This is my first AGS game, and I've been having some trouble settling on an art style.
I wanted some feedback on whether these two rooms should be redone in the same style, or if you think the mixed style works.
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8166/shipscreenshot.png)
(http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2980/bedroomshot.png)
NB: I haven't painted the player character yet because I'm still doing all her animations.
back on track, I see you say this is your first game...so why go hi-res?
Quote from: Jim Reed on Mon 01/02/2010 15:22:47
back on track, I see you say this is your first game...so why go hi-res?
Why go low res? Convention?
I've redrawn both backgrounds in clean lines now.
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7622/screents.png)
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8117/screen1bv.png)
His suggestion is probably more about the general lack of detail in your backgrounds than an appeal to be high res just because.
There's just not much value in having massive high resolution backgrounds if they are largely empty and devoid of detail and color. Also, since you're using such massive images, please resize them with the [img] tags to sizes more reasonable for the forums or post links for the larger ones instead. Thanks.
Low Res is A LOT better in MHO.
Also, i didn't liked that gradient in the 2 bg also, but the new style is 230400000²²² times better.
Haha, you missunderstood me. I meant why go hi-res, 'cause it's so much more work than lo-res (more or less).
I still owe you a paintover, errr....I'll be just a minute, I think I left the fridge open...
No, really, I had a busy day today, but I'll make it.
I'd say hi-res is great for 3D graphics or rendered backgrounds, because with those, you don't want to see individual pixels as in they try to imitate reality.
For hand-drawn backgrounds though, lo-res doesn't just save work but also looks better in most cases (except for specific graphical styles like simulating actual paper drawings and the like, but again, those try to imitate reality).
Tracing photos essentially produces line art, and thus it's important to have clean lines and well defined shapes. Lo-res is the way to go here, IMO.
Quote from: Khris on Tue 02/02/2010 00:39:26
I'd say hi-res is great for 3D graphics or rendered backgrounds, because with those, you don't want to see individual pixels as in they try to imitate reality.
For hand-drawn backgrounds though, lo-res doesn't just save work but also looks better in most cases (except for specific graphical styles like simulating actual paper drawings and the like, but again, those try to imitate reality).
Tracing photos essentially produces line art, and thus it's important to have clean lines and well defined shapes. Lo-res is the way to go here, IMO.
I can definitely see the appeal. I've already got 4 puzzles done and about 10 rooms, so I won't change now.
I do have my graphics tablet here though, so I might go through with art rage at the end and put some detail into the more plain backgrounds.
I'll also find time to redo my characters from my concept art in high detail. Perhaps toward a more CMI look and feel.
Thanks for the advice guys.
Damn, I just spent 1 hour trying to come up with something to help you. I failed miserably.
=(
Quote from: Jim Reed on Tue 02/02/2010 13:21:16
Damn, I just spent 1 hour trying to come up with something to help you. I failed miserably.
=(
@Jim
Thanks for your effort all the same.
For some of my outdoors backgrounds I'm using a number of algorithms and photo editing.
This is supposed to be set on a meteoroid.
I think it matches the style. But I am completely incapable of criticizing my own work :-*
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7809/meteoroidlandscape1.png)
"number of algorithms"?
What is that? ;D
You didn't painted this then?
Quote from: Jakerpot on Tue 02/02/2010 14:43:21
"number of algorithms"?
What is that? ;D
You didn't painted this then?
The image immediately above was a photo taken in Antarctica. I adjusted the hue and touched up the sky, reduced the palette, then I ran it through a raster to vector program.
Just wanted to show you something really quickly. I know it seems like too much of a pain to switch to low res now, but,I mean....
This is a picture of Room#1 in my training game from 2 years ago:
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3816/crapu.png)
And this is the re-make of it I'm currently kicking around the idea of making into a full game:
(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/115/pixelattempt3.png)
So...I dunno. I know your game isn't nearly the extreme like this is, but I really think the switch would help.
In general, the more filters are used the uglier the result.
The latest background is no exception.
IMO, one of the most important parts of the graphic design process is a consistent art style.
You can create a game by pasting photos of furniture in a line art room, using a double-sized, pixelated Roger as player character. But it WILL look like shit (see Other Worlds for a perfect example). Personally, I won't even try such a game, no matter how ingenious the puzzles or story are said to be.
Your current player character on that vectorized photo background will stick out like a sore thumb.
You've got to decide if you want to
a) produce backgrounds quick and dirty and move on to creating the rest of the game
b) invest some time and practice to create decent backgrounds.
The thing is, posting here in the CL usually requires choosing b) first.
Please stick to one image and try to incorporate our suggestions.
Quote from: Domithan on Tue 02/02/2010 16:02:43
Just wanted to show you something really quickly. I know it seems like too much of a pain to switch to low res now, but,I mean....
And this is the re-make of it I'm currently kicking around the idea of making into a full game:
So...I dunno. I know your game isn't nearly the extreme like this is, but I really think the switch would help.
It certainly looks easier. But I'm on the fence about the efficacy of low res adventure games.
The Lucas Arts (and other) classics were more limited than boosted by the low res environment. Just look at the concept art produced for them.
(http://www.scummbar.com/games/screenshots/mi2/concept/4.jpg)
This stuff wasn't low res or low detail. As far as I know the low res format was purely a result of technology limitations at the time.
That said, it is now it's own art style / genre -- which is perfectly fine. I just wouldn't want to lean on it for lack of being able to produce (or learning to produce) high quality work.
Btw, I fed your neat night scene into this vector tool I have:
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9034/capi.png)
If you cleaned that up a little you could probably up-convert to a higher resolution if you were inclined toward such.
Quote from: Khris
You've got to decide if you want to
a) produce backgrounds quick and dirty and move on to creating the rest of the game
b) invest some time and practice to create decent backgrounds.
Many thanks for your suggestions. I'll take option 3 and mix suggestions with my own style.
And I'm positive you won't want to play any of my games. So don't bother looking at my threads :)
Just because we now have the technical ability to make games with larger resolutions than the older games, doesn't mean you should do it.
Lots of (new) people think that the people here are making games with 320x240 resolution because they're clinging onto nostalgia, making games just like they remember playing. The majority of the time, that's
not the case.
It's easier to fill a background with amazing detail with only 320x240 pixels rather than your huge 1024x768. And looking at the huge lack of detail on your backgrounds (the pic of the ship's bridge is the Worst for this), makes me extremely frustrated that you won't just redo your game with a lower resolution. Your character is even up-scaled 200%, so even your character is designed for a 640x480 game.
Quote from: Khris on Tue 02/02/2010 17:19:42
IMO, one of the most important parts of the graphic design process is a consistent art style.
[..] Personally, I won't even try such a game, no matter how ingenious the puzzles or story are said to be.
Honestly, I completely agree with Khris. And with your backgrounds the size they are, with the huge areas of solid nothing.... :-\ I couldn't. I couldn't play it.
Sorry for being harsh. This is the critics lounge after all.
I would love if you'd take into consideration of scrapping the game you've done at this huge resolution, even though it's a huge pain in the arse, and at least play around with 640x480 at the very
max.
Toss in more detail, etc.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Tue 02/02/2010 18:45:50
I would love if you'd take into consideration of scrapping the game you've done at this huge resolution, even though it's a huge pain in the arse, and at least play around with 640x480 at the very max.
Toss in more detail, etc.
Well that's interesting.
But when I scale down the rooms I get no sense of better quality from them.
Maybe you can help me understand how a lower resolution will make my backgrounds look better?
The issue of which looks better is a matter of opinion and opinion only.
The issue of which is easier to do to a high standard is not. Low res is easier, because you have to invest less time in details, etc.
I think what a few people here are trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that it may be easier to start at a low res.
I COULD convert it to high res...yes...but WHY would I want to?!
I think many will agree when I say my original version is much...much better than the high-res one from the vector program.
Also, as we've said, it's completely up to you, but we're just doing what you asked, we're being critical. Also, harsh as it may be, why not take some of the advice? You might be surprised at what you can make.
To throw another tire on this bonfire; I'm making my game in low resolution because it's easier to draw backgrounds and far easier to animate. Once I know what I'm doing here, I'll move up to high resolution. It's a learning curve, you don't run before you can walk.
Quote from: Domithan on Tue 02/02/2010 19:42:31
I COULD convert it to high res...yes...but WHY would I want to?!
Because outside the cliques on this forum, every modern game is made at resolutions at or exceeding 1024x768.
I'm certainly not very good at digital art, but the last thing I'd want to do is use low resolutions as a crutch to hide my inabilities.
I have taken some of the good advice offered in this forum (with respect to the layout and style of my backgrounds). The rest appears to be "you should change to low res, despite being 80% finished at a higher resolution because X" where X is any one of a million subjective peer-group preferences.
QuoteAlso, as we've said, it's completely up to you, but we're just doing what you asked, we're being critical. Also, harsh as it may be, why not take some of the advice? You might be surprised at what you can make.
I've had some good critical feedback, which I highly respect, and some snippy stuff which I don't care for at all.
But if someone were to turn away from what they actually wanted to make because a few senior forum members bullied them into it, then I would have no respect for that person. Have some integrity and make what you want to make.
Quote from: Mr FibbleTo throw another tire on this bonfire; I'm making my game in low resolution because it's easier to draw backgrounds and far easier to animate. Once I know what I'm doing here, I'll move up to high resolution. It's a learning curve, you don't run before you can walk.
I considered this also. But the low resolution stuff is pixel art, which is a separate skill to high resolution / general art stuff. If you are happy / want to learn how to make games in the retro-feel early 90's genre, then I say go for it.
It's not that low-res is better than hi-res, it's just that the bigger you make the background, the more you have to fill it with good art.
Every mistake you make in low-res will be magnified in hi-res and become much more flagrant.
There is a good principle that says that you should always do the most of whatever media and restrictions you've got, before you change to something bigger and more advanced. It's like when a beginner wants to start making film, and immediately buys a $5000 camera because it's supposedly the best, but since he can't handle it, the results end up worse than with a really cheap budget camera.
