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 - Rosse
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19

I had this in mind.. scene work from cougar

Pixel Art / Re: [WIP] C&C required: Lance Knight for a game.
« on: April 29, 2010, 12:54:27 pm »
Here's a different approach. I've used your latest version as a base and have tried to implement your posted conceptart the way I see it. I've used flatshading to increase readability. This way it's easier to animate too.

General Discussion / Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« on: April 22, 2010, 05:17:14 pm »
I feel a bit bad about posting this in Off-Topic (and not a new thread, heh ;) ), but still:

It seems Henk Nieborg has updated his website. Check it out, great stuff!

And on another note, I was just watching Lomax Longplay video. For those who need additional inspiration: (Part 1) (Part 2)

and maybe (Flink) (Lionheart)

General Discussion / Re: Too ambitious?
« on: April 03, 2010, 06:43:14 am »
It's always interesting to me to read how others think about learning. To me, it's impossible not to learn because you do learn all the time. Therefore the term learning loses its meaning for me. In the end it's much more about attitude and your way of live which sparks my interests.

I won't quote your sentences and answer it directly, but I think I see you hinder yourself by thinking to much about doing the right thing. Please read this older thread, maybe you find one or another idea which let you thing outside your current framework.

On another note. I think the game CaveStory and its creator Pixel can be a good inspiration and motivation (development-wise). I'm not so much talking about gamemaking itself but more in general. If you wish, there are good sources and its development is quite good documentated [1, 2, 3, 4]. What I want to say is, before he started, he simply wanted to make a game. In the video he said how he started. Just a character which he animated (to animate - "to breath life into"). While making CaveStory, he created several other games on the side. Look at some early screencaps from CaveStory, look at his other early games. Look at his progress. There was no CaveStory at the beginning, just a humble guy who wanted to make a game in his sparetime. If you really understand how he started, then there is no reason for you to continue this discussion in my opinion.

I read your posts and I think I agree with your opinion, but not completely. To sum up, you say. Don't plan everything, make one step at the time and don't forget to have some fun. I agree with that, but then you wrote: Hard work is not a good way to live your life. In this matter, I disagree with you.
In your example, you compared two piano students. If you are purely looking at the success they have, it might be correct that the student, which does less work but has a teacher might have better skills in the end (in a classical sense). But in my opinion (!), I prefere the student which does it the hard way all by himself. It's not about comparing skill in the end, but that I prefere the hardworkers personality over those who achieve good skills the normal (hard) way. I repeat, it's not about skill or success! I simply think that people, who work hard for themselves, have a character trait I really value and this more important to me than technical skill.
To conclude, we are human beings. It's up to everybody what you value. But in my opinion, to value skill is like to value a dream. It's there if you make it, but as soon as you want to grasp it, it dissipates. Value what is there, fellow humans, which have their own story, experiences and character traits. Don't value someone for something you made up yourself. I know - this sounds like I ignore modern society with its pressure for success. But like I said, that's the way I see it. I don't want to change somebody, only showing a different opinion.

Commercial Critique / Re: CC Challenge - Hands On!
« on: March 16, 2010, 05:41:29 pm »
- EyeCraft, yours fits the style very well I think. Great work.

- vierbit, I love it. But look out that in the end you have "closed shapes" with "techno-texture" and not too much fuzzy details "around" the level geometry.

I'm not sure if I followed the style close enough. I don't have enough pseudo-techno-tiles and because I only used 16x16 tiles I don't have the same complexity as the original. Shatterhand works more in closed-shapes with techno-texture than actual blocks like mine, I think. The readability lacks too. The colors could work, tho. 3 of 4 palettes used so far, I think a green ramp would work great for addidional objects (like destroyable pillars)

I think I'll start a new one. The goal should be to fit the style, not just a random NES mockup, heh

Pixel Art Feature Chest / Re: Death Walks
« on: February 11, 2010, 07:55:54 pm »
Thanks for the long answer, I really appreciate it. The definition was very quick and I see how it lacks in many ways. A medium-definition doesn't have to contain what is good use of that medium (how to be successful in this medium), but I agree that it would be way more useful if the definiton would contain what should be achieved with the medium (on a technical or spiritual level). But honestly, I think I don't have enough pixelart experience to make an elaborate and useful definition is this respect.

