Adventure Game Studio

Here's something I found that may give people hope in this forum if they think their art/shading/perspective is bad, just know that everyone makes these mistakes

It's a screenshot from "The Colonel's Bequest" at the time, it was touted for it's INCREDIBLE graphics.
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/Bequest.jpg)

Check out the SHADOWS!!!

1 side bounces off the ground while the other side cuts through the floor like a knife!! ;D

I think that you'll find that there are two moons  :P.

Oh my god!

Kill the beast!

Okay, I feel really stupid but I don't see anything wrong with this. Then again, I'm horrible with lighting. What should the artist have done instead?

I made this to illustrate the error. Took me 3 hours in photoshop.

(http://img68.exs.cx/img68/8585/whatthehell2lw.jpg)

I still don't get it. If the light source is somewhere above the top right corner of the room, the falling light should be angled even more downwards that it already is, not upward. Or not?

One of the shadows shouldn't be there at all, unless there's two light sources. And I assume the original light source is the moon, like Mr_Frisby said. Atleast that's my guess.

And if the moon IS in the upright corner, I still don't think the light looks right.  :-\

Sierra's 16-color SCI games have notoriously poor perspective. It's been causing AGDI some difficulty when painting over the QFG2 backgrounds.

When you have shadows of parallel lines projected on a flat surface by the sun or the moon, the shadows are going to be parallel as well. In perspective drawing, that means they'll have a common vanishing point.

So it should look something like this:

(http://members.lycos.co.uk/snarkibartfast/Bequest.png)

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the vanishing point is the position of the sun/moon.

You are correct DCIllusion. Light that reaches earth from large astral bodies is presumed to be all going in the same direction. The bodies are of such a large size that the light that reaches us is virtually parralel.
Light from the moon, being a LOT smaller than the sun, may be less parallel, but not to an extent that we could notice it by the naked eye.

Parallel lights mean parallel shadows and thus will they share a vanishing point.

q.e.d.

if it IS the moon, shouldn't the vanishing point be moved back a lot further?

hehe, you're confusing 2d with 3d.Ã,  In 3d, parallel lines stay parallel and don't have a vanishing point.
The vanishing point is a technique that helps make 2d images seem 3d.

So in this 2d picture there is no 'back'. Only up, down, left and right.

Does that make sense?

Well I, for one, would like to see some more pro mistakes if anyone has screenshots.

Thanks for drawing that, Snarky.  Quite helpful.

Snarky's corrected image is... correct. :D

Just draw each line from the light source and make them pass through the corners of the baselines of the windows, and there you go!

That's a good trick, Snarky. Didn't know that one. Thanks.

I can't believe this.

I feel so betrayed by Sierra.

Now, I can never play their games again.  In fact, I'm flying out to Coarsegold tommorrow to piss on the ashes of their dead company.

Bastards......

Bt

As far as I can tell, they re not far off the mark:

(http://marcus.krupa.se/AGS/perspective.gif)

Snarkys positioning of the lightsource wouldn't really cast those kind of shadows; it needs to be higher up.

The right windows (our POV) are a bit off though.

I don't know what the hell you're doing, but I know it's not right.Ã,  ;D

Could you explain the reasoning for your sketch? It looks like you're drawing lines from points on the objects to the corresponding points on their shadows, and finding that they all intersect in two (wtf?) points. That's not the way shadows are cast, though.

Edit: OK, I see what you're doing. The lower point is the vanishing point in the plane for the parallel lines, and the higher point is the position of the moon. Yeah, that seems reasonable. I'd say the shadows on the right are quite far off, though.

Edit 2: Actually, all of the shadows are completely off. I just traced them, and no three intersect in the same point. What I'll certainly grant you is that the vanishing point is not the position of the (infinitely distant) light source, but that the source is somewhere along the normal to the plane from the vanishing point. I can't upload images from the computer I'm at, but I'll make a diagram that shows how to construct shadows (from sun/moon) correctly.

My sketch is still correct, though. The point where the lines intersect isn't the position of the lightsource, but that's not what I claimed.

This is the technique I m using:

http://www.saveloomis.org/fun/110.htm

Edit:

I now realise you weren't placing the lightsource but just showed the perspective. Thought you meant the moon was supposed to be placed that low which would result in much longer shadows.

Hey, neat link!

Yeah, the point I was using was just the perspective for the parallel lines in the shadows. When I had done it it occured to me that it had something to do with the position of the light source, but I didn't realize I had to draw the normal to the plane at that point. If the moon was actually at that point it would be exactly at the horizon, and shadows would be infinitely long.  :)

I still can't make the lines in the original picture's shadows meet up neatly in a point the way you indicate. I tried out the method by doing basically what I assume you did: using some of the lines to decide on the vanishing point and the position of the light source, and projecting the shadows from there. It came out virtually identical to my first sketch.

Well, it seems to me that Snarky's is more-or-less correct.  However, there would be a different vanishing point as you can't use the right-most highlights to gauge the probable vertical position of the left ones.   Loominus' distance is closer to realistic but you can tell the positioning is off by looking at the left-most window.  The left edge lines up with the perspective line but there's no way in hell the right side (or overall shape) could look like that with a light source positioned as it is (unless there's serious refraction factoring in (which should be factored in in this sort of drawing - but only a pixel or two worth). 

It might be helpful to do a search on single-point perspective and look at the methodology for shadows and lighting (which follows slightly more detailed rules than the perspective).

Overall, interesting study and the posting of the pic was pretty encouraging to those of us struggling with our backgrounds.

It's not over until we have a paintover where the problem is fixed!  :P

You're right that the sketches aren't exact theyak, but remember that they are diagrams intended to communicate a point, not precise drawings. I was simply showing in what direction the shadows should point, their length and offset was pure guesswork. And Loominous's white blobs are obviously just scribbled in, they're not the exact outlines of the shadows.

I never claimed that the original was correct. What I said was that it's not that far off, since the first post claimed that it was all wrong.

My vanishing point lines were adaptations to the original pic just to show that the current perspective n shadows, while wrong, wouldn t require much modifications to be valid.

Edit:

Yak: What additional rules are you referring to? As far as I know, the ones that I've used are sufficient to determine all shadow properties.

I don't know if this is right or not but it was done using bryce and only the sun for light turned down a bunch. I have no clue how well bryce really represents the real world but from everything I have read it does a pretty good job. Anyways this is what I got. As you can see at least in bryce the light can't be worked back to a vanishing point it is actually focused through the window I used just plain glass with no refraction only added color to the glass.
(http://webpages.charter.net/jrl2222/images/bequest01.png)

First of all; No 2D system for representing perspective and shadows can be 100% perfect. The most commonly used systems are only correct within narrow portions of a visible field. All reference systems have borders, and when you approach these borders, the objects or lines drawn within will be distorted.

As for the light reflected on the floor; no matter where the lightsource is, the reflections themselves (or the equivalent shadows) should aim towards a vanishing point.
Loominous merely clarified how to define the lightsource, but he did not manage to defend the use of divergent shadows.
Snarky's point is still valid, as far as I can see. (At first he falsely claimed that the vanishing point was the lightsource, but he later revised this notion.)

Jrl2222: Your example does too prove the vanishing point. You just have to start out with the same sort of lines, for instance all the lines that define the left corner of the projected light, or all the lines that define the right side. You could also draw lines from the very top of the projections, through the top of the windows, and see how they would converge somewhere.

Again,

  I reiterate - I cannot and will not play any old Sierra games every again.  I cannot enjoy a game totally unless it is 100% perspective perfect.  I mean, it's simply no fun that way.

Bt

"he did not manage to defend the use of divergent shadows."

I never intended to defend them since they were wrong (which I mentioned in my initial post).

I still was unable to come up with common points for the back windows and the side windows. I am going to add a 3rd window to both walls and see if the points come out together per wall as in the image below. Maybe I am still doing something wrong or maybe bryce doesn't work this out well enough. I also want to add a couple items to the floor to see how their shadows fall and if they line up with the other points. So if anyone is still interested I will try to do that tonight.
(http://webpages.charter.net/jrl2222/images/bequest02.png)

jrl2222, you beat me to the punch  :P.  I used POV-Ray and got similar results:

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/2d23d.gif)

And here is the same room from a top-down perspective:
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/top-down.png)

In the real world, moonlight is parallel.  I don't care what 2D technique Sierra was using, there is no way for the light to come in at that angle from the windows on the right.

QuoteIn the real world, moonlight is parallel.  I don't care what 2D technique Sierra was using, there is no way for the light to come in at that angle from the windows on the right.

Yeah.  Fuck Sierra.  Fuck them up their stupid asses.

Sierra was just a bunch of clown shoes!

Bt

/me couldn't understand the hype in this thread.

Remember, you shouldn't use graphics in an adventure games as a standard for education, an artistic glitch is just an artistic glitch, nothing serious.

Yes.....Fuck Sierra indeed.

Although I, probably, would have used that remark in regards to their forcing the "full-motion-video" era onto us, or maybe for what they did to the King's Quest franchise.

I started this thread because when pics are submitted to the critics lounge, oftentimes, the biggest critique is perspective.  It makes sense, as this is the most difficult part of 2D artwork.  Critiques are important; it's what the forum's here for.

Many amateurs I've met have an esteem problem; as they have no praise nor do they have previous schooling to reinforce a belief in their own ability to create games.  Professional games are seen, for the first time, fully completed & tested.  Wrapping a game within a full package, and behind a big name, really helps to mask art issues.  We should be glad the Lounge treated this screen like a submission, it shows many amateurs that their skills are more than adequate

It's important for new designers not to get discouraged.  Every problem seems like your problem when its your first time, and they only real mistake is giving up.

All humour aside, yeah - sure there were mistakes in Sierra Games.  But they were fun.  I'm not going to let some minor perspective error ruin my enjoyment of the game.  I loved The Colonel's Bequest.

Bt

James.. if the lightsource in the original bg is the moon, then your images there are inaccurate. the moon is VERY far away, so you'll have move and object a VERY LONG distance, before the shadow changed angle.
it's like when you're driving on a straight road and you can see the moon.. the moon never changed position (apart from it's natural orbit)..

i think that made sense.


but if the lightsource is a sreet light, or something.. then your images are probably more accurate.

The renderings by James are accurate.

Yes, the shadows will be parallel, and you can see in James's top-down image that they are. Because of perspective they are not parallel lines in the image, however.

Bt, I don't think anyone has suggested that the perspective errors ruin their enjoyment of The Colonel's Bequest. That's really not what this thread is about.

Artistic license

Have you ever played this game called "Day of the Tentacle"?. The floor lines are all over the place, and the stairs would make me dizzy to actually walk up. Everythings wacko about that, I'm surprised no ones griping about that.

And in Sam and Max... geez. Ever been to that area with the chair and other objects, like, floating and for no reason your characters scale keeps changing. Whats up with that? I know you all noticed. It's okay to speak out.

Actually, on either this board, or on the mojo boards back a year, some guy was claiming about a lazy artist on Monkey Island 1, where, in the chefs kitchen of the Scumm Bar, there was just a paint blotch, where I don't remember if thats what he was claiming, or if it was a random pink pixel, but he was either missing that it was actually a box under the chef table, or just some thing on the ground. I don't remember how that post finished. But, let me tell you, it was riviting.

Well the only commercial game that annoyed me A LOT because of it's crappy background perspectives was LSL1 SCIVGA (the game was CRAP compared to the original anyway). Wacky perspectives in games like DOTTÃ,  can be just considered comedic artistic styles.

I don't understand the reason for all this aggression against pointing out perspective and lightsource problems in a Sierra background. If some aspiring artist had posted that background here in the Critics Lounge, everyone would be telling him to fix those things.

The Colonel's Bequest doesn't use deliberately wacky perspective. The artist just screwed up. It doesn't mean the game is bad, or that we're trying to offend something you have fond memories of.

Anyway, I did a paintover which hopefully will put this issue to rest.

(http://members.lycos.co.uk/snarkibartfast/bequest2.gif)

And here are the steps I used in constructing:

(http://members.lycos.co.uk/snarkibartfast/bequest3.gif)

Alright, some have obviously missed the point.  From the get-go, DC brought up the lightsource errors and was encouraging new artists.  If such a glaring mistake was missed - not only by Sierra, but by most people that played the game, then people needed worry whether their backgrounds are gallery quality. 

I don't believe anybody stated that the discrepancies ruined their enjoyment of the game or even that it made the background an utter piece of trash.  Those defending the game for its gameplay or introducing sarcasm towards the nitpicking ought to have started a debate thread in the general forum concerning artwork errors vs. enjoyment.  You've entirely missed the point and lessened the educational value of the thread, congratulations - you're officially wankers.

There's no need to be that harsh... but in my opinion, yeah, Blackthorne has being lame (no offence) of complaining FIVE TIMES of the attempts of improving of the AGSers! I felt quite annoying to see that "outer AGS" art has been criticised so vehemently instead of AGS work, but I enjoyed it quite a lot to see how it was improving, reaching the "suitable for CL" rank during the process.

Now, both of you, say sorry and shake your hands!

/me apologies for moderatorism...

I was being harsh? I didn't name any names and I certainly didn't call them lame.  I'm not disputing their points.  They're valid.  However,  somebody proclaiming a movie as a classic shouldn't preempt any critiquing thereof.

There are enough pointless, argumentative threads in the general forum.  Can't we keep the critics lounge as a place to critique rather than others criticizing the fact that we're making observations ?  I, for one, was vastly encouraged about the quality of my stuff seeing that even some professional games have had glaring errors.  I also learned quite a bit about light-sourcing and different methods for exploring it.  If a person or two is learning, I don't consider any critiquing, debating, or competition thread worthless. 

My opinion about yout "harshity" has been just aimed to the "now you're officially wankers" thingie...

All the rest of my reply has gone in the very same direction of your stalement.

I misspoke, I was very specifically only referring to Farlander as a wanker.

Quote from: YakSpit on Thu 20/01/2005 15:15:50
I misspoke, I was very specifically only referring to Farlander as a wanker.

he...

Ooops!  Sorry, I was trying to be humourous about something I actually feel very strongly about.

I see many criticisms of art around here, some of which almost imply that such errors limit the fun inherent in the games.  Sometimes I feel that people spend too much time nit-picking things, and not enough time enjoying them.  Although I do appreciate all the "work" and discussion that has seriously been done here, this is a commercial game that is sixteen years old.  If we spent HALF as much time working on other people's backgrounds, artists around here might improve.

People are human, and mistakes can be made.  Honestly, game design is way more important that a minor graphical error.  True, crappy graphics make for a bad game sometimes, but I'd hardly call a few wonky shadows "crappy" graphics.  I wasn't insulting anyone here, just making light of a situation. 

Bt

No probs... I am talking just for me, but I had no problem with your message, man... the only problem is that I saw it "equal or very simillar" five times!  :)

But, hey... let's back to topic!

This is the Critics Lounge, not the "chat about how fun it is to play adventure games" Lounge. Ã, ::)

And although graphics shouldn't limit the fun of a game, look at how different AGS games are treated. Games with polished graphics always get a lot of attention, and tend to be highly rated. In my opinion, certain games have received more acclaim than better games that happen to not look as good.

If it was just some Sierra artist from 16 years ago, I think everybody would have left it at "Take heart. Even pros make mistakes, and a mistake doesn't ruin the game." However, several people (including, as it turned out, me) were confused about what was going on, and how to correct it.

Hopefully, artists might improve from this thread. I know I learned something.

Quote from: Blackthorne on Thu 20/01/2005 17:35:58
Ooops!  Sorry, I was trying to be humourous about something I actually feel very strongly about.

Again, I don't disagree with the message at all.  I merely stated that it was a bit off topic.  I was going to suggest that looking over some backgrounds from games circa 1992 might be a good way to improve our art by seeing what techniques the artists used and potentially improving upon them. 

A bit more on topic; I've seen several diagrams showing how to correctly render a shadow, including its length and its perspective related to the object.  However, I've yet to see a good 1-point perspective shadow & light tutorial on the web.  It would seem we've all beat around the bush on this particular background but haven't hit quite the correct methodology.   

Yes, we're getting far too analytical.  The background doesn't ruin enjoyment, but it's an interesting session nonetheless.  I'd probably be more on the defensive with critiques of SQ3 backgrounds. (edit: whoops, I also wanted to mention an AGS game that was great fun, but didn't have the greatest graphics (No offensive Cap'n), the Box that Ate Time)

While I certainly agree that the art has it's shortcomings, I'd like to point your attention the fact that:

1) This is an image from the pic resource. The room, as show in the game, had a lot of props to draw the attention from and partly cover the light effect


2) This is a very rarely visited room. In fact I don't think there's any reason to go in there except to talk to Ethel in the first quarter of the first act.

In a game this size, I really think this should be the last thing the artist would have worried about. Nevertheless, it was cool seeing you guys solve the problem with whatever means necessary.

Strangely no-one came to the conclusion that the windows are actually convex (or possibly concave - depending on whether you are outside or in). :P
I know that the picture doesn't clearly illustrate this fact - thats because its crap.

(The picture also doesn't illustrate that I am a buffoon.)

Those that do seek praise , those that can't become Critics

To those of you going "the game is so-and-so old, it's not an important error, let it go, quit nitpicking" and so on and so forth, remember that this thread is not just meant  to whack the poor artist stuck with a 2 1/2 mhz spectrum machine and a brick-sized mouse to make this image so many years ago. It is also an excellent opportunity to look at a professional background and say "Hey, there's a problem here. How do we fix it in order to LEARN how to avoid the problem". I for one found this thread very interesting, and I appreciate the time people put into this.

The critics lounge is here for us improve as artists, and this is an excellent way of learning from mistakes, so we hopefully don't end up in the same situation ourselves.

So there.

Amen!Ã,  Testify!

Yah seriously, this thread led me to a link (sorry I forgot who posted it) which in turn led me to seek out a book on the subject of light and perspective and architecture among other subjects.Ã,  It's thoroughly giant, and I am quite overwhelmed, yet pleased.Ã,  Ã, 

The only other thing other than the strange light problem that I see here, is the really ugly green wallpaper....but otherwise, it's a good background.Ã,  :) I've never played the Colonel's Bequest though, which is probably why I don't get the green wallpaper.Ã,  Peace.

EDIT:
Oh I forgot, are there any other "Pro Mistakes" to see?  I'd really like to see them. ^^