Re:A Pixel Artist Renounces Pixel Art
by vacri on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @05:13PM
(#9534934)
I found it interesting that the author denigrated a fighter from Street Fighter IV with 'arms don't work that way', then immediately turns around and says that the pixel art for the next fighter is far better because 'she looks like a whip cracking', despite spines not working that way. It feels like the author is applying different standards at times.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Pixel Artist Renounces Pixel Art
by DinoFarmBlake on Wednesday May 13, 2015 @01:59AM
(#9537056)
Artist/author here! To be clear, when I said her body is like a whip cracking, it's because a kung fu artist doing that kind of movement in real life would look like a whip cracking. When I said arms don't work that way, I mean that his anatomy is literally deformed to the point of not even looking human.
I am not using a double standard. Though, even if both figures were deformed beyond what is absolutely realistic, there could still be well-executed and poorly-executed iterations.
Oh come on. SF3 Chun-Li is absolutely not a low-res sample of how a human body actually looks. It is a stylized exaggeration.
I'd say he stuck to two standards: Old good. Japanese good.
Re:A Pixel Artist Renounces Pixel Art
by DinoFarmBlake on Wednesday May 13, 2015 @02:02AM
(#9537064)
I couldn't name 10 Animes. I'm not weeaboo by any metric. I will say that I think Japanese art tends to be finer, but not always. I think our culture grapples with being macho, or gritty or realistic. I think it rubs against "the rule of good."
Anyway, whether or not something is old is immaterial. Pixar is making some of my favorite animation period, and they keep getting better. AND they're American.
By all means, dismantle my argument. I would be happy to discuss. I don't think ad hominem is the best place to start.
Thanks a lot for reading, either way!