Nostalgia turns it into an art style and aesthetic. The same thing happened with pixel graphics. We’re going through the ages of video game graphics again as people that grew up with those games are now the ones creating the games. In a few years i bet we’ll start seeing games with the aesthetic of GameCube and the PS2 games.
Personally I think it’s a good thing. When it turns into an aesthetic it never truly dies and it makes the style timeless. We’ll be seeing pixel graphics and PS1 style graphics in games until people get bored of it, which they never will.
I do agree that it’s nostalgia-powered and fuelled by millennials with disposable income being a fertile market, but to me here’s the weird thing: I think pixel art can look incredibly beautiful while the old early 3D game style looks like absolute ass (such as the OG FF7 screenshot above).
But I grew up much more on the latter than the former. There has to be more to it than just nostalgia.
I think it’s because there were more limitations than just resolution that we can ignore nowadays while still considering it pixel art. Things like limited color pallettes, sprite counts, having little memory to store graphics, low framerates, analog video, CRTs…
It’s not only nostalgia. Arbitrary limitations drive creativity. Previously the limitations were imposed by the hardware. Today the designer can choose their own limitations.
I was thinking this recently when watching footage of Dread Delusion, a 2024 game that looks like something out of 1999.
It’s a visually interesting game, maybe not profoundly so, but it gave me a passing thought about what makes a game more “artistic”. I was looking at a rocky wall texture, low res enough to count the individual pixels, but I still recognized it as rock. And then I asked myself what takes more skill: a high fidelity AAA game that just megascans a real rock surface to capture as much detail as possible, or a game like Dread Delusion trying to convey the idea of a rock in as little detail as possible.
Developers back in the day would have absolutely killed to have the hardware capabilities we have today. No longer needing to worry about fitting games on a tiny disc or cartridge measured only in MB, not even in GB. Even Dread Delusion, despite looking like a PS1 game, could not have fit on even 3 PS1 discs. But it was those very limitations that made developers really have to think carefully about their content, the total scope of the games they wanted to make, how much detail they could afford to include, etc.
I don’t think those limitations necessarily made games inherently better, because there were still a lot of bad games back in the day. But it meant that everything had more deliberation to it, where a developer would create a game that was one really good idea instead of a game made of 20 just “okay” ideas.
I still see the fifth generation as a lost one for pixel art. The games that do it really well in that era are few and far between (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Suikoden, Breath of Fire IV) and even those still had 3D elements in them that have aged like milk.
I too grew up more on pixel art, but the problem I always had with 3D in the 90’s was that–on an objective, technical level–it was already being done so much better elsewhere than it was on PlayStation and the others. Both PC and arcades were consistently driving much higher framerates, and by the late 90’s, far better picture quality. It wasn’t even four years after the PSX that the Dreamcast launched and completely outclassed it in graphics potential. I feel the move to 3D in the console market was just too early. I guess I can sort of see why some would be nostalgic for it, but to me this trend is the equivalent of being nostalgic for 19th century movies.
What I don’t get is why this trend is happening now. The tech’s been there for indies and the like to do this for a while. The demo for people old enough to grow up with these games has also long been in disposable income territory. Maybe we’re just oversaturated with pixel art at this point?
And some people just like ass more than others. I personally think the PS1 aesthetic is charming when done right. But that’s just my opinion, totally fair to disagree.
Nostalgia turns it into an art style and aesthetic. The same thing happened with pixel graphics. We’re going through the ages of video game graphics again as people that grew up with those games are now the ones creating the games. In a few years i bet we’ll start seeing games with the aesthetic of GameCube and the PS2 games.
Personally I think it’s a good thing. When it turns into an aesthetic it never truly dies and it makes the style timeless. We’ll be seeing pixel graphics and PS1 style graphics in games until people get bored of it, which they never will.
I do agree that it’s nostalgia-powered and fuelled by millennials with disposable income being a fertile market, but to me here’s the weird thing: I think pixel art can look incredibly beautiful while the old early 3D game style looks like absolute ass (such as the OG FF7 screenshot above).
But I grew up much more on the latter than the former. There has to be more to it than just nostalgia.
I think it’s because there were more limitations than just resolution that we can ignore nowadays while still considering it pixel art. Things like limited color pallettes, sprite counts, having little memory to store graphics, low framerates, analog video, CRTs…
It’s not only nostalgia. Arbitrary limitations drive creativity. Previously the limitations were imposed by the hardware. Today the designer can choose their own limitations.
this is evident when looking at modern pixel art games. something like Celeste could never run on an SNES or Genesis.
even Shovel Knight, which is made specifically to mimic NES games, ignores some limitations of the NES
I wonder how low-poly art styles will evolve with time? even modern pixel art is quite different from the pixel art of the 2010s
I was thinking this recently when watching footage of Dread Delusion, a 2024 game that looks like something out of 1999.
It’s a visually interesting game, maybe not profoundly so, but it gave me a passing thought about what makes a game more “artistic”. I was looking at a rocky wall texture, low res enough to count the individual pixels, but I still recognized it as rock. And then I asked myself what takes more skill: a high fidelity AAA game that just megascans a real rock surface to capture as much detail as possible, or a game like Dread Delusion trying to convey the idea of a rock in as little detail as possible.
Developers back in the day would have absolutely killed to have the hardware capabilities we have today. No longer needing to worry about fitting games on a tiny disc or cartridge measured only in MB, not even in GB. Even Dread Delusion, despite looking like a PS1 game, could not have fit on even 3 PS1 discs. But it was those very limitations that made developers really have to think carefully about their content, the total scope of the games they wanted to make, how much detail they could afford to include, etc.
I don’t think those limitations necessarily made games inherently better, because there were still a lot of bad games back in the day. But it meant that everything had more deliberation to it, where a developer would create a game that was one really good idea instead of a game made of 20 just “okay” ideas.
I still see the fifth generation as a lost one for pixel art. The games that do it really well in that era are few and far between (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Suikoden, Breath of Fire IV) and even those still had 3D elements in them that have aged like milk.
I too grew up more on pixel art, but the problem I always had with 3D in the 90’s was that–on an objective, technical level–it was already being done so much better elsewhere than it was on PlayStation and the others. Both PC and arcades were consistently driving much higher framerates, and by the late 90’s, far better picture quality. It wasn’t even four years after the PSX that the Dreamcast launched and completely outclassed it in graphics potential. I feel the move to 3D in the console market was just too early. I guess I can sort of see why some would be nostalgic for it, but to me this trend is the equivalent of being nostalgic for 19th century movies.
What I don’t get is why this trend is happening now. The tech’s been there for indies and the like to do this for a while. The demo for people old enough to grow up with these games has also long been in disposable income territory. Maybe we’re just oversaturated with pixel art at this point?
And some people just like ass more than others. I personally think the PS1 aesthetic is charming when done right. But that’s just my opinion, totally fair to disagree.
I personally like both ass and tits