Why can't I do pixel art?!

I do a lot of art type things at my day job (such as drawing Elsa on pull-ups for a resident that is obsessed with her) and I've gotten fairly good at it.

I'm not quiet a commercial artist, but I'm just below that I'd say.

However, I just can't seem to do pixel art. It's like a huge blind spot on my brain. And I LOVE pixel art. But whenever I try it just looks like crap.

See:


I get all this down time at work and wish I could use it making assets but I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.

Anyone have any suggestions?

 

I think you will need some shading to your pixel art and it will look good

Here is my pixel drawing:



Not the best one in the world, mind you, but you can see I have darkened areas at the bottom of my plane, making it look more 3D-ish.

 

Here's a quick tutorial:
1) Outline
2) Tidy up outline
3) Base color
4) Shadows
5) Highlights
6) Tint outline with contiguous colors, add small details and antialiasing.

 

It's better than mine. @elmar1028 I think his drawings are too small for shading, haha. How do you shade something that is 3 pixels wide?

I like that unshaded style where a character torso is 3 pixels. I like the climbing animation, @Not_Sure . I can't even get a decent walk cycle down. I lose it after idle animations... which for me are usually just taking a pixel or two off of the character's legs.

 

Scale it up?

 

I think it's actually very difficult (deceptive even) to do good super tiny art. Icons are actually kinda similar, and it's hard to make really good 32x32 and nearly impossible to do a good 16x16 icon. It's easy to make them, it's just hard to do a good job.

Here's a game that does a pretty good job with that art style - you can see highlights and shadows and stuff despire being absolutely tiny: http://lparchive.org/Dominions-3/Update 02/4-dom3_2_4.jpg

Also, color pallet is super important.

 

That's cheating I scaled mine up a few times at the end because of how small it was, not to sneak in some shading. That's what he said!

@frosted what about 8x8? 7-8 pixels tall, 3-5 pixels wide.

 

Well 48x32 sprites are currently the bane of my life. But done right they are absolutely timeless.

 

This is excellent low res pixel art!

You are judging the sprites in isolation. Check out the individual sprites in popular games using low res pixel art. Yours are just as good and perhaps better than some.

Once you have these all in a game in motion animating they will look fine.

 

I think they are good too.

 

If you chuck them into an environment that's drawn with the same style, they will look good.

So long as everything's done with a consistent style it should be all good.

 

Speaking of pixel art, I think my next attempt at making a game will involve pixel art. I hope to do Unity and @Ony 's logos proud!

@Not_Sure I'll come back and put my sprites here after some weeks when I've made them all so you can feel amazing about your work there.

 

For my latest little game project in Monkey X I am creating a top down action rpg.
It's all in low-color low-res pixel art which I like a lot and was doing 30 years ago.

Here is one frame of a spider on grass tiles:


It was drawn in a 16x16 grid. Normally I try to rush through this stuff but I spent 20 minutes just drawing this spider walking in 2 directions. For 8-way motion I've always "cheated" (which I think is just working smarter). I only work on the images for N and NE and I "make" all of the images for the other directions by rotating the N and NE images in steps of 90 degrees.

When you're dealing with this kind of low res low color style such as your sprites and this spider there is only so much you can do. It is a lot of fun though working in such limitations.

 

You can make 3D art than use some software to make it look pixel.

 

Looks fine to me.

 

Grass tile looks beautiful.
Reminds me of:


And your sprites seem reminiscent of old NES and PC games such as Ultima and Dave, so I wouldn't say they are bad.


I think your issue is not that your pixel art is bad, but you still not having decided on a pixel art style or looking closer at examples in that same style you want to make. And it is important to always remember pixel art is almost abstract (or an 'abstraction'), so things aren't always represented the same way you perceive them.

Plus if you have doubts, feel free to search 'Grumpy cat pixel' in Google images and see what exactly they are doing different to you

And of course, the most important thing which you may already know: do not think just because pixel style looks simple that it is simple to make. Some decide using it only assuming it will reduce the budget only to end up with a slap in the face.
I am just saying it is a craft that must be developed and takes time to be developed.

 

The difference between 'pixel' art and other styles seems to be how blocky the result is. I see a lot of very high resolution 'pixel art' in my industry. Certainly if you ever want to print anything you're starting at 300ppi to around 600ppi so to get your game featured in Xbox magazine you will want to have a suitable master. Likewise with screen ads, you will be given a specification that you must conform to. Its yields a much better result when you scale your work down to size rather than up.

