Not sure if this was the right place to post this because it is about art side of making a game, it is about pixel-art games
I just saw the cast of pixel painting and got really confused, the cast of pixel-art is even more expensive than normal painting although high-res games are supposing to be better than pixel games (in my own opinion at least), so dose game developers like WadjetEye only use pixel-art to give and old-school touch to their games and it actually casts them more?
COST (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=14373.0)
what would that mean? ???
Post a coherent question and people will give you a coherent answer.
Come on guys, don't you think you're being too harsh towards a (judging by his posts) friendly newcomer?
Back on topic: I am not sure about your figures, kinan___rod. I have never hired a pixel artist (or any kind of artist), but from what I hear from friends and acquaintances, prices vary a lot and there's no distinct "pixels are more expensive" rule of thumb.
As Bicilotti says, there's no tariff on pixels - if a certain low-res painter happened to be more expensive than a hi-res painter, that was probably a one-off occurrence. Maybe there were plenty of "ordinary" illustrators available, and only a few that would agree to do pixel art.
But if you take one specific artist that can do both, he'd most likely charge less for fewer pixels (e.g. 320x200) than for more pixels (e.g. 640x400), since it's less work. I know I would charge less, anyway.
PS:
Please do try to make yourself understood better, your first post just barely makes sense.
Sorry about that but at least you got the point, thanks for your answers Andail and Bicilotti.
Sorry man, you posted in the wrong forum before. I directed you to the "please read" sticky on that thread;
Welcome to the forums and sorry again.
Generally the lower the resolution the quicker an artist can get stuff done, the quicker it can all be implemented , the easier it is to get the different elements looking nice together, the less that can go wrong etc, etc. GENERALLY, I mean obviously you'd expect to pay less for a 3000x3000 Flash 5 doodle by me than one of ProgZMax's meticulous pixel animations. You'd EXPECT. But the offer is open.
Any art, even pixel art, can be expensive or cheap depending on the level of quality you're going for. I've paid as much as $300 for a pixel-based background, to as little as $25.
I'd say from my experience digital art cost more. Not only is it alot harder to change imo but it takes longer. Also animation it pixel art is quicker and easier to do.
Depends what you mean by pixel art, too. Pure pixel art relies on individually placing each pixel. For scenery, Wadjet Eye games haven't used this style of art for ages. The newer backgrounds in WE games are done in photoshop.
Ugh, try doing a 640x200 scrolling room with -only- pixels. There is no way it is quicker than digital painting ._.
Pixel art is digital art :)
It feels slightly off topic as the original poster probably referred to pixel backgrounds of a typical size, but I'd agree with Chicky.. my 640x400 or 320x1000 backgrounds still look rather sketchy after I've spent a few weeks on each of them. So no, I wouldn't say that any piece of pixel art is easier and quicker than any non-pixel piece.
On the other hand, that may be just me being ridiculously slow.
Quote from: Chicky on Sat 15/12/2012 13:16:12
Ugh, try doing a 640x200 scrolling room with -only- pixels. There is no way it is quicker than digital painting ._.
Compared to a detailed high res version? I'd say pixel was still much faster. At that resolution though either one will be a quick sketch.
I guess honestly it really depends.
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/232/c/2/old_tinkerer_by_fritomaster-d5bqrpf.png
Stuff like above would be cheap where as super detailed higher rez art would prolly be alot closer to traditional stuff.
As a person who sells his services in this field I will tell you that it depends on the type of client you are working for. Indie clients have a very low overhead and so they cannot afford to pay the professional 'going rate' for artists usually, which means they either go to friends or amateurs looking to build a portfolio because early on getting your name out there is worth more than money.
Larger companies, like when I did some work for Nickelodeon, will pay professional salaries but are far less forgiving about schedules and far more demanding about quality.
It does tend to be more expensive to create pixel art for hi-res because of the sheer amount of extra screen real-estate backgrounds require and the larger size of sprites which tend to require more frames to appear smooth when animating as well. Most companies will prefer painted backgrounds to hand-pixelled ones especially in large resolutions for this reason, though if sprites are kept simple enough it's possible to make 'cartoonish' looking sprites with pixel art by having dark outlines, simple shades, and some alpha blending around the edges so the result looks smooth.
As far as which is better, I certainly don't believe hi-res is superior, it's just different. There are examples of pixel art done on the Amiga series of computers (and elsewhere like Pixel Joint) that rival anything produced by a wacom today in terms of beauty and elegance and I stand by that statement.