Also, people seem to think pixel art is easier than others forms of art. I think this is a misconception that comes from being able to see the individual elements and being able to place them one by one. This does remove the need for the same type of motor skills required for say painting, but does not remove the need for vision, sense of color, composition. Etc.

I imagine a similar exercise might work for pixel art, with each square of the grid representing a single color.

The big insights came from how, in pixel art, a single high contrast pixel can give the impression of color or shade in a whole area of the image. For example, on a ladybug’s back, a few metallic blue pixels make it look more reflective than white, and doesn’t clash with the predominant red.

I used Resprite for iPad which is similar to Aesprite, for my Godot game.

https://saint11.art/blog/pixel-art-tutorials/

My wife likes to take images and crochet them into tapestry/blankets/cozies.

It seems to me that if we could get a grid overlay onto an image she could then make whatever she wanted. (One color per 'pixel')

But don’t let that discourage you. If you want to make your own art, keep working at it. You will always get better with time and practice. It takes a long time and even the best artists frequently feel like their work isn’t good enough. But dedication and practice will pay off in time.

Pixel art takes a shit ton of time.

While there’s no shortcut, I would suggest that in games, consistency in art style is way more important than quality. If you can make your graphic style consistent, although maybe very simple and not so aesthetic, it will make the game appealing.

Also be realistic about how much progress you can make in a certain amount of time. You can make a game with very basic sprites. As your art improves, so can the sprites in the games.

The other option is to partner up with someone who has art skills already, but can’t make games. Together you can make more than either one could make alone.

https://norvig.com/21-days.html

Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years

Peter Norvig

Why is everyone in such a rush?

Walk into any bookstore, and you'll see how to Teach Yourself Java in 24 Hours alongside endless variations offering to teach C, SQL, Ruby, Algorithms, and so on in a few days or hours. The Amazon advanced search for [title: teach, yourself, hours, since: 2000 and found 512 such books. Of the top ten, nine are programming books (the other is about bookkeeping). Similar results come from replacing "teach yourself" with "learn" or "hours" with "days."

The conclusion is that either people are in a big rush to learn about programming, or that programming is somehow fabulously easier to learn than anything else. Felleisen et al. give a nod to this trend in their book How to Design Programs, when they say "Bad programming is easy. Idiots can learn it in 21 days, even if they are dummies." The Abtruse Goose comic also had their take.

[...]

Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years

Researchers (Bloom (1985), Bryan & Harter (1899), Hayes (1989), Simmon & Chase (1973)) have shown it takes about ten years to develop expertise in any of a wide variety of areas, including chess playing, music composition, telegraph operation, painting, piano playing, swimming, tennis, and research in neuropsychology and topology. The key is deliberative practice: not just doing it again and again, but challenging yourself with a task that is just beyond your current ability, trying it, analyzing your performance while and after doing it, and correcting any mistakes. Then repeat. And repeat again. There appear to be no real shortcuts: even Mozart, who was a musical prodigy at age 4, took 13 more years before he began to produce world-class music. In another genre, the Beatles seemed to burst onto the scene with a string of #1 hits and an appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. But they had been playing small clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg since 1957, and while they had mass appeal early on, their first great critical success, Sgt. Peppers, was released in 1967.

[...]

It’s actually a game about nonograms. My first attempts at pixel art were bad but it didn’t matter that much, the focus was elsewhere anyway. With time the art improved; far from perfect but it’s still one of the things I like most about that game.

So I guess: practice, room for failure, achievable goals and time.

Nope. Turns out it's a whole field of study and an artform in its own right.

If you're making a top-down perspective game, I wholeheartedly recommend Liberated Pixel Cup assets, especially the character generator:

https://liberatedpixelcup.github.io/Universal-LPC-Spriteshee...

There's a crazy number of confirmation options and you can create all kinds of humanoid characters out of it.