There's a couple of things I noticed in the more recent post:

 - The roof tiles on the right-most building.

The roof is actually going inwards as you get closer to the top. It's not a rectangle with perspective, like a road or a runway. It's actually a trapezoid with the top side shorter than the bottom. Any perspective effect will be small. However, the tiles you've put on there act like the surface is a rectangle and follow the lines as if there's lots of perspective involved. If I look at it with those eyes, it becomes a comically long piece of road at a shallow angle.

Lessen the perspective effect and allow there to be fewer tiles across the top.

Here's a photo to show what I mean.

https://grouptegula.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Tegula-Roofing-Grey-Tiled-Roof-PH-2.jpg

Quote from: Chonky Pixel on July 16, 2020, 10:42:52 am

I love the impressionistic feel of the rocks

Thanks but they're not rendered yet lol... I might stick with the "looser" feel though and not get too bogged down in small details. One of my pixelart weaknesses is focusing too much on fine detail and neglecting to design the bigger picture.

This is totally a taste thing, but I've been enjoying pixel art like this recently. For areas of background, a lower-detail feel can help focus the viewer's eye on the parts you want them to look at. If you put detail everywhere, then everything is competing for attention. Or so says Some Random Pixel Artist On Twitter. (Honestly, when I stopped using Twitter for politics and started following pixel artists, it became a much more pleasant place. And there are some astounding artists on there.)

Here's an example of what I mean:

https://twitter.com/Franrekkk/status/1279393666549735426

In the older image, while everything is rendered well, it's hard to know where to look. With the new one, the eye is very much focussed on the important part. And in that part, the detail is still there.

This stuff is way above my pay grade, but I find it really interesting.

Back to your image, the low detail rocks and vegetation look great to me. I'm a massive fan of that kind of watercolour feel you get with large clusters like that. There's probably more work that could be done, like blending the grass into the rocks more smoothly in some areas, but this kind of style makes me happy looking at it. But like I say, it's a taste thing.

I think this looks really good! I love the impressionistic feel of the rocks and the water is a great effect.

Trying to find some critique:

 - Sometimes it can be a good idea to "suggest" detail rather than render all detail, especially when the detail is regular. The wood slats in the hut for example. You could put more detail around the edges and in patches, so you don't have that hard grid pattern throughout.

 - Composition-wise, I understand that putting the focal point in the centre of the image isn't the most effective. Then we get into phrases like "creating a story" and "drawing the eye" to the important parts of the image. Oh and the "rule of thirds". To be honest, I don't really understand all that stuff, but I would probably try putting the main component of the image off-centre and using your handy shoreline to draw the eye towards it. Then you can make sure viewers take in the bathers (both water and sun) on the way.

But honestly, I'm no expert.

Anyway, yeah, great work! I love it.

When shading things, be careful not to fall into the trap of just embossing everything.

Only got a few mins so here's a rough example.



The left object looks more like a solid sphere because thought is given to how the light will fall on a 3D object and produce areas of shade and highlight.

The right image looks like an embossed circle, because shading is just applied to the top-left and bottom-right areas of the shape, with no thought given to the volume of the object and how it will interact with light falling on it.

I'm looking at your rocks especially here.