AuthorTopic: fighter for fun  (Read 11206 times)

Offline Ryumaru

  • Moderator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1683
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • to be animated soonly
    • ChrisPariano
    • View Profile

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #10 on: February 01, 2007, 02:09:52 am
god, i swear this great critique is to awesome to be anywhere other than pixelation. thanks for the edit, zeid. i believe the pose in your edit isnt what i wanted for him, but the leg you did is definitely good reference for futher pieces. i think ill just take all the highlights off of his forearm than put them all on it.

thanks b.o.b : DD

ohh, nice call adam, will do.

thanks for the comments guys!
woo! another update:

« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 02:57:22 am by Ryumaru »

yosh64

  • Guest

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #11 on: February 01, 2007, 03:05:02 am
hey

I like your latest update, and I think you applied the critiques well :), and I like the stylish pose :).

cyas

Offline David

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • I Am Not Original

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #12 on: February 01, 2007, 05:25:36 am


I think you lost a lot going from black and white to color. Also, I like necks.

Offline Terley

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 661
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Terley is King, but he needs a new avatar.
    • View Profile

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #13 on: February 01, 2007, 05:43:50 am
I believe he's pixeling his character. changing the head like that would loose the original intention, great edit part from david.
 


I do think his head should be higher, it gives the impression he's arching forward. I think i'd be better adding more of a neck.

great progress.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 05:45:33 am by Terley »
I've not got anything interesting to type here..

Offline Ryumaru

  • Moderator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1683
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • to be animated soonly
    • ChrisPariano
    • View Profile

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #14 on: February 01, 2007, 11:21:02 am
wtf david that edit is awesome.
no, im not actually pixeling that character, but there very similair because i drew them both on the same day.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 11:56:33 am by Ryumaru »

Offline sharprm

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 660
  • Karma: +0/-3
  • INTP/INTJ
    • View Profile

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #15 on: February 01, 2007, 11:44:49 am
Looks good. I don't like the eye atm because it sticks out too much - more like a ping pong ball to me. Also black eye might look better.
Modern artists are told that they must create something totally original-or risk being called "derivative".They've been indoctrinated with the concept that bad=good.The effect is always the same: Meaningless primitivism
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/phi

Offline Feron

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1123
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Carpe Diem
    • View Profile
    • Pixelheart

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #16 on: February 01, 2007, 05:39:22 pm
the speech bubble and finger ruin this.

Offline Ryumaru

  • Moderator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1683
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • to be animated soonly
    • ChrisPariano
    • View Profile

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #17 on: February 01, 2007, 06:27:36 pm
if its a matter of how well done the finger and bubble is than tell me how to fix it, if its a matter of taste than dont say it brings it down if its only your view.
either way:

Offline Feron

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1123
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Carpe Diem
    • View Profile
    • Pixelheart

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #18 on: February 01, 2007, 06:40:16 pm
sorry, i didnt mean to sound so harsh.  This is shaping up nicely - yeah it was mainly my personal view - however it just gave it an immature feel to a kickass sprite.

I think it looks a little weird how the line between the pecs and and central line of the abdomin dont line up, maybe shift it 1 or 2 pixels to the right.

Offline Ryumaru

  • Moderator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1683
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • to be animated soonly
    • ChrisPariano
    • View Profile

Re: fighter for fun

Reply #19 on: February 01, 2007, 07:35:40 pm
thanks, fixed in this version: