Comments on: On Pixel Art and Design Decisions http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/ The Art of Interaction Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:43:29 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gregory Weir http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-46981 Gregory Weir Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:18:12 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-46981 Ah, good idea. I have to admit that I never even thought of that. Ah, good idea. I have to admit that I never even thought of that.

]]> By: Qwertyuiopas http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-46974 Qwertyuiopas Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:49:10 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-46974 It is too bad I didn't find this game sooner, but there is one single inconsistancy that I feel really deserves to be fixed: If the hero dies to a necromantic dragon, should they really die? It would be somewhat of a neat easter egg, a variance in the final ending, to have the hero rise as a zombie and possibly a text mention. It is too bad I didn’t find this game sooner, but there is one single inconsistancy that I feel really deserves to be fixed:

If the hero dies to a necromantic dragon, should they really die?
It would be somewhat of a neat easter egg, a variance in the final ending, to have the hero rise as a zombie and possibly a text mention.

]]> By: axcho http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-46539 axcho Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:32:09 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-46539 I love pixel art and I don't think it's something you'd choose out of laziness, but looking at David's concept art, I actually like it a lot better than the existing How to Raise a Dragon Art! :p I really like the way it transforms. I'm a sucker for chunky pixels, I guess. Phillip Meiser has a very insightful point, about animation. On Game Design Scrapbook, Krystian Majewski talks about the importance of animation, especially secondary animation, in the feel of a game and I definitely think that's an area that could have been elaborated to great effect in How to Raise a Dragon. I've linked to the article - click my name to read it. I love pixel art and I don’t think it’s something you’d choose out of laziness, but looking at David’s concept art, I actually like it a lot better than the existing How to Raise a Dragon Art! :p I really like the way it transforms. I’m a sucker for chunky pixels, I guess.

Phillip Meiser has a very insightful point, about animation. On Game Design Scrapbook, Krystian Majewski talks about the importance of animation, especially secondary animation, in the feel of a game and I definitely think that’s an area that could have been elaborated to great effect in How to Raise a Dragon. I’ve linked to the article – click my name to read it.

]]> By: Pierre http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-46533 Pierre Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:09:24 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-46533 Sorry I meant IT could have more features, not I. Sorry I meant IT could have more features, not I.

]]> By: Pierre http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-46526 Pierre Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:32:27 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-46526 I played the game and I LOVED it!!!! Please make a pixel sequel! I could have more features but less things to unlock. I played the game and I LOVED it!!!! Please make a pixel sequel! I could have more features but less things to unlock.

]]> By: Kyle Wallace http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-45636 Kyle Wallace Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:03:27 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-45636 Totally unrelated, but Weir you gotta check this out. http://firstmillionsketches.tumblr.com/post/138207640/i-fell-in-love-with-the-majesty-of-colors Totally unrelated, but Weir you gotta check this out.

http://firstmillionsketches.tumblr.com/post/138207640/i-fell-in-love-with-the-majesty-of-colors

