Pro Mistakes

[theyak]

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.

[Snarky]

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

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.

[loominous]

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.

[jrl2222]

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.

[Andail]

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.

[Blackthorne]

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

[loominous]

"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).

[jrl2222]

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.

[James002]

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



And here is the same room from a top-down perspective:


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.

[Blackthorne]

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.

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

Sierra was just a bunch of clown shoes!

Bt

[Gilbert]

* Gilbot V7000a 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.

[DCillusion]

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.

[Blackthorne]

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

[stu]

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.

[Snarky]

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.

[Chicky]

Artistic license

[Scummbuddy]

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.

[Gilbert]

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.

[Snarky]

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.



And here are the steps I used in constructing:

[theyak]

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.