Artist seeks employment More art critiquing...
Floyd Yancey
Floyd Yancey wrote:
>
> Recent examples of my work can be found at these links:
>
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey/tiles8.jpg
>
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey/FY-Gun.jpg
>
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey/FY-Manticore.jpg
>
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey/tiles7.jpg
>
> These are art tests done for various companies.
>
> I currently make about $30,000 per year. I'll work for that much if my
> reloaction needs
> are met and it's a stable company.
>
> Floyd Yancey
> fya...@wsp1.wspice.com
> 901-369-1184
> Memphis, TN
Pikachu ElectricMouse wrote:
>
> I saw your latest job posting, and I was hoping you wouldn't mind some
> critiquing of your art.
>
> Unfortunately, I do not have a lot good to say about your art tests.
>
> Let's start with the first one:
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey/tiles8.jpg
>
> The brick and stone textures are nice. They could use a little more work,
> but they are certainly of the quality you might se in a professional game.
> The stone is fine I guess. I might make the lighting on the brick texture a
> little more pronounced to make the leaves look like they stand out more from
> the wall. Some shadowing as if there was a light directly above the leaves
> would be nice, as would making the leaves brighter.
That was because they wanted a wet moss covered wall.
>
> The two door textures are okay... if you're going for a cartoonish look, but
> most game companies aren't. I'd remove the white border around the wood
> door and make it more of a standard door scale... it's a bit weird with it
> being square.
Uhhmm.. Because the border was a requirement in the
creation of the tile... Per Rogue Entertainment.
The door I would assume would be stretched to fit the door.
> I don't know what to make of the little red texture. I have no idea what it
> is.
>
> I hate to say it so bluntly, but there really is no other way to say it...
> The space ship control console is VERY amateurish. Even for a game with a
> cartoonish look. The perspective is all off, it isn't "lit" interestingly,
> and some areas are too dark to see the details. Your use of color is really
> bad... there are way too many colors, and they clash with one another.
They asked for a dimly lit weathered console in a futuristic space
station.
And
> your lights don't look like lights at all, and they have weird use of colors
> in them, such as the lights on the sides... most of the light is red for
> example, but a "shaded" section of it is greenish. That just looks really
> really bad.
>
> You also used the ugliest color the computer is capable of generating for
> the lights on the top left and right sides of the image... pure "magenta".
> Developers use that color for marking transparency in their art often
> because no profesional artist ever uses it in their art. I like the cyan
> lights though.
>
> Other problems are the nonsensical nature of the way the console is set up.
> Why would ther ebe hazzard tape on the front of the control console? That's
> just ugly. And why does that pipe have a big round pad around it, and why
> is the pipe so bumpy? Pipes don't rust like that, and if there was padding
> on a pipe, it would be a lot thinner and taller, and it would probably look
> better as some color other than black.
You're entitled to your opinion.. heh.
> Some of the displays on the control panel look nice, and kinda realistic,
> like the ones displaying the waveforms, but other are dd triangular shapes,
> and there's all these round lights... and again, there are just WAY too many
> colors used. You shoudl use far fewer colors, and colors which are much
> less saturated.
Flat colorless textures bore me. I wanted something vivid for a change.
The ones I think look the best are the light bluish ones
> with the highlights, and the reddish one goes nicely with them.
>
> This image needs a TON of work to get it to something acceptable, but I
> don't think a game developer these days would want a 2D control panel like
> that in a game, unless it were a kid's game, and even for that the art would
> need a lot of improvement.
>
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey/FY-Gun.jpg
>
> This too looks very amateurish. You used way too much color on this gun,
> and you weren't careful enough with your textures. You should use the grid
> to draw straight lines.
Heh.. I purposely did that. I think the gun is just fine.
I did not want something boring and monotone like what you would
probably do.
>
> Again, you have hazzard stripes where they don't belong, and it looks bad.
>
> Here's what I'd do to improve the gun:
> First, use a higher res texture map. Use a 256x256.
The resolution was a requirement of the developer... Rogue
Entertainment.
Take it up with them. heh.
You can always scale
> down if the developer wants a lower res map.
Yeah.. and you'll loose focus. Pixels will blur together
and the map on the gun will not be as sharp.
>
> The handle:
> The front, side, and the bottom are nice. Not photorealistic, but decent.
If you want photorealistic.. use scans or something. What's the point to
doing art if you try to copy life without stylizing it a bit. You have
to
envision what you create in your own way or it's not art..
It's just a really bad photograph.
> I'd change that brown dot to be silver though. It looks ugly. The back of
> the handle though needs work. It's too bright, it's got a blue dot that
> makes no sense, and it's got lines in places that don't make sense,
> especially the angled line.
It's a futuristic gun from outer space.. You can make sense of it?
You must be an alien or something ;)
>
> The trigger/Bottom of the barrel:
> The trigger looks fine, though I'd put highlights on the edges so the metal
> looks worn/shiny there.
