Whose?

Sothe I think the dev just wanted to have pixel graphics.

Yep, definitely reading into it too much.


Also, this is bull. There isn't a "central idea" of indie gaming that anybody can actually agree on. The idea that you have to have a sophisticated visual style in order to charge $9 for something you've spent 3 years working definitely isn't one of them, though.

Honestly, I could sort of understand what you're saying if the game was a pillow-shaded, over-saturated mess. Like, Terraria was really ugly, and was definitely going for a faux-retro look (to the point of using sprites from old Final Fantasy games). That alone doesn't make it a bad game, though, because there's a lot more to a game than how it looks. As for Gunpoint, it isn't even imitating the typical look for "retro" games. Aside from having simplistic graphics, it pretty clearly uses a full colour range, blur/lighting effects, etc.

But whatever, it's clear I'm not going to convince you of anything. If you're seriously so dead-set against a visual style that you're going to completely discount games for it, there's really not much point in discussing it.

Pel has the right idea. Minimalism and functionality

Aesthetically, it breaks a lot of rules, and if you're a seasoned artist (especially somebody who's worked with low-resolution graphics), it would probably make you cringe. That said, plenty of people liked the look — and the game itself — which is precisely my point. Completely discounting a game for its visual style just because you think it's ugly/unsophisticated/"meta-contraro-societal anti-symptomatic thinking" is pretty conceited.

@Flail, Metal, Roast
It all boils down to taste, really. If you think I'm such a troll for wanting more out of a game, then I suggest you re-evaluate your standards for games.


This is the first thing I brought up

@Banana, I get what you're talking about, and respect your opinion. But as a game art student I really just can't stand that kind of stuff anymore. Props to Gunpoint for not pillow-shading though. I'm not saying any low res games are killing gaming or anything, just that there are lots of badly constructed low res games that bring down the indie gaming scene. And I like Mark of the Ninja more, they both have very similar gameplay.

Also I meant to imply the point of indie games are artistic freedom, maybe just liberation from the industry for some, but I like to believe it's more about artistic freedom. I personally think neo-bit games squander potential.

And everyone was entitled to their own privileged opinion that day.


God bless America.

Let's promote artistic freedom by not allowing games in this particular art style

So when I say I don't want to support it, it means I don't want it allowed completely.
Sure is hasty generalization in here

Now I'm going to go plot ways to help EA have mind control and perhaps even destroy Valve

I can agree with you that there are a lot of crappy faux-retro games out there, and I agree that it's not helping the image of indie games. That said, I disagree with you on two points.

First, not every indie game needs to have a great art style. A lot of indie games are put together by small teams of people who happen to know each other. Sometimes, you know somebody very dedicated and talented, and so you have a good-looking game. Sometimes, you don't, and you have to settle with what you have. The only other possibility is to hire somebody, which is expensive. It just isn't always feasible.

Secondly, completely disregarding a game because of its visual style is pretty far from supporting artistic freedom. What about the rest of the team — the musicians, the programmers, the gameplay designers, the writers? They've all put years of work into a game, and surely have their own artistic visions to express. But you're throwing their work out because you disagree with the artistic direction.

If indie game culture is truly about artistic freedom, then we should be celebrating games not just for their looks, but also for their other merits. You seem to be looking at this from the lens of a game art student, and I would suggest that that's a very narrow lens to be looking through when you consider all the work that goes into a game.

oh were talking about VIDEO GAMES i thought this was a discussion on MASTERFUL OIL PAINTINGS
huh if it werent for the fact that those are completely different things i wouldnt have been confused

Decide to view Sothe's post for the first time in ages. I was not disappointed.

Man, do you even read what you type? If you want to make a point, don't layer it behind several layers of pretentious bull♥♥♥♥. You aren't impressing anyone and it just makes you look like a prat. Also, try breaking your walls of text up.

As a game art student, you can't stand for what? A game with small graphics? Light effects, decorations and a consistent srt direction? Nobody else is looking at it going "Oh man this looks like ass". You can tell what everything is at first look, nothing stands out as "wrong". It serves the function of graphics: To convey something visually.

Have you looked at the gameplay? The thing that turns an 'art student' into a 'game art student'? It is decent. It takes something people like doing (setting up traps, messing with mechanics, fooling the AI) and builds puzzles around it. I would recommend that you check it out, but I'm sure you'd find some way to ♥♥♥♥ all over both it and traditional English grammar.

Sothe, you may think pixely graphics look like dog ♥♥♥♥, but don't try to justify it with nonsense about devs trying to spite the industry, some people just think pixel graphics look nice, without regards to retro or any bull♥♥♥♥.
If you hate pixels, just hate them and go about your day.