I know this was proposed as a challenge, but isn't that whole Wikipedia page nonsense anyway? 90% of the consoles listed there don't come close to properly displaying the picture
Exatly, just like a large part of WP, it is pure nonsense.
A lot of the nonsense that people see on Wikipedia is the result of trying to uphold its verifiability policy
. If the best published sources say X, but even better nonpublic sources say Y, then Y isn't verifiable, and Wikipedia will say X. Wikipedia also tries to eliminate what it calls "original research"
, which would at first glance appear to rule out posting your original pixel art on Wikipedia. (Those, together with "neutral point of view", are its core content policies.) But because Wikipedia knows that it's in the minority with respect to copyright licensing policies, it welcomes original illustrations "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." You might be able to justify posting an original pixel art trace of the same parrot that way.
Bregalad wrote:a photograph that has no business being in a video game console to begin with.
The conception that photos don't belong in a game console is the problem. A few weeks ago, Holt mentioned an interview with David Crane
and A Boy and His Blob
. Crane was looking for less tile repetition and more photorealism in consoles and was disappointed to see Super Mario Bros.
embrace tile repetition as its aesthetic. See in particular the trees in the screenshot of A Boy and His Blob
that rainwarrior posted.