| > I think there's an argument that pixel art was designed for CRT displays and thus optimized for it 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. |
