As of late I have noticed that the texture pack world has been dominated 64x64 or 128x128 packs. My question for you, what is your favorite? I prefer good ol' 16x16 myself. Sure they don't look as good, but they have a certain charm I enjoy. I also have an easier time editing 16x16 because they don't look so good. It hides my lack of skill when it comes to using Paint.NET. =P
16x16.
First because it maintains the style of the game, being pixelated, overscaled and stuff, and second because it's officially supported, I can easily switch between texture packs and I don't like to use any mods on my game.
as said above higher resolution is just more space to work with. more detail. sometimes they add too much detail.
whereas default resolution has pixel art look; higher resolution looks photographic. or painted (or something like that at least).
take scribblecraft for example. it NEEDS the high resolution for it to look right.
whereas something like a styalised pack such as (for example) swirlcraft; doesn't need it, yes it could look smoother, but it might not look better smoother.
anyway enough ranting. can we please stop these hi-low resolution arguments?
I wasn't trying to start a fight, I was just curious to see what folks thought about the different sizes.
As of late I have noticed that the texture pack world has been dominated 64x64 or 128x128 packs. My question for you, what is your favorite? I prefer good ol' 16x16 myself. Sure they don't look as good, but they have a certain charm I enjoy. I also have an easier time editing 16x16 because they don't look so good. It hides my lack of skill when it comes to using Paint.NET. =P
I believe that I've been seeing the opposite. I've seen more 16x texture packs as of late and the few 64x and higher texture packs are not in great abundance, they are only bumped to the top of the forums because people like to use them and comment on them.
Honestly I don't like 16x texture packs, I've not seen one yet that I would use, they are either repeats of the vanilla texture pack, or they are overly simplified, or they are just plain boring. The vanilla texture pack gives me eye strain when I first started to play MC, don't know why, perhaps all the pixelation, so the higher rez texture packs have been a really good thing to me.
My preference: 64x Any higher than that and it's lost on me, as I there are only a very small handful of 128x and 256x TP's that have enough detail put into them (to bother making them 128x or 256x) and that are hand drawn and not just cut and paste real life images in them which looks too grainy to me.
Honestly I don't like 16x texture packs, I've not seen one yet that I would use, they are either repeats of the vanilla texture pack, or they are overly simplified, or they are just plain boring. The vanilla texture pack gives me eye strain when I first started to play MC, don't know why, perhaps all the pixelation, so the higher rez texture packs have been a really good thing to me.
Try shreeyamacraft and then tell me you dont like 16px packs
Honestly I don't like 16x texture packs, I've not seen one yet that I would use, they are either repeats of the vanilla texture pack, or they are overly simplified, or they are just plain boring. The vanilla texture pack gives me eye strain when I first started to play MC, don't know why, perhaps all the pixelation, so the higher rez texture packs have been a really good thing to me.
While I can understand (and sympathize) with the eye-strain comment, I take issue with the generalizations of 16x packs. I have five packs (check my sig) and I'd say only one of them really fits your statement. (It's harder to get much more over-simplified than my 4x4 pack)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
You see now, that's the great thing about opinions, we all have one. Theres no need for anybody to take offense by my statement, just chalk it up to being my opinion of what I've seen over the past 6 months, or chalk it up to having all my taste be in my mouth. Which ever makes you feel better about it.
You see now, that's the great thing about opinions, we all have one. Theres no need for anybody to take offense by my statement, just chalk it up to being my opinion of what I've seen over the past 6 months, or chalk it up to having all my taste be in my mouth. Which ever makes you feel better about it.
You say that like some opinions are not more valid then others. I do not think people were getting upset at you (at least I know I was not), but correcting some factual inaccuracies, like the claim that there are no creative, well executed themes with 16x packs.
there aren't in their opinion, creative and well executed to you may be different to them... stop taking your opinion as fact.
I don't care about resolution. I look for quality.
So, to you, 128x128 look exactly the same to 16x16?
My favourite is 32x32.
Look I agree with that other guy, just because a texture pack is 360x360 does not mean it looks better then a well done 16x16 one. I'm sorta tired of people making these so called HD texture packs in these huge sizes yet they look like they should be 16 bit :s
So yeah i can play with 16 or 32 as long as it looks good >.> bigger does not always mean better you know
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
come find me on the meincraft.com server! or at least visit my house and leave a note, if I'm not there.
Those self labeled "HD packs" are god-awful, and lose the entire art style of minecraft.
Texture quality has nothing to do with resolution.
I've only heard of Scribble craft, but I do not remember it. And no, more towards Sanguine and the like.
Huh, just looked up BroPaint and it looks like there's one exception, it's really nice. I wouldn't use it myself, but it still looks really good.
First because it maintains the style of the game, being pixelated, overscaled and stuff, and second because it's officially supported, I can easily switch between texture packs and I don't like to use any mods on my game.
I wasn't trying to start a fight, I was just curious to see what folks thought about the different sizes.
"It's not the size that matters--it's how you use it."
That's what she said. XD (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
that's the joke, get it?
'cause i totally set myself up for tha--ah nevermind.
I believe that I've been seeing the opposite. I've seen more 16x texture packs as of late and the few 64x and higher texture packs are not in great abundance, they are only bumped to the top of the forums because people like to use them and comment on them.
Honestly I don't like 16x texture packs, I've not seen one yet that I would use, they are either repeats of the vanilla texture pack, or they are overly simplified, or they are just plain boring. The vanilla texture pack gives me eye strain when I first started to play MC, don't know why, perhaps all the pixelation, so the higher rez texture packs have been a really good thing to me.
My preference: 64x Any higher than that and it's lost on me, as I there are only a very small handful of 128x and 256x TP's that have enough detail put into them (to bother making them 128x or 256x) and that are hand drawn and not just cut and paste real life images in them which looks too grainy to me.
Try shreeyamacraft and then tell me you dont like 16px packs
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWhile I can understand (and sympathize) with the eye-strain comment, I take issue with the generalizations of 16x packs. I have five packs (check my sig) and I'd say only one of them really fits your statement. (It's harder to get much more over-simplified than my 4x4 pack)
there aren't in their opinion, creative and well executed to you may be different to them... stop taking your opinion as fact.
Look I agree with that other guy, just because a texture pack is 360x360 does not mean it looks better then a well done 16x16 one. I'm sorta tired of people making these so called HD texture packs in these huge sizes yet they look like they should be 16 bit :s
So yeah i can play with 16 or 32 as long as it looks good >.> bigger does not always mean better you know