Thanks for the advice, kind words, and especially the edit MLC.

The rocks are very dull.... I'd add some highlights.

You'll want to make multiple instances of things, look at the top of the hill (unforested), It's very easy to see the pattern, and that's very bad.

The grass is very splochy, you might want to make it a little cartoon-y-er.

A good way to improve readability is to add in shadows. Good luck, chap.

Point taken on the rocks being dull. The palette (and the way it's applied) does suffer from some low contrast especially on the rock tiles. The palette on those probably needs a bit more range in value to fit in with the rest of the tiles. I like the highlights you did in the edit, but I'm not sure they work with the particular feel I was going for. The color and the positioning of the highlights on the edges between planes reads as glossy, wet, or almost glass like. However, although I don't have much time left for this project I may add another face/facet to the rocks that use a brighter color than the brightest on that ramp because I (think I) see what the point behind your advice.

On the alternate dirt tile: always good advice.

On the shadows: That's always good advice and if this was a static image (like the demo image instead of a group of tiles) I would definitely add them. I had considered doing a shadow set (of 50% alpha dark blue or black) for each tile. Unfortunately, because larger tiles (like the trees) and the nature of isometrics itself, the problem gets huge really quick. In the worst case, I'd be making n squared shadow tiles (where n is the number of tiles in the original set) because I'd have to project the shadow of each tile and curve or adjust that shadow onto every possible tile the shadow would fall onto. Practically, tho, it could be cut down by using more primitive shapes so somewhere between n and n squared - still too much to do.

If there's an easier way I'd be glad to know it.

I have very mixed feelings about the palette of the grass. On one end, it's smooth and soft, and looks nice... on the other hand the red is almost glowing it feels like. It almost makes me think the grass has a radioactive quality to it. Perhaps change the red to a soft blue-green tint instead? The variety and things you've covered with these tiles is pretty impressive, and it all comes together in a nice way

I agree though, some contrast might do this piece some good(and I don't mean just ramping up the contrast, add some darks between the cracks of the rocks, and some highlights). Everything right now seems midtone... though adding such contrast might ruin the feel.

The flora, however, don't mix. Your palette jumps far too quickly to a few putrid shadow entries, and they have noticeable outlines. The trademark of the rock and ground tiles is the low contrast, soft  faded hues, and absense of outlines. I like the grass splotchy!

So, my aim was to have background tiles err on being too low contrast to keep them in the background. For the plants, I was going for a bit more projected out into the viewer (because of their 'individual height' - if that phrase makes any sense) by giving them a small colored outline. I did need them to be somehow stylistically separate from the 'terrain' tiles. I had heard that outlining an object can be a good way of moving an image into the foreground.

All that being said, I agree I lost consistency in some areas (especially in the smaller broad leaf bushes v. the junipers). In the case of the rocks I think it went overboard and you guys are right that they need more contrast. Looking at the red again it does look a bit too much.
So:


I darkened the lower range of the rocks and lightened the upper range. I desaturated the red/dirt ramp (probably most noticable - at least to me - in the river banks) and darkened the deepest shades on the juniper bushes (the ones with the blue dots). The pine trees are recolored into a full green to get rid of that washed out brown.

Any better? Any more unified?

I should also note that the scale on these is roughly what's used in these sprites here:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=4934.msg59827#msg59827
if not a bit larger(?).

Quote

bler bler bler....

Wow. Was that really necessary?

these are so ridiculously generic i doubt anyone really cares about the origins.  it's like trying to put a copyright on sand.  The mods might disagree but IMO it's trivial.

Maybe so. I'll try and explain where I'm coming from better.
It's true these kind of sprites aren't exactly cubism and I know that seeing these so often can get old. I'm with you on that - believe me. But, it is how many of these kids get started with pixeling, so we (at that guild) try and take those sprites and share some of the basic techniques (like AAing, contrasting colors and shades, basic shading, etc.) The progress can be glacial, but I'd rather try and improve the situation than just let it get worse. What we don't want to encourage is people simply taking someone else's work (even an edit) and using it directly as their own. Most of these kids don't know it's wrong right out of the gate, so we try and take a strong stance on it.

Listen, I'm not pointing at this kid and saying to anyone, 'HE'S A WITCH! BURN HIM!'. He's just a kid who's taking credit for an edit. I'm just putting that info out there so I can stem the tide of 'Another BYOND ripper. lol', if/when someone else had pointed out the situation. We're not all like that and I wanted to do right by the pixelation forums.

/shrug. Anyway, crit the sprite or do whatever you'll do.

Heya, nice job! You definitely improved the perspective on the shoulders in the last two edits.
Also, I like the way you made the abs o' steel there readable in such a small space. I think the face is good, too (it'd be neat to see ya try a few expressions on it - it's got more space for that than a lot of the sprites I find myself doing). I like that you added a colarbone in the last update to.

As far as crits, you might be able to define the front-most bicep a bit more by adding some shading between it and the upper shoulder muscles. Also, the frame where his left foot is forward, I'm not sure the right foot is far enough behind him. IOW, I would think that foot would be located a few pixels up and to the left with the knee bent just a bit more. Could be wrong, tho.

Keep goin!

Well, trying to get back to these. I tried to fix some of the limb issues and hopefully some of the bad torso swaying from the last iteration. I actually went and grabbed the flashback run anim and deleted all but 6 keyframes and used that as a limb position reference. Hopefully, it helped.



C&C double-plus good.




Please?

That bad, huh?

Well, here's something else I could use a lot of help with:
 


These are in even more of a WIP stage, as I'd like to get the motion down before I refine. I know some of the limbs are malformed, but I'd like to find out if I'm on the right track with these.
That's something especially funky about the north (3rd from left, top) and south (third from left, bottom). I think I missed a lift on the nw one, also.