[font="Arial"]I guess this is a bit of a pretentious question in the first place, but I'm curious - for younger gamers who grew up with say the PS2 (or later) consoles as their first experience of gaming and primarily played “polygonal” games, are they capable of recognising the specific charm of pixel art?

Maybe you could ask what is the innate “charm” or appeal of pixel art in the first place, and for me I think that's hard to define (so I won't bother trying here), but there's certainly a great many modern games deliberately using that style which do very well.

I just find it curious that perhaps a large percentage of the people buying these games probably did not experience pixel art at the time when it was first introduced as a technical necessity, and so it can't really be said to be associated with nostalgia for that particular group.

Could it be that pixel art just somehow looks cool no matter?
[/font]

I think it may be less about natural charm and more about nostalgia. You appreciate it because you remember it. Because you can associate with it. Not because it looks good. But I'm curious what younger gamers would say about it too.

Yes, they can, and some do.

Consider that many of these gamers also played sprite-based games on the DS and similar consoles.

While the 3D polygons can look great, my kids were still impressed by the graphics when they downloaded the Wii virtual console games like Link to the Past, Super Mario World, and Street Fighter II.

Could it be that pixel art just somehow looks cool no matter?

Definitely not.

I'm not one of those who is young enough to have grown up with console games. Today's visual art looks way better than 8-bit crap.

Then again, today's gameplay tends to be non-existent. Anyone here old enough to remember what a plot is or how detailed and engrossing the visuals in a text-based rpg could be?

[quote name='asdzxc' timestamp='1321901990' post='4886298']
Could it be that pixel art just somehow looks cool no matter?

Definitely not.

I'm not one of those who is young enough to have grown up with console games. Today's visual art looks way better than 8-bit crap.
[/quote]


Absolutes and generalizations tend to cause problems.



Of course there are many 3D games that look like garbage.

Also be certain you are making the right comparison; looking at the top ten games in 2011 and comparing them against the thousands of mediocre titles over 25 years is just stupid. I could counter by taking the shovelware games of 2011 -- those that don't even get reviews -- and comparing them against the most visually compelling games on the older consoles.









There is good art and bad art in both arenas.

Bad 3D art in Big Rigs. Yes it uses shaders and has lots of effects, but they should have spent their time on the base graphics.




There is a lot of good looking NES pixel art. Because of resource requirements the best examples tend to come from cutscenes.

(Moon Crystal for NES)




Final Fantasy for NES had a great little cutscene silhouette, although the text graphic was pretty horrible. Cover up the words and just look at the art.
[attachment=6186:FF1.png]




SNES graphics were much improved, mostly because you could have more than 16 colors total.

Yoshi's Island has very playful art with hints of line-drawing hash marks that is very difficult to do well in 3D:





I loved the visual style (and audio style) of Secret of Mana. It would be extremely difficult to mimic the art style in a 3D world. No toon shader could get the right details, and the blending of light and shadow done throughout the game really requires a 2D approach:




Cut forward to DS games (which are frequently 2D pixel art) and you can find quite a lot of amazing work.

The pixel art in games like "Bowser's Inside Story" is very good.







Some people will appreciate that type of art, others will not. The question was "can they", and the answer is certainly "yes."

Yes, I do believe they can. People nowadays can still appreciate art crafted centuries ago. It's not so much that 3D is better than 2D. Are movies better than paintings? Certainly not. They are two separate branches of art.

How can anyone not appreciate art like this?


Source: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=632.msg144780#msg144780

I loved the visual style (and audio style) of Secret of Mana. It would be extremely difficult to mimic the art style in a 3D world. No toon shader could get the right details, and the blending of light and shadow done throughout the game really requires a 2D approach:

I'm afraid I am not aware of the issues you're writing about. Would you please elaborate? The technical difficulties of simulating 2D are interesting to me.

Not only they can appreciate pixel art, but I think the style is making a some sort of a comeback. This is partly attributed to many reasons:

1. Mobile gaming is now a serious contender.
2. The mobile platform generally demands "lightweight" engines to run, compared to consoles, PCs etc.
3. More indie devs are releasing games than ever, without massive funding to back them, thus resulting in titles with simpler looking graphics.
4. Pretentious retro nerd/geek fad is now cool.

It's a good thing; not everything needs to look like Gears of War.



p.s. shurcool that looks rad.

I would say anyone can appreciate pixel art if the content delivers and if it fits the game world stylistically. As much as I hate to admit it, Minecraft is a wonderful example here. Also, consider what has been recently released on Steam with the Serious Sam 2D platformer, Bit.Trip and several others making headlines on a monthly basis. In present age, at the end of the day pixel art is a stylistic choice and a tool rather than anything else. And the trick about tools is to use the right one for the right task, not worry whether it works or not.

This was literally my fave track for more than a month and not because of nostalgia, but because it's a good track. And it really worked in the game: