Messages

The shading is definitely better, but still a bit too subtle in my opinion. There is really no need to be afraid of darker shades.
The face still looks cartoonish. The main reason is the white in her eyes. In German there is a saying that you have to be really close to see someones "White in the Eyes". White means you are either very close to the persons face or the character is afraid of something.
Two pictures of Heidi Klum (you could also look at Seal if you like to  ) to illustrate my point:


In the second picture there is almost no white left even though we are still pretty close and even in the first picture the dominant color of her eyes is not white.

What is bothering me the most at the moment is the difference in hight of the 2 doors. The cabinet looks to me rather for shoes instead of liquor and stands to central for my taste. Beneath the mirror like ProgZ said would be a good place indeed. The Flat-TV indicates that they are better off and even Ikea offers some furniture which are not that box like. Couches with a 90° angle for example.

I tried to sketch what I mean. It is not even close as good as radiowaves' but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.


Looking at it now, it probably would be even better to move the couch directly to the left wall.

Well my try with the notebook



Your sprite is cute. Looks like a gnome, who is pissed because he has to wear an elf costume.
If it is an elf I'd say make him a bit friendlier.

Same as Hudders:

Idea: Snarky
Atmosphere: Loominous
Design: Loominous
Composition: Loominous
Functionality: Neil
Technique: Loominous

Congratulations.
I've downloaded it and hopefully will find some time at the weekend to play it.

Really a nice sprite Mozesh.
In your 2nd picture the pistol is a little to big, even if you don't strive for realism. (or is it a pump-gun?)
Anyway it looks as if he could seriously hurt himself firing that thing with one hand.

Rix already mentioned that the angle of the shield and the sword do not really fit the front view. His horns also look a bit to big for his head. You could also leave his face completely black. I think it gives him quite a nice demon touch.

Well it did not turn out the way I wanted it, but maybe it can give you some ideas.


Edit: Ah yes Ghost's picture reminds me that I forgot to say, that a cape would be a good idea. The bad guys always have capes. 

I think she looks very good.
Your shading though is barely visible. Decrease the saturation and increase the contrast between the shades.
Here is my paintover to show what I mean



I also made her legs a bit wider and tried to give her that business face.

Fantastic background.
ProgZmax's river is very nice, but imho you should keep your fire lighting. ProgZ's version seems too exaggerated and because of it's circle motion reminds me of a police car light.

I don't know what motivates this people and honestly I don't really care. I am just squealing with glee that this dumbf*ck in Glasgow burned himself. Life behind bars in agony...
Lol, serves him right. 

 :o
It looks really good but I guess you won't get much feedback. The picture is given so the only thing to criticize is your tablet technique, which at least for me is impossible.
Now show us one of your pictures. 

phony.
Like global warming.

This elaborate and detailed reasoning convinced me.

DEATH to all HIPPIES!

Since this looks much better, it confirms my assumption that you did not give your best the first time around.
In addition to what was already said you should now start to think were the light is coming from and shade your objects accordingly.

Do you mean the anti-aliasing? You can turn that off and use the pencil tool.

But Volcanoes have been around forever. Why do we see a rise in CO2 concentration for the last 200 years. 77 ppmv higher than ever for the last 400k years. Look at the graph again. CO2 concentration always peaked at around 300 ppmv. 2005 we were at 377 ppmv already.
I say this is not the work of Volcanoes.

I have read parts of the argument Mr. Monckton of the Sunday Telegraph makes (the link is provided by bigbrother).
The most interesting point is, that he does not refute the data of Petit. Normally critics first refute your whole approach, then they criticize the way you did it and at the end they dismiss your interpretation. Mr. Monckton dismisses the interpretation and assumes if those 2 graphs were superimposed, that warming periods precede CO2 rises. I have no idea what leads him to this assumption and even if he was right it looks like an argument of what was first hen or egg.
I had to do a bit of statistics for my degree (of business administration, not meteorology) and I can tell without knowing the data (just looking at the graphs) that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is significant (most likely even better than the 0,001 level). What he does next is concentrate on periods which seem to contradict the argument of global warming by concentrating on cooling periods decades ago and warmer periods before the Industrial Revolution. This looks to me like someone who does not want to see the forest because of all the trees. In fact proponents of global warming are guilty too in this respect. I highly doubt that every single event in the last 5 years was caused by global warming.

The criticism leveled at the hockey stick graph (Mann et al.) by McIntyre&McKitrick was about higher variation, not the general trend and therefor the National Academy of Sciences issued this:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence [...]"

On a personal note: I too can't stand this "Live Earth" "Live Aid" "Live Whatnot" concerts where pampered millionaires tell me to change. I do recycle. I walk and go by bike. I have implemented a lot of energy saving measures. I don't do this because I am a hippie or because I think that my contribution will save the planet. It saves me money.

Human C02 emissions are 0.2% of the total amount,...

Care to elaborate? As it is it reminds me of this little joke, that 27% of all data you read on the Internet is wrong. 

The temperatures are derived from deuterium isotopic measurements (δD) on ice cores in Antarctica. (Petit et al. 1999) (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005)
Look up the EPICA community members in Nature 429:6992, 623-628.
Same goes for the CO2 measurment...ice cores. It is an average of the Vostok ice core, EPICA ice core, Law Dome ice core and Siple Dome ice core enhanced since 1958 by measurements of Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawai.
Google Keeling curve. There is an overwhelming amount of literature available and I am not going to flood this post when a simple google search would be enough. But I will find a nice little referenced graph, if that satisfies you.

EDIT:
this is the Vostok ice core data by Petit published in Nature 399
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/figure_1.jpg
Here you can read what NASA has to say about Keeling and its visualization of his data:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=17223
together they result in this
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

Sorry Andail. I did not know that this was debated already. I will not go any further from here.

Yes the "it is all natural"-argument always follows.

Here:

0°C is now, -8°C at 10.000BC was the last Ice Age. Do you see how the red follows the blue (not perfectly but in general). I don't need a degree in meteorology to think we are heading into trouble.

Edit: Oh and as to why it was colder during the Industrial Revolution. Simple answer, the smut/grime (don't know the word) particles reflected sunlight, while the CO2 concentration was only starting to build up.

Don't post bmps, use gif or png.

Here is your picture.


At this stage nobody can help you really. I would advise to forget digital art for now and grab a pencil and paper. Sketch for 2 weeks and make your sketches really small, so you don't get lost in detail.
Keep all your drawings (even if they are completely unrecognizable). You will enjoy looking back and seeing how much you have improved. Maybe read 1 or 2 tutorials, but practice is the key. Try to draw something and don't give up if it does not turn out the way you want.
Good Luck!

This might be helpful:
http://studiochalkboard.evansville.edu/draw.html

You can't call something "global warming" if it's actually getting cooler!

It is called "global warming" because it's effects are global and we are talking about global average temperatures, not the temperatures in London, NY or Anytownyoucanthinkof.
Interestingly enough the most likely result of global warming in Europe is an Ice Age, due to the fresh water of the polar caps disrupting the Gulf Stream. And for those who say what does it all matter, 5°C increase in average temperatures in the next 50 years does not sound too bad...Keep in mind that the Permian-Triassic extinction event which killed more than 90% of marine species and 70% of land species was about a likely increase in global temperatures of 10°C in a MUCH longer period of time