It's great that you just want to complete something. But I'll tell you what, you don't need to spend three years on a game for it to look decent, and introduce a lot of new gameplay mechanics.
Even games that aren't supposed to be great from a visual standpoint, are at least passable. Remember my comment about moss or sunlight? Truly - on that rock, is it moss or sunlight? We have absolutely no idea.
Just as much as we are artists, we are also gamers. We play games too, and I can tell you, if I was playing this game. I wouldn't be able to tell whether or not that rock was covered in mustard. Harsh, perhaps. True? Yes.
4 minutes. 4 MINUTES. Honestly. How many sprites do you intend to have for this game? Give us a number. If you spent AN HOUR on that rock, as opposed to 4 minutes. That's 15 times more time spent on a sprite, and then we'd probably be able to tell whether or not it was moss. Which, theoretically, would make it acceptable for a game.
If you spent just an hour on each sprite, you'd still have a game that took no time at all. In addition, some of the things we're telling you - will not only make it look better, will make it go FASTER. If you were only willing to do them.
Let's say for example your house shack thing. You may notice a house like that couldn't possibly stand. Are there even any straight lines in the entire doodle? Have you tried holding down the "Shift" key? Instant straight line, instantly better house, FASTER production time.
It's not that we don't get it. It's just that at this point, whether you want to spend a month making a game or two years, this will not pass. Nobody is expecting spectacular. Hell - look at Scribblenauts, or Drawn to Life! Those were some fun games. Was the artwork spectacular? No, but it fit, and it had a consistant style, and you could tell what everything was.
Presently, when you cannot so much as tell what something is. There is issue. Whether it be a one week game or a three year game, it is issue. Issue that can be fixed, should be fixed, and if fixed - would even in certain ways help you to accomplish your goal more efficiently.
Please note, though, that this would require at least some hint of care and dedication, during the minimal amount of time spent on it.
Maybe you could try a style that fits your approach better, if you want to sell the game because of the gameplay not the graphics, then maybe you could work on something way more stylized, cel shaded or even solid.
Here's a good example of what Neox is talking about. Fun, addicting gameplay. Super simple artwork that gets the job done.
Man, I remember that game - powerfully addictive, and more challenging that you might think. Haven't played it in ages, might give it another go now that you've linked to it.
As for this project, I must be missing something. Why did 'they' (being the project leads or other team members involved) agree to put you in charge of the art, if you don't give a shit about it? And if 'they' didn't put you in charge of the art and it's your project, why don't you care about what it looks like enough to at least put some effort into it?
Stylized art looks good because the artist knows the basic principles of art like proportion and form. Even games with simple graphics like Braid looked great because the art direction was a conscious, deliberate decision, not an excuse for shoddy artwork. Yeah, it just so happened that Braid's game play was awesome, but no matter how great the game, if it looks like the examples you've posted so far, nobody's going to give a shit how great the game play is, because it just screams half-assed.
I would ditch animation atm, and just focus on that rock. Make the rock perfect. Spend a week on just the rock if need be. Then do the tree, hopefully it takes less time, but if not oh well. Move onto houses after 5 good trees. See if you can carry what you learn from the trees into the houses.
Here's the thing about your proj: It probably won't pan out. They usually don't. But if you make a few artistic breakthroughs and learn how to paint sprites well, then it won't be a waste.
I'm with Justin here, you're thread is called 'Quality Assurance' and that's exactly what you're getting. Maybe you should have called it 'I just want to finish something and don't care much what it looks like'
i think you are putting a lot of eggs in the "we are going to have gameplay so good people will play it despite it looking like shit" why are you so sure that the game play is going to be that original and fantastic?
heres my guess as to what will happen
you on our forums: yeah i have 2 coders that are going to make it the funnest game ever so heres my 4 minute art
your coders on their forum: yeah we have an artist who is going to make this game so sick lookin no one will notice our 4 minute code
Things to note: This is semi blown up so will not be blurry like that in game. These are teh animations this shop keeper goes through in order:
attack
battle-idle
battle-move
battle-pain
run
also nothing besides the bone tool from maya is used here because i can't figure out ik's and other weird rig stuff.
I'd like to see more environment WIP since that is where you started this thread. You then went straight into character animation without further improving your first environments.
I'd like to see some sort of perspective on those trees. The building has it... why not the trees? Even Zelda and other top down rpgs has perspective like that.
I'd like to see some sort of perspective on those trees. The building has it... why not the trees? Even Zelda and other top down rpgs has perspective like that.
This is the main issue i'm addressing by changing the process and making all the new sprites from 3d.
by making this switch:
1. there will be consistency in style between the environment and characters
2. trees and other things that i drew poorly, or drew okay but with horrible adherence to the perspective I've chosen will be replaced.
