I'm curious if anyone else has found that 16x16 tiles can allow more flexibility in map/level building, at least for typical 16bit era sprite dimensions. I feel like 16x16 is superior to 32x32, because essentially you are dividing up a 32x32 into four quadrants with more variations, edges, etc. One thing I've noticed though is that clients often ask for 32x32 even if their player sprite is only 32x32. I personally feel 16x16 would be a better choice. I've even politely suggested this to clients, but they maintain that 32x32 is what they require. Does anyone (like developers?) have any insight into this? I feel like if the sprite isn't approaching 64x64 dimensions, the tiles should be kept to 16x16. Maybe 32x32 is just accepted as a "standard" and clients just think they are getting more for their money if they ask for 32x32. By the way, I am not ridiculing clients or accusing them of being ignorant. Thoughts?

Edited by Mr Special - 13 August 2014 at 11:56am

It is more flexible but (imo) 16x16 doesn't have THAT much space to draw out what you want. 32x32 gives you 4 times more space and gives a lot of opportunities for greater detail. 

I prefer 16x16 over 32x32 as well. If you'll be making lots of variations, it's better to work with a smaller size because tiles are meant to be combined with each other. Using a larger size reduces the ability to add more variety because 32x32 is essentially 4 potential spots for 16x16 tiles to swap in and out with. And yea, I like using character sizes that are larger than the tiles because it then they don't feel like they're getting overshadowed by the tiles. There are exceptions to these things, but that's usually what I prefer..