Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
New posts
No new postsDated Artwork/Graphics
.....i think at the end of the day that pixel-art is not an easy job at all, and we might wanna cherish it and the companies like Wadjeteye that came with many titles that are even to the golden era classics.
The kind of graphics in the WadjetEye games will be around as long the AGS development tool exists I think - also I don’t consider the games as examples of pixel-art. Even the earlier games enlarged to full-screen size have some clarity of detail.
If the game and its story are interesting enough, you might not pay attention to details. That has happened to me too. That’s what good stories do.
On the same note, however, it shouldn’t really matter what kind of graphics the game is using, or no graphics at all. In story-driven games it’s all about the story, and graphics is (if there is any) just a vehicle to support it.
I really don’t understand how graphics can prevent immersion, if it’s internally consistent. I mean, in Sam & Max games you try to immerse yourself in a wacko world by guiding a talking dog and his sidekick bunny. Does it really matter that much whether the graphics is LucasArts pixelart or Telltale “realistic” style?
It’s all made up nonsense world anyway?Unless you are trying to find some hardcore realism, which is almost non-existent in adventure genre anyway, then the style of graphics really shouldn’t make any difference.
One of my favorite theories is one often presented by Nicholas Meyer, the director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (among other things).
“I think that art thrives on restrictions that is for sure.
...
And I think that art that leaves things to the imagination of the viewer or the audience or the reader tends to engage them more fully than art that leaves nothing to the imagination.”
That very well relates to pixelart style, yes?
The style of graphics doesn’t particularly matter to me but my immersion is hampered by extreme ‘pixel-art’. It’s like trying to sell me the artistic merit of watching a film through frosted glass. Games (text adventures aside) are a visual medium so ‘fuzzy’ doesn’t do it for me!
Thanks for the GK example & the Wikipedia link for the Game On exhibition - it looks like an interesting exhibition but it seems to be in China at the mo? so a bit far to go.
The Darkside Detective actually isn’t dated in the same sense as the original pixelart is. Let’s look at this image.The graphics style is obviously very much inspired by the early adventure games, and is an artistic choice. But if you look at the details again, it’s completely different from the technically limited pixelarts. Look at the reflections and glowing around characters. That is much more detailed than the “pixels” that the characters are made of. Absolutely no classic adventure game had graphics like this.
Artistic choice & functional design can be worlds apart sometime - I’ve seen amazing examples of say furniture & fashion but in both cases items didn’t work as usable items. Pixel-art obviously works for some players but as a visual aid to telling a story in a game it doesn’t work for me! (I can’t be the only one?)
It’s coming from the fact that the game is, quite literally, dated. It was made in the mid 00s and left unfinished as Unimatrix Productions went into dormancy for around a decade.It was then recently revived, finished and released along with the other already released Unimatrix Productions titles in a different format which is much closer to interactive fiction.
I’m guessing the graphics filters were used to hide the obviously dated quality of the graphics but clearly, unless your name is chrissie, they haven’t worked.
It’s still a pretty good game, if B-movie mystery/thrillers are your thing.
Yes, the graphics do work for me as they give a good indication of the environments & appearance of the characters.
As said before I’m guessing that they weren’t intended to be displayed full screen & used in small windows as in the remakes of the previous games?
From an artistic point of view, yes the pixel-art in TDD wins over - it’s quite beautiful & would look nice hanging on my wall but I don’t want it in a game!
I think there are a couple of factors at play here.
One is the uncanny valley effect as tea_tree says - something that tries to look like a realistic human/animal but doesn’t get it quite right is much more jarring and hard to empathise with than something that’s obviously stylised. There is a dating effect there in that when each generation of CGI is new our response is how unprecedentedly realistic it is, but before long we learn to notice the specific flaws of that generation and they seem glaringly obvious.
The other is simply that if you make a pixelated (or pseudo-pixelated, as pointed out above) game in 2018 it’s obviously a deliberate art decision, whereas if you use an engine that’s trying to be realistic then any aspects that fall short seem more like flaws. The same reason hand-drawn animation ages better than CGI.
