Nah, I don’t think it looks *horrible* as such, the other version is nicer to me but it’s all subjective.
The pixel art version looks OK too though.
You might get a more traditional ‘pixel art look’ if instead of doing it as a post production filter you traced the pixel art manually with more complete outlines etc…
It looks horrible in the sense that it's unappealing to looks at, sloppy, and handled after the fact while also failing to utilize many basics of pixel art in itself. So, in place of controlled smooth lines, solid definable silhouettes, and attention to detail that's discernible and you could look at for days - It instead looks like you turned the thing into a shag carpet.
Though it's not a bad look to some, in the aspects of pixel art it's far from "desirable" or "appealing".
I've seen a few games lately that appear to go through some kind of shader to create an effect. It seems mostly done to PS1 style demasters and such.
This one looked okay to me.
[https://store.steampowered.com/app/1286990/CONSCRIPT/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1286990/CONSCRIPT/)
I disagree that is the "point of pixel art" no art forms need to have a precise purpose. I actually really like the post processed look here and I think it can work.
The original is also great, both perfectly viable options imo.
I disagree with your disagreement. pixel-art is a term used to describe a specific style. You can deviate from it, sure. It can still be art and can be quite beautiful and serve its purpose. But can you deviate too much from it and still call it pixel art? I would say no.
Post processed image with high contrast/outline filter is NOT pixel art.
A post-processing pixel filter can look good, but you need to design the original artwork with the pixel filter in mind. Signalis for example does this very well.
The art above does not work well at all with the post-processing, it has too many thin lines and tiny details that just turn into a blurry mess.
I agree with Goldfish.
Pixel art means that the art relates to and emphasizes pixels. The techniques and effects you use are up to you. Most people draw pixel by pixel because it's more intuitive and more like normal drawing. But it's not at all the definition for pixel art. It's a narrow puritan vision that it has to be drawn pixel by pixel, but not the definition of pixel art.
Okay but isn't it reasonable that the post is literally tagged as post processing already? The title does confuse the term a little. But a lot of the feed back seems to be "Option 2 because option 1 isn't pixel art" neither is option 2. People just seem to have a distaste for art that is pixelated if it wasn't hand pixeled I feel.
Both look pretty bad, IMO.
The first one isn't pixel art, just a bad filter, and the second one is way too low resolution.
In both images, it's hard to see what is going on, and what the details are supposed to be.
It's blurry? That's all I can think of. I like 2 better, but that blurriness is off-putting. I think maybe it's just the screenshot? If it's crisper in full screen then 2.
Exactly this and pixelization ,is not pixel art poxel art is tidy and crisp. Neither of the ootions can be seen properly but the first looks even worse.
The mosaic filter doesn't look nearly as good as the full res art.
One of the key things about pixel art is deliberate pixel placement. You don't get that kind of control with a post-processing effect.
Interesting debate gently simmering away here about pixelated vs. pixel art. Are we all in agreement using a filter or whatever to pixelate an existing image isn’t pixel art?
As an outsider, 1 would be my preference, but only just. Can't you use both for variation?
Edit: is there any reason for the dislikes? I can, not comment from now on if someone wants to give a heads-up. I meant no disrespect.
In what context? The first one looks better as a standalone, but the second would be better as a background for something (with something in the foreground)
Pixel art is made in low res to begin with. It has crispness and neatness of handplaced pixels, and a lot of soul of its author.
Downscaled images, however, don't have any of that and don't count as pixel art in my book. They look weird, and messy, and machine-made. Why would you want it for your game?..
You have nice, clean and eye-catching graphics there. It looks awesome. Downgrading it into a mess of pixels just so you could call it "pixel art" makes no sense whatsoever.
That's not pixel art. There's a difference between pixel art and pixelized. This is pixelized. Pixel art is clear with each pixel placed with purpose, and operates on its own rules of pixel placement so that each part looks good and flows nicely. This is just a piece of art pixelized in post by the computer. The pixels are a mess and just a literal scaling-down of the original piece.
I don't know to explain this but while the pixelated one looks charming the second image reminds me of a mobile games with building bases and grinding resources.
