Background Blitz :: Workshop Edition :: Concluded

Started by loominous, Wed 14/05/2008 21:43:10

Previous topic - Next topic

loominous

Quote from: Neil Dnuma on Tue 01/07/2008 04:20:37
I definitely prefer the eye-level camera angle for many things, to improve immersion and get more depth; "regular" images, film/television etc. The thing here, with the little adventure game creating experience I've had, slightly higher angles have helped the functionality of the backgrounds. The walkable areas get bigger vertically, thus giving more "air" to the clickable objects and exits, and in general a more smooth experience for the player. Also you can get away with much less scaling of the protagonist character. Foreground objects can also interfere if not balanced very carefully.

A lot of games, eg. Sierra operate with high angles most of the time.

I think the standard practice in LEC games as well as in movies is to have high angles for large environments, and low for tight, for the reasons you mentioned. To clarify:


Larger version

Looking at other games, such as Sam&Max, the angles are almost always higher than the characters, and in DOTT the angle shifts from room to room, in what looks like an arbitrary manner (but it's generally quite low (eye level)).

I also think it's a matter of style. Games with limited foreground and distant characters give more of a theater stage impression, which has a detached charm to it. Pushing the camera closer gives it more of a movie like look (as you mentioned), which creates more immersion, but lacks that charm, and can look a bit clumsy.

I think Bill Tiller is taking lower angles even further now that he's using 3D characters, as can be seen in this screen:



-

Quote from: Neil Dnuma on Tue 01/07/2008 19:35:01

A few changes, a closer and slightly lower camera angle.

Looking at the new edit, you could test going further with the limited background, in the style of Winnie the Pooh, creating a nice limited atmosphere:



I really like this kind of limited depth, as you're in a way completely focusing on the small area at hand, even though it's part of a large environment, which I think helps create the friendly world of Winnie the Pooh. It's like these places become separate worlds in some sense, even if we'd expect to see a huge surrounding if it wasn't for the fact that all these areas happen to be on small hills.

(I did the same thing in this background (the perspective is messed up though, so it's hard to read the position of the horizon, but it should be low)

Just a thought.

----

QuoteWhere is the farm gonna be?

Good question.

QuoteThe fence in the middle looks a bit dangerous for small kids...

Yea, I've considered adding gates to everything, but they'd start blocking stuff, so I've avoided it so far. Will probably need to add them at some point

Quote from: Misj' on Tue 01/07/2008 11:04:36
Small question: which window does the girl sit at?

Focus wise she ought to be in the rightmost window, but I haven't opened it up yet. I did a small test before, but I didn't like the contrast it brought to the area. Course, contrast is ideal in a spot like that, so it's functional n all that, but anyway.

I guess she could always sit in one of the higher windows, but that wouldn't be very practical or elegant.

So, in short, I don't know atm.

Quote from: Andail on Tue 01/07/2008 11:57:03
I think the issue with your former compositon was the following:
It was too layered, without any lines or shapes moving into the picture, connecting the various layers. It was like a parallax-scrolled platform shooter; various objects lined up beside each other in neat layers. Nothing linked them together.

It really boiled down to complacency, as I was trying to fix new problems with old material, leading to, at best, mediocre solutions, instead of reworking the new composition ideas from scratch. Again, could have been solved with better pre-work, a lesson I'll probably never learn.

Oddly enough, the current solution is very close to the original idea I had. It is pretty cliche though, so it's not very surprising.

Edit: Added a larger pic version
Looking for a writer

Misj'

Based your comments (and my own):
an alternative composition (based on the same scrolling idea). As you can see, it's a very rough sketch



Added extra trees to the left part of the image (the view of the player is obstructed by these trees).

Complete redesign of the orphanage (more fairytale like) and located it in such a way that the upper window can be seen.

Centre-tree is placed on the other side of river; and the river itself streams differently.

No more staircase on the bridge :)



Even though I'll be away for the next two weeks (so I won't be able to participate during that time...hopefully I'll be able to look at your work and make comments), I'm curious which version you guys think I should pursue: the original version (which I like, but might be a little boring; especially if I do not manage to colour it correctly), or this new version (that would have to be fully developed, inked etc, and thus will take up more time...but looks somewhat more fun)...

...please give me your thoughts.

--- UPDATE --

I've created a new sketch of the house (left: pure pencil, right: to give an impression of the contrast)

Based slightly on the Dutch artists Anton Pieck and Hanco Kolk...

Perspective is off...partly on purpose, because it just looked better ;)

As always: please share your thoughts


<Click separate images to enlarge>

-- Update 2 --

I've created the pencil-drawing for the newly designed background. There are still a number of things that I'm unhappy with (I find especially the forest to busy (half the trees can create the same 'crowded' effect
  (especially when coloured dark), and maybe add some flowers near the house), so I might create a second pencil to rectify these things...



The forest should be scary, dark, and a little claustrophobic. The house will have to be brighter, more dreamy.

Share your thoughts (and please compare it to the original background, which aspects do you like better in which version).

Misj'

loominous

Quote from: Misj' on Tue 01/07/2008 23:13:02

I'm curious which version you guys think I should persue: the original version (which I like, but might be a little boring; espeacially if I do not manage to colour it correctly), or this new version (that would have to be fully developed, inked etc, and thus will take up more time...but looks somewhat more fun)...

I think perhaps something in between the two might be best (just to make things even more time consuming). The new one has more vertical variation which I like, and creates a more exciting n interesting impression, but it feels pretty cramped atm, with very little breathing room, which the former one provided much more of. If I had to pick one though, I'd pick the latter, due to the more dynamic elements.

Another thing you could try is to break up the rotation of the elements. Right now things are either going in a line straight towards us, or, parallel to us, in a rectangular way. I think breaking this up with a rotated bridge, and a more curvy road would loosen things up more, and make it more dynamic.

Just some quick ideas.

-

Neil:

Your image reminds me a bit of an environment in Les Triplettes de Belleville, so in case you haven't seen it, or want a refresher, here are some screens from it, that might give you some ideas about stuff to add n such:


Larger version
Looking for a writer

Theme

Looking at it now, my camera angle is quite high, it's a problem to change it now >:(
I guess the whole layout is wrong, everything is far away so I have when I zoomed a little more I had a hard time trying to make all elements visible. I should have compact the scene more.
Mine img is huge, let's just say it's a 800x500 scrolling bg.
I tried a darker atmosphere with some light focusing on main things and lots of fog.
the girl in mine is really wierd, sorry, I don't know to do organic modelling.

Updated

zyndikate draw looks very depp in the florest, while mine and Neil looks more like in the open field.
Misj' second drawing looks nicer to me.
I like to see how everyone got their layouts of the scene.

I'm going to have exams and may be out for a while, So if the workshops ends this is going to be my final image. But if I have time I could try a better lightning solution.

o/

evenwolf

That camera view is not too high.  Not in the slightest.  You're just being effected by all this LEC talk but there's no need to fret.  Each person's design doesn't have to be ominous and towering above the player.   I think that screen is quite fantastic the way it is.
"I drink a thousand shipwrecks.'"

loominous



Quote from: ExsecratusLooking at it now, my camera angle is quite high, it's a problem to change it now

Quote from: evenwolfThat camera view is not too high.  Not in the slightest.  You're just being effected by all this LEC talk but there's no need to fret.

I hope it didn't seem like I was suggesting that high angles were bad. The right angle is whatever you're happy with.

Quote from: ExsecratusI guess the whole layout is wrong, everything is far away so I have when I zoomed a little more I had a hard time trying to make all elements visible. I should have compact the scene more.

I was about to suggest this very thing when i saw the screen. I think the bridge/house part works pretty well though, and I think the vast landscape calls for a less compact environment, as there is no space issue for the residents to consider.

QuoteMaybe if I played with the focal length settings on the camera but I don't really know much about it.

From my limited knowledge of depth of field, I think the current setting is quite a bit too strong, and gives it a miniature look. As I assume that the focus would be placed on the house, which is at a fair distance, the current strong defocus would occur at greater distances than the present ones. But again, my insight into dof is limited.

-

Regarding the lighting:

I think your current setup works nicely by the house, but I thought your previous solution by the windmill was much more attractive. That solution did include focus stealing contrast by the windmill though, so I wouldn't recommend keeping it entirely, but perhaps to an extent.

It's very dark, even for a cloudy day, so I'd probably light it up a bit more, but perhaps just to the windmill/background/sky area.

I hope you're able to tinker around with it some more, and do some grading at the colouring stage as I really like the environment and think it's the nicest looking 3D entry I've ever seen in the BB.
Looking for a writer

Andail

Execratus, I generally abhor 3D backgrounds, but yours is very nice. As has been suggested though, the shallow depth of field makes it look like a miniature model.

The eye can be focusing on something very close - which would render everything beyond it blurry - or it could focus on something in the distance, which would blur only that which is very close. However, focusing on something 30 yards away wouldn't blur something 65 yards away. Both those distances lie in the area of "remote"; the lemniscate-area of the camera.

Another aspect that makes the scenery look like a model is the lighting; since the sky is very dark, the bright, direct light appears to be from strong lamps. I would let some hints of sunshine break through here and there in the clouds. That would make the bright spots on the ground more realistic.

Furthermore, as much as this is a great picture, it's still 3D...I can only speak for myself, but good gravy, if you were to paint over this to make it more 2D, more like a painting, that would really rock my socks :)

loominous

Thinking about moving on to stage 3, so just wondering if anyone needs more time in this stage.
Looking for a writer

Theme



I made another render, without the too strong dof and less foggy
But without fog makes the back part very empty
And you can really see how my textures are very crappy by the house

here a part of the house texture, it joins photographic texturing and paint on top


o/

TheMagician

Hi Execratus,

I love your background. Without the strong DOF it looks much more enjoyable now. You can see more of the image and I think it is better "playable" now :-)

Just a few points that came to my mind:

- Perhaps add a little more weathering to the vertical beam structure of the house. Right now it looks a bit too flat and grey in my opinion.

- I think you're aiming for a rather realistic look of the background. So perhaps you can add a little step or stepping stone at the transition from the ground to the bridge because at the moment the border looks very crisp and also very steep.

- Add more grass/weeds along the border of the house.

- Reduce the size of the single grass strands in the left foreground portion of the picture. I think it would look better if there were many more (but smaller) patches of grass.

This screenshot from Secret Files: Tunguska

shows what I mean although the grass in that image is too tall for your scene, but you get the idea.
I know this will increase render time, but perhaps you can render it in a separate pass.

- And as a last point: scale down the ground texture just a little bit.

But as I said I'm really impressed with your work.
Btw: can you control the position of the spots of sunlight (like the one on the roof)? They really add a great deal to the atmosphere of the image.

Neil Dnuma

Quote from: loominous on Mon 07/07/2008 17:20:41
Thinking about moving on to stage 3, so just wondering if anyone needs more time in this stage.

I'm fine with that. I'd enjoy seeing some practical tips on going from value sketches to actual values, as I am unsure if the way I do it is very effective.

--

Nice to hear mentioning of Triplets of Belleville, one of my favorite animated films. Such great characters and awesome style. I think maybe the 3D-bits could've been cut though, I feel it crashes just a little (looks impressive though), and would preferably see only parallax techniques used. But: awesome film. I saw it again the other day, and will re-study some stills for inspiration.

loominous


Quite a bit overdue, here is:



Introduction to be added

(just want to get the thing finally started)
Looking for a writer

Misj'

Quote from: loominous on Sat 19/07/2008 17:39:54
(just want to get the thing finally started)

I'm back from the land of the Irish, so hopefully I'll have time to finish my background.
Technically I'm still stuck in part II, but I'll be trying. So just to give you an impression
of what two weeks among the Leprachons brought me, I've updated my part II-post.

Hope you'll like it...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second update in the same post.

Misj'

loominous

Quote from: Misj' on Tue 01/07/2008 23:13:02






Share your thoughts (and please compare it to the original background, which aspects do you like better in which version).

Misj'

Good to see you back in action.

To provide a response that I personally always loathe to get myself: I prefer the old one in pretty much every way.

I) It crops off the house/house area better (the new one has this huge walkable area around the house which just takes up space n makes it less functional.
II) It has a nicer variation in openness.
III) It lacks the large uninteresting stream that is taking up as much space as the house.
III) It has shorter walkable distances
IV) The camera is closer to the house (that is my impression anyway), which makes it easier to see and draws us more into the environment.
V) It has a lower angle (personal preference), that makes it more like being there, and places the horizon more at the golden ratio (it's currently at the center, which incidentally isn't recommended by most people I've heard, for the same reason why it's rarely recommended to place something in the dead center horizontally (to get a more dynamic composition).

I think these things together contribute to a nicer more lively scene.

Some other things:

I) The new window frames look almost glued on, as if they didn't really belong there. I think the borderless design of the house made the frameless windows in the old version more consistent. The new design is more interesting though, so I'm not saying that you should ditch it, but perhaps try to make the whole thing look more consistent. (the fact that the wall thickness that you can see in the new one feels too thin adds to the "painted on" impression.

II) I think the old wall with its slope worked better, as it revealed more of the door area. Right now it's almost as if that area is intentionally hidden.

Sorry about being so negative - I really tried finding some stuff that I liked better in the new one but I couldn't really find any, apart from the more interesting design of the house.

Hope you'll keep at it!
Looking for a writer

Misj'

Quote from: loominous on Tue 22/07/2008 16:42:27
To provide a response that I personally always loathe to get myself: I prefer the old one in pretty much every way.
And this day will go into history as: the day Loominous lost the right to touch a keyboard.  ;)

Quote
I) It crops off the house/house area better (the new one has this huge walkable area around the house which just takes up space n makes it less functional.+
III) It has shorter walkable distances
IV) The camera is closer to the house (that is my impression anyway), which makes it easier to see and draws us more into the environment.

Yes, but it also had the problem that 'it feels pretty cramped atm, with very little breathing room' (I just love misusing peoples quotes :) ). Anyway, the goal was to have the house close enough to be able to use the window but also far away enough not to fill up all the space (making it feel cramped). The new version also gives me more room to add toys, or the path to the back of the house.

Quote
II) It has a nicer variation in openness.

This is absolutely true...I especially like the contrast between the open area behind the house, and the more confined area of the forrest. I got rid of most of the openness in the new version, and closed up the forrest even more. Both should be opened up more.

Quote
III) It lacks the large uninteresting stream that is taking up as much space as the house.
draws us more into the environment.

I think the stream is still a little too big in the sketch...but I want to keep the drain from the house...I like it too much

QuoteV) It has a lower angle (personal preference), that makes it more like being there, and places the horizon more at the golden ratio (it's currently at the center, which incidentally isn't recommended by most people I've heard, for the same reason why it's rarely recommended to place something in the dead center horizontally (to get a more dynamic composition).

Actually, the sketch has the horizon more or less at the centre, whereas the new version has a high horizon (on which I cheated a great deal...)

Quote
I) The new window frames look almost glued on, as if they didn't really belong there. I think the borderless design of the house made the frameless windows in the old version more consistent. The new design is more interesting though, so I'm not saying that you should ditch it, but perhaps try to make the whole thing look more consistent. (the fact that the wall thickness that you can see in the new one feels too thin adds to the "painted on" impression.

Actually, the 'glued on' is more or less the spot on term to describe what I was going for, so somehow that's actually a good thing. These ornaments add - in my opinion - to a somewhat surreal, better-than-life fairytale world...or at least...that was the goal.

QuoteII) I think the old wall with its slope worked better, as it revealed more of the door area. Right now it's almost as if that area is intentionally hidden.

I agree, but couldn't get it right the way I wanted; so I'll have to look into it.

Quote
Sorry about being so negative - I really tried finding some stuff that I liked better in the new one but I couldn't really find any, apart from the more interesting design of the house.
As long as I'm allowed to be like all defensive and stuff there is no problem.  ::)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Fast mock-up time.

Previous version


Mock-up based on some of Loominous's comments


It's a very fast cut-paste-and-move-around composition. But it might address some of the thoughts risen by Loominous. Sigh - I will have to redraw everything.

As always...please comment.

Misj'

Will we ever get to see the finishing stages for this background?

Version 1.


Version 2.


Version 3 (right side only).


For those of you keeping track:
- Lowered the horizon (to make Loominous happy ;) ).
- Brought the house closer to the viewer (and introducing some minor changes to its design).
- Removed some trees from the background
- Added roses around the upper window to add some hope to the location of the girl

Things that have to be added:
- Background layer of clouds
- Some toys
- Farm and/or mill
- Foreground layer of (black) branches and stuff to increase the feeling of depth to the world (by adding stuff between the observed and the observer)

- The entire left side of the scrolling image...

Who knows...maybe I'm slowly getting there,

Misj'

Ps. My apologies for the double post...

loominous

Quote from: Misj' on Fri 25/07/2008 18:57:14
Version 3 (right side only).


Think the variation in openness, and general vertical variation makes it a lot more attractive. The angle of the house, which now appears to points more towards us is another improvement, that makes the image more dynamic. The ground area is varied and interesting, and there's no wasted space. I guess the sky now takes up a very large part of the image, but it could be filled with some foreground branches/leaves, and clouds.

I find myself in the unusual position of thinking that the angle might be a bit too low though. I think the horizon in the first one was nice, at the golden ratio vertically, and I usually place it there myself. Right now it looks like there's pretty much no view of the walkable area. Though when I look at the full size version it shows what needs to be shown, so I guess it could work well.

Another problem with these kind of low angles is that they can make the perspective a bit extreme and odd looking, especially if you don't use "a rounded lens" or three point perspective (right now the vertical lines are still completely vertical, which makes the very slanting / "horizontal" look extreme. So a box looks something like:

/|'''''|
/ |__|
|/__/

Think guys like Bill Tiller often bend the lines to simulate a rounded lens. I do at least. Our eyes have a rounded lens, so we're used to straight lines looking curved (though we don't think about it).

(Btw, something that messes up the perspective, making the roof look odd is that the upper window isn't in perspective, which I assume you're aware of, but ignored due to the sharp slanting lines it would've meant if you had followed the perspective. I don't personally think this is a good solution, as while it saves the window, it messes up our impression of the rest of the house.

Hm, looks like the lower window is out of perspective as well)

I'm not a stickler when it comes to perspective, but consistent perspective in individual elements ensures that we read the objects properly, so it's not a matter of them adhering to rules, but being read as intended.

Right now for instance, it looks like the house's top roof part is slanting, when it in fact isn't.


Regarding the lines themselves, I guess it may be a matter of style, but the many ruler like straight lines gives a pretty dull/unorganic impression. I'm not advocating extreme bended lines for everything, but something that makes run down buildings charming is their lack of clean surfaces and perfect lines. Especially for stuff like roofs. Just doing the lines freehand without the ambition of drawing perfect lines is usually enough to instill the analogue feel that is the beauty and paintings/drawings.

Zyndikate usually manages to get his lines very neat looking but still organic, so you could have a look at his stuff if you're interested. His line-work overall is annoyingly good.

It's interesting to follow your experimentation, so I hope you'll keep at it!

Edit: I think avoiding using rulers and perspective lines is a nice way to increase the analogue feel. Try estimating the perspective, and then correct the biggest error after the sketch is done. This way you keep the drawing process loose. Think zyndikate does this (me too).

Drawing a few lines from the vanishing points across the page to create a very loose grid is another way, that allows you to "see" the perspective, and follow it loosely as you put in your lines.
Looking for a writer

Daniel Thomas

::UPDATE::

Did two more sits on my background, changes:
- change the canvas size, firstly the width to not make it so crowded, Im figuring when including a building you probably want to have scrolling background or just showing a part of the background- I think this because otherwise you will get the viewer far away from the "action", I think the more intimate feels more charming.
- Tweaking, adding, moving
-Tweaking, adding, changing, flipping

The values seems a little bit too split apart right now, I think the darkest value is too far away and probably will play around with it the next sit.
Im also consider to blow the house up even more, to make it closer to the foreground, to move it closer the viewer for same reason mentioned above.

::some comments::
loominous: looking good, as always - only thing I could think of that isnt in my taste is that have something right infront of that beautiful house, I think I would rather have the breathing room right there. I do understand it gives depth to it with the overlapping, maybe if the gate was less complex I wouldnt mind it.

Misj: I would have put the vanishing points further away, but I think it still can work. What I think you should try is the remove the tree in the middle left, its almost splitting the picture in two - I think, even if its a scrolling background, it should be a whole. Maybe only using minor framing for each side of a scrolling background.

About lines, I think atleast for cartoonish the lines should have a little life to them, like a little spring-force in them and rythmical. A straight line would feel static/hard, a saggy line feels very organic but maybe a bit tired - So i think somewhere inbetween is good(depending on the object. If you wanna experiment with this I think a good way is just let the wrist, elbow, shoulder(depending in the lines length) just to its magic, You usually get a natural twist to the lines - you could almost think as if its bend at a third of the line. Just try to keep it loose.

I know atleast in my backgrounds, if you flip them you can see that its very much from the wrist as the whole composition starts to lean to the left - its a funny thing that I never see this when its in the "right" direction. Could also be that we read from right to left that we more natural follows the lines as they work its way to the right, but gets resistence when they start leaning to the left. Who know? not me atleast :)

I think its good that you practice perspective though, you will probably have use for it - but consider it a tool - I think its ok to be off perspective aslong its not annoying :)

Dunno if it made much sense, someone is tired..

::UPDATE::

Moved house closer, tweaked, added.
The values hasnt been fixed though, I want a little more sepperation in them - but not go away from a gloomy mood.