Either way, it seems that you've made up your mind already, so we can only wish you good luck with your endeavours
I'm positive it's useless to try and convince you to change to a lower resolution.
Still, you don't seem to get what we're saying, so I'll try and elaborate on a few points:
Whether or not a background is appealing doesn't have anything to do with the resolution (unless of course all lo-res art is dismissed as not modern from the start). There's great art and shitty art in both camps all over the internet.
To put it bluntly: that MI concept art will look great as a hi-res game background, but yours don't because you aren't an experienced enough artist yet. So because it is indeed easier to produce appealing lo-res art, that's what we suggested to a beginner like yourself.
It's like building a nice sand castle on two square feet of sand as opposed to ten; the latter will take more time, talent and practice.
If you're satisfied with your backgrounds, then by all means go ahead and continue doing them like that.
But don't post them here and get all upset if people do anything else except praising them.
Edit: heh, anyone else got an analogy? :)
Btw, you don't need to be a pixel artist to use lo-res, just look at Ben304's backgrounds. Beautiful, lo-res, but not pixel art.
Yes, Khris. This is what I was trying to imply as well. I certainly wasn't trying to "bully" you, so much as trying to help you. I just think low-res would help in such a project, and like everyone else has said, if you want to continue on with high-res, nobody will stop you. It's just sooooo much harder to pull off well, I've seen very few AGS games above 640x480 that look really good. Not saying you aren't capable of it, but I just ask: why NOT go low res?
Even with your example turning my low-res to high res, just look at how much work that would need in order to look detailed and great. A lot.
Quote from: Andail on Tue 02/02/2010 20:55:11
It's not that low-res is better than hi-res, it's just that the bigger you make the background, the more you have to fill it with good art.
Every mistake you make in low-res will be magnified in hi-res and become much more flagrant.
There is a good principle that says that you should always do the most of whatever media and restrictions you've got, before you change to something bigger and more advanced. It's like when a beginner wants to start making film, and immediately buys a $5000 camera because it's supposedly the best, but since he can't handle it, the results end up worse than with a really cheap budget camera.
Either way, it seems that you've made up your mind already, so we can only wish you good luck with your endeavours
Thanks for the kind words.
In your camera analogy, because I already have an almost finished high-res game, it would be like purchasing a $50 camera when I have a $5000 camera that I already own.
Quote from: Khris
But don't post them here and get all upset if people do anything else except praising them.
Of course this is not what I was doing. And that you'd post this comment in full understanding of the preceding conversation is bullying, even if no one wants to admit it. Critical feedback would be: "These backgrounds are sort of plain, here's how you can add some detail to make them more interesting." or "For your next game you might consider using a lower resolution, because this tends to be less work." or "Darkly lit scenes are tricky to draw well, here's some tips on how to improve this one."
Not: "You can create a game by pasting photos of furniture in a line art room, using a double-sized, pixelated Roger as player character. But it WILL look like shit (see Other Worlds for a perfect example). Personally, I won't even try such a game, no matter how ingenious the puzzles or story are said to be."
Which is basically calling my game shit before you've seen it and insinuating that I've put no work into it because I refuse to bend to your expectations.
*cough* (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=25233.0)
I have near thirty backgrounds made for this game, that's triple any other project i've failed to make.
Honestly, if you're going for a simple style then a Low res + small palette = more backgrounds. Pixels just look better because they follow a strict form, you proved that with the ugly vector mess you made of Domithan's background.
Plus if you're going to mash together google images they look much better in 320.
screw it, here's a quick 2 minute edit to prove my point.
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/spaceeditt.png)
That's just a resize, change of hue, tweak of brightness and contrast and then setting the mode to indexed colour with a Local(perceptual) palette. *edit- Made the floor darker and added some foreground, it's a lot easier to change bits when its in a low res.
Quote from: Sythe on Tue 02/02/2010 21:22:44
Quote from: Andail on Tue 02/02/2010 20:55:11
It's not that low-res is better than hi-res, it's just that the bigger you make the background, the more you have to fill it with good art.
Every mistake you make in low-res will be magnified in hi-res and become much more flagrant.
There is a good principle that says that you should always do the most of whatever media and restrictions you've got, before you change to something bigger and more advanced. It's like when a beginner wants to start making film, and immediately buys a $5000 camera because it's supposedly the best, but since he can't handle it, the results end up worse than with a really cheap budget camera.
Either way, it seems that you've made up your mind already, so we can only wish you good luck with your endeavours
Thanks for the kind words.
In your camera analogy, because I already have an almost finished high-res game, it would be like purchasing a $50 camera when I have a $5000 camera that I already own.
Quote from: Khris
But don't post them here and get all upset if people do anything else except praising them.
Of course this is not what I was doing. And that you'd post this comment in full understanding of the preceding conversation is bullying, even if no one wants to admit it. Critical feedback would be: "These backgrounds are sort of plain, here's how you can add some detail to make them more interesting." or "For your next game you might consider using a lower resolution, because this tends to be less work." or "Darkly lit scenes are tricky to draw well, here's some tips on how to improve this one."
