Pixelation

Critique => Pixel Art => Topic started by: zoekmath on August 15, 2016, 04:29:50 pm

Title: [C+C] Medieval Town
Post by: zoekmath on August 15, 2016, 04:29:50 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/yXFs0gb.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/D0RXhlC.png)
Older versions

(http://i.imgur.com/pyoq6oR.png)

I've been doing this town for the last 3 days, I've been around 10 hours on it and I would appreciate your comments and feedback.
As you can see I've used a different (and much better) style and I need to know if I've done it right.

Thank you for all the help you gave me, and for the help you might give me now.
Title: Re: [C+C] Medieval Town
Post by: Curly on August 15, 2016, 06:08:54 pm
The colors look better than any other scene you've posted but the shading and some details are a bit noisy. I think it would look better without the outlines, but it's your best piece so far in my opinion :y:
Title: Re: [C+C] Medieval Town
Post by: zoekmath on August 15, 2016, 08:20:12 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/yXFs0gb.png)
Thank you so much! I've lowered the contrast of some outlines, and improved some other things.
Title: Re: [C+C] Medieval Town
Post by: Curly on August 15, 2016, 09:25:28 pm
Looks better :y:
Title: Re: [C+C] Medieval Town
Post by: ttk on August 15, 2016, 09:28:23 pm
My impressions (keep in mind I'm a novice):

- Needs consistency in detail lines... on the far left, horizontal and diagonal board beneath the upper window has detail lines, but the lower window's counterparts don't.
- I feel like I'm noticing the foreground vertical wood pillar too much, like it's too contrasty considering it's in shadow.
- The roof at the top of the leftmost building looks like it doesn't follow perspective, and it's slanting "down" towards us and to the left too much.
- I'm not sure what the roof textures are supposed to be... the lines feel too haphazard to be shingles or something.
- The roof of the center building (shaded at top, comes into sunlight as it curves to center frame) looks like it's paper thin because there's no vertical definition at the end.
- The grass on the background hill seems too detailed considering how far away it is.
Title: Re: [C+C] Medieval Town
Post by: MysteryMeat on August 15, 2016, 11:20:13 pm
My impressions (keep in mind I'm a novice):

- Needs consistency in detail lines... on the far left, horizontal and diagonal board beneath the upper window has detail lines, but the lower window's counterparts don't.
- I feel like I'm noticing the foreground vertical wood pillar too much, like it's too contrasty considering it's in shadow.
- The roof at the top of the leftmost building looks like it doesn't follow perspective, and it's slanting "down" towards us and to the left too much.
- I'm not sure what the roof textures are supposed to be... the lines feel too haphazard to be shingles or something.
- The roof of the center building (shaded at top, comes into sunlight as it curves to center frame) looks like it's paper thin because there's no vertical definition at the end.
- The grass on the background hill seems too detailed considering how far away it is.
To build on that last one, a common trick for perspective is to fade-out or reduce detail on objects that are further away from the camera in a picture.
I'd also try and simplify the post near the camera, the focus on the piece seems to be the village.
Normally to accomplish this you'd blur the foreground object (as seen in this picture here) to help guide focus,
(http://i.snag.gy/b13RQ.jpg)
but that isn't exactly a technique built for pixel art and I'm not sure it would help much in this instance. Instead, I'd reduce detail and maybe tweak it like this, so that it's also simplified, to sort of "emulate" the blur without actually drawing said blur!
(http://imgur.com/ehOCLud.png)
Title: Re: [C+C] Medieval Town
Post by: zoekmath on August 16, 2016, 10:49:19 am
(http://i.imgur.com/pyoq6oR.png)

I've fixed some of the stuff ttk said. I don't know what do you mean on the third impression; the roof looks normal to me.
I've also reduced a bit the details on the foreground.
Thank you both for the critiques.