user
Gil @ 2/3/2016 13:08 commented on Ambassador Of Happiness

It lives! Super job on this :)



user
Gil @ 1/31/2016 06:13 commented on Secret Santa 2014

I agree, looking back at it now, the negative space could've been handled a bit better. I'm not sure if I should edit it, since it was submitted as is, to that challenge. Maybe I should.



 
Gil @ 1/29/2016 23:21 commented on Big Bird

I just want a fragment shader that does palettes, with palette cycling, palette graphs, normal mapping, ambient occlusion (or static shading if you will), emissive maps, maybe some HDR lighting, IES profiles for lights and depth maps (selective overlap). I think for a pixel art game, you might want to have light-emitting particles, so deferred shading would be cool.



 
Gil @ 1/29/2016 22:50 commented on Big Bird

Old and not so fancy example, pixel perfect dynamic lighting: 

http://art.game-designer.org/pixelart/spaceshooter/code/demo1-a.html

In newer versions I have indexed versions and palette cycling and the emissives work properly, because of ambient occlusion being separated from diffuse, etc

Please forgive the messy code, was just prototyping



 
Gil @ 1/29/2016 22:44 commented on Big Bird

I'm not even sure what my pixel art shaders require. I'm doing like deferred shading in WebGL and stuff. That's probably not going to run on potatoes.



 
Gil @ 1/28/2016 13:59 commented on Big Bird

Well, that last post was enlightening actually. I do think I get your point now. The difference is that I want PJ to be more, even though I do like coming here now. You are saying that it scratches an itch, and that's all something needs to be, and I do agree with that. I think that's the fundamental difference then. 

"That tools are irrelevant, and that Pj's are especially, can be quoted verbatim a plenty here, by you and others. How is that a strawman. Watch that goal post shifting though, for those nasty circles. Tools are not only about result either. The experience of process with a tool and how it guides your art thinking, is an improtant aspect too, that often gets forgotten nowadays. PJ tries to keep hat spirit alive."

Not that it matters much, but I didn't shift the goal post on you. We always claimed that tools are important to pixel art (without tools, there is no art). We just claim it plays no role in deciding whether something is pixel art or not. And PJ doesn't keep tool spirit alive in any meaningful way. Just like there is no politics if there's only a single party, there's no creativity in tool usage if only one is allowed. Our definition promotes tool experimentation MORE, not less.



 
Gil @ 1/28/2016 13:08 commented on Big Bird

"Of course it is all about tools. If tools are so irrelevant, why not just enjoy the ones you got here? You'd like to use more tools than PJ allows, seems very important to you, this issue of tools. PJ concentrates on only certain tools to study and teach their process."

I'll repeat myself one last time, then I think we better cut off, we're right at the beginning again otherwise.

1) I use the tools I need to be creative. PJ stiffles that creativity if it forces me to stop using them, without any visual difference. For professional work, there's also speed to consider.

2) I, and most others, don't create art for PJ, we create art because we want to create, because it serves a purpose (a game), because it is good practice and a myriad of other reasons. PJ being a gallery, all we come here for is to showcase the result and have a talk about it.

3) Tools are important, I never argued they are irrelevant (another strawman, big surprise). Tools affect the end result, especially at the pixel level. By learning how different tools affect the result, we learn to control them until they become effective at producing pixel art. There's plenty examples of this submitted here daily, people just don't tell because of the weird ruleset.

4) You keep talking about studying and teaching, yet I see not a lot of that going on here, it certainly isn't a core business. In fact, the rules prohibit you from submitting work that is not considered to be finished, so you are prohibited from asking for advice. Yes, there is a small, very inactive forum where some of this is going on, again not core business obviously.



 
Gil @ 1/28/2016 12:42 commented on Big Bird

"Basically, what you've been saying is that one kind of tool technique is more worth than another, often reasoned by technical merit."

I argued all my points, I'd have to step out here really. We're running in circles. At every point of the discussion I and others have kept hammering on the fact that IT IS NOT ABOUT TOOLS. Every time you mention tools, I cringe. So to go out of your way to reduce my argument to one about tools, when it so clearly has nothing to do with tools is just borderline insulting.

