Almost none of the games pictured are actually "doujin" games - they are commercial publishers.
Also, the reason we don't remember PC-98 is because it was never sold in the US (except for the very unpopular APC-III). It was the most popular computer on Japan from late 80s to early 90s and is well remembered there. Being the most popular PC, there is a huge amount of software for it, including huge amounts of office and productivity software, many genres of games, and plenty of Western ports.
> this now-forgotten art style native to Japan is known, shorthand, as “PC-98”
I'm really into retro computing having collected over a hundred 80s 'home' computers (all non-PC/Mac), including at least a dozen Japanese models, but have never heard the term "PC-98" to describe a particular style of pixel art, probably because I don't speak Japanese and haven't lived there. However, I do see some traits in how the examples shown were constructed which strike me as unique beyond just the obvious Japanese aesthetic of the content.
While the article highlights that Japanese computers had greater memory and graphics capabilities earlier due to the need to represent more complex fonts, there's another factor I suspect is behind the differences I'm seeing in those images. Japanese business computers tended to have analog RGB output and displays earlier and more commonly than those in the U.S. Of course, analog RGB was available in the U.S. around the same time but it wasn't usually considered worth the increased cost for mainstream desktop use in the early 80s. Monochrome or 4 colors were generally considered sufficient for 80-column capable text displays (~640 pixels wide).
Some of the dot patterns I'm seeing in those examples work well on RGB displays but wouldn't work as well on composite video displays or TVs. In the US, early home computer pixel art targeted resolutions like 256 x 192 and 320 x 200 in 4 or 16 colors but generally assumed the pixels would be displayed on a TV or composite monitor and so leveraged the pixel blending and additional artifact colors composite video can uniquely create to enhance their artwork. These composite-exploiting blends and colors are lost when those images are displayed in RGB, leaving only the original pixel patterns which aren't what the original pixel artist saw or intended when they created the image (which is why original composite-targeted pixel art is best viewed on a composite CRT or CRT emulation). I think these Japanese artists being able to target analog RGB output is behind some of the subtle (but cool) uniqueness I'm seeing in the "PC-98" pixel patterns.
IMO PC-98 is unique because it sits between EGA and VGA in capabilities; it is still a 16 color display, but from a much broader palette (4096 vs 64). EGA is very distinctive because of the limited palette.
Indeed, starting with IBM's initial 5150 design, early PC graphics made cost, memory and capability trade-offs which would soon be seen as unfortunate from a graphics and gaming perspective. Although IBM specced the platform and chose Motorola's 6845 video display chip, I assign some blame to Motorola too for not having created a range of video chips with increasing capabilities to choose from. We'll never know if IBM would have ponied up a few dollars more for a chip with at least a 256 color palette or a few other niceties but it's always possible.
Strangely, Motorola did eventually decide to get serious about offering more capable graphics in the form of the RMS chipset but not until it was already too little and too late. They announced the RMS chipset in 1984 and tried to drum up interest among system designers but eventually cancelled it before release amidst lukewarm response and bugs in the early prototypes (https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/10977/fat...). It certainly didn't help that other options like TI's 99x8 VDP chips were now getting cheaper and the pre-Commodore Hi-Toro company was shopping around their Amiga chipset to all the major consumer computer manufacturers in 1984.
IBM only gave maybe 1.0 shits about gaming, to the extent they needed "business graphics" like charts, and maybe just some extra fun shit. The primary competition was loads of CP/M "business micros" with not many real graphical games at all. IBM benchmarked the Apple II+ with a Z80 Softcard because that was the ultimate mullet machine, all the business software upfront, all the gaming party in the back. CGA was good enough for an Apple II game or a pie chart, and that's all they cared about.
The Motorola 6845 CRTC chip is quite versatile, and one of its unique characteristics is that it knows and cares nothing about the resolution or number of colors on the screen. It is just a display address generator, which is meant to provide some external hardware with a memory address that contains data to be displayed at some part of the screen. What to do with this address and data is completely up to the computer hardware, which can interpret it whichever it wants. So there is nothing in the 6845 chip that prevents using it to display 256, 4096 or 16777216 colors on the screen.
I remember trying to install Slackware as a 16 year old living as an exchange student in Japan and not getting anywhere. Turns out PC98 needed a patched kernel.
I didn't read your comment all the way to the end; later EGA games used similar dithering patterns (Loom[1] was one of the later and most visually impressive EGA games)
Those Loom comparisons between EGA and VGA are cool. Very impressive work that they did back then. It really highlights how much 16 color palettes forced artists toward simplified cartoon or comic-like representations yet adding just a couple hundred colors enabled the best artists to evoke almost photographic dimensionality, texture and lighting effects.
I totally recommend the Basement Brothers YouTube channel which has a large set of reviews with summarized playthroughs and historical background for PC-88 and 98 games:
PC-98 eroge art is beautiful. These writers—who freely take pot-shots at the “perverted” hikikomori of 30 years ago—wouldn’t dare criticize the hardcore pornography (Bonnie Blue? The OnlyFans Economy!) the world is presently steeped in. It’s like they know which waggle dance lets you in, and which one gets you booted from the hive…
Plenty of PC98 games out there that are just pure smut and assault fantasies.
You could make an argument about the production environments of "actual real person" pornography but if you're talking about aesthetics and morality of the end product? I dunno... tough sell to me for a "random" one.
Plenty of "real art" PC98 stuff too ofc (there are also of course people on the record saying "we put stuff in here so we could sell our RPG" and the like... market demands).
Hardcore is a multi-billion dollar industry, while PC-98 softcore is dead, and was a cottage industry even in its heyday. Have to please the advertisers.
So far only collect 2 Casio one basic and one, well, lisp (!) calculators … interesting artefacts. Still try to get a national those tube-like display scientific calendars used during my senior secondary school.
This is a total different genre. So hard level …. In 1980s just thought it was a j model to be … wonder any simulation would see as collecting one just have a look is impossible.
Back in the day I was fortunate to work with some of the best pixel artists in the industry like Jim Sachs (https://spillhistorie.no/2024/09/13/legends-of-the-games-ind...) and they definitely did draw the vast majority of their pixels one at a time in the best paint programs available like Electronic Arts Deluxe Paint. In the linked article Sach's is quoted "I put dots on the screen. One at a time at first. Green dots for grass, blue dots for sky, gray dots for castle blocks. Hour after hour. I was happy if I got one square inch of the screen done in a day."
To create top notch pixel art in those limited resolutions and palettes forces the artist into creating the illusion of colors and detail which aren't actually there in any one pixel. They do this by modifying the colors of individual adjacent pixels to imply shading and highlights. Jim would modify one pixel, zoom out to assess the overall effect on that area of the image, then zoom back in and modify the next pixel. I encourage you to zoom in and pixel peep some of Jim's images. Most of those pixel patterns aren't uniform enough to be from an 80s paint program and not randomly Bayer-ish enough to be a digitized image.
Jim has discussed his workflow in detail in interviews. The value of Deluxe Paint to an artist like Jim wasn't laying down swathes of pixels, it was mostly fast zooming and panning as well as detailed palette control. Of course, those artists would use whatever capabilities their tools enabled when they could but it wasn't nearly as much or as often as you're assuming.
I think that's right. Paint programs might give you the "broad strokes" (so to speak), fill areas — it's clear the dithering on an arm, for example, was done a pixel at a time.
I spent many hours in "fat bits" mode in MacPaint creating B&W game artwork for early shareware games I wrote. Click a pixel to invert it.
Not in Japan, you can see how the dithering was done in the video I link below, which was taken from promo footage of one of the most famous period Japanese paint apps for PC-98: Multi Paint System (1992, by Woody_RINN). The artist would paint two colours and then use a dither blend tool along the contrasting edge. https://youtu.be/nIdFor2WOnw?t=430
I'm sure some people did it pixel-by-pixel, but not so much in Japan where the software was designed to make dithering like this very easy.
>I encourage you to zoom in and pixel peep some of Jim's images
Even without zooming in you can tell that those images look nothing like what was being made on the pc98. The article was talking about the 80s which was a decade before what we are talking about with the pc98. It is not valid to assume that they were done the same.