Not: "You can create a game by pasting photos of furniture in a line art room, using a double-sized, pixelated Roger as player character. But it WILL look like shit (see Other Worlds for a perfect example). Personally, I won't even try such a game, no matter how ingenious the puzzles or story are said to be."
Which is basically calling my game shit before you've seen it and insinuating that I've put no work into it because I refuse to bend to your expectations.
I agree with you one hundred percent on all counts Sythe. :)
Now if I may, I WOULD like to offer critique.
Leaving aside the many absurd canards attempting to avoid your spot-on characterisations, I would suggest you soften at the borders of your screens, and darken too, coming into a sharp focus in the centre of each screen where you want attention drawn. Also if the protagonists are furries etc. then maybe consider keeping the world they are in a little bit whimsical... The control surfaces also if they are going to be frankensteined in, I think maybe consider matching the line width used in the original sections of the screens to the apparent line width in the photoshopped bits, to make it a little less jarring.
Finally the somewhat watercolored and / or rotoscoped effect as in the alien world is also going to be a little jarring if the interiors of the artificial environments are going to be clean lines and negative space (in the artistic sense).
Maybe some textures on the expanses of space. Consider the emotions to evoke in each screen.
I sincerely mean my critique to be helpful, and if you feel I've colossally missed your point please say so. :)
Quote from: Goldfish on Tue 02/02/2010 21:38:27
I agree with you one hundred percent on all counts Sythe. :)
Now if I may, I WOULD like to offer critique.
Leaving aside the many absurd canards attempting to avoid your spot-on characterisations, I would suggest you soften at the borders of your screens, and darken too, coming into a sharp focus in the centre of each screen where you want attention drawn. Also if the protagonists are furries etc. then maybe consider keeping the world they are in a little bit whimsical... The control surfaces also if they are going to be frankensteined in, I think maybe consider matching the line width used in the original sections of the screens to the apparent line width in the photoshopped bits, to make it a little less jarring.
Finally the somewhat watercolored and / or rotoscoped effect as in the alien world is also going to be a little jarring if the interiors of the artificial environments are going to be clean lines and negative space (in the artistic sense).
Maybe some textures on the expanses of space. Consider the emotions to evoke in each screen.
I sincerely mean my critique to be helpful, and if you feel I've colossally missed your point please say so. :)
Great comments; many thanks.
I can definitely get a sense the negative space issue & the plainness of the backgrounds. I'm pretty confident I could make them better on paper, but digitally this is completely foreign to me. So I'll experiment with some art tools and try apply your suggestions, and post back here when I've got something new.
Cool! I can see what you are going for, I think. And with the normal sized pics you are using as opposed to the teeny tiny clunkers suggested, you really can go for grandeur, especially in the outdoor scenes. Looking forward to seeing more, amigo. Or amiga.
I didn't want to bully, I wanted to give you my honest opinion. That comment about what looks like shit wasn't addressed at your images, I just thought of the ugliest game graphics I have seen so far in the several years I've been visiting these forums. It was meant as an example to underline my main point, consistency. So I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I did say though that your character doesn't fit the style of your latest background.
I'm very quick to (mis)judge the effort that went into a picture, and I tend to be harsh, especially if very valid suggestions are brushed away with judgmental statements about "subjective peer-group preferences" and "cliques on this forum".
Apart from what preference the average forum member has, and disregarding the current resolution standard, your art would clearly profit from a lower resolution.
On to constructive criticism:
-If you can make them better on paper, why not draw them, scan them, vectorize, then color them?
You might also take a look at Google's SketchUp.
-Get rid of the gradients; use lines of different width to convey depth and detail.
-The vectorized image of the meteor's surface doesn't fit the ship's interior or the character; I'd suggest reducing the colors of the photo and retouching it by hand.
-Also think of the lighting conditions; a single light-source will produce hard drop shadows, multiple light sources will generate multiple fuzzy edges.
-Avoid filters whenever possible, they make every image look cheap. Subtle filters are okay for photographs, everything else will suffer.
Quote from: Goldfish on Tue 02/02/2010 23:16:01
Cool! I can see what you are going for, I think. And with the normal sized pics you are using as opposed to the teeny tiny clunkers suggested, you really can go for grandeur, especially in the outdoor scenes. Looking forward to seeing more, amigo. Or amiga.
Hi Goldfish. I've had a go at eliminating some of the blandness with some texture and found a decent shading tool. More criticisms / comments / advice very welcome:
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2451/shipinsidefinal1png.png)
Quote from: Khris on Wed 03/02/2010 00:13:34
I didn't want to bully, I wanted to give you my honest opinion. That comment about what looks like shit wasn't addressed at your images, I just thought of the ugliest game graphics I have seen so far in the several years I've been visiting these forums. It was meant as an example to underline my main point, consistency. So I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I did say though that your character doesn't fit the style of your latest background.
Apology accepted. And the character is a stand in. I intend to scan the high resolution paper versions of her at a later point.