Unless you have a perfect '1-take' technique, as with anything your master files should probably be many many times the size of the final output file giving you as many options as possible in the creation and final output of your graphics (why not use the tools!). Build big and scale down as several have mentioned is probably a good approach...

The lack of shadows and highlights seem to be the biggest detractors from your work which is otherwise quite good. Try the dodge tool for highlights and burn tool to block in the internal shadows in PS. Experimenting with brush opacity might get you some decent results. Try to avoid pillow shading, (difficult on a small grid I know) find and use reference images to get the shading right or just be satisfied with bad graphics like me lol.

Another thing to consider is just noise in general. Depending on the software you are using you might find a bit of noise is introduced just through working on the documents (PS) but if not a tiny bit of noise can give the impression of a whole lot of detail and make your graphic more believable as a representation of a 3D object rather than a flat looking drawing with big blocks of solid colour that look like flat surfaces. Even if you just use monochrome noise as an opaque overlay this can make a difference. The flat look is good if you have beautifully anti-aliased edges and a minimalist look but is usually not as compelling in 'pixel art' situations.

For cloth like your flag in the top image its often worth creating a rectangle with a gradient (highlight, lowlight) and then using the warp tool in PS to add a bit of shape and curvature - give it a go, simple and effective.

Just my 2c

 

Good pixel art is good contrasts and lightening on characters


Also you can read some great explanations on how it was done in games
http://gas13.ru/v3/tutorials/sywtbapa_de-mystifying_greats_1.php

You have some good 2D tutorials over the Net :

You can turn 3d models in great pixel art automatically spearing you months of work
http://mugenguild.com/forum/topics/turn-3d-models-pixel-art-164991.0.html


The english version tutorial :
http://initialsgames.com/main/?p=1360


Another Blender tutorial : 3D to pixel art using imagemagick and spritify plugin for blender.
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/2d-pixel-art-from-3d-models-blender

http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=85&v=wd_nYXlxXZU


Or just render 3d models as sprites (this was used in games like Mario RPG or Donkey kong Snes games)
http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/2013/09/15/Creating-a-game-sprite-Rendering.aspx




I hope it helps

 

Pixel art encompasses so much stuff depending on what aesthetic you are going for.

Once you get to stuff like the SNES and Neo Geo I don't find it quite as interesting. I mean sure the graphics are fantastic I just don't see it as being as much of an accomplishment when you have a palette of tens of thousands of colors with 256 or so on screen at one time.

Now retro games such as the stuff back on the C64 and DOS EGA games yeah. They had some hard limitations to work with.

Of course, most of the people who do pixel art games seem to look at it as retro and I am not sure most of them really understand what retro really is. There is generally a difference in the games besides how they look.

A really great game that I think uses the default 16-color EGA palette is Dangerous Dave in the Haunted Mansion:

Sure the graphics are awesome. They did a great job on those. There are also other trademark signs of the time. Dave looks like a hunter and a lot of emphasis is on that even down to the reloading sequences. Also we see the hidden areas and places to explore which was common for the time.

Anyway, games like this are good references for pixel art.

 

Just throwing another tutorial I found useful out there:

http://flashgamedojo.com/wiki/index.php?title=2D_Tile_Art_Basics&oldid=737

 

As (mostly) a 3D animator - I find creating pixel art and creating animations of pixel art two different levels of complexity, especially if the interest is in pushing the art form beyond the "retro" look. IMO 2-3 frame animation cycles are not very appealing but are very often required to deliver the feeling desired in the art or to get the controls to feel right.

Drawing images of pixel art (non moving background images) or single image characters is a fun exercise in getting as much detail as you want with a limited color pallet and less detail. Its frustratingly fun!
Once you have a image or character in a finished created form, the animation process to get it moving correctly/believably really relies on the 12 principles of animation - with an emphasis on principles 1,2, 8,9,10 but grounded in pixel art limitations and game development limitations. Iteration isn't optional for polish - it is mandatory for visual appeal and functionality.
The number one game development limitation is frames, can be seen in the Earth Worm Jim games where traditional artists were given liberty to show as much detail in the animations as they could, which resulted in beautiful visuals AND very unresponsive, laggy controls because there were too many animation frames to render to have tight controls. You can also see this in older fighting games and beat em ups.
The limitations in pixel art fights the 12 principles in staging, solid drawing (form) and to some appeal. BUT the great advantage of pixel art is the ability to fix/edit/iterate on creations very quickly compared to other game assets.
I find pixel art a dichotomy - appealing, frustrating, time consuming and also extremely rewarding and fun.