You posed many interesting questions. Maybe it's a similar discussion in other arts, like martial arts for example. There's much talk about which is the most original art, the strongest and so on. I know the question exists, but it still looks a bit strange to me if I think about it. "Do pixel artists think they're more entitled to feeling pride on their piece over say generic CG artists because they've paid more micro-cosmic attention to the building blocks of their image? " I think I sometimes miss a term for "the way of the artist" (in a visual sense) like "the way of the warrior". There are tons of styles, tons of techniques but when real masterfulness is achieved, everything vanished and the human being is left to express himself in his own way. I sometimes kinda miss this spiritual thinking in visual arts. I know this thinking might be influenced by buddhism, maybe strange to western thinking, but I truly belive that in arts in general there's something like enlightment - that is, when you abandon all thinking of techniques, styles, wishes and truly express yourself through your own way (I think the term flow is something in that direction which is a known term in the west).
To come back to your first question, whether the highres or lowres artist is doing the "higher/truer art". As I stated above, the question to me is nonsense, but I think if a artist would go the "way of the artist", the wouldn't need to pose that question, because in the end, whatever medium or technique he uses, he reaches the same - nothingness.

Please forgive me if I'm too spiritual  :-X

I wouldn't say that all those stylistic snes variations of fighter sprites etc are contentless, they are certainly derivative, but why do you say shadows?
I'm not sure why I said shadows, but I think it's a bit like a shadow can never be more elaborate than it's source. If a certain sprite is created with a highres-idea in mind, then a copy or variantion of that sprite will always lack something which the original has (if you don't understand the highres idea behind it). Of course I ignore the fact of "happy accidents", which might be even more probable compared to highres paintings (bob ross).  If you understand the highres idea, then of course adapting to a style wouldn't be a mere "shadow".

What's fascinating for me for the average pixel artist regurgitating those philosophical bullet points (many of which I've endorsed in Pixelation for what will soon be a decade) is how self-delusional they are. They say 'strive for greatness through restrictions' but they are only talking about the technical restrictions inherent in pushing pixels. When it comes to conceptualizing a larger work and trying to make it fit in those restrictions, that's 'cheating'. This is why I talk about avarice:  most pixel artists are content to make startlingly simple pictures, no, most of the time fragments of pictures and at the same time hold the pride of working on them so intentionally on the pixel level that they think they've elevated the content due to labored upon form.
Is it fair if I say it's like the question "technique versus content"? Is it not normal for an artist to grow in the way of: child, has only content and no real technique. At some point it notices that it can't convey the idea as it wished. It's the beginning of learning techniques and doing studies, a time when it's easy to fall in the trap of overestimating technique. But as you begin to master technique, content gets more important and you slowly begin to express your ideas with the learned techniques. That was the way in traditional techniques since ever and it's the same in pixelart I think. These talk about "doing pixelart the right way" may only be a intermediate state you grow out of when you begin to master the technique.

Pixel Art Feature Chest / Re: Death Walks
« on: February 10, 2010, 08:37:22 pm »
Very very interesting topic! There are many things discussed here, not sure if I collected every thought, but here some comments.