QuoteOn to constructive criticism:
-If you can make them better on paper, why not draw them, scan them, vectorize, then color them?
I have tried this previously, and it is immensely difficult. Sketches are not lineart, and there are very few decent methods I have come across to take them from many-lined graphite shaded masterpieces to an acceptable and consistent game graphic. If you have a good technique for doing this, please let me know!
QuoteYou might also take a look at Google's SketchUp.
Already using it for my space ships, thanks good advice.
Quote-Get rid of the gradients; use lines of different width to convey depth and detail.
-The vectorized image of the meteor's surface doesn't fit the ship's interior or the character; I'd suggest reducing the colors of the photo and retouching it by hand.
-Also think of the lighting conditions; a single light-source will produce hard drop shadows, multiple light sources will generate multiple fuzzy edges.
-Avoid filters whenever possible, they make every image look cheap. Subtle filters are okay for photographs, everything else will suffer.
All very good advice I will seek to incorporate. Thank you.
Hello, although I agree on some points with Chicky, I'd like to avoid that part off the discussion...so none of this is written with any "attitude" just what I've noticed:
- looks nicer now, you should redo the other room like this as well...or at least try and see how it turns out, same style gives better atmosphere overall, I think
- maybe more lights, like near the edges, would make it look more starshippy (don't think that's a real word, but you know what I mean ;D ), I think there's too much dark
spots now, maybe something beween the two lightings. The windows look cool, might wanna try making it seem like some light is coming from them and lighting the floor a
bit
- the 2 doors on the right part of the top wall (actually not sure if the other is a door, so the two shapes that are not circual) have different perspective,
I know this is a 2point way perspective (at least I think it is) but still the doors are next to each other so they looked kind-of mishaped volumewise. Also at the far left, the panel
seems to suffer from perspective deformation, or actually lack of it
- also, and this is more of tip/request/plead, than a critique, could you resize the pics next time, make them a bit smaller (doesn't have to be miniature, maybe half the size),
it's much more easier to overview the whole scene that way. that would be much appreciated.
Hope that helps.
Quote from: anian on Wed 03/02/2010 00:55:29
Hello, although I agree on some points with Chicky, I'd like to avoid that part off the discussion...so none of this is written with any "attitude" just what I've noticed:
- looks nicer now, you should redo the other room like this as well...or at least try and see how it turns out, same style gives better atmosphere overall, I think
- maybe more lights, like near the edges, would make it look more starshippy (don't think that's a real word, but you know what I mean ;D ), I think there's too much dark
spots now, maybe something beween the two lightings. The windows look cool, might wanna try making it seem like some light is coming from them and lighting the floor a
bit
I'm having a go at the other room now, but my graphics tablet just quit and won't come back to life.
Good suggestion about the light coming from the windows. Although it would only make sense for it to come from the front window (since there only a heavenly body to emit light from that direction.) On the other hand I could change the orientation of the ship in the story so there is a star near one of the rear windows. Although this would cause a long-shadow effect.
I could also try just pretending the windows emit light of their own accord, which might be cool.
Quote
- the 2 doors on the right part of the top wall (actually not sure if the other is a door, so the two shapes that are not circual) have different perspective,
I know this is a 2point way perspective (at least I think it is) but still the doors are next to each other so they looked kind-of mishaped volumewise. Also at the far left, the panel
seems to suffer from perspective deformation, or actually lack of it
Just to clear this up. The room is actually two rooms co-joined, where the player walks (and the view port transitions) from left to right. That's why there are two sets of two point perspective.
Oh and the second door on the right is actually an airlock, so it's structure is inverted to that of a normal door. I probably need to find a way to make that more obvious.
Quote
- also, and this is more of tip/request/plead, than a critique, could you resize the pics next time, make them a bit smaller (doesn't have to be miniature, maybe half the size),
it's much more easier to overview the whole scene that way. that would be much appreciated.
Ok good suggestion. I'll upload a thumbnail and provide a link to the full thing in future.
Thanks for your comments.
Ok, I dig this. But why is the left upper part of the third window from the left pointy when no other window corners are?
I tried to do a complete re-edit(re-draw the whole scene), but I guess I suck at making curved things.
Hmm...as for the critique/argument/whatever...well do as you wish, it's a matter of taste/preference so it's irelevant(sp).
Heck, I'm doing my game in pure b&w without dihtering and nobody minds(320x240).
Paper drawing and scanning....I tried that. I draw, scan then trace it so I get lines of the same width. I tried vectoring it, but it didn't turn out as well as I wished it to be.
After a while I just sketched on paper, and then added precision/alignment while tracing it. Then just add colours and details.
I really like the new pic! The size issue on the forum though- these are big pics and it makes looking at them awkward... :(
Are you going to animated the background, or add an object animation for the planet, etc?
I'm asking because the style will make animating a little challenging.
If not, cool, just asking.
Are the kickboards / gaps for legs in front of the chairs and under the control console highly reflective, or is there a line across the floor there? If reflective, cool effect but you need to check the reflectivity angles. If it is just a line across the floor then definitely shade that in, darken it right down to convey that it is in shadow. :)
But it's looking nice imo. :)
Yes, please use the [img] tags or some other method (as I asked in my first post) to resize these images so they don't take up such massive space.
Yeah these images are so freakin big, they totally make viewing this page really awkward with my resolution (progz, can you resize them for him/her?).
Anyway, I gave a quick go at how I think you could greatly improve your backgrounds. I lost interest after a little editing, but the majority of my points were made.
(http://www.bryvis.com/entertainment/other/agsf/sythe_space.png)
It was only a quick edit, so don't expect much. I was meaning to put some display screens where you have that awkward 'dash' with lines running down it.
Notice how I totally removed that useless area to the right of the screen? It was completely void of Anything of any interest, except two doors with odd perspective and what appeared to be a mattress nailed to a wall.
I cropped off all the bottom and left side of the image. This is one reason why I had strongly suggested that the resolution you're using it too much for you. Resolution should only improve detail, NOT make bigger walkable areas and tons of empty space. Hopefully this will sink in, and you'll understand what I mean.
I was going to put in a display screen running about waist high along the back window. I also removed the strong bubbly shape that window had, it had made the scene look as if the camera was using a distort lens to take the photo.
Your perspective was all over the place. You should Google 1 point perspective.
The front dash/control panel was the worst area, I tried to correct it as best as possible.
I was also going to darken the chairs a bit, but as I said, I lost the energy to touch up everything.
Let me know if you still don't understand the gigantic walkable space, and bare background issue you had on your versions (this edit still has tons of emptiness issues).
Quote from: Jim Reed
Ok, I dig this. But why is the left upper part of the third window from the left pointy when no other window corners are?
Fixed, thanks.
QuotePaper drawing and scanning....I tried that. I draw, scan then trace it so I get lines of the same width. I tried vectoring it, but it didn't turn out as well as I wished it to be.
After a while I just sketched on paper, and then added precision/alignment while tracing it. Then just add colours and details.
Yeah that's what I've been doing also. But I would be very interested if anyone has better technique.
Quote from: Goldfish on Wed 03/02/2010 02:56:39
I really like the new pic! The size issue on the forum though- these are big pics and it makes looking at them awkward... :(
Are you going to animated the background, or add an object animation for the planet, etc?
I'm asking because the style will make animating a little challenging.
If not, cool, just asking.
Are the kickboards / gaps for legs in front of the chairs and under the control console highly reflective, or is there a line across the floor there? If reflective, cool effect but you need to check the reflectivity angles. If it is just a line across the floor then definitely shade that in, darken it right down to convey that it is in shadow. :)
But it's looking nice imo. :)
I wasn't planning to animate to any greater extent than a flashing light and twinkling stars, but I'm curious: what parts would you animate if you were constructing this scene?
Incidentally, thanks for spotting the kickboard thing. Fixed it now.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8841/shipinsidefinala.th.png) (http://img13.imageshack.us/i/shipinsidefinala.png/)
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Wed 03/02/2010 03:26:47
Yeah these images are so freakin big, they totally make viewing this page really awkward with my resolution (progz, can you resize them for him/her?).
Anyway, I gave a quick go at how I think you could greatly improve your backgrounds. I lost interest after a little editing, but the majority of my points were made.
(http://www.bryvis.com/entertainment/other/agsf/sythe_space.png)
It was only a quick edit, so don't expect much. I was meaning to put some display screens where you have that awkward 'dash' with lines running down it.
Definitely much respect for your skill and many thanks for taking the time.
Quote
Notice how I totally removed that useless area to the right of the screen? It was completely void of Anything of any interest, except two doors with odd perspective and what appeared to be a mattress nailed to a wall.
The room is supposed to be two combined rooms like lucas arts used to do:
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6452/room076.png)
The separation might be completely unnecessary, but it seemed like an interesting experiment. I guess it also gives the impression that the ship is rather large, which is one I want to make.
QuoteI cropped off all the bottom and left side of the image. This is one reason why I had strongly suggested that the resolution you're using it too much for you. Resolution should only improve detail, NOT make bigger walkable areas and tons of empty space. Hopefully this will sink in, and you'll understand what I mean.
I understood the first eight times. No offense, but I wish you would understand that I don't want to make a pixel art game.
Quote
I was going to put in a display screen running about waist high along the back window. I also removed the strong bubbly shape that window had, it had made the scene look as if the camera was using a distort lens to take the photo.
Your perspective was all over the place. You should Google 1 point perspective.
The front dash/control panel was the worst area, I tried to correct it as best as possible.
I was also going to darken the chairs a bit, but as I said, I lost the energy to touch up everything.
Let me know if you still don't understand the gigantic walkable space, and bare background issue you had on your versions (this edit still has tons of emptiness issues).
You don't need to insult my intelligence and ability to draw in every post. I appreciate the valid criticism and efforts you have donated. But I do not appreciate the much insulting pat on the head *that's called perspective*. If I were giving you programming help, being a software engineer by trade, I would not insult your intelligence by assuming you didn't know what a variable was then continue to labour the point seemingly without reference to the conversation which had quite definatively moved on.
