Messages

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

Nice, Snake, this must your first ever picture here? After all these years

oh well thankyou for that mr. animation expert.

Come on, that's a bit childish coming from a man of your age.

Moreover, working with Disney for a year actually makes you quite qualified, at least in a community frequented by non-professional teenagers.
Unless, of course, he worked in the canteen, serving sandwiches.

Zyndikate; very nice. Excellent values, nice shapes, brilliant composition.

Loomy: Needless to say, a vast improvement. The image really needed a way into it, and I was just gonna suggest that you added a path or bridge or something in the foreground, instead of that impenetrable layer of blackness.
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.

I think with your current use of overlapping you've created a much more harmonic piece.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the perspective; then again the viewpoint and the "closeness" of the perspective make it look like you're a very small person in a very small room.
Like a frog in a big locker, instead of a person in a room.

Yeah, and CJ's working on his first game ever, "King Berian in Wonderland"

However, the perspective looks a bit odd as the horizon as depicted by the converging lines of the cabin doesn't match the horizon of the lake, which makes the lake appear to be on a higher plane than the cabin (with the assumption that the cabin is level).

Hehe, right now it's not the matter of altitude, the lake is actually sloping
So yeah, you need to correct the perspective of the cabin. In my opinion, you should also shorten it a bit, as it seems very stretched out.

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

You're repeating exactly the thing Snarky pointed out the problem with. And me before him.
1. People aren't born criminals. Before they committed their first gun related crime, they also had clean records.
2. A lawfully purchased gun is another gun in your society. One that can be stolen, one that can be used against you, or one that you can use against other, in an unforseen state of desperation or depression. How do we know you will never use that gun? We only have your word for it. There is no icon labeled "good guy" hovering above your head.

It should be added that prints traditionally used to have a different value, since the process of printing was much more complicated, and furthermore, the artist would destroy the printing plates afterwards. Nowadays anyone can print at home, and the only sign of authenticity would be the signature. Even though it says 23/200 or whatever, there's no way of telling how many copies there are out there.
So yeah, I can understand if you feel a bit cheated these days.

Please use the designated sticky thread for personal advertising.
This rule applies to everyone, regardless of merits.
Thank you and welcome to the forum.

I think Raggit's view (which is predominant in USA) originates in the concept of inherently good and bad people.
As long as we make sure the good guys are armed, we'll be fine. Best would be if only the good guys could be armed.
Of course, a good guy is one who is innocent. But everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and there has to be a first time for everything. - Unless, of course, you believe that some people are born evil, and that this evil can be detected and recorded, in order to prevent evil people to get a hold of guns before they commit their first gun related crime.

But as Matti said; criminals don't come from hell, armed and ready. They are products of society. Armed with the weapons provided by said society.

If people weren't allowed to buy guns, there would be less demand on the market, factories would produce fewer guns and there would be fewer guns on the streets. Even evil people's guns are manufactured in normal, legal gun factories.
Naturally, USA's biggest problem is that there are too many freaking guns everywhere. If there weren't any guns, people wouldn't be able to shoot each other.

I think that the notion that you can prevent crime with terror balance is so profoundly flawed that it's hard to concieve good counter arguments.
"Let's not break into this house, the owner might have a gun." But burglaries still occur, how can that be? Do they have scanners that can detect which houses have weapons and which haven't? Or could it be that burglars are often either desperate or obdurate or dumb enough to simply ignore that risk? Could it be that they simply bring their own guns, just in case? See what happened there? Escalation.
Because any normal-witted family father would rather just let a couple of criminals take
the dvd-player than engage in a shoot-out with them, risking the lives of the entire family.

If my arguments were wrong, all the gazillion weapons in USA would establish a perfect terror balance, deterring everyone to commit any sort of crime, out of fear of the other people's weapons. Sadly, this isn't the case.

[cool]

Dave is the definition of cool.

cool     adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun, verb
â€"adjective
1.     moderately cold; neither warm nor cold: a rather cool evening.
2.     quality describing someone who works with developing underground adventure game and/or frequents comic book conventions.

As long as you try to understand that some opinions are based on sound research and reading a variety of views on a subject.

Yes, and you will find such research supporting both sides. It's not like there is only one scientific book covering the subject, and you happened to come across it.

Remember that you're representing a country with an absurd amount of gun related violence, and a health care system so messed up that even insured people can't afford it, and rather go to Indonesia or wherever for their heart surgeries. Maybe you could be just a tiny bit more openminded about other models.

This isn't so much about if you're right or wrong, Progzmax, it's more about the way you present your case.
Try to understand that not all of your opinions are facts.

Nice progress, Loomy, but right now there's a jumble of shapes and highlights, giving a slightly disorderly impression. Maybe it will sort itself out once you colour it.

Composition-wise, I think there's simply too much in the picture right now, and the wavy shapes that are repeated here and there distract the eye a bit.

Also, you have a few lines/objects that meet somewhat awkwardly; the top of the swing-stand ends just where the balcony begins, making it look like the latter rests upon the former. Similarly, the sign blends with the tree behind it, as they have similar shapes.

These are of course minor issues, and all in all it's a beautiful piece with lots of atmosphere.

Let's all make games for Richy's girlfriend
It can become a one-month activity.

and I find anti-gun arguments obtuse at best.  There will always be people who buy guns as a status symbol or to commit crimes, but there are also many people who buy them only for protection or for sports (legal hunting, target shooting).  As a society we have to be a bit more mature than if we were a teacher who caught a kid misusing a toy so we took it away from everyone.  This works in small, localized conditions but hardly applies to millions of people.  It's all about exercising common sense with your rights.

What are you doing here, Progzy, flamebaiting?
Sweden has strict gun laws and it works well for us. Do you sincerely believe that all arguments that are anti-gun are "obtuse at best"?

I noticed from your other thread about nationalised health care (which by the way works for us as well; 20 bucks for a surgical operation regardless of complexity, and in return we have slightly longer waiting times) that you're out on a right-wing soap-boxing spree, but don't overdo it.

Unless you're into some sort of psychedelic expressionism, this isn't functional at all.
You called this a sprite, and with that in mind, calling it "brilliant" is either shameless flattering or the result of some drug consumtion.

Start out nice and simple, with clear outlines and recognisable shapes. Read some tutorials, study some basic anatomy be patient.

Your mother rocks by the way

And either way, does it matter even the slightest?