Messages

Voh, I don't think I said that there is a link between computer game violence and real life violence. You want me to be like Jack Thompson so much you put words in my mouth.

Let me break down what I actually said:
* It's rather frightening when people say that torturing or molesting people in video games make them less inclined to do so in real life (or "beat to a pulp" to use your favourite phrase). Or just yell at their wives, whatever. Even though they are pixles. I do understand the notion of "not real" quite well, Voh, so chill out. But they are after all not only pixels, they also represent something, right? I just find it worrying that people are so full of that kind of stress, period.
* I question the benefits of violent computer games when it comes to stress relief. Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but so am I, I guess. I know that a lot of kids today act extremely frustrated and stressed when they play their games (or at least when they get interrupted, or get killed, which happens a lot).
If ultra-violent video games really are so beneficial in this respect, we can look forward to bright times, so let's hope.

Since this idea about physical activity is such a controversial topic, I'm gonna give it a rest here. We all live our lives as we wish anyway.

Btw, well boxing can be destructive, I didn't say it wasn't (again you're twisting my words), I said I don't think it's as destructive as pretending to molest or torture people. Furthermore, last time I boxed, I didn't beat anyone to the pulp. It's just a form of exercise if you want it to be.

Heh, yeah well maybe my post wasn't thought through. I just find it frightening that a lot of people seem to regard computer games as an alternative to commit real life crimes.

Does it really relieve you of stress to run down pedestrians in GTA? Maybe it does, but, with the risk of sounding "condescending", I'm quite sure there must be better ways. I don't think shadow boxing is destructive, I don't even think real boxing is as destructive as pretending to torture or murder people, because typically boxers agree to engage in a ritualized fighting, consentually.

And if you think I've been condescending so far, you'd better cover your eyes now. Really, take a long walk, go for a swim, even punch that punching bag, and I can assure you'll feel much less stressed.

[/condescending]

Well, if you have a viewpoint, all lines going "into" the picture must converge at it, not just some.
The grey stripe on the red brick building is awkwardly positioned, since it appears very straight. This isn't a perspective error, it's just a matter of composition. Don't position things in this way, simply. Move it up or down a bit so that it becomes more apparent how it's angled.

You have a horizon indeed, but then the parts in the distance are much above this horizon. This means the path and the grass must be a steep hill, which it for some reason doesn't look like; it looks like a plain field, just incorrectly drawn.

If you don't like it, don't play

...well, I think this debate is largely about what kids - who don't always know what's best for them - do on their spare time.

Also, I find the argument about letting out steam quite weird. Is running over pedestrians with a stolen car the only means of stress relief you can come up with?

better doing it in computer games than in real life, etc etc

You shouldn't have a desire to commit serious crimes of violence either way. People who argue like this should ask themselves where this urge comes from.

Well, I sort of changed my mind, and would agree with Loomy here; including backgrounds made in the past wouldn't really serve the purpose of a creative competition.
It is after all about measuring what you can produce under a limited time and special conditions.
So I'm gonna have to veto Darth's contribution here! Although it's a stunning piece of art!

This thread has been locked on the author's request.

Interestingly, Zelda is a good proof that you don't really need the character to follow the perspective of the background, at least not 100%. Most early Zelda versions featured a perspective similar to Progz's above, but Link would always be seen from the side.

Similarly, many adventure games have backgrounds seen in top-down perspective, while the characters remain the same.

Thanks for telling us that you don't have any interest in posting in this thread, Voh

I find it pretty amusing. If it is a hoax, it's there to make people ask themselves some moral and ethic questions. Something tells me this is not a cheap trick to earn a quick buck.

After all, they are just, quite pragmatically, expressing a situation that many other people find themselves in. They simply state that while they don't exactly prefer to abort, they are in such a bad financial position that giving the kid a good start in life isn't possible. I think this, so far, is a good reason not to keep the child. If more people considered whether they'll be able to raise their future kids properly, the world would be less miserable.

They said they used birth control but things can screw up. It can happen to the best. And I can certainly see why she'd not prefer to give the child up for adoption.

It's quite an interesting moral dilemma. And it sure has generated a lot of hatred...

Allright, this attention fest is over. If you want people to write about you, say interesting stuff that they might respond to.

Yeah, I remember that background too, it's quite marvellous.

I don't think we're usually very picky about whether pre-made backgrounds are valid or not. The only gripe I'd have in this case is that a background so detailed could probably not be made during the limited time you had now...but that's rather an academic question, probably. Either way it's a great work.

Here are some general advice:
* Ditch the whole DOTT concept, or the "goofy" style altogether. The people behind the DOTT backgrounds didn't just throw together a few crocked lines and hope for the best; they are in fact skilled graphic artists, and I'd wager 100 bucks they all started their careers drawing traditional scenes, perfectly correct perspective-wise.
As people have been trying to tell you, whacky/goofy/DOTT style is not just random, it's not lack of perspective, it's another perspective, but it takes practice, and it requires you to spend more than 2 1/2 minutes per room.
* Use references, and start out simple, with basic stuff. Draw your own room. Try to understand what constitutes a room, in its physical sense.
* Draw the backgrounds as good as you freaking can before you show them here. Only when you can't possibly improve the backgrounds on your own anymore should you seek for other people's feedback. Otherwise you're just being lazy or wanting attention.
* Never call your background DOTT again, please.
* Spend some time on your posts as well as the pictures. Read through your posts, and ask yourself "Would this post be better if I used any sort of punctuation?" "I wonder if this post would be more legible if I exchanged some of the smileys to comprehensible words?" "Darnit, but how about I checked this post to see if I unintentionally used completely different words than the ones I had in mind when the urge to post something first kicked in?"

Just like most kids, you seem completely oblivious to what people tell you or what you talk about yourself. I sincerely wish you could just grow a few years older before actually posting here, at least until you reached the minimum age of this forum. Or, you could do your bloody best to act mature and stop dishing out crap as soon as somebody tells you off.

Wtcq, reading some of your posts really annoys me. It's strange that you don't even try to appear old enough for this forum, when you're clearly underaged.

I second like...all of Evenwolfs artists.

Also, the one-liners here are an eye sore. If you're gonna dig up threads this old, you'd better provide some outstanding c&c.

Nice sketches, Loom. I'll see if I can participate with something.

I long planned for a guest appearence, but I just got this great teaching job at a boarding school. So I'll be off to the countryside to teach English for some weeks, starting on Monday.
Have fun without me!

I think SSH has a good philosophy there. I also tried to mix my picks, and include both well known titles and those less known but well worth trying out.

Khris, I think you're still attacking the wrong aspect of this picture. It has some real faults, but the very angle you're highlighting seems to be the only somewhat natural angle to me.
The main issues with the perspective of this image is that:
* The top viewpoint is situated too low, warping the image into a very unnatural shape; a shape only possible viewed through a fish eye lense.
* The image does not "bend" around the pivot (the point where the north view point bisects the horizon), but continues to increase in relative size to the right of it. This might be because the artist assumed that the right part of the image is situated nearer to the viewer than the rest. A more correct perspective would be established by simply copying the left half of the image, flip it and paste it to the right of the central point.

I sketched this up to illustrate the 90 degrees rule. A 2 point perspective system is limited in the way that lines and angles drawn too far from the view points will be deceptive.



a) is within the circle, and is thus reliable. b) is outside, and is thus incorrect.

You can accordingly never draw for instance the corner of a building in an angle shown in (b).