Sorry, I can be a big douche at times. I get frustrated when people post things in the critics lounge, then get angry for the criticism.
This for example:
QuoteI understood the first eight times. No offense, but I wish you would understand that I don't want to make a pixel art game.
You think I am insulting your intelligence by trying to drill into your head, that your issue with the large resolution has given you this gigantic canvas, which you fight to fill. But then you answer it by saying that you're not trying to make a pixel art game.
Sythe.. buddy.. Sythe.. it's not about 'pixel art' or 'painted' or 'photo'.. it's about emptiness. And I felt the emptiness was caused by the larger resolution--and it more than likely is. If you can manage the large resolution, then by all means. I have no issues with resolution. It's emptiness, I loath it.
So take an axe to all that emptiness and fill it in with your crazy imagination, and make use of that tablet you have and go crazy my boy! :P
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Wed 03/02/2010 04:19:01
You think I am insulting your intelligence by trying to drill into your head, that your issue with the large resolution has given you this gigantic canvas, which you fight to fill. But then you answer it by saying that you're not trying to make a pixel art game.
I'm not fighting to fill it at all. I have a thousand things I would very much like to draw, but as I pointed out, actually moving from paper to digital is very difficult. If you can help, that would be great.
QuoteSythe.. buddy.. Sythe.. it's not about 'pixel art' or 'painted' or 'photo'.. it's about emptiness. And I felt the emptiness was caused by the larger resolution--and it more than likely is. If you can manage the large resolution, then by all means. I have no issues with resolution. It's emptiness, I loath it.
So take an axe to all that emptiness and fill it in with your crazy imagination, and make use of that tablet you have and go crazy my boy! :P
I'm going to bow out of this resolution debate, because I don't think it's going to be productive.
But I agree with your sentiments about the volume or negative space problem. Any tips you can throw to me as I go would be most appreciated.
Incidentally here is a do-over of my second room, if you have any suggestions.
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/179/bedroomnew3.th.png) (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/bedroomnew3.png/)
Tomorrow I'll go over all of the suggestions posted so far and see if I can improve it further.
Animation- I would have the planet rotate or slowly crawl across the background, to convey ship movement, as appropriate.
I would also have twinkly light thingies on the "dashboard" control.
To match whatever ambient sound you settle on, I personally would have a changes-with-the-storyline monitor display somewhere or something similar, to act as a "clock" for the story.
And I want to say, I admire your preparedness to call bullshit on the "critics" and their "criticism". They aren't critics, they're being snide. Stemming I guess from insecurities. Kudos to you for taking on the signal to noise ration issue in the AGS forums. It is a hard row to hoe. :)
Goldfish, you clearly have some issues with this community that maybe this thread isn't the best place for.
The points about resolution is not some dogma of ideology, but actual helpful advice about technique. Take loominous, for example. He almost always works in high resolution, but he'd be the first to tell you that when you're laying out a background, you want to be working in a thumbnail format. That's how you nail the composition and the perspective and all that stuff that determines if the screen works overall.
There are some basic flaws common to a lot of newbies working in high-rez that you come to recognize. The first point of feedback then, naturally, is that they'd get better results in low-rez. Sythe doesn't want to do that. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean it isn't still easiest to solve the problems in low-rez before polishing the high-resolution version of the screens.
Quote from: Sythe on Wed 03/02/2010 03:59:03
The separation might be completely unnecessary, but it seemed like an interesting experiment. I guess it also gives the impression that the ship is rather large, which is one I want to make.
Anyway, I had a feeling you were trying to go far that 'large' ship feeling. The only spaceship adventure game I can think of that showed large areas of the ship (I haven't played all that many), making the ship look huge, was Space Quest 6.
Which they seem to go for the camera being low to the ground type perspective (low horizon / vanishing point) and show off the height of the walls, and lack of ceiling (since it's so damn high up ;D).
This one for instance:
http://www.spacequest.net/sq6/screenshots/20.html
Another good technique is to show depth, like this background:
http://www.spacequest.net/sq6/screenshots/07.html
There is always something overlapping something, which makes the composition so much more visually entertaining. I tried to do this to the chairs in the edited image I drew earlier. Pulling the one chair out, so it wasn't hiding from behind the other and blending in. Also extending the center console to separate the two.
Also every empty area of wall has a decorative element to spruce things up, not just flat walls. Separations in the wall, pipes, vents, lights, consoles, etc. Not only is it interesting to look at but it also provokes that adventurish feeling of exploration in your mind. "What's this button?" "What's behind that?" "What does that pipe do?"
Also gives the person playing something to interact with.
Actually one of the backgrounds that had my mouse moving over every single pixel was probably this one:
http://www.spacequest.net/sq6/screenshots/19.html
One thing I actually really liked were the foreground elements in that one. Usually they are only silhouettes or out of focus items. The cage on the right is the best.
I still remember entering that room and all I could picture were drawers and cupboards filled with high-tech medical equipment and such. Alas, it actually happened to be very uninteractive room. :(
Sythe- no one here (with the exception of you and Goldfish) has shown any real attitude, and I make it a point to keep this forum
a civil one. If you are going to continue posting your work here for feedback and assistance then be prepared to get replies that aren't just 'this is great'. Several people in this forum (myself included) have been working on games and game art for years and some of us even have commercial experience so don't be so quick to judge and dismiss.
Goldfish: Tone down your scathing attitude or post elsewhere.
The latest background is a definite improvement in readability but there are a few things that I'm curious about:
1. How do people get to the bed with that tall shelf to get over?
2. The way you've applied shading is a bit confusing to me. For instance, the right side of the room is darker (which is fine for a light source on the left side) but there's no allowance for shape, ie, the bed is shaded with the same methods as the wall behind it and the shelf. This works against your perspective, making these objects seem flat rather than giving them depth. My advice is to look at how light streams through a window in your bedroom on things (or pictures in google) and approach the shading that way.
Again, I think composition wise it's much improved, just some focus on shading and perhaps some details here and there will make the room even better.
ProgZ made some good points. The lighting indeed makes the furniture look flat.
And yes, that high shelf doesn't make sense. I tried to show how the room would look like with people in it (taking the size of the bed as a starting point)... it looks weird.
I know you said that you don't want to discuss the resolution thing any further, but I totally second that you should use a lower res, like in my example (640x480). It just looks so much nicer.
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/bedroompeople.png)
And incidentally, scaling down images like yours using a standard bilinear filter creates pretty nice anti-aliasing automatically, as nicely shown by Mr. Matti's edit.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 03/02/2010 17:37:28
1. How do people get to the bed with that tall shelf to get over?
The height of a character at the nearest point in the room is about 3/5th the height of the screen. The image is actually derrived from a photo of an actual bedroom, so the proportions should be more or less correct.
Although this is still an interesting point. Do you think it would look better with the whole sleeping arrangement lowered several inches?
Quote
2. The way you've applied shading is a bit confusing to me. For instance, the right side of the room is darker (which is fine for a light source on the left side) but there's no allowance for shape, ie, the bed is shaded with the same methods as the wall behind it and the shelf. This works against your perspective, making these objects seem flat rather than giving them depth. My advice is to look at how light streams through a window in your bedroom on things (or pictures in google) and approach the shading that way.
This is good advice, and something I was trying to work out myself.
I've recoloured the room, although sadly the palettes still don't line up between room 1 and room 2, and I've taken your advice about re-shading it.
(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7757/bedroomnew12.th.png) (http://img254.imageshack.us/i/bedroomnew12.png/)
Tell me what you think.
Cheers,
Sythe
Lighting is better for sure. But yes, I think something should be done about the bed height, etc.
For example, look at this:
(http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7757/bedroomnew12.png)
I drew a red line from floor to top, then copied it onto the bed in comparison. (I know the bed is further back and therefore bigger than it appears, but the distance is trivial.)
This would make for quite a hop to get up into the bed area. Either that, or it implies that the bed is quite small.
Quote from: Domithan on Thu 04/02/2010 01:30:25
Lighting is better for sure. But yes, I think something should be done about the bed height, etc.
For example, look at this:
(http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7757/bedroomnew12.png)
I drew a red line from floor to top, then copied it onto the bed in comparison. (I know the bed is further back and therefore bigger than it appears, but the distance is trivial.)
This would make for quite a hop to get up into the bed area. Either that, or it implies that the bed is quite small.
I think that's a fair point.
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9265/bedroomnew13.th.png) (http://img46.imageshack.us/i/bedroomnew13.png/)
But I like the previous iteration better.
Compare the table with the bed...
This bed is far from being a real bed, unless it is for a gnome.
To fix the bed, you could lenghten it, along with the room, to the right.
If i may offer my thoughts on low-res vs hi-res,
The fact of the matter is that adventure games are played on a 3 dimensional plane but the sprites are obviously 2 dimensional.
This causes all kinds of perspective issues which are glaringly obvious in high resolution games since there are way more markers for the eye to pick up on.
Also hi res 2d animations tend not to work as well on a 3d plane. The whole diagonal sliding effect is much more pronounced and obvious. I would offer the recent Monkey Island 1 remake as an example of this. It simply looks awful, it is painful to look at the second anyone moves. Like a bad flash game.
And dont get me wrong, I have no particular preference for high res or low res. I was not really into old 90's adventure games all that much so this is not nostalgia, merely observation.
Sythe: Have you considered cutting away part of the side of that shelf and adding a few stairs leading up to it? That might give it a somewhat MC Escher-ish look with him using the shelf to sit at the table, though ;\.
Perhaps making a slight ramp up to the shelf from the bottom side of it would work?
(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr218/ProgZmax/bedroomnew12.png)
It still might make the area with the table a bit strange but maybe you can cut away sections of shelf around the table to make benches to sit in?
The lighting is much more convincing now, good work!
I think this is a great step. It does look weird, yes, but it's really nice as it is. I think you've got yourself a nice style, and if you can try and improve its for your gain! ;D