I cited that article as only one example. It focused on one artist who created graphics mainly for one platform, the Amiga, which was sold from 1985 to 1994. However, graphics were made as I described as early as 1978 by many artists on many different platforms including the Apple II (MicroPainter was popular), Atari 400/800, TI 99/4a, Radio Shack Color Computer and others. They often did detail work a pixel at a time for the reasons I described. This wasn't unique to Sachs or the Amiga.
Regarding timing: The PC-98 platform was released in 1982 and was primarily an 80s phenomenon which had peaked sometime around 1990. While it continued to be sold throughout the 1990s, it's primary growth and dominance were established in the 1980s. Please see the Wikipedia entry for PC-98 which says: "In 1990, IBM Japan introduced the DOS/V operating system which enabled displaying Japanese text on standard IBM PC/AT VGA adapters." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-98). That greatly expanded and accelerated the competition against PC-98.
I always have to laugh when that one comes up. But yeah, many Japanese dot/pixel art graphics packages (e. g. Multi Paint System) have brushes for those characteristic dithering patterns. Fast work! And I don't think they did pixel-blending (as on Western home computers) either; the art was done on machines with computer monitors for customers with pretty much the same systems (e. g. PC-98). Manual corrections, analog/digital "transkriptions" (from raster paper for example), etc. are another story...
Almost none of the games pictured are actually "doujin" games - they are commercial publishers.
Also, the reason we don't remember PC-98 is because it was never sold in the US (except for the very unpopular APC-III). It was the most popular computer on Japan from late 80s to early 90s and is well remembered there. Being the most popular PC, there is a huge amount of software for it, including huge amounts of office and productivity software, many genres of games, and plenty of Western ports.
> this now-forgotten art style native to Japan is known, shorthand, as “PC-98”
I'm really into retro computing having collected over a hundred 80s 'home' computers (all non-PC/Mac), including at least a dozen Japanese models, but have never heard the term "PC-98" to describe a particular style of pixel art, probably because I don't speak Japanese and haven't lived there. However, I do see some traits in how the examples shown were constructed which strike me as unique beyond just the obvious Japanese aesthetic of the content.
While the article highlights that Japanese computers had greater memory and graphics capabilities earlier due to the need to represent more complex fonts, there's another factor I suspect is behind the differences I'm seeing in those images. Japanese business computers tended to have analog RGB output and displays earlier and more commonly than those in the U.S. Of course, analog RGB was available in the U.S. around the same time but it wasn't usually considered worth the increased cost for mainstream desktop use in the early 80s. Monochrome or 4 colors were generally considered sufficient for 80-column capable text displays (~640 pixels wide).
Some of the dot patterns I'm seeing in those examples work well on RGB displays but wouldn't work as well on composite video displays or TVs. In the US, early home computer pixel art targeted resolutions like 256 x 192 and 320 x 200 in 4 or 16 colors but generally assumed the pixels would be displayed on a TV or composite monitor and so leveraged the pixel blending and additional artifact colors composite video can uniquely create to enhance their artwork. These composite-exploiting blends and colors are lost when those images are displayed in RGB, leaving only the original pixel patterns which aren't what the original pixel artist saw or intended when they created the image (which is why original composite-targeted pixel art is best viewed on a composite CRT or CRT emulation). I think these Japanese artists being able to target analog RGB output is behind some of the subtle (but cool) uniqueness I'm seeing in the "PC-98" pixel patterns.
IMO PC-98 is unique because it sits between EGA and VGA in capabilities; it is still a 16 color display, but from a much broader palette (4096 vs 64). EGA is very distinctive because of the limited palette.
Indeed, starting with IBM's initial 5150 design, early PC graphics made cost, memory and capability trade-offs which would soon be seen as unfortunate from a graphics and gaming perspective. Although IBM specced the platform and chose Motorola's 6845 video display chip, I assign some blame to Motorola too for not having created a range of video chips with increasing capabilities to choose from. We'll never know if IBM would have ponied up a few dollars more for a chip with at least a 256 color palette or a few other niceties but it's always possible.
Strangely, Motorola did eventually decide to get serious about offering more capable graphics in the form of the RMS chipset but not until it was already too little and too late. They announced the RMS chipset in 1984 and tried to drum up interest among system designers but eventually cancelled it before release amidst lukewarm response and bugs in the early prototypes (https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/10977/fat...). It certainly didn't help that other options like TI's 99x8 VDP chips were now getting cheaper and the pre-Commodore Hi-Toro company was shopping around their Amiga chipset to all the major consumer computer manufacturers in 1984.