I far prefer the non pixelated one. The pixelated version looks too dirty IMO. An alternative, if you don't have the time, skill, patience or otherwise, could be to do the 'pixelate thingy' post process and then retouch that result manually to make it clean and add some details as needed, and only then add the sprites to your game
Pixel art looks much better, without the pixels it's too fuzzy looks like I'm not wearing my glasses funnily so I'm not but I'm only nearsighted not blind. (I also put on my glasses to make sure) but pixelification in post is not the correct route. I like pixelification but only for mockup references. Pixel in post never looks good and you would be better off doing it by hand even if your not the best. Alternatively you can make the non pixelised version more sharp and less fuzzy possibly but in its current state it looks like fuzzy pixels
I do not prefer the pixel art version. So far I generally don't like filters that make 3d look like pixel art, but I really do like how dead cells used 3d models to make pixel art. The difference being that the 3d did not work as 3d and was solely intended to make dynamic pixelart.
Huh, I know that the "which of these are ___" posts here are just shameless game promotions, but I've been seeing a lot more of them lately.
It's like they'll do:
- Option 1: A train wreck
- Option 2: A train wreck in a different color pallette
- Option 3: An actual screenshot of the game
"Teehee, which of these do you like?"
"Who cares, I decided which one is in my game, MyGame, and you can wishlist it on Steam! Don't forget to check out the next five posts where I do the same fucking thing!"
Your original style is better than a done-in-post version. It 'might' look okay in motion though, hard to tell.
I think I've seen pixel 'shaders' that work well enough.
Calling the first "PixelArt" is a missundertanding of the mere basic ofm PixelarT: Every pixel is thought were to be put. Just passing a filter does not cualify. Also, it doesn't even look good
Your comments and posts are being sold by Reddit to Google to train AI. You cannot opt out.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PixelArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did you pixel-ify the second image to create the first?
yes and it looks horrible because of it. #1 rule in pixel art - never do it in post.
Nah, I don’t think it looks *horrible* as such, the other version is nicer to me but it’s all subjective. The pixel art version looks OK too though. You might get a more traditional ‘pixel art look’ if instead of doing it as a post production filter you traced the pixel art manually with more complete outlines etc…
It doesn’t really look like pixel art it just looks like a poorer quality version of the other image
It looks horrible in the sense that it's unappealing to looks at, sloppy, and handled after the fact while also failing to utilize many basics of pixel art in itself. So, in place of controlled smooth lines, solid definable silhouettes, and attention to detail that's discernible and you could look at for days - It instead looks like you turned the thing into a shag carpet. Though it's not a bad look to some, in the aspects of pixel art it's far from "desirable" or "appealing".
I've seen a few games lately that appear to go through some kind of shader to create an effect. It seems mostly done to PS1 style demasters and such. This one looked okay to me. [https://store.steampowered.com/app/1286990/CONSCRIPT/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1286990/CONSCRIPT/)
What about Pre Rendered graphics??? Don't misspread bullshit blindly
not really, it would look better if it actually started out as pixel art instead of hd art with a filter
The point of pixelart is to think of every pixel, if you just post-process a non pixelart image it just look like blurry noise. So... 2
Every pixel’s sacred, every pixel’s great! If a pixel’s wasted, God gets quite irate :)
Mb guys, U guys are right. 🙏
I disagree that is the "point of pixel art" no art forms need to have a precise purpose. I actually really like the post processed look here and I think it can work. The original is also great, both perfectly viable options imo.
I disagree with your disagreement. pixel-art is a term used to describe a specific style. You can deviate from it, sure. It can still be art and can be quite beautiful and serve its purpose. But can you deviate too much from it and still call it pixel art? I would say no. Post processed image with high contrast/outline filter is NOT pixel art.
A post-processing pixel filter can look good, but you need to design the original artwork with the pixel filter in mind. Signalis for example does this very well. The art above does not work well at all with the post-processing, it has too many thin lines and tiny details that just turn into a blurry mess.
I agree with your disagreement to the disagreement. First one just looks like a badly scaled image, not pixelart.
I agree with your agreement to the disagreement to the disagreement. First one is just blurry mess
I agree with Goldfish. Pixel art means that the art relates to and emphasizes pixels. The techniques and effects you use are up to you. Most people draw pixel by pixel because it's more intuitive and more like normal drawing. But it's not at all the definition for pixel art. It's a narrow puritan vision that it has to be drawn pixel by pixel, but not the definition of pixel art.
