Question I don't get pixelated game popularity

[Craig234]

Gaming technology has evolved, so that pixelated graphics have greatly improved. I don't get the people who seem to like the 'art style' of pixelated games.

When the technology was limited, that was one thing. But it was a limit, not a positive.

I could understand a very small bit of nostalgia, but it seems to be a large market. And most of the fans of pixelated games seem to be younger gamers who coudn't have 'nostalgia' about them.

Sometimes older art has things to recommend it - I think music was best decades ago, old movies have a lot of great works - but would we really want 'Gilligan's Island' simplicity as a modern prime time series?

The legitimate reasons for pixelated games I see are basically be easier and cheaper to make, and that's it. I don't get the bad graphics being a positive selling point for the game, and demand for that.

It's a little like demanding music have mono sound, lots of static, and be played on cheap $5 speakers.

 

[bystander36]

My opinion is that you think marketing is fact based, when in reality marketing is them trying to sell you a game by telling you what they think you want to hear.

 

[Craig234]

My opinion is that you think marketing is fact based, when in reality marketing is them trying to sell you a game by telling you what they think you want to hear.

No. I'm referring to the implication that the fact they think it's what players want to hear suggests there are such players that's the issue. If you want to argue they're wrong and players don't want to hear that, that's one opinion that would address the issue.

 

[bystander36]

No. I'm referring to the implication that the fact they think it's what players want to hear suggests there are such players that's the issue. If you want to argue they're wrong and players don't want to hear that, that's one opinion that would address the issue.

We don't really disagree on what they think players want to hear. I just think it's simply because that is what players want to hear, and not necessarily what anyone actually thinks. I believe it comes down to them knowing that the graphics that are presented are going to scare off a lot of customers, so they try to address that issue with marketing.

 

[Craig234]

We don't really disagree on what they think players want to hear. I just think it's simply because that is what players want to hear, and not necessarily what anyone actually thinks. I believe it comes down to them knowing that the graphics that are presented are going to scare off a lot of customers, so they try to address that issue with marketing.

I think that's a valid theory. What's not correct is the statement about thinking marketing is fact-based.

 

[bystander36]

I think that's a valid theory. What's not correct is the statement about thinking marketing is fact-based.

What, you think marketing is fact-based? It might try to be close to it, but marketing doesn't have to be based on facts when it is an selling based on opinion.

 

[Rifter]

I think that's a valid theory. What's not correct is the statement about thinking marketing is fact-based.

Marketing is not fact based. It can be in some cases sure, but in other cases its complete made up BS just to get you to purchase the products. At best id say its 50/50 fact/fiction.

 

[Craig234]

What, you think marketing is fact-based?

Craig234: I think the sky is blue. bystander36: "What, you think the sky is not blue?" Some people's reading comprehension is appalling.

 

[Craig234]

Really? This 'marketing being fact based' is now confusing?

Marketing is not 'fact-based'. It might have facts, because they serve the purpose of promoting the message. It might not. It might distort them.

But what's relevant here is that while it's unreliable about facts it contains, it largely does reflect the consumers' interests.

So you don't see ads for an airline that say 'we spend the least on safety, because that gives more of the excitement you want!' Why not? Because consumers DON'T want that excitement. if they did, you probably WOULD see that ad.

Now, it's inexact - large advertisers tend to have well-researched, polled, focus group tested advertising, while smaller advertisers might just have guesses, and sometimes they get it wrong. But advertising mostly helps show what their customers want to hear.

When the word 'sugar' was dropped from cereal names, it wasn't because the 'fact' of the sugar was removed, it was because the word sugar went from a marketing positive to a marketing negative with customers. That's the difference in low-res graphics being marketed or not - what it says about the players' opinions of it.

 

[bystander36]

Really? This 'marketing being fact based' is now confusing?

Marketing is not 'fact-based'. It might have facts, because they serve the purpose of promoting the message. It might not. It might distort them.

But what's relevant here is that while it's unreliable about facts it contains, it largely does reflect the consumers' interests.

So you don't see ads for an airline that say 'we spend the least on safety, because that gives more of the excitement you want!' Why not? Because consumers DON'T want that excitement. if they did, you probably WOULD see that ad.

Now, it's inexact - large advertisers tend to have well-researched, polled, focus group tested advertising, while smaller advertisers might just have guesses, and sometimes they get it wrong. But advertising mostly helps show what their customers want to hear.

When the word 'sugar' was dropped from cereal names, it wasn't because the 'fact' of the sugar was removed, it was because the word sugar went from a marketing positive to a marketing negative with customers. That's the difference in low-res graphics being marketed or not - what it says about the players' opinions of it.

What was confusing is that you said you disagreed with me thinking you believe marketing is fact based.

While I agree it can be fact based, much of marketing is not.

Anyway, for what ever reason, you believe that if they say people prefer pixel graphics, it has to be based on fact. My experience is they can state any opinion they want, with no facts to back it up, as by definition, opinions don't require facts.

 

[Craig234]

What was confusing is that you said you disagreed with me thinking you believe marketing is fact based.

While I agree it can be fact based, much of marketing is not.

What is confusing about that? You're the one who claimed I said marketing is fact-based when I didn't.

Anyway, for what ever reason, you believe that if they say people prefer pixel graphics, it has to be based on fact. My experience is they can state any opinion they want, with no facts to back it up, as by definition, opinions don't require facts.