That said, I rather like the look of Stonewall Penitentiary. I do think it looks a lot better with the filters.
It’s coming from the fact that the game is, quite literally, dated. It was made in the mid 00s and left unfinished as Unimatrix Productions went into dormancy for around a decade.It was then recently revived, finished and released along with the other already released Unimatrix Productions titles in a different format which is much closer to interactive fiction.
I’m guessing the graphics filters were used to hide the obviously dated quality of the graphics but clearly, unless your name is chrissie, they haven’t worked.
It’s still a pretty good game, if B-movie mystery/thrillers are your thing.
Yes, the graphics do work for me as they give a good indication of the environments & appearance of the characters.
As said before I’m guessing that they weren’t intended to be displayed full screen & used in small windows as in the remakes of the previous games?From an artistic point of view, yes the pixel-art in TDD wins over - it’s quite beautiful & would look nice hanging on my wall but I don’t want it in a game!
Well I wasn’t touching on the quality of the graphics, just pointing out that they are indeed “dated” in every sense of the word. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
But if you want my opinion on their quality, bearing in mind I quite liked the game…
...I think they’re hideous. 
But if you want my opinion on their quality, bearing in mind I quite liked the game…...I think they’re hideous.
GateKeeper, I think the differences in the art style are so subtle within the game not to be noticeable at least by me
The visuals of a game can bring a story to life & immerse you in a game world from basic drawings of stickmen to full blown FMV.
I’m sorry; I just don’t get how big blocky colours of pixel art can help to immerse me in a game world????If the game and its story are interesting enough, you might not pay attention to details. That has happened to me too. That’s what good stories do.
On the same note, however, it shouldn’t really matter what kind of graphics the game is using, or no graphics at all. In story-driven games it’s all about the story, and graphics is (if there is any) just a vehicle to support it.
I disagree. Graphics are not just there to support a story, they are part of the story. I’ve said many times that I’ll play any adventure with a good story and lots of exploration, regardless of puzzles and graphics, so I’ve played a few pixelart ones. And every single time I hate the unimmersive blocky graphics with no info. The thought even crossed my mind that “pixelart” has become popular among indie developers because some or many of them lack the necessary skills to produce better or more interesting graphics.
https://adventuregamers.com/forums/viewthread/4677/
I’ve played Darkside Detective, didn’t much care for it, but that’s just me. I fail to see how the pixelart supports the story, the humor, or gameplay.
Well chrissie, if it’s in your mind, then you won’t mind pointing out which game & date the graphics of Darkside Detective remind you of?
Well, you’ve got me there as actually it doesn’t because I can’t think of anything dated that’s got graphics so terrible!
Space Invaders fits the bill. Yes, 1978. 
BTW, your comparison with pointillism doesn’t cut any ice with me. If anything, “pixel art” is the opposite of pointillism.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
BTW, your comparison with pointillism doesn’t cut any ice with me. If anything, “pixel art” is the opposite of pointillism.
Care to enlighten us how then?
Pixelart is a way to compose a whole image out of points called pixels.
Pointillism is a way to compose a whole image out of points called points.
The underlying method is exactly the same.
Also, the mentality behind is similar. Artists who chose to paint using pointillism didn’t do that because they didn’t manage to do realistic style, they knowingly went away from realism, renaissance, and romanticism, just like pixelartists are knowingly choosing not to use, let’s say, pre-rendered 3D models flattened to 2D.
But OK, let’s not rely on opinions, let’s have some examples.
In both of those images the artist has, as a conscious choice, created human figures whose facial features are invisible to the viewer. Also the background is in both cases mostly vertical and horizontal lines suggesting some building in the background, but no small details visible.
I would REALLY like you to tell us, how these two styles are complete opposites of each other in any way?
BTW, your comparison with pointillism doesn’t cut any ice with me. If anything, “pixel art” is the opposite of pointillism.
Care to enlighten us how then?
Pixelart is a way to compose a whole image out of points called pixels.
Pointillism is a way to compose a whole image out of points called points.The underlying method is exactly the same.