 

I love old retro games, but by gawsh darn I can't stand to make them. I would rather make a full blown Battle Field game than even try to make one sprite sheet for one character lol.

 

But if you do make that sprite sheet, it will never age.

 

I don't exactly follow what you mean?

Do you mean like the quality of the work will always be the same because pixel art is what it is and ain't what it isn't (Suceptable to more and more modern quality standards for 3d graphics (E.G. - Low Poly > High Poly).

If that's what you mean then that is very much so true lol.

 

What I mean is pixel art is something that came about because of the technical limitations at the time. However those limitations no longer apply... yet we still view pixel art as a valid art form. Compared to 3D graphics pixel art ages much much better, it's not nostalgia that attracts people to such graphics, it's because they still look damn good.

 

Yeah I hear you.... That is very much so true.

 

Not really. For whatever reason, pixel art gets judged apart from other 2D art styles, or rather the people who like pixel art judge it apart from other styles. Compared to the more high res hand painted look, pixel art is frequently an inscrutable collage that at best allude to a form. There's a reason the internet has retroactively dubbed a game "bird versus camel."

3D graphics have always been comparable to the 3D renders of movies, and have always been lackluster. 2D on the other hand is at a point where it's arguably on par, probably better even, with cartoon animations, yet we want to intentionally encumber ourselves with poorer visual fidelity?

 

Because there appears to be demand for this style. Everything is fashion and if you tell someone often enough that they need a beard to be cool or that pixelated graphics are the in thing then eventually they'll believe it (or at least the majority). Lots n lots of high res blocks being generated by expert designers who could be breaking new ground but have been told by business types to appeal to the market. That and some consider it to be easy, low hanging fruit not realizing that good is good whether its a crayon drawing or an oil painting.

 

Well there is the thing of any old mug can throw some pixels together, but it's quite a skill to make them look good. But I guess that's just the "art" side of it. It's just a style, it may be your cup of tea, it may not. Apparently a lot of people like it, and I'm sure there's an equally great number who consider it to be heresy.

I've chosen to go with it because it's a style I personally enjoy. I'd have a much easier time with conventional 3D modelling, but I prefer the look of 32 bit style sprites. But then again there is the possibility I've gone completely mad.

 

I don't think your pixel art is bad.
But some shading and a stronger color palette would definitely help to improve your art.
You can also get some inspirations and a bunch of helpful tutorials at pixeljoint

 

You've not gone mad at all, pixel art done well is cool, like pointillism it can be amazing when its done well. The thing is that many many people are stuck with the 'make it like minecraft' brief because someone sniffs a buck in it and believes that blocky graphs mean low quality which in business means fast and/or cheap. They're also convinced that people will buy it because of its association with minecraft (pixel art and minecraft are the same thing right? Cue the billions).

The style then becomes fashion and we have to go through a couple of years of having to make everything and then pixelate to satisfy a style guide. Sorry, bitter personal experience much? lol Your experience may vary but in the toy industry it's starting to get a bit dull!

 

It does annoy me when people associate pixel art's popularity with minecraft. It's pretty well known that the art style itself isn't a strong point, I mean there's a large community dedicated to replacing it. When I hear pixel art I think more like this:



Which admittedly is a hell of a standard to live up to. But it's always interesting to break it down and look at the techniques used to make it.

 

Because too much people are lazy to work on it or does not have the skills to do better than over simplistic.


It was machines limitations before, but to day anyone should be able to detail pixel art to some degree even without beegin skilled.
I don't buy such 2D games using too much simplistic style today.

 

The dirty little secret here is there's no actual market demand for it. The only people who clamor for pixel art are a vocal minority who await the true retro revival like it's the second coming of christ. The vast majority are either indifferent or adamantly repulsed by pixel art, either because they just hate the art style or because it's a hallmark of throwaway graphics.

The real source of demand is from developers themselves, but the market itself doesn't give a S*** about whatever arbitrary limitations you restrict yourself to. It doesn't care what your poly cap is, or what your color limit for sprites are, because what really matters is the game. The whole point of visuals it to inform the player, and if it doesn't do that, you have terrible graphics.

