Hey, remember Ben Jordan?

[Creamy]

Cool pictures.
Ilyich edit adds a lot of depth and space to the forest.

Another thing you might want to try : use brushes to add texture to your foreground and get more depth.
A quick edit :
[imgzoom]http://creamy.r.c.f.unblog.fr/files/2015/02/grundiforest_colour1.jpg[/imgzoom]

[Misj']

I think most will agree that the forest-path and the mines-entry are the superior pieces (and with the added haze for depth they come alive even more).

There is, however, one thing that bothers me in all four of them. But when I look at the four new images as in-game backgrounds, then I fear that the walk-in is too long. For example, in the original you were immediately at the entrance of the mine. Now you have to see a walk animation while Ben is getting smaller in the distance. The same is more or less true in the forest. In the indoor scene you used to start at the door, now we get another walk animation while Ben climbs the stairs. The house already had this in the original, but since the new door is smaller, I fear that the character would have to shrink more and thus (physically) walk further.

The new images are much better. There is no doubt about that. And they present a much more interesting scene (especially the forest and the mine). But for a game I fear this would slow down the pace too much...especially because some feel like simple transition scenes to go from place A to B (mainly the forest and the doorway).


ps. also, I kinda don't like the house, and feel it's weird that the banister and floor just end in a straight nothingness (fading them into an unlit area would be better I think)

[Grundislav]

Fair enough, Misj.  I agree with your statements about long walkable areas, which is a result of remaking backgrounds from older games. Nowadays I think about backgrounds in terms of the least amount of scaling possible, so if I were to do any from scratch, I'd do the composition with that in mind.

As for the house, I'm not a big fan of the hard edges either. I think I'll go back and tweak those to see if it looks any better.

[Snarky]

I feel more qualified to critique the originals than the remakes, but here goes anyway...

Case 1: I love it! The path, the foliage, just excellently rendered. To me it looks more jungly than Everglady, but I trust you know the landscape better than I. I don't entirely agree with Ilyich's edit: your original already has some nice atmospheric perspective (partly conveyed through a blue shift that isn't apparent in the monochrome version), and I think it's too much with the white filter on top of that. If you were to add some more haze, I'd also apply it to the vegetation alongside the path as it recedes. As a minor nitpick, I might also try to break up those three columns of leaves along the path to form more irregular shapes. Finally, if I remember the game correctly you have to do something with that tree trunk (get sap, maybe?), and in that case I would probably make the interactive elements jump out a little more.

Case 2: Another excellent one. Same as selmiak, I find the color balance in your original version a bit drab, like it's an overcast day. It's cliché, but I think in a screen like this the viewer expects more of a sun-scorched, almost overexposed look, like Breaking Bad. Upping the contrast makes the colors a bit cartoony, but highlighting the brightness of the lit regions (and maybe darkening the shadows) would make it pop more. Also, the paint on that sign doesn't look right to me, unless it's painted in nail varnish or something. And on close study, the lightsource on those hills in the distance doesn't seem to match the foreground shading and the shadow of the bathtub, but that's nitpicking.

Case 3: Along with Case 1, probably the greatest improvement from the original. The way you render the contours of the terrain and the texture of the grass is great, but there are some issues. The building is a bit fuzzy, and I can't quite make out what's going on with the roof. (I don't remember, is it supposed to be a ruin?) However, the biggest problem here is a lack of scale, which makes the whole thing look almost like a model landscape. And I think part of the reason for that is that the boulders all have about the same apparent size, no matter how far away they're supposed to be. Similarly, that golden stuff (not quite sure what it's supposed to be... flowers?) doesn't seem to scale much, either. Here I think the foreground ones should be much bigger and more detailed than the ones in middle distance, and you might also want to add one or more much smaller farther ones. Other than that, just the tip of some distant hills visible on the horizon would also help establish scale. Or a bit of sea, like in the original. I also tend to agree with Fitz that a simpler sky might work better, because the clouds currently draw the eye more than probably intended.

