why is it that you think you dont have to back up your thoughts with arguments?
It is because I don't have to. I may want to. And I don't want to go into detail in this case, because this isn't a commercial critique over sfIII, but about Indigo's sprite. In light of that I knew I was posting oot, I decided to make my comment brief. Actual meritable critique of the sprite in question has been handled by the awesome Snake post and ptoing and the other people talking about colors. The reason my comment existed in the first place - and I don't have to explain myself but since you were rude about it here it is - is that regardless of whether Indigo failed or succeeded in matching the style, your explanation seemed to imply that these SFIII sprites have specific
sekret pixelling techniques about them that Indigo should look out for, which is in my opinion a wild-goose chase, as these sprites, as well animated as they are, do not have any special tech attached to them. A secondary lightsource from below now is a 'technique'? You have - in my opinion - a long history of inventing techniques where there is just capable design and pixel art skill in application, therefore I thought it worthwhile to mention that in this case there isn't even much of capable pixelling to talk of. As I said, good design, lots of frames. Average (for pro, of course) pixel skill. Am I the only one who prefers the pixelling tech in Indigo's sprite over those Capcom ones? Even if so, this is my opinion and I stand by it.
