Pixel or vector? Which one is better?

boulder

Hi all,
We are making a puzzelgame. We currently working on a pixelversion, because we liked that more. But i like the sharpness of vector, so decided to try out a more sharper version of this. Which one do you prefer?

Megalomaniak

boulder Which one do you prefer?

The pixel art version, one of the rocket pavilions has an interior.

Jummit

I find the vector art more appealing, both because of the colors and the crisp shapes. I like that some gradients where removed (behind the crystals), and that a gradient was added in the background.

TwistedTwigleg

Personally I like the pixel art version slightly better, but ultimately I’d say whatever style you feel works best for the game you are developing that you can stay consistent with (so it all fits together) and enjoy creating is the best 👍

SuperDoomKing

I like the vector more, the objects in it are sharp and nicely defined. The anti-aliasing in the pixel art version makes it look a bit blurry.

Lethn

That's definitely going to be down to preference, people who like the old school look will prefer pixels, people that like the cleaner look will go for vector. I'm kind of mixed on that argument myself but I do have a soft spot for the pixel look, for me it depends entirely on how it's executed and this has been done pretty well either way.

boulder

Thanks all for the great feedback! We go for the vector-version, because it will be on mobile and the vector sharpness works best on small screens. Like @SuperDoomKing said, the pixels are a bit blurry. And i like the combination of both worlds.

richard-kain

Personally, I prefer pixel art when it has NO anti-aliasing. If you're going the pixel route, you should embrace those chunky, blocky edges. Anti-aliasing just ruins the effect and makes it seem like the artist is unwilling to commit. I also prefer pixel art for truly low-resolution work. If you are targeting mid-range resolutions (closer to 720p) then you should definitely go vector. If you are in the 480p and lower range, then pixel art becomes a more appealing option.

For a modern mobile-focused game, I'd probably say go with the vectors. The dot-pitch on modern mobile screens is tight enough to make proper vector art look really good. And the plethora of different resolutions in the mobile space make integer scaling pixel graphics a constant challenge. (an important hurdle for keeping those blocky edges)

One option I've been toying with is 3D-based vector art. This is essentially no different than what most people think of as "vectors" but fueled by 3D models as opposed to pre-baked high-resolution rendered pixel textures. The biggest advantage is the ability to scale and render it in both styles, based on application.

Megalomaniak

richard-kain Personally, I prefer pixel art when it has NO anti-aliasing.

I used to do pixel art, and I did sometimes 'anti-alias' but always manually and in key places - always with purpose. I think that's the right way to go. It's ok to 'AA' but you should only add it to where it's really needed, so the overall thing would remain nice and crisp, so it would 'pop' but I agree, a uniform AA over an entire piece of pixel art not just softens it but outright blurs it altogether which is not good.

Erich_L

Vector all the way! Smash that like button on this post for VECTOR!! WOOOO. Edit: oh, old post lolol

DaveTheCoder

When possible, I prefer vector graphics when creating the graphics. That avoids the need for making multiple resolution images. But doesn't Godot convert vector graphics to bitmapped graphics when importing them?

TwistedTwigleg

DaveTheCoder But doesn't Godot convert vector graphics to bitmapped graphics when importing them?

Yeah. Godot converts the SVG to a bitmapped format and uses that.

I remember at one point there was a brief discussion of potentially importing SVG files as a series of Polygon2D nodes so it would be lossless like the SVG file, but the sheer number of visual options a SVG file has was so large compared to the visual capabilities of a Polygon2D that I think the effort was shelved before it started.

richard-kain

3D graphics formats are essentially data-driven, like a vector-based SVG, but optimized for 3D rendering. (vertices and faces, instead of points and curves and color information) If you wanted to do real-time rendering using something comparable to vectors, you would just use 3D, even if your camera was set up for orthographic projection. The biggest loss would be the lack of a smooth curves option. If your art style doesn't require a bunch of very smooth curves, definitely go for it.

Vector's biggest advantage is that they scale so well. If you do a 3D-fueled vector substitute, you can opt to render at low resolution with anti-aliasing turned off to replicate a low-res pixel art look, or scale up to high definition with anti aliasing turned on, and go for a cleaner, more modern look. If you are fine with pre-baked graphics the same can be accomplished using standard vector art by simply rendering it twice. One low-res version with no AA for the retro pixel look, and one high-res with AA for the clean, modern look.