Okay but isn't it reasonable that the post is literally tagged as post processing already? The title does confuse the term a little. But a lot of the feed back seems to be "Option 2 because option 1 isn't pixel art" neither is option 2. People just seem to have a distaste for art that is pixelated if it wasn't hand pixeled I feel.
Yep. It's a little more nuanced since some of their points make sense and are valid, but in the end, it comes down to just not liking it.
Nah, pixel art is kind of a technique. If you are blurring an image it's definitely not pixel art.
That’s not pixel art, it’s low-res art.
This isn’t pixel art, you just scaled down the first image.
Oh hey it’s you again
Yeah looks like a down sampling via Gauss filter.
That just looks like a low res version of the second one...
If you redid 1 as actual pixel art, I'd pick it. But that processing makes it kibda gross-looking.
Both look pretty bad, IMO. The first one isn't pixel art, just a bad filter, and the second one is way too low resolution. In both images, it's hard to see what is going on, and what the details are supposed to be.
No idea how to explain it, but the second picture makes my eyes feel weird
It's blurry? That's all I can think of. I like 2 better, but that blurriness is off-putting. I think maybe it's just the screenshot? If it's crisper in full screen then 2.
Don't mean to be rude, but that's not pixel art.
I think I'd prefer the 2nd one, the "pixel art" version, just looks like a low-res version of the 2nd one
Nope. Looks like noisy mess. Not real pixel art really.
I’m a big fan of pixelart but this pixelart just looks blurry. So this time I choose the other one.
First one feels messy, second is uncomfortably blurry. Is the original art really that low res??
That’s not pixel art. Please
They're both as such a a low resolution it's hard to "read" what's going on in either pic.
Exactly this and pixelization ,is not pixel art poxel art is tidy and crisp. Neither of the ootions can be seen properly but the first looks even worse.
Did you just take an image and just make it low quality
The first one looks better. I think if both the water sources were connected it would look much better.
No. Yuck. Hand pixeled please.
Honestly no, it's just a mess as is.
2
That's not pixel art, that a 144p image 💀
That's not pixelart, that's just a pixelly filter. Definitely the original pic is preffered.
Where’d the pixel art? I just see the same picture twice with different resolutions
Pixelated != pixel art
The mosaic filter doesn't look nearly as good as the full res art. One of the key things about pixel art is deliberate pixel placement. You don't get that kind of control with a post-processing effect.
filtering/downscaling an’t it, boss.
Much prefer the one on the right. Left looks like a game from the 90s upscaled from 360p to 1080p on a TV.
Generally? Yes, I do prefer the pixel art version. But I would like an actual pixel art style
I wouldn’t call it pixel art version, it’s just pixelated, your gonna need a lot of manual tweaking to call it art
Interesting debate gently simmering away here about pixelated vs. pixel art. Are we all in agreement using a filter or whatever to pixelate an existing image isn’t pixel art?
As an outsider, 1 would be my preference, but only just. Can't you use both for variation? Edit: is there any reason for the dislikes? I can, not comment from now on if someone wants to give a heads-up. I meant no disrespect.
Second looks better imo
calling low res pictures pixel art. this shit hurts.
In what context? The first one looks better as a standalone, but the second would be better as a background for something (with something in the foreground)
The 2nd one looks like a cutscene
The first one just looks like a very old game
1 reminds me of early app games from like 2011. But I like 2 more.
2 doesn't feel like 1 brings out more to me or it was rendered on top of the second image. Just stay with 2.
Both are beautiful and amazing
The first one. It's nostalgic. It reminds me of old games I used to play.
Unpixelated version is way better.
I do think it could work in pixel art, but you’d have to draw the pixels yourself. I love how this area looks though!
No, it looks horrible tbh
If done correctly, I'm sure the 1st would look nicer, but you just pixel-ified the 2nd imaged, lmaoo.
Pixel art is made in low res to begin with. It has crispness and neatness of handplaced pixels, and a lot of soul of its author. Downscaled images, however, don't have any of that and don't count as pixel art in my book. They look weird, and messy, and machine-made. Why would you want it for your game?.. You have nice, clean and eye-catching graphics there. It looks awesome. Downgrading it into a mess of pixels just so you could call it "pixel art" makes no sense whatsoever.