Also, the mentality behind is similar. Artists who chose to paint using pointillism didn’t do that because they didn’t manage to do realistic style, they knowingly went away from realism, renaissance, and romanticism, just like pixelartists are knowingly choosing not to use, let’s say, pre-rendered 3D models flattened to 2D.
All digital art is ‘pixel-art’ in that it’s made up of pixels so yes, in principle, the underlying method is exactly the same.
But, the difference lies in the current portrayal of ‘pixel-art’ which uses large obvious blocks of pixels
as opposed to the tiny indistinguishable dots of colour (applied by the tip of a paintbrush).
Actually that’s misleading as there are examples of ‘rougher’ pointillism using distinguishable dots but that still present a more detailed presentation of a person and/or scene than anything extreme ‘pixel-art’ does.
But OK, let’s not rely on opinions, let’s have some examples…...
........in both of those images the artist has, as a conscious choice, created human figures whose facial features are invisible to the viewer. Also the background is in both cases mostly vertical and horizontal lines suggesting some building in the background, but no small details visible.I would REALLY like you to tell us, how these two styles are complete opposites of each other in any way?
The styles for sure are using the same principle but pointillism even in its most basic form has far more ‘description’ - the first example has a lot of finesse & although there may be a lack of detailed facial features as a conscious choice the fact is there’s enough there to pick up an ambience for the scene & the method does allow for more detail to be portrayed - it’s neither here nor there that the artist chose not to.
The second example is quite a basic & crude example of a ‘pixel- art’ scenario where further detail couldn’t be added due to the restrictions of using that method.
These two styles are indeed in these two examples complete opposites of each other in all ways!
Space Invaders fits the bill. Yes, 1978.
It was innovative at the time & I was amazed. I never thought that 40 years later someone would be trying to kid me that the graphics were equivalent to pointillism!
You didn’t address my other points, but okay.
BTW, your comparison with pointillism doesn’t cut any ice with me. If anything, “pixel art” is the opposite of pointillism.
Care to enlighten us how then?
Pixelart is a way to compose a whole image out of points called pixels.
Pointillism is a way to compose a whole image out of points called points.The underlying method is exactly the same.
That’s not saying much. Drawing is a way to compose a whole image out of pencil lines. Essential to pointillism is that the image is created by patterns of small points in different colors. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, so the painting looks different from a distance than it does close by.
I don’t see anybody do the same thing with pixels. The resolution would have to be very high for it to work, and isn’t the blocky look the whole point of pixelart? Totally different objectives.
Also, the mentality behind is similar. Artists who chose to paint using pointillism didn’t do that because they didn’t manage to do realistic style, they knowingly went away from realism, renaissance, and romanticism, just like pixelartists are knowingly choosing not to use, let’s say, pre-rendered 3D models flattened to 2D.
But OK, let’s not rely on opinions, let’s have some examples.
Seeing Seurat’s rich, interesting painting compared to the boring, uninspired Darkside Detective screenshot made me flinch, to be honest.
In both of those images the artist has, as a conscious choice, created human figures whose facial features are invisible to the viewer. Also the background is in both cases mostly vertical and horizontal lines suggesting some building in the background, but no small details visible.
So now you’re no longer talking about technique but about the subject matter and style. Irrelevant IMO. But now that you mention facial features, it’s a mystery to me why the DD characters don’t have any. I’d call that a serious mistake on the part of the not very talented artist, because people want to see at the very least eyes in human characters.
I would REALLY like you to tell us, how these two styles are complete opposites of each other in any way?
Seurat uses small points of different colors to create a bigger picture in another color. DD uses large blocks of pixels in one color to create the hard-edged look of blown-up pixels.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
That’s not saying much. Drawing is a way to compose a whole image out of pencil lines. Essential to pointillism is that the image is created by patterns of small points in different colors. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, so the painting looks different from a distance than it does close by.
Seurat uses small points of different colors to create a bigger picture in another color. DD uses large blocks of pixels in one color to create the hard-edged look of blown-up pixels.
One colour…? Is there something wrong with your monitor perhaps?