IBM only gave maybe 1.0 shits about gaming, to the extent they needed "business graphics" like charts, and maybe just some extra fun shit. The primary competition was loads of CP/M "business micros" with not many real graphical games at all. IBM benchmarked the Apple II+ with a Z80 Softcard because that was the ultimate mullet machine, all the business software upfront, all the gaming party in the back. CGA was good enough for an Apple II game or a pie chart, and that's all they cared about.
The Motorola 6845 CRTC chip is quite versatile, and one of its unique characteristics is that it knows and cares nothing about the resolution or number of colors on the screen. It is just a display address generator, which is meant to provide some external hardware with a memory address that contains data to be displayed at some part of the screen. What to do with this address and data is completely up to the computer hardware, which can interpret it whichever it wants. So there is nothing in the 6845 chip that prevents using it to display 256, 4096 or 16777216 colors on the screen.
I remember trying to install Slackware as a 16 year old living as an exchange student in Japan and not getting anywhere. Turns out PC98 needed a patched kernel.
I didn't read your comment all the way to the end; later EGA games used similar dithering patterns (Loom[1] was one of the later and most visually impressive EGA games)
1: https://www.superrune.com/tutorials/loom_ega.php
Those Loom comparisons between EGA and VGA are cool. Very impressive work that they did back then. It really highlights how much 16 color palettes forced artists toward simplified cartoon or comic-like representations yet adding just a couple hundred colors enabled the best artists to evoke almost photographic dimensionality, texture and lighting effects.
If you haven't seen it, you might find this site useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_color_palettes. I use it as a reference when I'm exploring original retro pixel art from various platforms.
Because hug of death: https://archive.is/iBrYt
Apparently this site is hosted by a PC-98 too...
I totally recommend the Basement Brothers YouTube channel which has a large set of reviews with summarized playthroughs and historical background for PC-88 and 98 games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96tLZTtNcZA&list=PL_W1EM66_B...
For those into light-novel or anime, 16bit sensation is straight into this topic, right as the PC-98 area was under pressure.
[0] https://16bitsensation-al.com/
Link seems to be experiencing HN's hug of death, archived link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250523210148/https://strangeco...
Note: the link contains some slightly NSFW images
PC-98 eroge art is beautiful. These writers—who freely take pot-shots at the “perverted” hikikomori of 30 years ago—wouldn’t dare criticize the hardcore pornography (Bonnie Blue? The OnlyFans Economy!) the world is presently steeped in. It’s like they know which waggle dance lets you in, and which one gets you booted from the hive…
Plenty of PC98 games out there that are just pure smut and assault fantasies.
You could make an argument about the production environments of "actual real person" pornography but if you're talking about aesthetics and morality of the end product? I dunno... tough sell to me for a "random" one.
Plenty of "real art" PC98 stuff too ofc (there are also of course people on the record saying "we put stuff in here so we could sell our RPG" and the like... market demands).
To criticise Bonnie Blue is to criticise female sexuality. To criticise Eroge is to criticise male sexuality.
Like you say, only one of those is acceptable to the hive. In fact one must be loudly cheered, and one must be at least quietly, obligatorily shunned.
Nah. The people writing racist fanfiction on AO3 are equally beardy, and those are mostly women. It's just the standard weirdos/creeps problem.
Hardcore is a multi-billion dollar industry, while PC-98 softcore is dead, and was a cottage industry even in its heyday. Have to please the advertisers.
This comment being downvoted is such a cherry on top.
This emulation seems to say pc98 is msdos based and hence can run on dosbox-x
https://dosbox-x.com/wiki/Guide%3APC%E2%80%9098-emulation-in...
Seeing some yt even more confused as pointed out by wiki it is a 16/32 bit …
So far only collect 2 Casio one basic and one, well, lisp (!) calculators … interesting artefacts. Still try to get a national those tube-like display scientific calendars used during my senior secondary school.
This is a total different genre. So hard level …. In 1980s just thought it was a j model to be … wonder any simulation would see as collecting one just have a look is impossible.
>Drawn painstakingly one pixel at a time
There was paint software. You didn't have to draw a pixel at a time.
