|
|
|
|
|
|
by javbit
979 days ago
|
|
|
> These filters ruin the retro pixel art look by making things blurry, making larger pixels, introducing a screen door, and more. I think there's an argument that pixel art was designed for CRT displays and thus optimized for it. I think of it like Pointillism: the work is made of little dots, but the point is for you to see the entire work blend together. And for low resolution works like retro games, they often hold up well on CRT (especially real ones). However, I think modern games with the pixel art aesthetic look best crisp. To each their own tastes, though. |
|
|
In many cases there is no argument to be had.
https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/167807/6463
These sprites are terrible without CRT-ness (skeleton has pixels unbalanced, clearly placed for an antialiasing effect; beast is unshaded). Also, look at that waterfall, for which filters have a hard time, either inefficient or making the rest of the scene excessively blurry.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s4QOHe4bOZc
For some games I think the flat pixely look is OK, e.g Zelda III, although I personally prefer the darker, smoother, less saturated look of CRT which in my mind betters conveys the grim ambience than the unfiltered cel-shaded-y one.
For others, either specific bits (Chrono Trigger's overworld map) or the whole thing is plain bad.
> However, I think modern games with the pixel art aesthetic look best crisp.
I would concur. Old game art was designed for CRT... and on CRT, whereas modern games are designed for and on pixel-perfect LCDs, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It's a bit like viewing a hinted vector font with vs without antialiasing (old games)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/wp-co...
vs a bitmap font meant to land on the pixel grid exactly (modern pixel art)
https://pangrampangram.com/products/bitmap-fonts
Old games that were designed in the latter way are perfectly fine on LCDs, but those that hinged on it are terrible.