First, thanks to NaCl for posing that questions. I think PixelArt can defined as many things, a medium, a style but maybe as a philosophy too. I've read what wikipedia states about media in arts and I've got this:
In the arts, media  (plural of medium) are the materials and techniques used by an artist to produce a work.
Then the example for a drawing:
In drawing, "media" refers to the type of held dry tool used and the base onto which it is transferred. The "held dry tool" normally means a pencil, or stick medium, referred to as a "crayon". Small particles of broken-off stick medium are transferred to a base or plane of production on which the artwork is produced. A typical base is paper, but canvas and other surfaces can also be used.
If I want to do something similar to what PixelArt is to me I would post something like:
In PixelArt, the artist works on a canvas with an ordered raster built upon a specific quantum (undividable part, similar like the old idea of atoms). These quanta (plural of quantum) might have different forms, sizes or colors, but are never allowed to break the ordered raster. The artist doing PixelArt is concious about the ordered raster and the available quanta and tries either to obscure or highlight the ordered raster or a combination of it.
I just made this definition up, so it might have flaws, but let me make some examples:
  • First, what we consider normal PixelArt in Computers, for example a Sprite. We have a ordered raster (in modern displays squared pixels [consisting of three subpixels, not important because the subpixels are not conciously altered, except for real subpixel work]) and quantum (palette, for example fixed 16 colors or 8 colors out of (128x128x128) colors) - valid PixelArt concerning my definition
  • If we look at indexpainting, we are more on a gray level, but it's not PixelArt in my definition. We have a ordered raster and a given quantum (mostly straight ramps with different hues). But some tools ignore the grid completely and while painting the artist pays mostly no attention to the grid. - NO valid PixelArt concerning my definition
    As you can see, I think the raster is more important in pixelart than the choosing of the specific quantum (in computer pixelart the pixelcolor). I don't have a problem when you use brushes which cycles the index of the colors, because it doesn't break the grid. Other tools like doge&burn, smudge break the grid. Therefore IndexPainting is in most cases no valid PixelArt. Please notice, I only look at the part of IndexPainting, the cleanup part with nice tools is PixelArt!
  • HighRes Painting is not PixelArt, even when it has indexed colors / fixed palette, because the painter pays no attention to the grid.
  • Making a picture with mosaics is considered pixelart by me, because you have a fixed grid and a specific quantum (the tiles. They might even have different forms like squares, triangles or spheres).
  • Making pictures with multicolored stones on the ground is mostly not valid pixelart, because you have no grid you could pay attention you. If you make yourself a grid it becomes like mosaic, a valid pixelart
  • Sand mandala has a quantum (grain of sand), but it has no raster.

This is only as far as pixelart is concerned as a medium. In Helm's case, the part about the highres painting and downscaling is obviously not pixelart (I know, nobody stated that) and the last part about the cleanup is valid pixelart. The outcome is therefore valid pixelart (at least at the cleanuped parts). A blank canvas or a random canvas or a downscaled painting is for the definition the same. Every quantum which has been intentionally dealed with is pixelart. In a blank canvas you maybe leave some pixels intentionally white, therefore they are "altered by your mind" - they have content. In a random canvas or downscaled painting it's the same, it's maybe just harder to spot which pixels have "content" or not. Some pixels might even be correct even if they were never altered.

That's about the boring part.

One very interesting thing Helm said was "I'd never have pixelled hair strands like these if I started with a pixel doodle base for example". I claim that if Helm wouldn't have painted this image first in highres, the outcome would be certainly different!
Please let me elaborate: To me, making pictures should be a form of communication, you want so say something. Helm wants to say something, something which has a "infinite resolution" and that picture contains a head with a very faint tilt. In highres he is able to draw that. I just looked through Helm's pixeljoint gallery and I'm sure, if he had pixeled that image from scratch in the native resolution, the wouldn't have that faint tilt, it would be more extreme (only my opinion!).
Well, I can't say if you should have a fixed idea and then choose a medium or workflow or if you should be inspired by the tools you use or a mixture of it and I think in the end it's not even important (as far as you are honestly expressing yourself - bruce lee ;) ).