> You didn't have to draw a pixel at a time.
Back in the day I was fortunate to work with some of the best pixel artists in the industry like Jim Sachs (https://spillhistorie.no/2024/09/13/legends-of-the-games-ind...) and they definitely did draw the vast majority of their pixels one at a time in the best paint programs available like Electronic Arts Deluxe Paint. In the linked article Sach's is quoted "I put dots on the screen. One at a time at first. Green dots for grass, blue dots for sky, gray dots for castle blocks. Hour after hour. I was happy if I got one square inch of the screen done in a day."
To create top notch pixel art in those limited resolutions and palettes forces the artist into creating the illusion of colors and detail which aren't actually there in any one pixel. They do this by modifying the colors of individual adjacent pixels to imply shading and highlights. Jim would modify one pixel, zoom out to assess the overall effect on that area of the image, then zoom back in and modify the next pixel. I encourage you to zoom in and pixel peep some of Jim's images. Most of those pixel patterns aren't uniform enough to be from an 80s paint program and not randomly Bayer-ish enough to be a digitized image.
Jim has discussed his workflow in detail in interviews. The value of Deluxe Paint to an artist like Jim wasn't laying down swathes of pixels, it was mostly fast zooming and panning as well as detailed palette control. Of course, those artists would use whatever capabilities their tools enabled when they could but it wasn't nearly as much or as often as you're assuming.
I think that's right. Paint programs might give you the "broad strokes" (so to speak), fill areas — it's clear the dithering on an arm, for example, was done a pixel at a time.
I spent many hours in "fat bits" mode in MacPaint creating B&W game artwork for early shareware games I wrote. Click a pixel to invert it.
Not in Japan, you can see how the dithering was done in the video I link below, which was taken from promo footage of one of the most famous period Japanese paint apps for PC-98: Multi Paint System (1992, by Woody_RINN). The artist would paint two colours and then use a dither blend tool along the contrasting edge. https://youtu.be/nIdFor2WOnw?t=430
I'm sure some people did it pixel-by-pixel, but not so much in Japan where the software was designed to make dithering like this very easy.
You can find my big list of Japanese pixel art apps at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41136905
100%. I worked with artists in the 2D era. They were doing sprites a pixel at a time.
>I encourage you to zoom in and pixel peep some of Jim's images
Even without zooming in you can tell that those images look nothing like what was being made on the pc98. The article was talking about the 80s which was a decade before what we are talking about with the pc98. It is not valid to assume that they were done the same.
> The article was talking about the 80s
I cited that article as only one example. It focused on one artist who created graphics mainly for one platform, the Amiga, which was sold from 1985 to 1994. However, graphics were made as I described as early as 1978 by many artists on many different platforms including the Apple II (MicroPainter was popular), Atari 400/800, TI 99/4a, Radio Shack Color Computer and others. They often did detail work a pixel at a time for the reasons I described. This wasn't unique to Sachs or the Amiga.
Regarding timing: The PC-98 platform was released in 1982 and was primarily an 80s phenomenon which had peaked sometime around 1990. While it continued to be sold throughout the 1990s, it's primary growth and dominance were established in the 1980s. Please see the Wikipedia entry for PC-98 which says: "In 1990, IBM Japan introduced the DOS/V operating system which enabled displaying Japanese text on standard IBM PC/AT VGA adapters." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-98). That greatly expanded and accelerated the competition against PC-98.
Doing detail work pixel by pixel is a much different claim than drawing the line art pixel by pixel or doing the flat shading pixel by pixel.
>Regarding timing: The PC-98 platform was released in 1982 and was primarily an 80s phenomenon which had peaked sometime around 1990.
Look at the popular PC98 games and you will see that they were made in the 1990s. Alicesoft didn't even release their first game until 1989.
> You didn't have to draw a pixel at a time.
I always have to laugh when that one comes up. But yeah, many Japanese dot/pixel art graphics packages (e. g. Multi Paint System) have brushes for those characteristic dithering patterns. Fast work! And I don't think they did pixel-blending (as on Western home computers) either; the art was done on machines with computer monitors for customers with pretty much the same systems (e. g. PC-98). Manual corrections, analog/digital "transkriptions" (from raster paper for example), etc. are another story...