::UPDATE::


::COLOR::
Click for bigger:

Those are the color-sketches so far, I don't want to go too lively - only with a "string of hope" and try to keep it toned down. Any comments so far? which one do you think works best and why? Personally I think the first would tell the story best, but at the same time it looks the most boring I think - maybe if I could squish in a couple of weak accents .
Check out The Journey of Iesir Demo | Freelance artist, check out my Portfolio

Misj'

As usual, a long post: some minor comments to Zyndikate's latest background are at the end (so if you're him, you might want to scroll down a bit).

Well Loominous, you do realize that you've just written down one of the biggest insults you can give a cartoonist right? - Implying to have used a ruler. That's like saying to an animator that he traced live action videos. It's an absolute no-no. ;)

So to defend myself on this point. I did use straight perspective lines to reference the basic structure of the main part of the house (door area). But only the general shape (cube, cuboid, etc), and the general location of the door and windows. I did - however - not trace these lines, and everything is completely freehand using these lines only as a general reference (consequently, many of the lines are curved). Tower, staircase, roof, etc it's all freehand. I often use curved lines (see as an example), but I felt that for this drawing such curvature would ruin the image. I'll explain in a moment why...but first these messages.

What I agree with (partly):
- Loominous: The horizon is quite low. Two-point perspective should always have a horizon close to the centre of the image or else it will look weird (which is not a problem when intentional). Otherwise three-point or five-point perspective generally works better. However...in this particular case I believe that it actually works. Remember that I didn't draw this as a 'puzzle' background but as an introduction to a new area/chapter. That also means that you can get away with a different kind of composition, that may be a little more extreme. Still I am convinced that characters will not suffer from this perspective and will still blend in without problems.
- Zyndikate: The VP's might have been set a little further apart, that's true, and that might have been better. But looking at the result I like it, and that's enough reason not to change it.
- Zyndikate: The tree in the middle does indeed split the image in two...but that was the intention.

What I disagree with (mostly):
- Loominous: Non of the windows is out of perspective. The reason why you felt the roof-window is, is, because I didn't draw the window parallel to the wall beneath and it's cap perpendicular to that wall. Instead I decided to draw them slightly down, 'bending' somewhat over the wall. There are some perspective-mistakes. But this wasn't one of them.

So it's time to come back to the subject of curved lines. As you, Loominous, pointed out: 'straight lines are unorganic, while curved lines are organic'. The point is, the only (somewhat) straight lines that I used are part of an non-organic structure: the man-made house. And men - especially in Western Europe - tend to use straight non-organic structures. That's actually the biggest problem that I have with your composition: the house has style, character, charisma (which is why I decided not to care)...but it doesn't look like it's created by men. Maybe if they had a fairy architect, but humans wouldn't do it like that. It's - as you like - too organic. As if it was created as part of nature rather than 'culture'. I wanted to go the opposite way: the house is something that men have put there. Consequently I had to give it this non-organic feel. It HAS to be the opposite of the nature around it (contrast is still the word).

I should add, that the decay is not man-made, and should be a lot more dynamic, organic than the house itself. It's something 'nature' did, and you should be able to see that. That is also why I used lines in these (wet area below the window, the roses, slime on the lower grid, etc) that are far more curved. Similar lines in trees, rocks, the river, flowers, grass. These are all organic, and these should have curved lines. For the house such curves should be limited.

I should also point out, that - even though many of the lines in the house are already slightly curved - most of these lined will gain a little in curvature during each iteration that I draw it. And that will be at least two more times (pencil and ink). Simply, because I couldn't draw a straight line if my life depended on it.

To Zyndikate:
There are two things that feel wrong to me in the current version of your background. The first is the direction of the sign. It's directed at the player and not at the characters (who would walk the road, or cross the bridge). They would be looking at the back of the sign, which doesn't make sense in the game-world.. The other thing is, that - when looking at the house - my eyes are drawn away from the window. But that's where the girl is sitting. That's the main point of focus in our story. I tried it a number of times, but every time I  loose the window from my sight.

Misj'

Daniel Thomas

Misj'

Yea, I was aware of the problem of the sign when I put it down - what went on in my mind was "I need some shape here, I dont have a sign in the background(I thought it was in the description since many had a sign :) ). It struck me that it doesn make much sense having it turned out by the river - although I dont think its that extreme that the player would be looking at the back, thinking hes entering from the right corner. As for technical application its acting as a interlock with the background.

But its a problem thats pending to get a good solution - same with the window, I havent managed to get the focus there yet. Im think its going to sort out when I go in and put down some detail around it. Or anyone know what the main problem can be? Too contrasty values foreground?
Check out The Journey of Iesir Demo | Freelance artist, check out my Portfolio

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk