AuthorTopic: [C+C]Stargazer!  (Read 1963 times)

Offline Cloderick

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Dig that hole,forget the sun
    • View Profile


on: July 07, 2016, 01:49:21 am
Finished this after hours of work.
It's not perfect,of course,and i can see a lot of things that can be improved
but i got anxious and decided to let that way so i can move on.
Anyway i want to see if i theres some mistake i dint see.
ps:i looked this in my Samsung tablet,and the colors looks very different from my pc monitor.gotta solve this fast
ps2:i used photoshop "Multiply" option in that aura thing and "Glow" in the stars,tell me if you want the pure version
Thank you.
ps3:I do my pixel art to been seen in 2x,don't know why i just found better that way :3

« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 01:51:09 am by Cloderick »

Offline Mathias

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1797
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Goodbye.
    • View Profile

Re: [C+C]Stargazer!

Reply #1 on: July 07, 2016, 07:04:44 pm
Feels somewhat original, interesting to look at. Well done finishing it.
Makes me think of Kid Icarus.

Some simple star twinkling, angel character aura rotation/pulsing, angel char wing flapping, 4 symbols glowing animation: could really bring this to life and may increase VisualJoy by ~325%.

===activating critbarf===
on one hand it feels there's too many elements smushed together, but on the other hand the eye gets to go on a discovery field trip - I think this may be a form over function moment, though.
bg stars (automatic outer glow included) hurt overall impression because they have too much contrast - the decision to make them pure white feels quite wrong.
the automatic anti-aliased constellation lines hurts overall pixel integrity far too much.
heart in stars . . .
dark dots middle left are distracting.
white pillars and stonework unduly dominate this composition.
double outlines used for stairs unnecessarily add detail without really giving anything back.
omni-lit pillars and stonework are uncompelling - only after an eyedropper tool check did I learn there's any hue to the greys - so much grey in an otherwise well-saturated composition can cause a deadening effect, angles with as much as 90° difference all equally lit hurting depth/flattening the shapes.
floor brickwork not only feels wrong because it runs the direction it does but it makes little sense as a floor texture due to the seemingly unnecessary detail it adds, indication from sides that the floor is actually some kind of seamless marble slab, and that it's upward facing surface is darker than its upright side faces.
character's emotion (apparent on face) is ambiguous and awkward - as if surprised and/or angry, or as if forced into his current situation by external forces.
I suspect dithering may have been a better background gradient choice.
what I interpret as a downward pointing spear, behind the char, really confused me at first - coupled with his expression I thought the top of it was an animé-esque "frustration bubble" and the bottom I thought was an arrowhead or fishing lure hanging from a string attached to his who knows what.
is that actually a yin-yang on his waist . . . if so, whoa - 3x2 pixel yin-yang.
moon's inner edges are not anti-aliased yet outside edges are.
sun visually weighs more than the moon suggesting it's more important yet I assume they're equally important.
top middle region feels comparatively tragically empty with the sun and moon so close to satisfactorily filling it yet they're placed where they're placed.
I feel like the 4 symbols fail to have as much visual priority as they should, especially since they're on pedestals, and might they benefit from a more ethereal treatment instead of seeming to be physical objects that even cast a shadow.
floating prismal triangle thing seems out of place - it's too basically rendered and feels like an afterthought meant to make the image more exciting.
invasive Pink Floyd light beam injures symmetry and is incorrect - unsplit white light beam shouldn't be tapered, and might the unsplit and split light beams be better off either sharing the same angle or having obviously different angles instead of very similar yet not quite the same angles?
Tangent Indication Proclamation (T.I.P.) : sun touching left edge of canvas, grey stonework touching bottom of canvas.
praise the sun.


  • Guest

Re: [C+C]Stargazer!

Reply #2 on: July 07, 2016, 07:31:28 pm
Methias : nice post coco

Some other thoughts :
-The "perspective" (it's not really in) makes it feel very claustrophobic. (Maybe it's because of all the visual data being bombarded at once)
-The glow on every star is a bit overwhelming and makes the piece not fun to look at.
-Why are the pillars that are farther away bigger than the ones closer?
-I think the symbols look like flat stickers, putting them in perspective might make them look cooler.
-So do the Sun and the moon.
-Overall it just feels like random elements are just put together because they look cool (They do!)without giving a thought to composition. It does get overwhelming.
-The church/house thing seems to extend more than the platform itself (Again, perspective is off)

If you refer to your earlier WIP post about perspective, you'll find why it looks quite off.
Also, you can find primers on perspective online and fix it pretty easily.
Remember, there are no parallel lines when things are in perspective.
But very nice work! this has a lot of potential. It's certainly a visual candy  :)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 07:37:05 pm by jun »

Offline Yokai90

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I come here sometimes for advice & Eggs
    • boogie45
    • View Profile

Re: [C+C]Stargazer!

Reply #3 on: July 07, 2016, 08:18:29 pm

I wish I had more to add but I think everyone else also sorta pointed it out,but I just wanted to say that I enjoy the creativity in this one!