Please let me make a very unpopular statement: There are not enough original downscaled paintings which then are cleaned up! Why is that so? There's always that talk about Styles, Final Fantasy Sprite, Street Fighter Sprites - there's no content which is communicated, only shadows. I think it's easy to adapt to a style on a pixel level and create nice looking pixelart. That's how the pixelation forum started and how many artists got their job in the gaming biz. There's a reason why there are not enough downscaled and cleanuped paintings and so many "not very good" pixelartists. They lack in a higher resolution idea/picture. That's why it's also important to have strong traditional drawing and painting skills. It's way harder to draw something highres - pixeling is only a handful of techniques and experience. Many might think that downscaling an original painting is like cheating, maybe because it's so rarely seen, maybe because they don't understand it (it looks too CG-like for example) or because they simply are envious (as I said, cheating). But I do think that the workflow of Helm, painting big- downscaling and refining would make more good pixelartists which even satisfies the pixelpurists.

In the end I don't really care. I think it's fair if you have an idea and you use the tools to communicate it the best way possible. Maybe it's a highres painting or a pixeldoodle. In the end, pixelart is more a philosophical thing to me. Creating the most out of the restrictions, limit yourself. I think Helm somewhere made the example of a GO-game. Pixelart can sometimes even be something like meditation.
Just ask yourself (while critisizing), are you ranting about some arbitrary constructs or are you really seeing what some fellow human wanted to express?

General Discussion / Re: Hegagons viewed at an angle
« on: January 24, 2010, 05:50:44 pm »
The left column looks correct to me. Not sure about the D tile, though. As far as I can see, you used the width to height ratio 2:1. But the slope is 4:1 and not 2:1 - maybe it's intentional. A 2:1 slope would look too close to the topdown-hex-tile (in my photoshop experiment I have a 8:8 w/h ratio). In your painted example you used a 3:1 slope which works really nice.
If I understand you correct, your going to paint the tiles bigger and then resize it (and eventually fix it up). If that's the case, a 2:1 slope is not so important (like when you would pixel it from scratch), so it's only about having nice slopes/edges to make seamless transitions?

Your new painted tiles works well. Did you eyeball the "correct foreshortening" or did you use some distorted cubes for reference?

General Discussion / Re: Hegagons viewed at an angle
« on: January 24, 2010, 01:44:04 pm »
Interesting problem. I tried to calculate it and found out that your original tile is not really correct. Is that possible? According to my calculations, the width of an hexagonal tile (with a 2px slope) is height*4 or height/0.25. Your original tile was 10px height and 30px width. I redraw your tile with a 10px height and 40px width. It doesn't really look better (it feels too flat), but I think it's more correct mathematically. The top-view hextile is drawn with the photoshop polygon tool and proved my calculations were ok (The height or the top-view tile is the height of the tilted *3.464: 10px*3.464=34px)

For the other problem, the tilt-angle, I tried to calculate that too and got 73. I think it should be correct, but of course I can make mistakes. I post the sheet where I calculated everything. I hope it helps you and you can understand what I did. If something is unclear, just ask. The text is very thin, so if it's too hard to read, I can send you the original scan (300dpi), which is much easier to read.

Pixel Art / Re: [WIP] Pixel Joint Challenge: Copy Helm!
« on: December 29, 2009, 10:51:19 am »
EyeCraft already did a great paintover. I strongly encourage you to look at a reference and then really only use lines (think of a low-poly object) to sculpt your form. Only think about forms in this step, not expression (at your current level at least). I don't remember exactly how Helm normally does his work, but I tried to apply what I remembered from that thread he posted once. If you can't sculpt the form from mind (as you told us), please use references. I recommend "Planes of the Head" by John Asaro, just google him. There should be a pdf of his book somethere in the internet - not sure if it's free or not.

Just after you finished these steps begin refining your intended expression. I think Helm explained these later steps very well in his post. But currently that's nothing you should think about, imho. I hope I can encourage you to use references and really sculp the forms. Only with solid basics I think you can come close to a Helm, heh. Keep pushing!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19