Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - eishiya
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26

Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] Mechanic
« on: Yesterday at 07:57:24 pm »
You could still have the inset if you do is as a solid block of shadow instead of focusing on its bevel.

Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] Mechanic
« on: Yesterday at 06:37:13 pm »
The difference is that in your pixel piece, you don't have room to make each shadow segment look distinct, so they all blend into what looks like a gradient.
In addition, the shadows on top of the wrench are quite wide and suggest a rounder shape than you seem to intend.

Pixel Art / Re: What is an ideal height for more-detailed sprites?
« on: Yesterday at 02:56:51 pm »
Older JRPGs often use chibi characters with heads almost as large as their bodies because it allows faces to be fairly readable while keeping the sprite small (often 16x24), maybe that's an option for you? Some of those games manage to be very expressive through body language and through manipulating the eyes and occasionally giving the characters mouths (usually for yelling/screaming).
Some games combine these proportions with larger sprites to have a lot of room for subtle expressions that even larger sprites couldn't have with realistic proportions.

Do not underestimate the power of body language! A sprite with no face at all can still be very expressive, including in subtle ways.

Another method games employ (often in addition to body language) is having larger portraits in the dialogue boxes, instead of having the main sprites be expressive.

Lastly, if your goal is to have nuanced facial expressions on the in-world character sprites in your game and you don't seem concerned for the on-screen size of the characters, maybe pixel art isn't the best solution? High-res pixel art is difficult and time-consuming to animate, and you'd probably have a much easier (and shorter!) time animating some high-res 2D art, since that can be scaled and rotated in-engine without looking janky. You could use skeletal animation instead of drawing and pixel-polishing every frame by hand.

The book I suggested focuses a lot on anatomy and people in perspective, I believe. Loomis also has a figure drawing book, which goes into more detail.

No resource will teach you to understand human (and non-human) bodies though. Everyone thinks about things in a different way, so you need to create your own mental conception of things, based on the things that are important to you, the patterns that you notice.
Drawing books are a good place to start to get a grip on things like ideal proportions and the basic shapes that make up human bodies, but you'll want to branch out if you want to be flexible as an artist. Look at real people (and animals, etc). Watch how they move, how far they can bend and stretch. What features do all of them have? What tends to be most pronounced? What tends to vary the most? How do the various parts deviate from the basic forms? For example, arms aren't quite tubes, they're somewhat conical, flattened and twisted.
Do life drawing if you can, work from videos and photos if you can't. Don't worry about copying references to look pretty and just like the photo, instead focus on the structure, on conveying the 3D form in 2D. Do quick gesture drawings and quick sketches, don't bother rendering details.

The fundamentals are about understanding things like colour theory (how colours interact, how we perceive different colours), composition (how the arrangement of things in a scene affects our perception of them), perspective (how the appearance of things changes depending on where we are relative to them), anatomy (the patterns of shapes and forms that make something look like a human or a dog or a tree ir whatever), etc.
All of these things are the same whether you're drawing with a crayon on toilet paper, etching in wet sand, or painting on a $2000 tablet, or pixelling. Understand these theoretical fundamentals, and you'll be able to make good art in any medium. Fail to understand them, and even the most advanced pixel art techniques won't help your art.

Andrew Loomis's books are available for free online. Fun With a Pencil is a good place to start. For more advanced knowledge on figure drawing and composition you can do much better than Loomis, but for the basics his books are great, so I recommend starting with him.
For pointers on how to think about art, I find the PSG Art Tutorial very helpful. I highly recommend reading the entire thing without skipping any sections, even ones you don't think are relevant to you.

Pixel art requires the same fundamentals as any other 2D medium, so if you're new to drawing, look up resources on drawing basics.
Before you start pixelling something, look at the real thing (or at least at photos/videos of it, if you can't access it IRL), learn how it works and why it looks the way it does (size, texture, colour, details, motion, etc). Practice drawing it high-res if you want, so that you're not struggling with multiple new things at once (pixel technique + whatever you're learning).

Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] Boombox
« on: February 21, 2017, 04:42:16 pm »
Not necessarily, since the speakers and buttons on the front don't correspond to that, so following the blue line would make the boombox look lopsided. I think instead you should tweak the sides to meet at an entirely different, more distant vanishing point. Then, use the horizon line from that VP to tweak the tape case.

You could use the speakers as a guide to calculate the perspective mathematically, but I think just guessing a line perpendicular to the middle of the boombox and extending it until you find a VP that makes the sides look good should do. Perspective in pixel art is rarely exact anyway, since pixel-precision is more important for making things look good.

Pixel Art / Re: Seamless 32x32 Pine Tree Woes
« on: February 21, 2017, 04:19:00 pm »
I don't know what look you're going for, but have you tried making the forest tiles that aren't just one tree over and over, but a tiling pattern of multiple trees, possibly indistinct ones? That could look more like a forest. Tiling the same tree with all its detail inevitably starts to look like an artificial pattern rather than a forest, I think. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, it can work very well for a game where the maps are meant to be symbolic rather than representative.

Among your individual trees, I think the last one has the best sense of volume, but it's too symmetrical. If you tweak that, it should look pretty good!

Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] Boombox
« on: February 21, 2017, 12:22:47 am »
Watch your perspective, it's not making sense currently:

The boombox's sides have different vanishing points, and the tape seems to get wider on the side away from the viewer. The boombox and tape also don't seem to be on the same plane.
Objects on the same plane share a horizon (but not necessarily vanishing points - those depend on the objects' orientations).

Alternatively, use a parallel projection instead of perspective. In a parallel projection, lines that are parallel in reality are parallel in the drawing (so the boombox's sides would all have the same-slope lines, for example). I think for something at this scale, it'd look better to have (correct) perspective though. Parallel projections look fine at small scales, but look uncanny at larger scales because viewers have a better idea of what those things should look like (with perspective).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26