Hacker News Reader

Comment by derefr | Hacker News Reader

One increasingly-popular point of view is that console-game pixel art was intended to look like it does when sent through an analogue (e.g. composite) video cable to the average CRT television screen; and that artists relied on various "blending"-like effects that were inherent in this process, making the art assets look "off" when displayed crisply on an LCD. See http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/2982-a-link-to-the-past-ho... for examples.

View on HN

In the context of GP's article, it's fun reading through the comments on the page:

    I actually prefer the crisp pixels
    of emulated 8 and 16 bit games,
    I have no desire to emulate
    the crappy monitors we used to use
    to play said games. - lordofultima

    I actually enjoy gigantic, crystal clear pixels.
    - rateoforange

You'd have to imagine that actual graphics artists during the 8-bit era viewed low resolution as a limitation to overcome, not a purposeful feature of their artwork.

I kinda enjoy the anachronism too, but http://d2rormqr1qwzpz.cloudfront.net/uploads/0/5408/30085-ff... from the article really does look great.

All this reminds me of tge performance practice of old music.

There's an analogous situation in pop music: it's mostly mastered to sound good coming out of your average car radio or PA system or $5 earbuds. This definitely is a "purposeful feature of the artwork." It might be a regrettable feature—a constraint that the artist wishes they didn't have to work under—but the work is definitely informed all through its creation by this constraint.

>You'd have to imagine that actual graphics artists during the 8-bit era viewed low resolution as a limitation to overcome, not a purposeful feature of their artwork.

Well yeah, but it's a feature nonetheless. People aren't doing anything wrong by preferring sharp pixels. It's an aesthetic all to itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com