Why this is considered as good pixel art today and most of indie devs just go for that look ?

Why this is considered as good pixel art today and most of indie devs just go for that look ?
Back then sprites on gba and ds games were way more detailled than this, even with mediocre games. The teams for portable games werent even bigger than what you see for indie games nowaday, same goes for je java games on mobile games, they were just slow as fuck.

Attached: ss_1012b11ad364ad6c138a25a654108de28de56c5f.1920x1080.jpg (1920x1080, 182K)

THIS should be the standard, considered we have better and more flexible tools for 2D art.

Attached: ss_bc3d33f0f888e90feb0d5c884b7e66b2a5685804.1920x1080.jpg (1276x716, 393K)

It has mostly to do with time and resources.
GBA games looked more complex but they had dedicated, professional teams getting paid and using specialized tools to craft games.

Indie games have a very slim team with standard tools working with minimal funding/mismanaged funding.
So it's easier to make something lower res and try to actually finalize your game.
You posted owlboy, for example, what you omit to mention is that owlboy took TEN FUCKING YEARS to make.

Most indie devs would like to release their game before they're old and walking around with a crane.
That's also why so many indie devs go for simple 3D assets using shit like unity.
Way, way faster.
Making good 2D sprites and then on top of that animating them well is no joke, it's painful work.

Attached: 1.jpg (1280x720, 255K)

Literally no one considers it good pixel art, but only Sup Forums believes that makes it a bad game.

Not to mention, Owlboy itself defeats your entire point.
By focusing so much on it's visuals, artstyle ande animations to reach that almost metal slug-like tier quality level, the game ended up being painfully submediocre in terms of gameplay.
So the game itself suffered by focusing on the visuals so much for such a long amount of time and not thinking about how the gameplay should be fun too.

Back on the GBA that's why you had different people doing different things, the art guys focusing on the art, the gameplay guys trying to figure out how to make the game fun etc.
This kind of efficient organization isn't always present in indie projects.

I don't think it's amazing but in celeste's case there's something to be said for clarity and minimalism. Characters stand out clearly from the environments and their state/action is clearly communicated through the animation.

Just as with 3d games detail and complexity aren't the be-all-end-all of quality.

>Why this is considered as good pixel art today
It's not. It's just pixel art. The art direction is fine, but the focus is on gameplay. I don't know anyone who says this pixel art is "good."

>Game uses pixel art style
>UI and overlay elements use completely different style
How is this allowed?

The pixel work for the MC's shadow is literal hot garbage.

I know someone would post this because i choose a screen of Owlboy but i think pic related looks gorgeous and it didnt take 10 years to make.
The problem is also related to the fact that for minimalist pixel art they always use the same fucking standardized charadesign (some would say tumblr art or something)
>Sup Forums believes that makes it a bad game
im not judging the gameplay of celeste i did not play it, just same gameplay videos.

Attached: ss_8e19d35475f0d1fbc063e31a8f2276d4ebbdd209.1920x1080.jpg (981x552, 183K)

How about you fuck right off you pretentious little pricks.

Here's why a ton of indie games have low res/low quality pixel art - they're made by indie devs. Good pixel art is difficult to make and you can't just learn to draw in a fucking year or two or even fucking ever for most people. If you're a solo developer who has no art skills, you don't have many options besides low res sprites.

So suck it up and appreciate these games can exist, because most indie games wouldn't if they all had to look like owlboy.

Attached: 1493839184657.jpg (640x778, 44K)

>indie pixelshit game
>text is normal font, not pixelized

Is there anything that makes indie games look cheaper? I hate it

Because mixing different artstyles has been a things for centuries.

>High quality art requires talent
You're not wrong there.

Calm down dev-kun, your game isn't gonna fail because it looks simple, it's gonna fail because it's shitty and unfun to play cause you're a hack and you know it.
Back to /agdg/ with you.

Now that is a good example. Shame it's still in Early Access, which is another contention point people will use.

Even the art world has the sense to keep modern and classical stuff in separate buildings entirely.

let me get my shovel bro

I like pixel art but Celeste was nauseating to watch for me. I think I can count less than 20 different color pixels in that image.

If I'm autistic about it, I see like 35 different color pixels.

Scott Pilgrim looked fantastic, i dont think it had a legion of devs behind it, game should try to find a visual identity instead of going for the cheap low pixel art look.
This is not being pretentious, there is a lot of great artists out there but indie devs always go for the same bland tumblr art. The pixel art in the older gen was more various. Also you should always ask for more, not less no matter what...

Attached: ScottPilgrim_Multi_Edit21.jpg (670x377, 59K)

Any example of good pixel art game that did not take long to make?

mariel work on scott pilgram and she's a treasure

Doesn't mean there aren't pieces that combine the two styles.
Besides, pixel art isn't even "classical" stuff anymore as far as video games go, it's just a borrowed artstyle without the same limitations developers had in the past, you can do literally anything you want with it.

Attached: Desktop 04.07.2017 - 12.05.58.27_1.jpg (1920x1080, 233K)

>there is a lot of great artists out there but indie devs always go for the same bland tumblr art
You choose either quantity or quality when you don't have 10 different artists working on a game. And unless you want your indie games to have 30 minutes of gameplay, you're gonna choose quantity.

GBA 2D games era was comfy. Even on mediocre licensed games developed in 8 months the sprites were decent. Im sure some of them if used upscaled for big screens today would have be considered as good 2D art

Attached: les2ga001.jpg (450x300, 54K)

Attached: swe3ga005.jpg (450x300, 59K)

One issue with modern pixel art is the consumer market. They've settled for less if that makes sense. Which, IMO, is fine, since I care more about a game playing well than it looking good.
Here's an easy comparison:
>Nidhogg 1 and 2
The former is minimalist while the latter tries to give itself a style that is distinct, but hideous. The gameplay is very similar and enjoyable, so I like both.

It's probably because the pixelated art style that they have can't show any facial detail so they have to resort to that RPG-Maker dialogue-box

>>Nidhogg 1 and 2
Fuck, Nidhogg 2 was repulsive, i dont know if it worked with people.

Attached: skm2ga015.jpg (450x300, 48K)

I remember playing Master of Spirits sooo much back in middle school then I pulled it out again in high school and just couldn't get into it anymore. Growing up sucks.

I miss isometric (2d) action games. The controles on gba were shit, tho

Attached: vanhga008.jpg (450x300, 78K)

Just by the existence of this post, this level of infiltration is possible for Furudo Erika. What do you think, everyone?