>
> The bottom of the barrel needs a lot of work. The texture on the side I
> suppose is parssable, but the bright colored top and bottom need to be
> removed, and made into a normal metal color, with some details like
> indentations and stuff. No bright colors!
Colors! The colors luke! The colors!
I love color! Muhahah!
Without color.. we'd all be grayscale.. Bleah
>
> The barrel:
> The barrel needs a lot of work too. Obivously, you know I'm going to say
> the colors need to go. But another problem is something which isn't so
> obvious. The shape of the hole at the end of the barrel, and of the little
> cylynder on top of the gun. You've textured the caps with a texture that
> matches the shape. But what you really shoudl have done is textured them
> with something circular. Bullets are round.
Supposed to be a laser blaster type gun. You're nitpicking. And again..
that's a model that was given to me by rogue entertainment. They wanted
it patterened that way.
And even if I could have done it your way.. I wouldn't have.
The model is angular because
> the engine needs to work with low polys, but you should still try to trick
> the viewer into seeing them as being round. So do NOT follow their real
> contours. Make the hole at the end of the barrel circular. Make the caps
> on the little sideways cylynder circular too. But get rid of the colors on
> those.
>
> You have the right idea with the "gratings" on the barrel of the gun where
> you have them, but they're been drawn really badly... they're crooked... and
> they aren't lit right so they don't look like they're actually holes.
>
> When you're making the texture, imagine that the light on the gun is coming
> directly from above. It's easier if you use Photoshop and use layer effects
> for that. Now imagine youre elongated slit on the side of the gun. How
> would it be lit? Well, since it's an indentation, the BOTTOM would have a
> bright highlight, and the sides woouldn't have any highlight, or only a very
> slight one (or even a darkeining) and the top would have a darkening to show
> that it is in shadow. The highl;ights would be thicker the more thick the
> metal with the hole in it is.
>
> Another thing is on the end of the barrel you have vents going vertically
> ANd horizontally. That just looks bad. And there's really too many. I
> would suggest making just a single "indentation" in the metal on the top
> instead of vents, or even just flat metal. Or some kind of long indentation
> to look like the metal is in two seprate peices.
>
> And finally, as I said before, imagine the direction of the light.
Direction of light in an object such as this is pointless... Light
directions change every time you move.
Best to model it so it can look okay at any angle.
If you
> don't know what direction the light is coming from, above is a good
> direction to go with. So make the top of the barrel highlighted, but don't
> brighten the flat surfaces, because the engine will light those.
>
> Now onto the third image... the manticore... I'm getting tired of typing,
> so I'll just go over quick what changes I'd make.
>
> Manticore looks amateurish too. It looks silly, and non threatening.
>
> Here's what I'd change:
> Make the eyes bright yellow. Red looks bad. Make the pupils larger, or
> even slitted. Or make the eyes white with slitted pupils. Experiement, but
> don't use that red color, and the pupils are too little. It's good you had
> heighlights on the pupils. Oh, and make the corners of the eys darker so
> the eyes look less flat.
>
> Get rid of the cybernetic stuff. Make it look like bone instead.
And don't> just make it stark white. Look at real bone! See how it's
shaded, how it's
> blotchy... Give it claws in place of the metal panels on it's feet. Get
> rid of the jewels on it's wings. Make the wings a dark almost black color,
> with streaked highlights leading towards the back to make it look wrinkled.
> Lose the mottled effect, it doesn't look like a bat's wings.
>
See that's YOUR choice. I'm not you. I make my own choices. Be creative
and do it yourself..
I'm sure rogue wouldn't mind you trying it.. Ask them for the model if
you want to play around.
> Make the black of the nose carry back further up the muzzle. Try a diffrent
> fur color... a dark grey? Or maybe a lighter brown? Or maybe an orange.
> Plain brown looks bland.
>
> Get rid of the white stripe on the top. Color the fur there black instead.
> Lose the white streaks in it's mouth. Don't make the muzzle white, it
> doesn't make it look threatening, it makes it look cuddly.
>
> Make the tail all out of bone, with the lumps being where two bones
> connect. Where the white lines on it's back are, make it's backbone show
> through the flesh instead!
>
> Make the bone OFF white. A kinda tan color... with blotches. Not pure
> white.
>
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey/tiles7.jpg
>
> As for this. I don't know what to make of this. It's just way too off the
> wall.
That's what ritual entertainment wanted... Wild off the wall textureing.
And if it's off the wall.. it must have been a very good representation
in 3d.. LOL
The bone could look more real I guess, and the gears could look more
> 3D, and the yeball could look more 3D too and use a highlight.
>
> I hope these critiques help. You didn't respond to my last message, so I
> don't know if you even wanted any critiquing of your art, but I hope I
> didn't insult ya. I'm just trying to help you improve.
I didn't ask for any critique.. I like my work just fine.. I'll stand
behind
every single pixel I've drawn.
Good day to you.
