So lately I've been FINALLY addressing my backlog of random games I got on Steam Sales over the years using my portable Steam Deck. The Steam Deck is an amazing and wonderful device, well worth the money I spent on it, but I have noticed playing games on it that some games are better for the relatively-small, 800p screen than others. Freedom Planet 2 and its sharp, pixellated visual looks and runs absolutely fantastic on the Deck, and even at the insane speeds this Sonic-like indie game reaches, the visual clarity ensures I never accidentally die in the levels just because I struggled to figure out what is the foreground and what is just a background detail. Meanwhile, I re-downloaded Sonic Generations (the original version from 2011, not the upcoming Sonic X Shadow Generations remaster), and even though I've always found that game to be a bit on the easy side, I found that I keep falling off the stage and dying even in the early levels just because the extra amount of detail and textures on everything was distracting me, and the overall visual clarity and contrast was much lower, probably because it was originally made to be played on massive HDTVs or excessively-large monitors. I prefer to stick with the 3DS version of Sonic Generations if I want to play that game on the go, naturally the handheld-only version of that game is easier to make out on small, low-resolution handheld screens.

Which brings me to my main question: How much time do you spend watching Newgrounds or YouTube on a small phone screen, as opposed to a large tablet or computer screen?

I ask because, if it turns out you watch my animations (such as my recent "Whiny Dodo-de-Do" cartoon) mostly on a tiny phone screen, then it means I'm probably wasting too much time manually painting in textures on my characters and props Substance Painter-style (I actually use Nomad on my phone) that you will never even notice or care about. In the VFX industry, this phenomenon of wasting significant amount of energy and time on details no one will even be able to see in the final animation is politely known as, uhh, "pixel-fucking." If it turns out you're NOT watching or looking at my stuff on massive 1080p or 4K monitors, then it would frankly save me a ton of time to just focus on bold colors and strong, easy-to-read silhouettes instead, similar to Freedom Planet 2 or the 3DS version of Sonic Generations, while giving me more time to work on the story, animation, and other stuff that is far more likely to entertain you than 8K photo textures.

Heck, it would mean I can hang on to my current hardware MUCH longer if I don't have to worry about making sure I have the latest GPU for "triple-A" textures and resolutions, and when I do have to upgrade, I don't have to spend as much (barring some war or pandemic causing rampant inflation again on even cheap office laptops, of course). It would ensure I better live up to my pro-environment ideals even when animating in 3D.

Texturing is my favorite part of the 3D process, though, and if I don't spend absurd amounts of my free time optimizing large photo textures, I will probably spend that much time instead hand-painting textures like how textures were made in the PS2 era, especially for Blizzard's World of Warcraft, so if you do, in fact, generally watch Newgrounds or YouTube cartoons on large, hi-res monitors or TV sets, then it's not a problem. But I thought I should ask anyway and tailor my workflow on future animations accordingly.

I guess a good test would be this test render I shared recently in another news post. Can you see the normal map microdetail on the buildings way in the back without zooming in significantly? Or the scratches on the metal pole of the bus sign? I actually can't on my laptop screen, unless I zoom in a ton.

P.S. This news post is only rated "M for Mature" because of that "Pixel-fucking" term. That's it. That's all.