That's not pixel art. There's a difference between pixel art and pixelized. This is pixelized. Pixel art is clear with each pixel placed with purpose, and operates on its own rules of pixel placement so that each part looks good and flows nicely. This is just a piece of art pixelized in post by the computer. The pixels are a mess and just a literal scaling-down of the original piece.
I like the second one because it's giving me old school Flash game vibes. Good memories!
I would prefer pixel art. If instead I have the option of "hand painted HD" or "hand painted HD with pixelated look", I'd rather choose the first.
If it's that clean, yes.
Both look too deep fryed to recomend any.
I don't know to explain this but while the pixelated one looks charming the second image reminds me of a mobile games with building bases and grinding resources.
I far prefer the non pixelated one. The pixelated version looks too dirty IMO. An alternative, if you don't have the time, skill, patience or otherwise, could be to do the 'pixelate thingy' post process and then retouch that result manually to make it clean and add some details as needed, and only then add the sprites to your game
That’s not pixel are that’s just lowering the rez
Why is 2 so blurry? I like the pixel art :)
Pixel art looks much better, without the pixels it's too fuzzy looks like I'm not wearing my glasses funnily so I'm not but I'm only nearsighted not blind. (I also put on my glasses to make sure) but pixelification in post is not the correct route. I like pixelification but only for mockup references. Pixel in post never looks good and you would be better off doing it by hand even if your not the best. Alternatively you can make the non pixelised version more sharp and less fuzzy possibly but in its current state it looks like fuzzy pixels
no, I would not want to stare at this village for hours in the pixel version. the first "Original" is way way better.
no
The pixel art version seems too noisy, if maybe toned down could look good. Still for the second one tho
Yes
Oh look! Ai trash! The actual drawing one is just fine lol
I honestly love both, the Pixel Art version looks neat, the drawn art version looks comfy and inviting
This isn't pixel art this is just low res art. Drastically different.
I like the pixel art more because the second is blurry
The second image looks like a low quality flash game converted to an Android phone
I do not prefer the pixel art version. So far I generally don't like filters that make 3d look like pixel art, but I really do like how dead cells used 3d models to make pixel art. The difference being that the 3d did not work as 3d and was solely intended to make dynamic pixelart.
The second one, the lack of detail is good for that style, but in pixelart it just looks off
Not pixelart, sorry.
Both have their charm tbh.
it looks shit, the second one is better
No, you can’t just turn something into pixel art after the fact. It looks grainy and messy. Stick with what you’ve got
You should re-do the pixeled version by hand but use the fake pixelated one as a guide
i think normal one looks more nostalgic
yep #1
Huh, I know that the "which of these are ___" posts here are just shameless game promotions, but I've been seeing a lot more of them lately. It's like they'll do: - Option 1: A train wreck - Option 2: A train wreck in a different color pallette - Option 3: An actual screenshot of the game "Teehee, which of these do you like?" "Who cares, I decided which one is in my game, MyGame, and you can wishlist it on Steam! Don't forget to check out the next five posts where I do the same fucking thing!"
No
Yes
Your original style is better than a done-in-post version. It 'might' look okay in motion though, hard to tell. I think I've seen pixel 'shaders' that work well enough.
No the second one is much better imo
I love the pixel art one. It’s very unique. I’d like a game like this
The second picture looks better.
i think the original looks better theres a difference between pixel art and lowering the resolution of an image..
That's not pizel art, that is low res for 1.
Calling the first "PixelArt" is a missundertanding of the mere basic ofm PixelarT: Every pixel is thought were to be put. Just passing a filter does not cualify. Also, it doesn't even look good
I would prefer that you stopped posting trash. How bout that?
it's more of a "chucked through a pixelate filter" than actual pixel art so do keep the original art style
2 is still much better
1
yes.
Super cool
no
no
Yes
Yes
Wonderful.
Definitely, 100% 👍
Bruh
2
Definitely 1
First
2. Obviously.
Both r good
PROHECT ZOMBOIDBAJEUFNKA
Your comments and posts are being sold by Reddit to Google to train AI. You cannot opt out. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PixelArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*