-Floyd
The Engineer
Although I do not want to interfere in the discussion you are already having
without wanting it, I feel the urge to point out that critique is a major
part of your (future)job, it's what makes you better. If you can't handle
(vast) critique, don't get into this industry. Although I can understand you
don't agree with a lot of critique since it is your style, and you draw how
you think it is best, if that is the way you think you are going to work if
you get a job in the industry, stop thinking that. That's not the way it
works. The projectleader/producer decides what kind of art there has to be
made, not the artists. And don't get me wrong, I have read your replies and
seen that most stuff was requested by the developers, but I also 'read' your
preference for lot's of bright colors. And most of the games these days ARE
more towards photorealistic than bright colors, and no, they don't use
photographs, some people can draw that good.
So if your input is: I like bright colors and will only draw my art that
way...either become a painter or apply for a job at Nintendo. If the input
is 'I'll draw what they want me to draw and they will be surprised'...good
luck!
The Engineer.
Bjoern
<ru...@engine-software.nl> wrote:
[...]
>So if your input is: I like bright colors and will only draw my art that
>way...either become a painter or apply for a job at Nintendo. If the input
>is 'I'll draw what they want me to draw and they will be surprised'...good
>luck!
Hm, fashion can cange any day, I think? I think it should be possible
to find a job where one can stay true to oneself...
Even 90% of game developers at the moment should think 'photorealisitc
is the way to go', there most likely would still be others who have
other preferences.
I sure as hell hope that not everything becomes photorealistic now.
We all know how it goes, anyway.
a) All games become photorealistic
b) eventually customers become bored
c) out of nowhere a game appears that doesn't have photorealistic
graphics and becomes a $$$-seller
d) all games adopt the graphics style of said game
e) continue with b
Bjoern
The Engineer
> to find a job where one can stay true to oneself...
>
> Even 90% of game developers at the moment should think 'photorealisitc
> is the way to go', there most likely would still be others who have
> other preferences.
>
> I sure as hell hope that not everything becomes photorealistic now.
>
> We all know how it goes, anyway.
> a) All games become photorealistic
> b) eventually customers become bored
> c) out of nowhere a game appears that doesn't have photorealistic
> graphics and becomes a $$$-seller
> d) all games adopt the graphics style of said game
> e) continue with b
Well Bjoern, you sure have a point there, that IS the way it has been going
forever. But we aren't discussing trends here, I was pointing out how the
market is at THIS point because Floyd is at THIS point looking for a job.
And well, a job where an artist can be true to him/herself? Sure, if you
have an undisputed tracklisting behind your name and numerous years of
experience you MIGHT have that job at a company where that is possible (and
that are only very few)...or if you could be very very very lucky and run in
to an opportunity like that, if so, tell me where ;)))
And basically, not all games are photorealistic looking now, there are many
styles that all prove to be sellable. And that's what it's all about.
The Engineer.
Rainer Deyke
news:39C6012D...@wsp1.wspice.com...
> Flat colorless textures bore me. I wanted something vivid for a change.
I like bright colors. However, your pictures are hopelessly incoherent.
Bright colors work best in pairs of complementary colors (or similar color
schemes), not when you randomly throw lots of them together.
--
Rainer Deyke (ro...@rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware computer games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor
Link
> > Flat colorless textures bore me. I wanted something vivid for a change.
>
> Bright colors work best in pairs of complementary colors (or similar color
> schemes), not when you randomly throw lots of them together.
Which in fact has the end effect of creating dull colours (since browns and
greys are made by mixing the primaries).
- Mike
Michael Duffy
"Link" <link...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:V7sx5.1351$z9.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Rainer Deyke" <ro...@rainerdeyke.com> wrote in message ...
> > "Floyd Yancey" <fya...@wsp1.wspice.com> wrote in message
> > ...
change.
> >
> > Bright colors work best in pairs of complementary colors (or similar
color
> > schemes), not when you randomly throw lots of them together.
>
> Which in fact has the end effect of creating dull colours (since browns
and
> greys are made by mixing the primaries).
>
> - Mike
Only if you mip map it down to a couple of pixels :-)
Rainer is correct of course; colors are much more effective if used with
sound color theory in mind. Complementary colors work well together. Warm
and cold color themes can be used to achieve different emotional impact.
Random use of color isn't an "artistic choice" when you are dealing with
consumer art, and computer/video games are flat out consumer art. If you
are some fine artist whose work is only meant for galleries then by all
means do whatever the hell you want and good luck finding people who like
your work. But if you are in the business of commercial art you have to
work within the constraints and goals of the project. Heck, all the Mario
and Yoshi games use bright colors, but they use them with sound color theory
in mind.
Floyd, you may like bright colors, but you need to learn to use them a LOT
more responsibly. You keep posting your resume/samples here and no one is
jumping up to hire you, so you had better start seriously asking yourself,
"Why is that?" and listen VERY CAREFULLY to any constructive criticism you
are given. Constructive criticism (whether requested or not) is Pure Gold.
Treat it as such. Every artist should ALWAYS be looking to improve his art.
The people who say, "that's pretty good", or worse say nothing at all, don't
help at all. It is the people who criticize your work that wind up helping
you to look at your work in a different light and thus see areas in which to
improve.
If you are completely pleased with your style as it is that is fine. But
don't expect to get many job offers.
Later,
Michael Duffy
mdu...@ionet.net
The Engineer
Michael here tells it a bit better than I did, but I second his opinion...on
all points. Except the way the market works and learn to handle some other
styles too, or don't look for a job in this market.
The Engineer
Floyd Yancey
Rainer Deyke wrote:
>
> "Floyd Yancey" <fya...@wsp1.wspice.com> wrote in message
> news:39C6012D...@wsp1.wspice.com...
> > Flat colorless textures bore me. I wanted something vivid for a change.
>
> I like bright colors. However, your pictures are hopelessly incoherent.
> Bright colors work best in pairs of complementary colors (or similar color
> schemes), not when you randomly throw lots of them together.
>
Okay guys, I bow to your superior knowlege of color theory. I really
appreciate
all the constructive critism.. I'd love to know where you guys work..
Please let us know what you do and how you got into the video games
industry.
Could you please post some urls of your artwork here so that I may learn
from you.
I'd love to see some tile artwork.
Obviously I have a far ways to come to get up to par with your level of
mastery.
Thanks for all the help!
-Floyd
fya...@wsp1.wspice.com
http://www.twu.net/~fyancey
Tony Gowland
your work for this industry, I reckon.
Tone.
"Floyd Yancey" <fya...@wsp1.wspice.com> wrote in message
news:39C74BCC...@wsp1.wspice.com...
>
>
> Rainer Deyke wrote:
> >
> > "Floyd Yancey" <fya...@wsp1.wspice.com> wrote in message
> > news:39C6012D...@wsp1.wspice.com...
> > > Flat colorless textures bore me. I wanted something vivid for a
change.
> >
The Engineer
> appreciate
> all the constructive critism..
As I said before, if you can't handle critism, and you obviously can't, go
do something else.
>I'd love to know where you guys work..
> Please let us know what you do and how you got into the video games
> industry.
I 'got into' the industry since I never did anything else. Since 1990 I've
been creating gamegraphics (first as a hobby) on the MSX computer (pretty
unknown in the states but big in Japan and Europe) where I made tilebased
graphics for the games Dix, Dass and Pixess. Later I founded a software
development company with a good friend of mine and was involved as graphic
artist for the Super Nintendo game 'CornBuster', the PC games Dix, Razor and
Dynamike and a couple of Multimedia CDs. Latest gamegraphics I made have
been for the Gameboy Color (seven games so far), where you HAVE to pay
attention to decent coloring since you work with a non-backlit LCD screen
(and you have to pixilize every tile). Our clients include Vatical
Entertainment, Mattel Interactive, Vicarious Visions, THQ and Nickelodeon.
Lately I haven't been creating a lot of graphics, mainly because I am to
busy producing the games to be involved in development myself.
> Could you please post some urls of your artwork here so that I may learn
> from you.
www.engine-software.com
I made all the graphics for the site, and also there are screenshots of most
games I mentioned.
> I'd love to see some tile artwork.
> Obviously I have a far ways to come to get up to par with your level of
> mastery.
I would rather say 'the required level' and not 'your level'. You won't hear
me say I am a better artist than you are, since there is no way of telling
that. Maybe you DO have the required level to be a decent artist in this
industry, but so far you only have been way too sensitive about remarks on
the stuff you have shown, instead of proving me (and some others) wrong.
> Thanks for all the help!
> -Floyd
You're very welcome,
The Engineer.
Del 'Dr. Doom' Chafe III
couple years ago I sent a bunch of (admittedly unrefined) pieces to a couple
table top RPG publishers. What followed was a bunch of prefab rejection letters
except for one. One art director actually took the time to write criticism on
the back of each of the pieces I had sent in. I was pretty amazed, impressed,
and thankful.
I realize a lot of companies are extremely busy, and art directors have their
hands full and that's why the usual response to a portfolio is a prefab form
letter. However, I would encourage anyone to actually try to give back some
comments even if it's just a general paragraph. It helps so much more than to
recieve a letter with a stamped signature at the bottom.
Floyd gets the critique of the group here, but other aspiring artists don't have
that luxury and rarely get real world critiques apart from school (which
probably won't critique with the same criteria as the game industry) and friends
(who probably don't know jack).
Michael Duffy wrote:
> <snip>
> "Why is that?" and listen VERY CAREFULLY to any constructive criticism you
> are given. Constructive criticism (whether requested or not) is Pure Gold.
> Treat it as such. Every artist should ALWAYS be looking to improve his art.
> The people who say, "that's pretty good", or worse say nothing at all, don't
> help at all. It is the people who criticize your work that wind up helping
> you to look at your work in a different light and thus see areas in which to
> improve.
--
Del 'Dr. Doom' Chafe III
"Pain? Pain is like love, like compassion!
It is a thing only for lesser men. What is pain to Doom?"
Late
"Bjoern" <bjo...@blinker.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:39c62019...@news.lrz-muenchen.de...
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:32:36 +0200, "The Engineer"
> <ru...@engine-software.nl> wrote:
> >So if your input is: I like bright colors and will only draw my art that
> >way...either become a painter or apply for a job at Nintendo. If the
input
> >is 'I'll draw what they want me to draw and they will be
surprised'...good
> >luck!
>
> to find a job where one can stay true to oneself...
>
> Even 90% of game developers at the moment should think 'photorealisitc
> is the way to go', there most likely would still be others who have
> other preferences.
>
> I sure as hell hope that not everything becomes photorealistic now.
Maybe I'm reading something into what you guys are saying, but photorealism
!= reality. I would say that the meaning of photorealism is closer to the
opposite of abstract. Nothing about being "photoreal" implies an absence of
artistic style. I'd say that all live-action movies are "photoreal" and
many of them are very stylized.
By that definition, to say that games in general are becoming more photoreal
is very true. I believe this is necessary for games to be accepted by a
larger audience. However, if you view games as art, yourself as an artist,
and audience as unimportant, then by all means make as much abstract art as
you like. If you view games as entertainment, yourself an entertainer, and
the audience reaction as paramount, then make sure you use as much realism
(be it visually or otherwise) as necessary to draw in and hold your
audience.
We do use photographs as reference (and source) to make our game more
photoreal. Our games are not a simulation of reality and there are many
things in them that are not real or hyperreal. It takes an amazing amount
of artistic talent to make environments and characters look photoreal,
interesting and novel at the same time. If you view photorealism as a
compromise of your artistic style (rather than a tool for communicating with
your audience), then I'd say that you aren't making art for an audience,
you're making it for yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, but most
business people (remember the commercial games industry is still a business)
would rather invest money in something that has identifiable customers. So
if you expect to be paid to make an art product, it will have to be designed
to appeal to someone. Designing and building a creative work for a large
audience is usually far more challenging than implementing your own vision.
I invite you to try it.
Rainer Deyke
news:UzSx5.726$Dz6.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> By that definition, to say that games in general are becoming more
photoreal
> is very true. I believe this is necessary for games to be accepted by a
> larger audience. However, if you view games as art, yourself as an
artist,
> and audience as unimportant, then by all means make as much abstract art
as
> you like. If you view games as entertainment, yourself an entertainer,
and
> the audience reaction as paramount, then make sure you use as much realism
> (be it visually or otherwise) as necessary to draw in and hold your
> audience.
Last time I checked, Disney-style animated films were still very popular
with the mass market. Certainly more so than the latest in photorealistic
gore.
The Engineer
> > you like. If you view games as entertainment, yourself an entertainer,
> and
> > the audience reaction as paramount, then make sure you use as much
realism
> > (be it visually or otherwise) as necessary to draw in and hold your
> > audience.
>
> Last time I checked, Disney-style animated films were still very popular
> with the mass market. Certainly more so than the latest in photorealistic
> gore.
And you never noticed the style of drawing an animation became more
photoreal? With Dinosaur they used real movieshots as background for christ
sake. Compare Steamboat Willy or Cinderella with anything from Lion King to
now. Like 'Late' said: "use AS MUCH REALISM as necessary to draw in and hold
your audience". I guess that with Dinosaur and the previous few Disney
movies (a Bug's Life, Toy Story, Lion King, Mulan) they give you a proper
indication of how much realism they think they need...more and more and
more...like Late stated.
"It's not the style that needs to be photoreal, it's how you visualize it
within a gaming environment." - Hideo Kojima
The Engineer
The Engineer
Del 'Dr. Doom' Chafe III <d...@digitalosmosis.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
39C7BE59...@digitalosmosis.com...
Yep, very true...I am surprised to hear that you did get somewhat response
from the art director, unfortunatly that is very rare. Anyway, as I see it,
it's a good thing people here comment on Floyd's posting, too bad he himself
doesn't seem to see it that way.
The Engineer.
Bjoern
[...]
>By that definition, to say that games in general are becoming more photoreal
>is very true. I believe this is necessary for games to be accepted by a
>larger audience. However, if you view games as art, yourself as an artist,
>and audience as unimportant, then by all means make as much abstract art as
>the audience reaction as paramount, then make sure you use as much realism
>(be it visually or otherwise) as necessary to draw in and hold your
>audience.
No, I think sometimes for example cartoons are more entertaining, they
allow you different forms of expression. The engineers statement about
disney films becoming more photorealistic is simply not true. Why
bother, if you could as well make a film with real actors and real
scenery?
Of course they are experimenting with all kinds of styles, as they
should, but it's not like they have been waiting for eons for the
technology to make the film they always wanted. There are 'real life'
disney films, too, anyway. Toy stroy and bug's life have been hyped as
the new Computer style in cartoons, but I think the normal style is
still more successful with the audiences (many people I talked to
didn't even want to see toy story, because of prejudices against
Computer graphics), AND I think the 'normal' films are all being
created with Computers, too...
Uncle scrooge as a photo picture story would never have been the
success it was/is.
I'm not saying that photorealism is bad. But it's not the only thing,
as I said, sometimes other things are better.
Sometimes I even want to read a book, no photorealism at all...
Sometimes I want to read a cartoon story. I never felt the desire to
read a photo cartoon story.
And one of my favourite artists is Paul Klee, it's just fascinating
how you can touch at deeper things with such abstract symbols.
Sometimes I don't want so much photorealism, because I also want to
have some space left for my imagination.
If that makes me an artist (I do think that games are art) and
unpopular with the masses, so be it. But I can't imagine that I am the
only person on the planet who feels that way.
>We do use photographs as reference (and source) to make our game more
>photoreal. Our games are not a simulation of reality and there are many
>things in them that are not real or hyperreal. It takes an amazing amount
>of artistic talent to make environments and characters look photoreal,
>interesting and novel at the same time. If you view photorealism as a
>compromise of your artistic style (rather than a tool for communicating with
>your audience), then I'd say that you aren't making art for an audience,
>you're making it for yourself.
No, as I said, I have nothing against photorealism, I just said that I
hope not ALL games become photorealistic, because sometimes I enjoy
something else.
Just look at all the god games, you think they would have been such a
huge success if the knights and castles hadn't been so cute? I don't
think photorealistic imagery would have had the same effect...
>There's nothing wrong with that, but most
>business people (remember the commercial games industry is still a business)
>would rather invest money in something that has identifiable customers. So
Just because a customer group isn't the largest group, doesn't mean
it's not worth targeting it.
>if you expect to be paid to make an art product, it will have to be designed
>to appeal to someone. Designing and building a creative work for a large
>audience is usually far more challenging than implementing your own vision.
>I invite you to try it.
It's important to always keep the audience in mind, but I don't see
how one would be able to do anything that is not one's own vision.
Sure, you look at the demands, and then you start developing a vision
that encompasses both the demands and your own viewpoint. But anything
else would be futile imho. I'm not a slave for the masses to provide
them their mindless entertainment, so that they can happily become fat
on thier couch and eat crisps all day. Why should I want to do that?
I'm not a nanny, I like to target grown ups.
Bjoern
The Engineer
> No, I think sometimes for example cartoons are more entertaining, they
> allow you different forms of expression. The engineers statement about
> disney films becoming more photorealistic is simply not true. Why
> bother, if you could as well make a film with real actors and real
> scenery?
Wait a minute Bjoern, I said Photoreal, not photorealistic. As 'Late'
defined in his posting, with this I mean that everything within a certain
style is made with more detail, to give it a more 'realilty' touch. In that
light, my remark is very true. With the help of computers Disney has made
it's animations and colors way more detailed and fluent, and therefore
created a more realistic touch WITHIN their non-photorealistic drawing
style.
oh, and about the real actors etc? We are not heading that way yet, but in
the future when CGI characters become even more implementable as they are
now, a lot of stuff will be done with CGI instead of actors...the reason?
Actors are more expensive...they already experimented with that kind of
stuff when finishing the Crow after Lee died.
> Sometimes I don't want so much photorealism, because I also want to
> have some space left for my imagination.
Same as above, there is nothing wrong with NOT working photorealistic, but
don't you want your imagination to be as detailed and realistic WITHIN your
style, your imagination if you like, as can be? The Matrix is a good
example, a very stylized movie where a lot of things are way from
photorealistic, but still made to look as convincing as possible. Same with
Disney's Dinosaur, it's a cartoon and therefore the complete opposite of
photorealistic. Still, Disney's artists have done everything they could to
make the Dino's walk and move as convincing as possible, to create their
imagination as convincing as possible.
> If that makes me an artist (I do think that games are art) and
> unpopular with the masses, so be it. But I can't imagine that I am the
> only person on the planet who feels that way.
I think that about 99% of the people out there agrees with you, but hey, we
were talking about a job here originally. Being unpopular with the masses
won't get you any food. My point from the very beginning is that you can
still put your own imagination in a certain style as long as you live up to
certain rules within that style.
> Just look at all the god games, you think they would have been such a
> huge success if the knights and castles hadn't been so cute? I don't
> think photorealistic imagery would have had the same effect...
I think a GOD game would do excellent if someone could make a God game that
has the same dark, gloomy ambience as the cutscene movies I just saw from
Final Fantasy 9. Where for instance the weather effects are as real as
possible, where the people are not some deformed midgets but real people. Of
course a game like that would do great!
> >There's nothing wrong with that, but most
> >business people (remember the commercial games industry is still a
business)
> >would rather invest money in something that has identifiable customers.
So
And it's one of the largest most money transferring bussines in the world
to.
> Just because a customer group isn't the largest group, doesn't mean
> it's not worth targeting it.
True, that's why there are so many different games, sportsgames, fightgames,
shoot 'em ups, FPS, RTS, RPG you name it. That doesn't mean there is room
for every idea, or every style. No company will try everything without
having some kind of certainty it will sell. One wrong step can be fatal.
> >if you expect to be paid to make an art product, it will have to be
designed
> >to appeal to someone. Designing and building a creative work for a large
> >audience is usually far more challenging than implementing your own
vision.
> >I invite you to try it.
>
> It's important to always keep the audience in mind, but I don't see
> how one would be able to do anything that is not one's own vision.
> Sure, you look at the demands, and then you start developing a vision
> that encompasses both the demands and your own viewpoint.
This is very correct, and if you are capable of doing that you can be an
artist in this industry. But if you insist of only having your own viewpoint
worked out like that, forgetting what was asked from you because it didn't
appeal to YOU...forget the whole thing, draw some painting, loose an ear and
die before you're 40.
The Engineer.
Bjoern
<ru...@engine-software.nl> wrote:
>
>> No, I think sometimes for example cartoons are more entertaining, they
>> allow you different forms of expression. The engineers statement about
>> disney films becoming more photorealistic is simply not true. Why
>> bother, if you could as well make a film with real actors and real
>> scenery?
>
>Wait a minute Bjoern, I said Photoreal, not photorealistic. As 'Late'
>defined in his posting, with this I mean that everything within a certain
>style is made with more detail, to give it a more 'realilty' touch. In that
>light, my remark is very true. With the help of computers Disney has made
>it's animations and colors way more detailed and fluent, and therefore
>created a more realistic touch WITHIN their non-photorealistic drawing
>style.
The effects in the disney films sometimes are truly amazing, but I
still wouldn't generalize that people will always strive for more
detail. Think about japanese calligraphy, I guess. Not that I really
now, it just came to mind as an art form where people try to express
as much as possible with as little as possible.
No debate that you are always trying to convey your visions/message as
accurate as possible, in that sense, it depends on the defintion of
detail.
For example I've heard that the makers of Wallace of Gromit
deliberately left out some of the frames to make the animations less
perfect, which provided better dynamics.
I suppose games will just go the same way as paintings, anyway. At the
moment, everybody is still trying to become as realisitc as possible.
Once that is solved, true freedom will emerge, just as painting
changed radically after the invention of photography, as it became
pointless to try to paint photorealistic.
Not that I like all modern art (some of it seems to be pointless
indeed), but some of it I do. OK, let's just get it over with
photorealism, so that the real fun may begin ;-)
>oh, and about the real actors etc? We are not heading that way yet, but in
>the future when CGI characters become even more implementable as they are
>now, a lot of stuff will be done with CGI instead of actors...the reason?
>Actors are more expensive...they already experimented with that kind of
>stuff when finishing the Crow after Lee died.
That may well be, but personally I guess I differ from other people in
that I really don't care how something is being made, I just care how
it looks. Ie if music sounds good, what do I care if it has been
created with electronic or accoustic instruments?
But even when those universal CGI characters become available, I'm
certain that there will still be cartoon movies. They'll probably all
be made with computers. Although I am not even sure about that. I
remember going to the 'animation special' of some film festival, and
seeing some truly amazing stuff. There is such an enourmous variety of
animation styles, that I can't see them merge all into Computer too
soon (it would require a VERY universal Computer program). I loved toy
story, but I think that kind of Computer animation is just another
kind of art tool, just as you'll get different results depending on
wether you paint with air-brush, oil colours, pencil or whatever. I
wouldn't say that one of these tools is superior to the other, they
all have their own character and prioduce different effects.
Certainly we could do with more variation in the artwork of Computer
games...
>> Sometimes I don't want so much photorealism, because I also want to
>> have some space left for my imagination.
>
>Same as above, there is nothing wrong with NOT working photorealistic, but
>don't you want your imagination to be as detailed and realistic WITHIN your
>style, your imagination if you like, as can be? The Matrix is a good
I'm not sure what you mean? In some styles, 'detailed and realistic'
just doesn't seem to apply?
[...]
>I think a GOD game would do excellent if someone could make a God game that
>has the same dark, gloomy ambience as the cutscene movies I just saw from
>Final Fantasy 9. Where for instance the weather effects are as real as
>possible, where the people are not some deformed midgets but real people. Of
>course a game like that would do great!
Maybe, but I think people would play it for different reasons, it
wouldn't appeal to the same audience as current god games.
Anyway, why has nobody made a god-game with gloomy graphics yet?
[...]
>> It's important to always keep the audience in mind, but I don't see
>> how one would be able to do anything that is not one's own vision.
