‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The Effect of CRTs on Pixel Art (2024)

315 points · 129 comments · tobr

  1. fasterik · · focus · HN ↗
    I like to think of modern pixel art as its own aesthetic and art form. It's designed to be viewed on high DPI LED screens, and that's fine. I don't think it should be judged by how it looks on a CRT.

    There's an undeniable charm to the older era of pixel art, and surely part of that is nostalgia, but I also think a lot of it comes from the fact that the economics and the hardware were a lot different. Up until the mid 1990s, the highest paid artists in the industry were working on pixel art games. The hardware was slow enough that there were real creative constraints, and we know that constraints often drive creativity.

    1. pvillano · · focus · HN ↗
      Ironically, pixel art today is the affordable default for indie games.
      1. goosejuice · · focus · HN ↗
        Maybe not for long. It seems to be the art style most difficult to get right for diffusion models.
        1. hmry · · focus · HN ↗
          Yeah it seems very clear that the cheapest artstyle of the future will be whatever AI can output with minimal human editing or involvement. And some studios will go that route.

          Although I don't see AI in game art becoming accepted by the wider public any time soon, and definitely not by the indie crowd.

          I've also been thinking about this for animation. I foresee cheap limited animation (sliding layers, only mouth moving, etc) being replaced by incoherent un-/barely edited AI output instead.

          1. p-e-w · · focus · HN ↗
            > And some studios will go that route.

            All of them will. It can save nearly 100% of costs for art production. Nobody can afford not to use it, unless they aren’t developing the game to make a profit.

            > Although I don't see AI in game art becoming accepted by the wider public any time soon

            It’s already being used everywhere without “the wider public” even noticing. Same in professional film and TV productions. It doesn’t look AI generated because they don’t just run Stable Diffusion and call it a day, but the reductions in labor costs are still immense even with the post-processing that’s currently still required to match AAA quality.

            1. RugnirViking · · focus · HN ↗
              > Nobody can afford not to use it

              The games market has a massive oversupply. It's not enough to just "make a game", you have to make a good one. That is to say, better than all the other things your audience could be playing. Cheaping out is literally not an option. You can cheap out in one area to spend more effort in another area, but you can't just say "this is cheaper therefore it will be the default" because the default isn't good enough. Most games fail

              1. galangalalgol · · focus · HN ↗
                I don't agree that the cheaper option is less good. I can admit that ai often (but not always) writes code with more attention to detail than I do, and much faster. Diffusion by itself does not produce human tier graphics (usually), but in combination with llms and heuristics it can do some things better than humans. When wielded by a graphic artist who could do it by hand with mixed media much less digitally, the amount of top tier art that can be produced is increased. Less expensive art doesn't have to mean worse art, it can mean equally good art, just note of it, art everywhere.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.