 

Ha ha. Where people come up with some of this stuff is beyond me. There is interest in pixel art. That should be common sense. Places like PixelJoint have been around a while and alone they have about 70,000 members. People interested in the aesthetic and skill of pixel art. There are other such communities out there as well. Check out pixel art games and you will find comments "I love these kind of graphics!!". Shovel Knight sold about 750,000 copies. There are people who like pixel art. The same as there are people who like photo realistic 3D and others who like cartoony 3D and so on.
A huge segment of people don't simply cease to exist because someone here cannot understand why anyone would like pixel art.

 

I'm sure you would... after going past several comments that didn't care for it in the slightest. Pixel art, as an actual art style, is just an extension of pointillism and mosaics with newer technology. It's not that unrealistic then to find that people take to it as an artistic pursuit. For the purposes in games however, where art serves a utilitarian value above just aesthetic, pixel art has little reason to remain a valid option. When art needs to quickly, clearly, and intuitively convey information to the player, why would pixel art be high on your list of ways to achieve this?

 

Because it's easy to iterate and do - for initial graphic design and prototyping, and for those who aren't interested in proper lighting and shading techniques. Less pixels = less graphics to perfect for those who do not desire or do not have the ability to draw/model/color.

And also because it is hard. Some people enjoy the challenge of attempting to properly create nice looking art with minimal pixels, proper lighting, shading, form and animation.

 

That is a good answer. Basically because it is effective. Graphics in games mainly are just for communication. Whether some ammo is represented by a 16x16 pixel art flashing icon or a blinking HD textured 3D model ultimately what is the important thing being communicated? "Oh look ammo!"

 

Speaking of pixel art that will make your eyes beg for more....



More info here --> http://www.wolfbrewgames.com/slain/

 

I think this is why pixel art will remain popular because it introduces an extra edge of contrast when it's created correctly although those waterfalls look out of place in pixilation compared to the rest of the scene.

 

That's an excellent example of setting the mood. Artistic pixel art rather than functional pixel art. I agree about the waterfall. It breaks the scene. Not sure why they went with a high res on that and low for everything else. Consistency is important. The barbarian style warrior looks great!

 

So because it's easy to throw S*** together and for the sport of it? Both of which are catered purely to the whims of the developer, with no thought to the player.

Why do you even need art then? Just have text saying "ammo". If the point is communication, then skip the symbolic middle man and use actual language.

 

I've thought about that a few times. Of course, our brains actually work with images so that may be an important factor but I have considered just having labeled squares / cubes. The player a simple rectangle YOU and a tiny arrow pointing the direction facing. It may work. It all depends on how effective the messages are communicated. If the player has a lower attack and a high attack for example probably a punch! or kick! word at the appropriate height would be sufficient. Rotation clockwise for the upper attack and counter for the lower attack would work too.

I am not sure man and it would be a very interesting experiment.

 

I can't see the individual pixels on my screen. I'm not going to call that pixel art.

 

Well it could be real pixel art which has nothing to do with the size of the pixels. I just wonder why they didn't stick with low or high resolution for everything.

 

I could be the same "resolution" for everything. Maybe the alpha or fake alpha just hides the individual pixels...

 

You have a great eye! I certainly could not see it in the little image. I grabbed the image and put it in a paint program and zoomed up and low and behold the waterfall does indeed use the same resolution.

They seem to be using a large number of colors and that combined with the animation makes it look very smooth and at a higher resolution. Not sure exactly how many I did a color count in PSP and it said 209 for the waterfall.

I'd like it better if they used maybe 8 or 16 colors max on the waterfall so it had the same look as the rest of the scene. It does look awesome overall though.

 

In total agreement with you Rocko.
And this swings back around to the question/dilema - Are we creating games for ourselves or for others?
I'm creating stuff I want to make - and hope others may like what I make as well.

But I fall into the second camp - Pixel art is a challenge for me. A fun, difficult challenge, and I've come to respect nice quality pixel art in games because I know how time consuming it is to create, when done right.
I think it's rewarding to create something with limited resolution. Though I usually result to 3D because it's easier for me, and it is more versatile.

 

You can always tell when a game is designed for fun or for profit.

I'm going to look into that 3D model => 2D sprite plugin for blender. My 3D art and 2D art is terrible... but if I'm taking a 3D object and lowering the quality intentionally, the result might look deliberate!

update on posting back: I'll still make a few by hand and post so people can admire what anti-art is. ETA - this weekend

 

Well, in this case it's not for a game at all. The only game I'm working on is the one in my profile pic.

I'm really doing the pixel art for poops and giggles. And because I have a lot of down time at work sometimes and need something to help keep me awake at 4:00 AM.