3. it will be fun and easy to make animated trees and changelings (items that look like other things but attack you)
This is a still of my first tree made for the game, its also been rigged with bones, with jiggle applied to give it a neat blowing in the wind animation. But i dont have a video of that yet, i'll do a couple more then post a video maybe,
i'm looking for crits regarding style, does this match up my style so far? Any tips on tree/flora modeling in general?
Replies
Even games that aren't supposed to be great from a visual standpoint, are at least passable. Remember my comment about moss or sunlight? Truly - on that rock, is it moss or sunlight? We have absolutely no idea.
Just as much as we are artists, we are also gamers. We play games too, and I can tell you, if I was playing this game. I wouldn't be able to tell whether or not that rock was covered in mustard. Harsh, perhaps. True? Yes.
4 minutes. 4 MINUTES. Honestly. How many sprites do you intend to have for this game? Give us a number. If you spent AN HOUR on that rock, as opposed to 4 minutes. That's 15 times more time spent on a sprite, and then we'd probably be able to tell whether or not it was moss. Which, theoretically, would make it acceptable for a game.
If you spent just an hour on each sprite, you'd still have a game that took no time at all. In addition, some of the things we're telling you - will not only make it look better, will make it go FASTER. If you were only willing to do them.
Let's say for example your house shack thing. You may notice a house like that couldn't possibly stand. Are there even any straight lines in the entire doodle? Have you tried holding down the "Shift" key? Instant straight line, instantly better house, FASTER production time.
It's not that we don't get it. It's just that at this point, whether you want to spend a month making a game or two years, this will not pass. Nobody is expecting spectacular. Hell - look at Scribblenauts, or Drawn to Life! Those were some fun games. Was the artwork spectacular? No, but it fit, and it had a consistant style, and you could tell what everything was.
Presently, when you cannot so much as tell what something is. There is issue. Whether it be a one week game or a three year game, it is issue. Issue that can be fixed, should be fixed, and if fixed - would even in certain ways help you to accomplish your goal more efficiently.
Please note, though, that this would require at least some hint of care and dedication, during the minimal amount of time spent on it.
http://www.addictinggames.com/ngame.html
Here's a good example of what Neox is talking about. Fun, addicting gameplay. Super simple artwork that gets the job done.
The stuff you got looks like programmer art
Man, I remember that game - powerfully addictive, and more challenging that you might think. Haven't played it in ages, might give it another go now that you've linked to it.
As for this project, I must be missing something. Why did 'they' (being the project leads or other team members involved) agree to put you in charge of the art, if you don't give a shit about it? And if 'they' didn't put you in charge of the art and it's your project, why don't you care about what it looks like enough to at least put some effort into it?
Stylized art looks good because the artist knows the basic principles of art like proportion and form. Even games with simple graphics like Braid looked great because the art direction was a conscious, deliberate decision, not an excuse for shoddy artwork. Yeah, it just so happened that Braid's game play was awesome, but no matter how great the game, if it looks like the examples you've posted so far, nobody's going to give a shit how great the game play is, because it just screams half-assed.
I would ditch animation atm, and just focus on that rock. Make the rock perfect. Spend a week on just the rock if need be. Then do the tree, hopefully it takes less time, but if not oh well. Move onto houses after 5 good trees. See if you can carry what you learn from the trees into the houses.
Here's the thing about your proj: It probably won't pan out. They usually don't. But if you make a few artistic breakthroughs and learn how to paint sprites well, then it won't be a waste.
heres my guess as to what will happen
you on our forums: yeah i have 2 coders that are going to make it the funnest game ever so heres my 4 minute art
your coders on their forum: yeah we have an artist who is going to make this game so sick lookin no one will notice our 4 minute code
*Mooaaannnn* "HOW DARE YOU DISTURB MY SLUMBER I AM AN ANCIENT THREAD OF AWESOME RANTING"
Shut up, douchey thread monster, i got updates.
Updates:
-I've taken some advice and gone for a simpler look
-I'm doing the sprites in 3d (animated and non animated for consistency and practice)
And heres a sample:
[ame]
Things to note: This is semi blown up so will not be blurry like that in game. These are teh animations this shop keeper goes through in order:
attack
battle-idle
battle-move
battle-pain
run
also nothing besides the bone tool from maya is used here because i can't figure out ik's and other weird rig stuff.
I'd like to see some sort of perspective on those trees. The building has it... why not the trees? Even Zelda and other top down rpgs has perspective like that.
This is the main issue i'm addressing by changing the process and making all the new sprites from 3d.
by making this switch:
1. there will be consistency in style between the environment and characters
2. trees and other things that i drew poorly, or drew okay but with horrible adherence to the perspective I've chosen will be replaced.
3. it will be fun and easy to make animated trees and changelings (items that look like other things but attack you)
i'm looking for crits regarding style, does this match up my style so far? Any tips on tree/flora modeling in general?