next »

[KM]

Honestly, I couldn't be bothered arguing anymore on this thread. It's just a waste of time. Maybe an op should just lock it up.

[Squiggly_P]

Adventure games aren't gone, they just evolved (Resident Evil etc) or were grafted into other types of games. One of the reasons they became popular was because they looked really awesome. Full screen artwork, animated characters and backgrounds, etc. The advent of 3D graphics eventually killed off the traditional graphical point and click adventure games, but not adventure games in general. There are even a few studios picking the genre back up and dusting it off as of late.

Myst was a pretty late entry into the adventure genre, had great art production and went on to become the most successful PC game of all time until it was eventually dethroned by The Sims (if I'm correct...). Modern games have pretty impressive art production as well. You're more likely to sell more games by having a better looking game. If you want to talk pure economics, it makes more sense to make your game look as good as possible. Stick figures ain't gonna cut it unless your game is really good, and it still doesn't hurt. I can't think of too many games I've enjoyed that were ugly.

As far as 'realism' goes, I still don't know why you're going on about that. As Xion said, drawing from reference is more about training your hand to play nice with your brain. Learning anatomy is useful if you plan to draw humans or humanoid creatures. That doesn't mean "realistic" humans. Style is something that comes from knowledge. It's a shorthand way of drawing something. If you don't know what you're drawing, then you're not able to make up your own shorthand. You have to use someone else's. You don't know WHY they're doing things a certain way, so you end up always drawing the same nose, always drawing the same eyes, always drawing the same poses, etc. That's not style, that's ignorance, and that's why we say "draw from life / draw from ref".

[bvanevery]

So what you're saying is pretty much if you don't intend on seeking a career as an artist just Be Okay sucking.

You know, this guy's art doesn't suck and I'm tired of hearing all the philosophical flap to the contrary. 

Nobody here is suggesting drawing from life to get good at drawing realistically, just suggesting drawing from life to get good at drawing.

His drawing is fine.  He just can't see it because he's got people blathering about how it must suck, and you can't see it because it would threaten your world view about Art and training.  Go study Dada or Conceptual Art, get back to us about what sucks.

[bvanevery]

Myst was a pretty late entry into the adventure genre,

Myst, 1993.  Grim Fandango, 1998.  Myst was the dawn of the modern multicolor multimedia CD era.  Per this discussion, you've got funny ideas about "late."

I don't have patience for the art training discussion anymore.  You're just like most people in this industry.  Thankfully as an indie I don't have to deal with your sensibilities.  Go check up on Minecraft's level of profit.

[Xion]

His drawing is fine.  He just can't see it because he's got people blathering about how it must suck, and you can't see it because it would threaten your world view about Art and training.  Go study Dada or Conceptual Art, get back to us about what sucks.

I already know about dada and all that, and I know that it was an intentional effort to subvert the norms of art or whatever. I see no intention behind the Shard's lack of accuracy in such suches as human proportion and posture - it seems to be an unintentional "style" born out of a lack of understanding of basic human anatomy. I'm sure dadaists were aware of these things and intentionally chose to not to utilize them to make a point.

And I never said his art sucked. I would never say that. I said you said it's okay to suck. However even if I did say he sucked, which I didn't, it would be because I believe everybody sucks before they get good at anything, which I do. You don't tell a kid learning how to walk that just crawling around is "fine" and to stop trying to waddle because they don't have to conform to the norms of human locomotion propagated by most of the rest of the human race, nor do you tell an athlete that their endurance is "fine" if they lose their breath after a minute of jogging.

My "world view about art and training" is that if you draw what you see in reality you will get better at drawing what you see in your mind. Whatever you translate from your mind onto paper once you are capable of doing so as accurately as you wish is none of my business (even though it's really not my business to begin with [unless you, say, go onto a forum that I frequent and ask the general populous of said forum - of which I am a member - for advice about how to improve your art]), whether it's a public urinal or splashes of paint or a smear of red chalk across the wall of a building (a building which you have no business marking up) or the mona lisa or Sistine chapel.

But if someone shows you a picture with apparent construction problems and asks for advice you don't just tell them it's "fine." They're obviously unhappy or ill at ease with the translation from their mind to the product elsewise they would never have asked for advice (unless they were fishing for praise, in which event the result would be devastating disappointment upon the realization that actual advice was being given).

I mean I just don't get it; what is wrong with improving? It's not like making popularly or classically acceptable art is mandatory once you're able to create such. Even Picasso and Van Gogh and all those dudes famous for making crazy shit were fly as hell in their ability to depict objects realistically, and then they decided to have some fun and make crazy shit.

I hate the design and the anatomy problems that come with it. His pose is terrible.

I mean come on if someone says that, specifically noting dissatisfaction with the anatomy and pose, you honestly expect us to suggest he take a look at life and figure drawing, and studying, I dunno, anatomy?

dammit I'm rambling again.

Anyway, this is all waaaaay the fuck off topic (especially that shit about the rise and fall of adventure games).

[J. R. Hill]

y'all gettin trolled

[Xion]

I know I just can't help it its so enthralling

[miconazole]

Go to bed, miss epic thread.

God guys, can't you wait for me to get here before you start the flaming?

[bvanevery]

- it seems to be an unintentional "style" born out of a lack of understanding of basic human anatomy.

Dude, entire civilizations and religious monuments have been built out of unintentional style lacking a basic understanding of human anatomy.  Cry it to the Mayas or the caves of Lascaux.  What I'd like to see this guy do, is put his somewhat crudely drawn figures into an equally crudely drawn but full game environment, with castles, pirate ships, weapons, mountains in the background, a town, chests of treasure, etc. and get some of those elements animated.  Then judge whether the totality of the game environment is holding up.  All this harping on 1 brief character sketch is stupid.  It's totally irrelevant to getting a game done.

As for trolling, if that's what you think I'm doing, fine.  But my respect for the intellect of such people is zero.  "Troll - n.  Anything you don't like."

[Ferretypie]

As much as I'd like to write a nice, fat, angry response to what you've been writing...
I can't help but feel that you've sort of lost the plot of what this thread was originally about?

I honestly fail to see what point you're trying to get across? It just feels like you're coming up with quasi-pretentious arguments for the sake of being quasi-pretentious.
Ancient civilisations hardly deserve to be dragged into this, its not like they had the power of the internet, or even the love of art that we as a race now have. These people didn't create this imagery as art, or anything along those lines.

You can't simply bring that up and expect it to fit in with what the current topic is.

Please, I respect your opinion, but you're really just going offtrack here.

[bvanevery]

Ancient civilisations hardly deserve to be dragged into this, its not like they had ... the love of art that we as a race now have.

<boggle>

Please, I respect your opinion, but you're really just going offtrack here.

You clearly don't understand my opinion, and I'm not sure you have the historical or life experience basis to understand my opinion.  The short course is, you can make games with crudely drawn figures just fine.  You can even make major Art exhibits in museums with such figures.  You can make piles of money on TV shows with crudely drawn figures.  There are no hard barriers of technique, money, ultimate social status, fame, or fortune attached to any particular Art style.  Why?  Because there are so many more dimensions to Art than obsession with anatomy.  Given this, what are you going to value as you try to become a "better" artist?  Can you not see what is good about your art already?  It is hidden by social pressure, the shrill voices of people who are threatened by anything outside their personal definition of Art, or quality in Art.

[easynam]

Art Advice needed

[bvanevery]

Art Advice needed

My art advice was and is, the drawings are fine, get on with making more such drawings for a complete game.

[Inane]

Wow, I missed a lot since I last read this thread.

@Bvanevery: Kingdom of Loathing is not some pivotal example of how you don't need to change, or study real things to be a good artist: Kingdom of Loathing is an example of -functional- artwork. If someone wants to make artwork that prioritizes function over grace, they will do so without consulting a forum and asking how they can improve.

Being a good artist does not mean drawing realistically, it means having a large amount of tools at your disposal in order to create what you want, and it just so happens that studying real imagery improves your skillset a much greater deal than drawing cartoonishly or abstractly all your life because almost everything to some degree is rooted in that real imagery. You can practice for hours painting perfect cubes and perfect lines because you're a post-modernist, but then all you can do is paint lines and cubes, which I think you'd have to be pretty odd to find fulfilling.

What's the difference between these three artists?
1:
http://th05.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2010/261/1/1/my_pet_by_bloodynightmareangel-d2z0otd.jpg
http://th02.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/261/2/2/killer_by_bloodynightmareangel-d2z0o95.jpg

2:
http://reallifecomics.com/comics/2010/20100917_2532.png
http://reallifecomics.com/comics/2007/20070201_1803.png

3:
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/126/3/3/Thug_thulhu_by_mishinsilo.jpg
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs31/f/2008/211/f/9/Gore_and_the_octopus_by_mishinsilo.jpg


The first one is someone who hasn't gotten beyond the initial stage of learning to art, everything is a jumbled mass of symbols, "this is where the neck goes, and here's an eye, and here's one too".
The second is someone who's spent a decade drawing the same comic with minimal attempts to improve, those two links are 3 and a half years apart and look exactly the same.
The third is someone who's spent a great deal of time -learning-, and they can switch faultlessly between realistic, cartoony, et al.

If you'd rather be in the first two groups, then a versatile artist who can not only draw a great deal of things but also make them look pleasing to most people, then you're an outlier and trying to spread your opinion to other people is ultimately futile. You're so far out of the majority, such an outlier, that trying to convince others of your opinion will never work, atleast on the internet, Bvanevery.

[bvanevery]

which I think you'd have to be pretty odd to find fulfilling.

Well that's just it then.  So you don't like Piet Mondrian.  Indeed, my advice is to stop listening to what your peers tell you to do, what "sucks," and just get on with making art of whatever sort for your game.  See if it holds up after you've actually got enough of it to be a game, or at least a level.

And maybe this is part of the problem.  I tend to forget that most artists can't program, and are stuck worrying about their art because they can't actually get started on a game.

You're so far out of the majority, such an outlier, that trying to convince others of your opinion will never work, atleast on the internet, Bvanevery.

I'm an indie.

[Renton]

Piet Mondrian was a classically trained painter who made things from impressionistic landscapes to, you know, de stijl. Comparing an artist who trained and honed his skills and style all his life and a 15 year old practically just starting out without any decent training actually asking for advice is... ridiculous.

You should also know most of the artists here are also skilled coders.

To be honest I feel that you are running out of arguments and seeing that you are resorting to ad hominem is unsettling.

Returning to your original argument that it'd be fine drawing like this in a game, you'll see that the kid has a site full of games drawn entirely in this style in his website. None of us are bashing his games; you won't find comments saying "your art blows, go study anatomy" in the threads he opened for those games. We're not here for that. We're here because he wanted some criticism on that pirate sketch. Not for a game. He's not putting the pirate in no pirate game. He's trying to improve as an artist, not a game maker.

[Kren]

I think people are going wayofftopic here not want to sound like a mod or something but this thread is for TheShard1994 not for us to debate on functional artwork, I beleive we scared that poor guy out of this site ;_;.

on a side note:

bvanevery I understand your point but for most artist fixing errors in our art is something we need to keep doing and doing to improve, even when the art is functional I tend to find errors. Perhaps we have different standards on what functional is..

[bvanevery]

bvanevery I understand your point but for most artist fixing errors in our art is something we need to keep doing and doing to improve, even when the art is functional I tend to find errors. Perhaps we have different standards on what functional is..

Yes I have my own ideas about how I would "fix" his poses.  My opinion is he didn't go far enough with the stiltedness.  Consider the face cards in a standard deck of playing cards.  Consider medieval Tarot cards.  Consider early medieval paintings of Jesus, for that matter.  In my world view these aren't fixes, they are deliberate movements in particular stylistic directions.  These movements are not based on accurate anatomy or observation of a model.  Elongation, change of line energy, rebalancing of negative space... I can think of all sorts of ways to move his work in different directions.  Directions that as far as I am concerned are already present in his art.  I don't think any abstractionist, Cubist, Futurist, Abstract Expressionist, Art Informel, or Art Brut practitioner would have any problem understanding what I'm driving at, whether they like the choices or not.  It saddens me when people talk about getting "better" as an artist as though the 20th century didn't happen.  Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it... or maybe to ignore it.

[bvanevery]

Piet Mondrian was a classically trained painter who made things from impressionistic landscapes to, you know, de stijl. Comparing an artist who trained and honed his skills and style all his life and a 15 year old practically just starting out without any decent training actually asking for advice is... ridiculous.

But that wasn't the comparison.  The comparison was to a woman (?) who thinks it's unfulfilling to draw only lines and cubes.  It was obviously fulfilling for Piet Mondrian for many, many years.  Next someone will say it's unfulfilling to do stick figures over and over again, forgetting Giacometti.  You name it, someone's done a lot of it.

To be honest I feel that you are running out of arguments and seeing that you are resorting to ad hominem is unsettling.

You abuse the term.

Returning to your original argument that it'd be fine drawing like this in a game, you'll see that the kid has a site full of games drawn entirely in this style in his website.

His deviantart site is clearly filled with characters for games.  To say that he's working on stuff "that isn't going into games" strikes me as disingenuous.  Furthermore, he doesn't need any artistic advice from any of you.  He just needs to keep drawing.  To wit, another statement of advice:

• Regarding your deviantart site.  You need to see what's good in your art already, and build upon that.

We're here because he wanted some criticism on that pirate sketch. Not for a game. He's not putting the pirate in no pirate game. He's trying to improve as an artist, not a game maker.

You say he "didn't want it for a game," but you have no proof of that.  It's just what you want to believe, so that you don't have to deal with the thorny issue of what's good enough for a game.  Let alone for a museum, or for an artist.  All of history has told you what's good enough for an artist.  You say, "Well he said he wanted... he said this pose sucks...."  Yeah, either because he sees it your way, or he wants to please you, and fit in with this crowd, because he's young and doesn't have his own artistic voice yet.  I challenge your authority on the possibility that it will help him find his own voice.

[Ferretypie]

Can't you just argue this somewhere else?

He said he wanted artistic advice, not an artistic debate.

And don't sling that crap about me not having the 'historical or life experience' to understand your opinion. I know fully well what you're getting at. But in context you're making little to no sense.
Theres a difference to bad art (I am not saying that the OPs is) and carefully constructed figures that look like that for a reason.

You're doing more damage than good if you want to stifle creative and artistic advancement simple because you say he's 'better than he thinks'.
If someone wants to improve, LET them. Don't cast around your bizarre philosophies.