[WIP] Yet another tile mockery, please tear it apart.

[vierbit]

Err, vierbit, actually, I'm digging overkill's edit just a tad bit more, and I'll explain why:

Except for the rocks, which really are a bit too dark, I like how colours intertwine between objects and background. Although the pallette separating way is a good one, in my personal opinion, you can separate elements in a lot of other ways as well.

Only to clarify, while I personally like to separating elements with different colors,
my point was actually to use different palette entries for each element(foreground, background, sprites ect.).
So for example, if I change the colors on the sprite it doesn´t affect the rock tiles.
-

Yeah the tree in my edit is probably a bit to bright, but I stay to the brighter stone tiles(maybe a bit darker).
Dont know, maybe because I am not sitting before a super bright LCD screen, but I can hardly see the stones here.

[Jad]

Agreed; separate pallette entries are needed, no objections there.

Also I agree that rocks should be a bit brighter, they're very hard to see right now.

[infiniteart]

Overkill, man, Im not having a go at you, but it just puzzles me, and you are not the first, not by a long shot, to point out pillowshading out of a situation where there really is no pillow shading involved.
and I start to wonder where people get the idea from. is it a miss conception, is it just a more broad usage of the word for "wrong shading"?

you admit its not, and you did provide with a good head's up about the tree. but I get the feeling that probably more people would come in and say "its pillow shaded". I dunno, maybe I'm hunting ghosts!

Yeah, it's more like gradient-shaded than anything. It's still formless and bland but you're right that pillow-shaded is not the correct term.