Messages

Your point is quite valid, but let's take into account a couple of facts:
1. Virtually all colours can be found in portraits by famous artists, if you look hard enough. A painting which seems to depict a perfectly natural skin colour can turn out all blue when compared to another portrait, painted in a different light. Finding the right colour is seldom about identifying a native pigment - it's always a combination of light reflections and refractions.
2. However, saying "why can't I have green in my portrait when Cezanne can (or whoever)?" is a bit like saying "why can't I paint a perfectly square face when Picasso can?" Because you don't have a valid reason to do so, you just claim it's your right to, and expect that it will somehow magically be appealing.
3. This particular piece looked better without the green. Why? Because the green parts weren't applied in a way that made sense. They didn't improve the face. They didn't accentuate anything.
4. Does this mean it's always wrong to add green in your portraits? Hell no. Look at any recent pixelated portrait by Helm - like this one:

Lots of green. But there is a method to it. It's not like he just threw green pixels at the canvas and hoped for the best. This scene called for the green. It made sense here.
Or why not this one:

Lots of weirds shapes and colours, but Helm had a reason to make it that way, an agenda. It doesn't mean anyone can add lots of purple triangles to their portrait and hope for success.
Why not?
For the same reason you shouldn't begin practising writing by mimicing Finnegan's Wake. It's just no use. Start simple. When you know the basics, start pushing the boundaries. When you can control basic perspective, move on to have a go at DOTT graphics. Etc, etc.

[future posts should be on topic and about the artwork in question]

strikes me as partly bizarre, partly draconian, and I think it's the duty of anyone present at such an exchange to intervene.

Hm... easy on the diction there, loomy old friend, it sounds like you're witnessing the gasing of the jews

Progz has both the experience and integrity to afford a certain...directness...when giving feedback. It's all for the benefit of the OP, even though it's sometimes blunt.

Also, it's one thing to disagree on a certain method, but let's not go overboard with the strong words.

....aaaand, as a global moderator I say future posts should be on topic and about the artwork in question. If you still have disputes to settle, use PMs, or if you wanna keep discussing pedagogical models please start a thread over at gen-gen.  

I thank you very much.

ahoy, yeah Tulle's World 2 was indeed taken down shortly after its release, not to create some sort of mysterious hype, but because it was so bad it wasn't really playable.

as far as I know it's not available anywhere - I don't even have the files for the 3rd game myself, which was at least playable, but of the second installment there shouldn't even be a trace element left on the webs

Well, I've understood that he's not supposed to look entirely human - but with that being said he still needs to make sense anatomically, in his own way. He still has bones and muscles, and these should be attached to each other in logical ways.

To start with, have you noticed how his right arm is much longer and thicker than his left arm (which is way too thin)?

Also, his entire posture is hard to read. What is it conveying? What is the position of the right hand suggesting? What is he saying to the viewer?

Loominous, surely you agree that the best route to take is to learn the basics first (that is, to reproduce anatomy, perspective, colours and proportions the way they actually look), and then experiement.

At least if you wanna learn and improve. If you just wanna have fun, then forget about rules and experiment away.

That goes for all disciplines by the way; I can get quite annoyed when students refuse to embrace common writing rules and guide-lines just because there exists literature that ignores them. And then when they have a go at writing avant-garde texts it looks like shit.

True.
Not digging up old threads is kind of a universal rule pertaining to message boards in general, and not explicitly mentioned here, so we probably shouldn't be too anal when enforcing it.

I think you should have used references.

Seriously though, I think we need to set some things straight regarding references... just copying another artwork or photo pixel by pixel of course isn't a good idea, but using references to get anatomy, proportions or perspective correct can be crucial, and everybody does that, to some degree.

I think your picture is great in many ways - the overall composition is cool, the character has a lot of...character...etc, but it's just annoying how his anatomy is completely messed up.
For this reason I really think you should dig up some good photos displaying people with roughly the same pose and try to get the body right.
When you've done that I'm willing to discuss other aspects of your piece.

20 bucks on white!

D'oh!

Ok, I think the point has been made.

Wonderful wonderful albums, I have those exact two

ah, that made my day

You seem to have a fondness for unnecessary, barely legible, fluff.

What's all those labels, abbreviations and symbols for? Why not create a straigthforward webpage that presents your project and describes the game in a way people can understand?

All this energy you put on fancy logos, copyright crap, ratings and cryptic phrases like "mog.net GUI: Enabled" could be spent on actually making that game.

I was gonna post something along the lines of "why?" but then I thought to myself "why what?" because I don't really understand what it is you've done.

If it's a comedy, the title is pure gold, if it's actually a horror game you might want to change it...

This was sort of exciting to follow, in a weird unexciting way

Just rotating an image or a part of it can be done in virtually any image editing program, but the tricky part is to avoid it getting anti-aliased.
So especially for pixel art this is a bit of a hassle.

According to my calculations, white will win in 23 moves.
Sorry if I've spoiled your fun.

Not be impolite towards Dualnames, but his paint-over is a lot worse than the original.
The skull looks like rubber in your version, plus the entire colour scheme is just...worse.
Sorry

Awesome episode of Melt the Limit!
Great work Grundislav

Although it's hard to beat the profound Bergmanesque existentialism of "Proper things"...

Well, whom has quite a wider usage than you seem to suggest.

Basically, in its object function it's always right to use whom, even though it may sound a bit pretentious to most people. As in "whom do you love?" or "whom shall we choose?" both of which are grammatically correct.

A good thumb rule is that whenever the answer is (or could be, hypothetically) "him" you can use whom instead of who.

As per usual, regretting I didn't go!
There have now been more mittens I've missed than I've attended

Seems like you've had an awesome time, nice with some new mittens faces as well.