Critical feedback wanted on some space backgrounds

[Sythe]

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.






NB: I haven't painted the player character yet because I'm still doing all her animations.

[Jim Reed]

back on track, I see you say this is your first game...so why go hi-res?

[Sythe]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[Jakerpot]

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.

[Jim Reed]

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.

[Khris]

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.

[Sythe]

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.

[Jim Reed]

Damn, I just spent 1 hour trying to come up with something to help you. I failed miserably.
=(

[Sythe]

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 

[Jakerpot]

"number of algorithms"?

What is that? 

You didn't painted this then?

[Sythe]

"number of algorithms"?

What is that? 

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.

[LRH]

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:


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.

[Khris]

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.

[Sythe]

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.


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:


If you cleaned that up a little you could probably up-convert to a higher resolution if you were inclined toward such.

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

[Ryan Timothy B]

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.

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.

[Sythe]

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?

[markbilly]

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.

[LRH]

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.

[Mr Flibble]

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.