These models always create pixel art that looks like garbage because the people using it don't know enough about the medium to properly judge the output. This article is no exception. If you want pixel art for your project then learn or hire someone with that expertise
Are you saying people unfamiliar with the 'pixel arts' can't enjoy it their own way?
I don't think the author is posing as a professional. These models are like having a 3D printer at home. Very handy in a pinch, but what they make doesn't replace the real thing.
> Are you saying people unfamiliar with the 'pixel arts' can't enjoy it their own way?
The problem isn't that they look shitty to pixel artists or experts, they look shitty for anyone with a bit of observation.
It's junk art the same way Mc Donald's is junk food.
It's calorie-dense and high in sodium?
I think we could do a bit better here with the explanation of what looks bad to you..
I am just a layperson when it comes to pixel art, but to me the example in the article is clearly garbage/low quality.
- the magenta background is still visible along the edges - the color palette is all over the place - random noise pixels of totally different colors are visible scattered around - the lighting and shading doesn't look that good
> It's calorie-dense and high in sodium?
There's plenty of real food that is as heavy and as salted, and as such no healthier, than junk food. But it actually tastes good. (I can't exactly put the finger on what makes an Italian pizza better than a US 7/11 one, but it's not about the former being healthier).
I'd say it's the fermented, charred dough in combination with fresh, varied toppings.
People aren't using it wrong (although it's true most users have no taste), it's just the model devs don't care and generally have no idea about pixel art at all. The model just needs to be trained by someone knowledgeable. For example Retro Diffusion worked pretty well for its era - no mixels, proper palettes, etc.
Isn't that a good thing? Since these models generate garbage output of very low quality, they will never compete with the high quality generated only by human artists. Therefore this is a passing fad and human artists will always dominate.
The worst result would be if these models were any good vs being absolute slop. Then human artists would need to worry. But in fact there is no need to worry at all, as surely people (aside from a few people with bad taste) will clearly see the difference.
But if the user thinks it looks fine, then won't most players think the same?
I just don't get the complaints about "use proper art" when it comes to games. Most of the time the game has some other, far more glaring, visual issues (anti-aliasing, clipping, icons-not-matching-items).
> But if the user thinks it looks fine, then won't most players think the same?
I have a suspicion that when you're looking at (and generating, because you then look at the results) AI generated images and text more you get desensitized and are more likely to say that something looks okay when to other people it won't.
Really? I'm noticing the opposite. First round of imagegen assets seem basically ok, but as time goes on you start to notice the similarities that are properties of the current crop of models and they start to annoy you.
You don't want to anti-alias when having pixel art.
As soon as artists stop blacklisting devs for using AI placeholders, we can get right on that.
how will they tell that the person hired did a good job if they can't tell if the ai cocks up?