We are not reducing art to outcome either, we are reducing pixel art to outcome, in the process allowing all tool techniques, embracing them all, studying them all and looking how they affect the pixel result. Not only does this broaden pixel art's effective use, it broadens and enrichens the artform tremendously. That by judging pixel art as a result, we in the process also supposedly stopped caring about tools, technique and process is a strawman argument you made with no basis in the things discussed.

The literature argument is just completely moot on the grounds that that literature was written by exactly the kind of people that are trying to deconstruct pixel art. Sure, there might not be a lot of art big wigs looking at pixel art, but you have to start somewhere. Your very tiny exclusionary vision of the artform does it disservice (it's as if someone would have suddenly decided that all impressionism needs to be pointillism and preferably only using Seurat's own brushes).



 
Gil @ 1/28/2016 12:05 commented on Big Bird

"The real point of that comparison was, to show that having anything to do with pixel art at all is just totally awkward even as a result of any definition nowadays what-so-ever. It's mostly extra steps in the code and art to bend over modern computers for something that has no technical meaning anymore, but purely unreasonable aesthetics. So you may as well cut off all ties to pixel art on pixelation, if you argue about PJ's take on it."

But that's exactly the point we are arguing? That pixel art is not an aesthetic, that it is a manner of looking at a subject? Most of all, that there's ways to learn to improve your technique to handle that scrutinous look and that there's areas where this becomes important even today, but mostly because out of the pixel art communities has evolved a wholly new form of technique that was instinctively known to a lot of early game artists, but that we have only recently started to deconstruct.

Along the way we invented or rediscovered all these terms and theories, that describe this glorious world of understanding how to exploit pixels. Terms like "selout" (probably the first one), "manual AA", "pixel noise", "subpixels", "banding" and now recently "clusters".

By arguing it's an aesthetic, you are basically saying that all these things are moot if it doesn't look like a mario sprite or a megaman sprite or a hyper light duelyst of the cave storied chasm sprite.



 
Gil @ 1/28/2016 11:15 commented on Big Bird

"By your own argumentation, maybe Pix should become more like dA, because even though you think PJ pixel process is irrelevant, Pix's results are too, compared to how everyone else goes about game art."

See, it's messages like this that make me think you don't actually know what you are arguing. Pixelation's rules don't have a definition for NPA, so all game art is allowed. You are just expected to be there to work on your pixel technique, otherwise you are in the wrong forum. Everybody in the world that works with pixels is working within the realm of what Pixelation accepts, they are very very strict about when to call it good enough once you go asking for critique though. So, PJ's focus on process is irrelevant, compared to how everyone else, including Pixelation, goes about game art. On the other hand, it's funny that to actually learn the process that PJ expects, people actually go to Pixelation to learn it, because the WIP forum here is orders of magnitude less active.

For most people, they learn how to pixel somewhere (some on Pixelation, where the best focus on technique is, but most on their own or all sorts of forums, like TIGSource, websites like dA, etc), then they come to PJ to display their art, only to find out PJ only accepts pixel art made to a certain technique that isn't taught anywhere, but that you just figure out by making art specifically for PJ and then having it rejected until you "get" the rules.

Most people make art that is not intended for PJ, but want to display it here. Only a small percentage wants to make art specifically for displaying here. That small group makes the most entries of course, as this is their hangout. That is simply not possible under the current ruleset and all we are saying is "hey, remember the guys that made your rules? They figured out a better way to judge what pixel art is, that is both more qualitative and more inclusive of everyone, why don't you use that to base your ruleset on instead?"



 
Gil @ 1/28/2016 09:45 commented on Big Bird

I don't see why the discussion has to move towards Pix vs PJ, I never went there. I obviously enjoy both. From a historical perspective, especially how the rules evolved, there's a connection that I addressed. I could've picked specific people instead, but that would make it all even muddier. Suffice to say they were invented by a group of people chatting on the old Pixelation board, but that group of people could've met anywhere. From now on, when I say Pixelation, assume I mean: the definitions Pixelation uses based on the opinion of a few of its members, the same members that wrote the original PJ rules. Anyway.