]]> By: Phillip Meiser http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-45494 Phillip Meiser Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:03:46 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-45494 Looking at David's example, I really understand what he is saying. The simpler dragons do seem inherently more childish. If you are worried about detail levels for other sprites, the smallest dragon in David's example might simply be going too far. It is little more than a lizard, probably more suited to food than being a dragon. From the second dragon on, he has all the detail you would need for any dragon behavior animations. You really had more detail than you were using in the sprites in the game anyway. When I was playing through, I found I was dissatisfied with the look of the dragon in every stage before hero. It is only now, looking closer at the art, that I realize it was a result of the way he moves (noting that he barely moves in hero). The dragon has all this detail that is not doing anything. He walks, and naught moves but his legs. He spews forth flame from his great maw without so much as flexing a neck muscle. He makes great jumps, his legs dangle below him like cement weights. He soars through the sky and his wings do not so much as twitch. I feel like you spent all this effort getting the shape just right and not enough effort animating it. His head should have been bobbing, his tail should have been waving. Even a suggestion of a shape is sufficient if he moves right. Super Mario World stars a hero who in his default state is a mere 16 pixels tall, yet he is identifiable as a man, and moves dynamically with his entire body, so it works out fine. Static pixel art is harder than people give it credit for, but it pales in comparison to the difficulty of pixel animation. And you MUST get the look right for the player sprite. Everything else takes a back seat, because nothing else will be stared at so long or so hard as your little man. In Majesty of Colors, the "hero sprite" was essentially a tentacle, and its motion was BRILLIANT. The dragon was just meh, and I suspect THAT is why people would think the art looks lazy. On a more philosophical note, it strikes me as just fine if the dragon's food seems huge in comparison to him. He is a growing dragon, after all. om nom nom. Looking at David’s example, I really understand what he is saying. The simpler dragons do seem inherently more childish. If you are worried about detail levels for other sprites, the smallest dragon in David’s example might simply be going too far. It is little more than a lizard, probably more suited to food than being a dragon. From the second dragon on, he has all the detail you would need for any dragon behavior animations. You really had more detail than you were using in the sprites in the game anyway.
When I was playing through, I found I was dissatisfied with the look of the dragon in every stage before hero. It is only now, looking closer at the art, that I realize it was a result of the way he moves (noting that he barely moves in hero). The dragon has all this detail that is not doing anything. He walks, and naught moves but his legs. He spews forth flame from his great maw without so much as flexing a neck muscle. He makes great jumps, his legs dangle below him like cement weights. He soars through the sky and his wings do not so much as twitch. I feel like you spent all this effort getting the shape just right and not enough effort animating it. His head should have been bobbing, his tail should have been waving. Even a suggestion of a shape is sufficient if he moves right. Super Mario World stars a hero who in his default state is a mere 16 pixels tall, yet he is identifiable as a man, and moves dynamically with his entire body, so it works out fine.
Static pixel art is harder than people give it credit for, but it pales in comparison to the difficulty of pixel animation. And you MUST get the look right for the player sprite. Everything else takes a back seat, because nothing else will be stared at so long or so hard as your little man. In Majesty of Colors, the “hero sprite” was essentially a tentacle, and its motion was BRILLIANT. The dragon was just meh, and I suspect THAT is why people would think the art looks lazy.

On a more philosophical note, it strikes me as just fine if the dragon’s food seems huge in comparison to him. He is a growing dragon, after all. om nom nom.

]]> By: Gregory Weir http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-45416 Gregory Weir Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:58:15 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-45416 That actually reads fine, but I'm concerned about the detail of the rest of the game at that resolution. Hatchling food items would be made of about 2 px, and thus unrecognizable, or else be bigger than the dragon's body. You'd have to sacrifice the particle effects that help identify the edible items, because the particles would look bizarre at a higher resolution than the foreground elements. The backgrounds, on the other hand, would need to be much lower in detail for most of the game, and the tutorial text would need to be much larger to avoid clashing with the resolution of the foreground objects. And I don't know if I'd want to try getting away with a book screen that was at a vastly higher resolution than the game proper. Additionally, it would be much harder to animate the dragon's actions intelligibly at the low resolution you have for the hatchling and adolescent. That approach could work for <em>a</em> game, but I think it would require enough design changes that the game wouldn't be "Dragon" anymore. That actually reads fine, but I’m concerned about the detail of the rest of the game at that resolution. Hatchling food items would be made of about 2 px, and thus unrecognizable, or else be bigger than the dragon’s body. You’d have to sacrifice the particle effects that help identify the edible items, because the particles would look bizarre at a higher resolution than the foreground elements. The backgrounds, on the other hand, would need to be much lower in detail for most of the game, and the tutorial text would need to be much larger to avoid clashing with the resolution of the foreground objects. And I don’t know if I’d want to try getting away with a book screen that was at a vastly higher resolution than the game proper. Additionally, it would be much harder to animate the dragon’s actions intelligibly at the low resolution you have for the hatchling and adolescent.

