Painted style or pixel style?

[Xenphir]

Which do you prefer? Painted style maps where things look smoother/more realistic or pixel style maps that look more uniform and easy to maneuver? Also by pixel I mean fully parallax and beautified, while still looking RPGstyle.

I like painted style as a base look, but sometimes the pixel style character and events on top of maps like these can make them seem too different and misplaced.

Spoiler: Painted style from Rune Factory 4

Spoiler: Pixel style like most RPG Maker games. Map made by me with RPGMaker MV and First Seed Materials

 

[MushroomCake28]

This matter is highly subjective to people, and also highly depends on the type of game. If a play a traditional rpg, simple or complex, I expect a pixel/grid style. If it's an exploration game relatively small which primary focus is the environment, painted images make more sense.

Personally I prefer pixel style. If I want some realism and beautiful textures for a world, I would go 3D instead of 2D.

 

[cabfe]

Maybe I'm wrong but, for me, both your pictures are painted style.

XP has pixel style while VX and up have painted style.
For example, this comparison by Ayene:

Zoomed version, no filter:

Left is VX (painted) and right is XP (pixel)

 

[TheoAllen]

Yeah, both are painted style. You could say it's pixel is when you limit the color palette to draw things. Painted is when you could use basically more broad color. Not limited to palettes.

Personally, I really have no preference. I might say pixel, but there're some games I couldn't stand with the pixel graphics. While some others did it better. Painted style could be good if the painted quality across the game is consistent. That depends on how they did it. But assume both did good, I might lean toward pixel.

 

[Wavelength]

I don't like when maps clearly show their grids/lines in their art (where, for example, even natural settings have orthogonal orientations). Aesthetically, I prefer natural and realistic layout, even if the style is anime or abstract (rather than true realism).

With that said, if the gameplay and movement are taking place in a grid, then the map shouldn't be so "natural" or jagged that the player cannot tell where they can and cannot move. It's possible (and ideal) to fit a natural map to a playable grid. But short of that, it's probably better to have an orthogonal aesthetic than it is to have a natural map which doesn't reflect the actual playable area that well.

 

[Darth Equus]

Pixel for me, because "painted" style or maps with too much graphic editing and enhancement make me feel like I'm playing a cheap mobile game made in flash, ready to start offering micro-transactions. (Breath of Fire VI, anyone?)

Old school FTW.

PS: Not that games using that kind of style are automatically bad. Vanillaware's recent games use it, for example.

 

[vap0re0n]

If the game is stuck to very rigid grid movement, usually prefer pixel.
It kind of makes it fit the presentation to me. The art doesn't need to blend well.

Otherwise for all else painted style over pixel, particularly one like RF4, Tales of Eternia or Ni No Kuni on the DS.

However my biggest preference is towards (pre-rendered) 3D backgrounds with 2D sprites such as Star Ocean 2 and Xenogears that give a bit of that PS1 era vibe.

 

[FluffexStudios]

Painted style for us as it is more refined, realistic and fit well with a lot of drawn artworks that we have. A painted map is more detailed and colorful to us. Plus, you can see a painted character's feature better than those of pixelated characters.

 

[Stridah]

both styles are great it depends on how much time you want to put into your pixel work, simple pixel is much faster then hand painted.

 

[RandomFellow]

Personally, I like creative pixel art a lot more than smoother, higher resolution graphics. (high res ones tend to remind me of phone games) Not saying they can't be great too, but you can get away with so much more with pixel art. If you're making it yourself.