If you look at that screenshot closely, you see a whole number of colours and shades, and so much is being conveyed with so little.
For instance:
Look at those three scout kids. The one on the left has a slightly lighter shade on the uniform, indicating or giving the impression of being fatter than the other two.
Look at the detective’s face. By using different shades you get an impression of his face having that classic unshaven overworked cop look.
Look at his shirt. Just by inserting two, only two!, “pixels” of darker blue, we get an indication of his shirt being a collar shirt, instead of t-shirt or something else.
I think you guys haven’t really looked at those screenshots at all, and are writing from some mental image created by the early Sierra adventures or something, which really had a limited 16-colour palette.
Even with that, however, they managed to convey quite a lot of information.
It’s quite clear what’s the difference between technical limitations and artistic choice, when comparing King’s Quest and The Darkside Detective.
Some things are always up to the artists and their preferences. In those King’s Quest screenshots we really don’t see the protagonist’s eyes, but we do see eyes of those other people in the room, so for whatever reason, they made a choice like that.
In the case of The Darkside Detective they have chosen not to show any eyes at all, and I find that to be a very interesting and intriguing choice.
That’s not saying much. Drawing is a way to compose a whole image out of pencil lines. Essential to pointillism is that the image is created by patterns of small points in different colors. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, so the painting looks different from a distance than it does close by.
Seurat uses small points of different colors to create a bigger picture in another color. DD uses large blocks of pixels in one color to create the hard-edged look of blown-up pixels.
One colour…? Is there something wrong with your monitor perhaps?
Yes, just one color.
If you look at that screenshot closely, you see a whole number of colours and shades, and so much is being conveyed with so little.
I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this conversation. You ignore everything I’ve said.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this conversation. You ignore everything I’ve said.
You started your post by bringing up pointillism many colours vs. pixelart single colour argument. You repeated that statement as the last thing in your post. I assumed that was the most important thing, as it was in bolded text too.
I replied by giving a detailed explanation on how colours are being used in that screenshot, and how that differs from the historical pixelart.
I can’t see how much more to the point I could possibly be. If you have some other, more important argument somewhere, you actually need to write it here, I can’t read your mind.
But I agree, this isn’t really going any further, let’s stop. Somebody lock this thread. Let’s start discussing chiptune music or something next.
I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this conversation. You ignore everything I’ve said.
You started your post by bringing up pointillism many colours vs. pixelart single colour argument. You repeated that statement as the last thing in your post. I assumed that was the most important thing, as it was in bolded text too.
I replied by giving a detailed explanation on how colours are being used in that screenshot, and how that differs from the historical pixelart.
I still don’t see how that is relevant to what I said about pointillism. And that’s okay.
BTW, I saw some really amazing examples of pixel art (high res) posters and illustrations only recently at tumblr. But in adventure games it’s just ugly blown-up pixels for the sake of pixels.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Here are some more horrible, ghastly demonstrations of the terrible scourge that is pixel art. These ‘artists’ should be ashamed for producing such dated graphics methods. Get with it people! It’s the 21st century!
Member of the NAALCB - (North American Anti- Lobster Cop Brigade) since 2019.
Art, yes definitely. But no graphics, no pixels, so no pixel art.
What does this have to do with anything? Are we now comparing Darkside Detective to the art of Aboriginals?
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Art, yes definitely. But no graphics, no pixels, so no pixel art.
What does this have to do with anything? Are we now comparing Darkside Detective to the art of Aboriginals?
Why not? A few have complained that using blocky pixels (which are essentially dots of the same type used in aboriginal paintings) ruins immersion.
The style of graphics doesn’t particularly matter to me but my immersion is hampered by extreme ‘pixel-art’. It’s like trying to sell me the artistic merit of watching a film through frosted glass. Games (text adventures aside) are a visual medium so ‘fuzzy’ doesn’t do it for me!
Paintings are also a visual medium so would you call aboriginal art fuzzy? Would you say it is like seeing it through frosted glass?
Member of the NAALCB - (North American Anti- Lobster Cop Brigade) since 2019.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