That approach could work for a game, but I think it would require enough design changes that the game wouldn’t be “Dragon” anymore.

]]> By: David http://ludusnovus.net/2009/07/12/on-pixel-art-and-design-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-45414 David Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:20:15 +0000 http://ludusnovus.net/?p=544#comment-45414 Cool. But I disagree! (I apologize for the fuzziness of this picture. It's hard to find a freeware, OSX, pixel-drawing program without a few bugs.) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/3714009833_1775d59103_o.jpg Here I drew some different resolutions of how the dragon might look as he grows (4, 8, 12, and 16 screen pixels per game pixel), to see what I could learn. There are a lot of problems with these versions as far as playability, but I think it's a useful diagram for what we're discussing. While you're right, I didn't think about the fact that a smaller resolution makes things look blockier, bulgier, and heftier, I think I was right about the feeling that this gives the object. It's like legos. The smaller and more complex legos are for older children, and the huge Duplo blocks are for toddlers. The dragon with fewer pixels is way more adorable because he's so simple, while the older dragon can be more detailed and impressive. And as long as there's a person in each stage, then there is a point of reference for the player to identify how much he's grown, and this effect will overrule the feeling of smaller pixels you brought up; our components won't have gotten smaller, the camera will have just had to zoom out because we got so huge. My huge pixel stage has a questionable playability... but I think it would work? The scale I used is all wrong, though. I tried to reduce the radical change of the size of the pixels by stepping down in a ratio of 4:3:2:1 instead of powers of two, 8:4:2:1. It doesn't work, because my dragon-to-person scale is all wrong. The dragon in my illustration starts out larger than in your game (but works), ends way too small (doesn't work), and in the adult stage is still shorter than a person (doesn't work). These are attempts which try to keep the dragon sprite about the same the whole game (except the last one; I got a little carried away), but if you don't mind the dragon taking up more of the screen as he grows, then the problems are solved, and you can maintain the scale in the game as it is now. Your thoughts? Cool. But I disagree!

(I apologize for the fuzziness of this picture. It’s hard to find a freeware, OSX, pixel-drawing program without a few bugs.)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/3714009833_1775d59103_o.jpg

Here I drew some different resolutions of how the dragon might look as he grows (4, 8, 12, and 16 screen pixels per game pixel), to see what I could learn. There are a lot of problems with these versions as far as playability, but I think it’s a useful diagram for what we’re discussing.

While you’re right, I didn’t think about the fact that a smaller resolution makes things look blockier, bulgier, and heftier, I think I was right about the feeling that this gives the object. It’s like legos. The smaller and more complex legos are for older children, and the huge Duplo blocks are for toddlers. The dragon with fewer pixels is way more adorable because he’s so simple, while the older dragon can be more detailed and impressive. And as long as there’s a person in each stage, then there is a point of reference for the player to identify how much he’s grown, and this effect will overrule the feeling of smaller pixels you brought up; our components won’t have gotten smaller, the camera will have just had to zoom out because we got so huge. My huge pixel stage has a questionable playability… but I think it would work?

The scale I used is all wrong, though. I tried to reduce the radical change of the size of the pixels by stepping down in a ratio of 4:3:2:1 instead of powers of two, 8:4:2:1. It doesn’t work, because my dragon-to-person scale is all wrong. The dragon in my illustration starts out larger than in your game (but works), ends way too small (doesn’t work), and in the adult stage is still shorter than a person (doesn’t work). These are attempts which try to keep the dragon sprite about the same the whole game (except the last one; I got a little carried away), but if you don’t mind the dragon taking up more of the screen as he grows, then the problems are solved, and you can maintain the scale in the game as it is now.

Your thoughts?

]]>