Hello everyone,

I am relatively new to the sprite scene, I know many of you here are veterans, and would probably have a little bit more insight than me on this matter. I have a question that has been bothering me for quite some time, it is:

Why do some people say that using too many shades of a color is not a very good idea?

I remember hearing something like "If the shades are too similar to one another, they blend in too much, so just take it out". I know there are different views and opinions about this, and I respect everyones say. I know there are all types of art styles and techniques, and my post is not to critisize one or the other. I just want to hear people's opinions on this matter.

Also, I am sorry if I am bringing up a topic that has been brought up before I couldnt find any post that talks extensively about this matter. I want to start manking sprites for games that I will make in the future, and I would like them to look like many of the great games that came out for the 16bit consoles.

On that matter, here is an example from a Chrono Trigger sprite that I think looks quite good. I studied it and found that there are so many different shades they used to make up the piece of art.



I wanted to learn this tecnique, so I made this, its a little piece of grass. I used the same shades as them.



I just thought of a possible answer: It is ok to use many shades when the object is really far away? But use less when its a close up?

It's often commonly accepted that less colors in a palette is ideal when working with sprites because it creates more work for the spriter to keep the color and shading style consistent in every frame. it also saves up on memory space to have smaller palettes, but this is a limitation that is no longer common. However, Palette optimization is still an important part of making readable sprites. It's easier to draw hundreds of frames of a character and color them in when you're moving less colors around; if you have more colors, you have to keep worrying if a few pixels of a shade match up with the ones in the previous frame, so having an optimized palette alleviates a lot of that nit-picking and stress. it also overall makes the sprites crisper and more visually appealing and simply easier to 'read' from a distance.

also, protip: when working on sprites, it's important to check how they look at their normal viewing distance(not zoomed in) frequently, because more often than not, a well blended sprite zoomed in looks very muddy and flat when zoomed out.

With Chrono Trigger (and a lot of games with higher amounts of detail) backgrounds would typically be drawn and painted in full color before being converted down to fit the hardware limitations of the SNES (or other console) it's worth noting that the actual sprites in Chrono Trigger use maybe around 16 colors per sprite (the example here is a collection of background tiles and doesn't qualify as a sprite per sé)

When an object is further away, less detail overall is visible. this, combined with atmospherics, causes objects further in the distance to have a bluer look (usually) so, the inverse of your answer would be more likely. ( Less shades when farther away, more shades/detail closer up )

I can't stress enough how much solid design and drawing skills will only help improve one's spritecraft, I recommend using references outside of the pixel world and looking at photographs and learning from life, it'll allow you to see the basis on which a lot of professional spriters derive their work.

(01-29-2014, 10:35 PM)Alaby Wrote: Why do some people say that using too many shades of a color is not a very good idea?

For me, I like to use fewer colors overall because
1. I think fewer colors is easier to manage
2. I like both the aesthetic look and challenge that comes from fewer colors

I also think it can be useful for new spriters to focus on reducing their color count, as it can essentially force them to learn at least the basics of color theory sooner than otherwise, as well as encourages them to add only what is absolutely necessary to their pieces (which is especially important in low-resolution representative art like sprites, where having too much of anything can often weaken the piece).

Of course, really, if someone can handle large numbers of colors really well, then by all means, work with more colors. Though, the larger number of colors you get, the more likely it is that you could achieve the same results more quickly with plain digital art.

also, pixelart is the art of compromises and limitations, in a good way

you work with the smallest graphical element, the pixel, to represent characters, objects and elements on screen. Since every dot is placed by you, and not by an automated tool (like photoshop brushes or vectors), you have 100% control of how the art comes out.

This being said, the less colors you use, the bigger your control will be: because you'll have less pixels to assign places for (which is a bonus, because this is how old games made graphics: with limited palettes, saved in the game cartridge data). And with this, as said before, will wnsure that you'll only use the colors that really matter to your work.

Since sprites and pixelart are usually given a reason to exist (they are a kind of functional art: they're parts of a bigger thing: games), there needs to be a balance between detail and production ease.

Finally, in old games, this mindset didn't exist and that's why some SNES games tried to be more realistic, by importing handdrawn art as graphics, or even modelling 3D characters and taking pics of it, or in MK's case, taking photos of irl people. Those are still sprites in the broader sense, but not pixelart due to its completely 'artificial' pixel placement. And this is the case for the map you're trying to replicate. You may create graphics close to the sample you have up there, but i'll never be IN style because it's hard to replicate compression algoritms with hand-placed pixels.

Wow,

The responses that you guys have given me were more than I expected. Thank you Sketchasaurus, Kitsu and Gors, it definitely cleared up a lot of doubts and questions I had about the subject. It makes a lot of sense now that you guys explain it. Sketchasaurus I agree that it is easier to move colors around in an animated sprite, I hadn't thought of that. I know now that thats why some of the Final Fantasy bosses are so detailed, cause they dont move ! And thanks for clearing up background tiiles vs sprites. Im going to research more on this matter. I have taken some life drawing classes, and I am trying to draw the human figure a little each day, because its a skill that I want to develop. I have some work on my website if anyone wants to see: www.eligalvezcg.com

Also, I didnt know that the backgrounds originated from drawings. I thought that they had placed each pixel in there by hand haha. Im beginning to understand much more now.

Thanks Kitsu for suggesting to learn with smaller colors, and also to look at color theory. I studied a little bit of that when I was in school, and I want to get better at it, so I will def take your suggestion I think its gonna be a bit hard for me to stick to simple colors since I have always loved the more realistic approach but I know its for my own good Oh and Kitsu/Gors, awesome job on those games that you guys have made! I looked at them and played them and I was very impressed!! I know that it is a lot of work to create a game, and if only you 2 made that (sorry If Im not mentioning the full crew), that is simply amazing. I know you guys are busy, but I would love to work with you at some point if you are interested. Right now Im learning Game Maker Studio.

Also thanks Gors for clearing up some of that stuff. I know there was a lot of experimentation in the Golden Age of games, and some of it worked and some of it didnt. Yes, detail and production ease balance makes sense. Eventually I want to work in a video game company so these terms are very relevant to me. I figured that they took pictures to make MK. Eventually I would like to make my own MK-like game .

Well, now I know much more the difference between spriting and pixel art, thank you guys!!

One last question (very important for me). If people post some realistic looking sprites here, how well is it received in this community? Are there more people that only prefer simple sprites? Or both? I dont want to offend anyone here.

There's a lot of personal preference that comes into play when it comes to the subject of realism in sprites; It really depends from person to person, but at least from what I've seen, a large majority of spriters here prefer (at least to make) stylized sprites. I personally prefer making cartoony sprites because I can embellish and exaggerate actions for more energetic, fun motion.

I feel that, as long as you're putting forth the effort and listening to critique from the other folks here, it doesn't matter what level of realism your sprites are. I just know that novice Sonic and Megaman edits (really edits in general) are automatically unwelcome.