? nope. The particulars of how it's more than the sum of its parts, make it pretty interesting.
To my understanding, Pixel Art 3.0 is not just what my tool presents. When you read back of how I defined the eras, any modern engine with which you can also make 2d pixel games today, suffices the definition of Pixel Art 3.0. What I do is just my own take on it, a tool aimed as what I believe the most consequential take on it, while not loosing roots. It has not only advantages, but it is another step and offers some interesting possibilities, like you may say LCD has not only advantages over CRT, but it is another step, and it affected pixel art. And the complete virtualization of the screen within a physical host screen, is another such step of display logic that affects it in how we like to go about things. Simply having to scale things up and rendering as texture, already is that virtualized pixel art, and why we've seen all kinds of things happen with that. Things you may not all like on PJ and Pix nowadays. This here is a tailored attempt to be a bit more likeable, while taking some modern advantages, in a way I feel makes a lot of sense to classic pixel art.