"How has it rules that cater to no one when it has sprawling activity still as is, with old timers and new comers a like, a lot more so than the more liberal Pixelation, at least."

And the pixel art section on deviantArt has even more activity. Does that mean deviantArt has even stricter rules? Activity is not a useful metric here. Pixelation has at various points been more or less active than PJ. The question is: is one ruleset more objectively correct in identifiying a display of artistry at the pixel level. Also, I disagree that Pixelation's rules are "less strict", in fact they are stricter in a sense. PJ has very blurry rules that allow a lot of things Pixelation would not consider to be good pixel art (Pixelation's definitions doesn't define "NPA", whatever that may be, just a scale to grade control over pixels). On the other hand, Pixelation's definitions will give a good grade to a lot of things that look like pixel art to most humans, are done to expert level and are rejected in PJ.

And again, Pixelation's definitions are evolved from the same set that PJ uses, by the same people, there is no PJ vs Pix, it's the same pool of people.



 
Gil @ 1/28/2016 08:07 commented on Big Bird

"While pixel art is in wide spread use nowadays, the question is in what form, What of it survives. How successful. For some people, pixel art as they loved it may as well be dead, despite its continued existence. They don't feel properly serviced by the market. Maybe more neglected by the maket than others feel neglected by PJ."

But PJ refuses to display most historic pixel art? And it allows the recent revival art? This is part of the issue, a lot of newcomers think that PJ teaches historic techniques, but PJ teaches a version of pixel art, invented over at Pixelation, combined with what they added to it over the years after it became its own thing.

"But to me PJ is not about speed, efficiency, success, or beauty - it's about practicing and showcasing the application of fundamental technique, and learning from that and other practitioners."

Ah, this is important and something I didn't get before. I fundamentally don't think about it that way, because I've been part of this community for 13+ years now. I make pixel art and I'd like to showcase it somewhere. I don't need to practice fundamental techniques, I was there when they were invented (and I hope that here and there I played a small part in that process). That's what makes it absurd to us old-timers. We invented the rules and we changed parts of the definitions over time. But at some point, PJ stopped that process and a few years later, we suddenly noticed that there was a divide between PJ and its mother community Pixelation (remember that when PJ came out, ALL of the members were Pixelation members too, it was a spin-off of sorts).

The rules that PJ uses as to what pixel art is, are a 2002 - 2004 invention by Pixelation members that have NO historic base, as evidenced by the fact that PJ routinely rejects ACTUAL 90's art. Those rules were invented to try and explain what differentiated what they were doing from art in general. As more diverse people joined Pixelation, the rules were changed, but PJ never did that. It now has rules catered to a generation of artists that no longer exist.



 
Gil @ 1/27/2016 15:53 commented on Big Bird

I feel you on the flood man :/. I'm also not sure how to handle that.

I will give the poll making (just the spraycan, sheesh man, you're Jal, we need you) a try and try to set up the fairest question I can think of, so it's just a question of "spraycan, pure or impure?".



 
Gil @ 1/27/2016 15:51 commented on Big Bird

"The way I understand the purism of PJ's gallery is a demonstration of what humans are able to achieve working to a certain condition."

And I claim that if you can't tell the difference, what's the point? We are not talking about pieces that don't look like pixel art, we are talking about pieces that look and feel like pixel art should, yet at some point during their creation, all sorts of dirty things were done to it. It's 2016, I don't handpixel anything anymore, unless I feel nostalgic, yet all my art looks and feels just like I would.

"The answer to the question: what can this pixel art do. what is the worth of this art method."'

I agree completely with what you're saying, I just have a different definition of pixel art, and so have most people really.