Case 4: Like BSP, I think the original composition, crude as it is, conveys a certain almost Kubrickian sense of dread that is lost in the remake. The new one is nice, but for my taste you could be a bit more dramatic with the light and shadows. For example, wouldn't the wall facing us on the right in the stairwell be in shadow, and wouldn't you get the shadows of the banister projected on the other inside wall on the left? It's also a bit of a pet peeve of mine when the light spots look like they're simply layered on top of the subject, which tends to wash out contrast (much like those atmospheric perspective filters). In this case I would try to make sure that the darkest bits of the lamps, particularly the one on the left, still maintain that contrast. Oh, and finally as a matter of verisimilitude, I think an old English house like this would normally have carpeted stairs, though possibly not all the way up to the attic?

Overall, all of these are impressive, but more than anything, I'm impressed with you doing one of these a day as practice. Even if I could draw as nicely as this, it would take me like a week to finish a single screen!

[Andail]

Ok, I uploaded one paintover but was in a hurry, but now I can describe better what I've done.
Before:

Paintover:


The original picture had only one hue (greenish), so I introduced yellow and blue to create a more dynamic colour scheme. I also added lots of highlights, but made sure they were localized to strategic points, and not scattered around too much.
Made the sky blue, and reduced the contrasts a bit.
Added some perspective to the roof of building.
Cropped the picture so that the tower matches the golden ratio point in the composition.
Also added some custom brush straws in the foreground - it's sloppy but it's just there to add some more defined, sharp shapes.

[Creamy]

Wow, that's a big rework of the original picture. The light coming from behind and reflecting on the left wall is a nice addition.
The colour balance seems better too.

[Monsieur OUXX]

@Selmiak's edit is really good BUT the mountains in the background should keep a much lower contrast

@case 2: you have a tendency to draw everything (I mean, the whole scene) with your chalks. That works really nicely for 99% fo the scene, but I would recommend not to do it for busy elements such as grass (I'm talking about the grass in the bottom-right-hand corner). Instead, you might want to use the mouse. Try to draw the grass or any busy texture at a pixel level, with little antialiasing. In a nutshell: grass leaves are very thin, your chalk makes them look chunky. Chalks have a tendency to make everything look smooth.

@case 3 : you have a tendency to underestimate the contrast required to a scene. I'm actually very impressed by all those drawings, because you didn't do it in any of them, usually you do it all the time. The only exception is case 3 : the couldy sky should be very luminous (yes, I know, that sounds paradoxical but it's true) while the foreground should be globally quite dark (because the clouds dramatically reduce the ambient light), especially on the outline, where it contrasts with the sky. Also, vertical surfaces should be much darker than horizontal surfaces. EDIT: I just saw that Andail did this.

[Snarky]

the couldy sky should be very luminous (yes, I know, that sounds paradoxical but it's true) while the foreground should be globally quite dark (because the clouds dramatically reduce the ambient light)

That doesn't sound right. On a cloudy day you have nothing but ambient light (because the light from the sun is diffused across the entire sky). Haven't you noticed that you don't even cast a visible shadow when it's really cloudy?

EDIT: I just saw that Andail did this.

Andail's edit is beautiful, but as I recall, the atmosphere of the game is supposed to be just wretched, drizzly weather all the time, and I think the golden light breaking through the clouds kind of messes with that. (Of course, there might be an argument for changing the visual aesthetic of the game to something prettier, along these lines.)

[Monsieur OUXX]

ou have nothing but ambient light (because the light from the sun is diffused across the entire sky). Haven't you noticed that you don't even cast a visible shadow when it's really cloudy?

We agree, I just didn't phrase it right : I didn't mean that the directional light was stronger than ambient light. Indeed, there's nothing but ambient light. My point was that the house and ground should be much darker than the sky, as seen on Andail's drawing. Note: There may be parts of the ground where the ground is very bright and colorful, but then they will be very likely to be caused by holes in the clouds.

However the part of my advice that wasn't 100% relevant was the art about the vertical parts being much darker than the horizontal parts. That's where the "only ambient light" situation would step in, and make all surfaces evenly lighted. Yet, one must not underestimate that vertical surfaces are always darker, even when there is mostly ambient light.