No, I'm not saying that. In fact, they don't 'say' people prefer pixel graphics. What I said was, that they put the pixel graphics as a marketing bullet to promote the game, implying that they think their market does see that as a positive, which surprised me - and while not a 'fact', such marketing assumptions generally are not far off, as I've discussed above. But feel free to say you don't hold that view, as I don't.

 

[bystander36]

What is confusing about that? You're the one who claimed I said marketing is fact-based when I didn't.



No, I'm not saying that. In fact, they don't 'say' people prefer pixel graphics. What I said was, that they put the pixel graphics as a marketing bullet to promote the game, implying that they think their market does see that as a positive, which surprised me - and while not a 'fact', such marketing assumptions generally are not far off, as I've discussed above. But feel free to say you don't hold that view, as I don't.

Go back and reread what I wrote:

My opinion is that you think marketing is fact based, when in reality marketing is them trying to sell you a game by telling you what they think you want to hear.

Clearly you misunderstood what you read. No harm.

 

[bystander36]

That said, I'm confused on your difficulty understanding this topic. This whole topic was based on you trying to understand why people prefer pixel graphics, when you've not run into anyone who has said that. Only marketing that has said that.

 

[Craig234]

This whole topic was based on you trying to understand why people prefer pixel graphics, when you've not run into anyone who has said that. Only marketing that has said that.

One of the options was for people to say they don't prefer pixel graphics. If no one does, that was a lot of arguing and anger for nothing from some. I don't recall everywhere I've seen praise of pixelated games, the marketing bullet was the surprise, this is a discussion to see people's opinions, and in particular if anyone had any info on why some might prefer the pixel graphics look other than nostalgia.

 

[Craig234]

Clearly you misunderstood what you read. No harm.

I don't think I misunderstood what you said, but you might have understood what I said, but I agree, no harm. Your opinion that I think marketing is entirely fact-based isn't correct, but I've discussed that in some detail above.

 

[ImpulsE69]

And full circle, because your interpretation of the concept is way out in left field. What is humorous is you get all offended if someone gets snippy with you, but you think you are above it and immediately start throwing stones at people who aren't throwing them at you. Get over yourself.

Some people will play games based on gameplay regardless of the graphic quality, some people will only play things with amazing graphics. Some people don't play games. Let's talk about those? Why? Why wouldn't they play this amazing game that is marketed as amazing???? WHYYYY??? Very few people are going to say "I only play pixel games for no other reason than they are pixel games". Quit being willfully ignorant. Most every possible reason has already been addressed at this point and you continually reject them. If you still can't comprehend it, go ask the devs.


.....and also, wtf do I keep responding to this thread. As I said, pointless.

 

[bystander36]

One of the options was for people to say they don't prefer pixel graphics. If no one does, that was a lot of arguing and anger for nothing from some. I don't recall everywhere I've seen praise of pixelated games, the marketing bullet was the surprise, this is a discussion to see people's opinions, and in particular if anyone had any info on why some might prefer the pixel graphics look other than nostalgia.

One thing about marketing is it can be misleading. Some people may prefer "Pixel games", but that doesn't mean it was the graphics that caused them to prefer those games.

 

[JujuFish]

Craig234: I think the sky is blue. bystander36: "What, you think the sky is not blue?" Some people's reading comprehension is appalling.

This is funny, and probably not for the reason you intended.

 

[Craig234]

This is funny, and probably not for the reason you intended.

Clueless, which is ok, and rude, which isn't, added to ignore.

 

[JujuFish]

Clueless, which is ok, and rude, which isn't, added to ignore.

Oh look, yet another example where it's okay for you say crap about other people, but not for them to say the exact same thing about you.

 

[DigDog]

Cubism ?

 

[GibbyPruchesi]

I played some games with pixel graphics recently simply because they can run on really old computers and weaker laptops with integrated graphics cards. Nostalgia might definitely be a factor, but I also think it's pretty cool how pixel artists manage to convey ideas with a very limited amount of colors or pixels to work with. It takes skill and creativity to make good looking pixel art, not just random block made in Paint. But I'm no snob and there are definitely modern games out there with unique artstyles and aesthetics. My main point is simply performance. Not everyone can afford an expensive rig just for some pretty graphics.

 

[DigDog]

It's really a mixture of the two.
It's much easier and cheaper and faster to produce highly artistic images within a simplistic ruleset (pixels) than to do the same with a 3d model, and while arguably the best results achievable by a modeler in Maya are better, e.g. the God Of War models, given a reduced amount of work available, pixel art produces better results - and is *much* easier to animate.
And just the fact that because of this, artists practice and get good within that medium.
If you are great at pixel art, and you pick up Maya, your results won't be as good for a long while.

And frankly pixel art has the inherent advantage of being easy to identify, with its hard, well defined edges, giving you more visibility as a tradeoff of less realism.

 

[DeathReborn]

I grew up in the Atari/Amiga/Commodore/Spectrum era so what some would now call bad or pixelated graphics aren't much of an issue for me. There are however exceptions, the 8-Bit Armies, Super Meat Boy & Minecraft titles just never took for me, every time I play them it just looks wrong and I turn it off. Other games like Terraria, Undertale etc I can get completely lost in.

Now Cel-shaded games (Borderlands etc) I just can't get to grips with at all, I try and I try but they always end up on the "hidden" games list.