 
Gil @ 1/27/2016 15:43 commented on Big Bird

"The spraycan tool has always been considered invalid by most"

My point is that besides maybe a very few people on Pixeljoint, no one considers it invalid :p. Your opinion on spraycans is less than 1% of your own community I bet. I challenge you to make a fair poll without leading question, where you just ask people if a piece is impure if it contains parts done with the spraycan tool. If you get more than 50% of the votes, I'll concede my point and go mutter a bit in a corner :)

I also say you post the part of prowler's piece that contains the spraycanning (the floor texture) as an example, so people don't get images of the so-called "MSPaint artists".

I think the fact that you admit not knowing how these supposed dirty tools work is symptomatic of the issue. The site has existed for how long now? You had plenty of time through these recurring arguments to learn about the matter.



 
Gil @ 1/27/2016 13:43 commented on Big Bird

Jalonso, I have no issues with the plagiarism or denying prowler because he doesn't have pixel level control over his pieces. What I take offense to is this:

"the artist does admit to spraycan tool use and dodging and tiny things like that"

I still don't get why that matters? You try to defend your points by saying it's hard to decide which pieces are controlled at the pixel level and which aren't, and that causes pieces to be rejected, but that's not what we argue. Basically you're strawmanning us, bait and switch.

It's statements like the above we disagree with, not that you are rejecting demoscene art that's visually beautiful, but not pixel perfect (which I agree with completely).

Besides that point, spraycan and dodge tool are both pure in GrafX2 and DPaint, so it doesn't even make sense if we were to agree that certain tools are impure and able to invalidate pixel art.



 
Gil @ 1/27/2016 04:03 commented on Big Bird

Yeah, love to all :)

This is one of those cases where people are passionate because they care I guess, I don't think there's bad feelings.



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 14:26 commented on Big Bird

They HAVE spoken for themselves. Cure and Ptoing today in this very chatterbox and Helm's thoughts on the subject are well known and available in the thread I linked. I just picked those because those were the ones you quoted yourself btw, I'm not playing name tag here.



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 13:53 commented on Big Bird

They disagree with you that there is such a thing as "hybrid" or "NPA" at all.



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 13:50 commented on Big Bird

I don't see Pix as being versus PJ, I never said that. I thought you did by starting a talk on why PJ is a different religion to Pixelation when I don't see how that's even relevant.

When I say "we", I mean the large majority of people that want to see PJ stop rejecting artists based on YT videos that show them using a dirty brush that doesn't even show up in the final piece.



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 13:48 commented on Big Bird

A definition is just a definition, it doesn't matter much. Everyone is free to color things in as he wants, what's in a name? But when it starts to become that people are lying about how they made things or deliberately being silent about it, because their art will be rejected on a website, not for how it looks, but how it was made, that's when Pixeljoint is actively hampering a constructive artistic atmosphere within the pixel community. It's the only site to do so, its most prominent members don't want it to be so and when the debate was held openly, it was obvious only a very small part of the community here agrees with the moderation's view points.



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 13:43 commented on Big Bird

"At its core, artwork is about certain tool techniques". Sure, I'm saying that I disagree completely, as does Helm, Cure, Ptoing and about every other guy in that thread?

You are just spouting your opinion, without reading ours. It's you who are confusing things. All we say is: we define pixel art as an end result, that has nothing to do with tooling. We define pixel art as art with a pixel-level control (there's some very concise, complete, deconstructive definitions in the thread I linked you obviously didn't even bother reading). YOU are being disrespectful here man, sorry to say, by not reading our argumentation, yet claiming it to be confused and not deconstructive, when it absolutely is not.



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 13:19 commented on Big Bird

Again, I urge people to read this thread before discussing this: http://wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=8039.0



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 13:18 commented on Big Bird

I don't get how you guys are still arguing this tool thing, it's sad really. Just as a thinking point, Mandrill: you do realize both Helm and Cure disagree with your standpoint?

Funny that you mention them specifically.



 
Gil @ 1/26/2016 12:22 commented on Big Bird

2013: http://pixeljoint.com/pixelart/78883.htm

Dirty tools all over the place, imo pixel art, but certainly not in your book, accepted and highly rated. It's complete hypocrisy and you know it. Pixel art is not tools used.