>> Sure, you look at the demands, and then you start developing a vision
>> that encompasses both the demands and your own viewpoint.
>
>This is very correct, and if you are capable of doing that you can be an
>artist in this industry. But if you insist of only having your own viewpoint
>worked out like that, forgetting what was asked from you because it didn't
>appeal to YOU...forget the whole thing, draw some painting, loose an ear and
>die before you're 40.
I agree
Bjoern
Philipp Lenssen
hyperreal approach. The one would be a cartoon image with 4 colors, the
other would be the classy modern hollywood movie (of which the color scheme
might just be as simple/ clear). Both are abstractions of reality, but they
are going in opposing directions. While the one is leaving out the
unimportant, the other puts emphasis on the important. Both is as valid from
an artistic POV.
In a fast computer action game, I would say pattern recognition is vital to
fast game play which doesn't rely on the complexity of "where am I and who
is the enemy" but "there I am, there is the enemy, now what am I gonna do
the next second". (Enemy could be a general conflict or obstacle.) The
latter is just much more fascinating. The trend with 3D ego shooters and the
like is not yet perfected visually. I'm not an avid player anymore, but when
I tried those, it was more about figuring out the environment than figuring
out the puzzle.
When it comes to the change of animation, I can say I really hate computer
animation mixed up in a hand-drawn style. This is only concerning the
computer animated parts which stick out, but this is very, very often the
case (DreamWorks, Disney since early/ mid-90s). I do like the visuals of say
Toy Story 2 and Bugs Life.
When it comes to the conflict of art versus entertainment, I'm afraid I
can't see one. When I look back on what I played as kid and teen, I always
enjoyed best what I would also call most artistic, most refined visually AND
in game play. (Some companies like Psygnosis often focussed heavily on
graphics while forgetting game play, these games I don't mean.)
These are not like abstract modern art, as people usually define it (like
cubist paintings), but I think some of these are the real pieces of modern
art, just like some movies and comics. And not all "regular" modern art
(like after the popularization of photography) shifted into visual
abstraction, let's not forget surrealism and photorealism are modern art
too.
Bjoern
wrote:
>Bjoern wrote:
>
>> I'm not a slave for the masses to provide
>> them their mindless entertainment, so that they can happily become fat
>> on thier couch and eat crisps all day.
>
>Disregarding the literal implication of your use of the word "slave", and as a
>professional artist working in the games industry I say this: that this is more
>or less what I, and scores of other artists working in this field do each and
>every day of the working week. Face it, almost all video games can be readily
>classified as mindless entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't think all of it is mindless, some games are true works of
genius. Just because something is entertaining, doesn't mean it's
mindless. For example, I'd say 'the Simpsons' or 'Futurama' are very
witty and 'deep' in a way (one could for example put 'mokey island' in
the same category), and at the same time very entertaining (more
entertaining than 'Masters of the Universe xyz'). Most Hollywood
movies these days don't entertain me anymore. I've seen the odd car
exploding in a movie, I've seen the odd machine gun being fired, it
just makes me yawn. Even violence (ripping bodies apart in all kinds
of way) I'Ve seen so often now that it doesn't 'entertain' me anymore.
Part of why I liked half-life was the witty humour etc. I think
half-life was a piece of art (conveying a gllomy world view), not mere
entertainment.
>> Why should I want to do that?
>
>I'm not sure, but I do it because I love it, it's extremely fun, and I get to
>make a decent living doing it. How the audience of the project that I'm working
>on choose to live their lives is of no concern to me, I still get paid to design
>and produce commercial works of art. What matters most to me is that they are
>(hopefully) delighted by what they see on-screen, end of story. The audience's
So why not create porn movies instead? I think you are probably
putting more into your job than you make believe here. Why do you like
your own art? What do you like about it?
>reaction to my work means absolutely everything to me. My own personal vision,
>whilst obviously inherent in most of what I do, is of no importance beyond myself
>being satisfied with what I have produced - professional pride if you will, and
>that is all.
>
>
>> I'm not a nanny, I like to target grown ups.
>
>Eh?
Just paraphrased what I said before, I don't see why I should try to
fullfill every stupid desire of the masses. Even if I wanted, I
couldn't, it just wouldn't be me.
Bjoern
The Engineer
> that I really don't care how something is being made, I just care how
> it looks. Ie if music sounds good, what do I care if it has been
> created with electronic or accoustic instruments?
To enjoy music I don't care either :) But since I also create music, on
synthesizers, at points I do listen to how it is made, if it's accoustic or
not etc. But that is a different point of view and has nothing to do with
this discussion :)
> I'm not sure what you mean? In some styles, 'detailed and realistic'
> just doesn't seem to apply?
Yeah..err..it's hard to explain :). Let's stay with the Matrix example: The
directors probably had an idea on how it should look like when Neo was
'freed' from the Matrix, something that is so completely unreal that they
had to make it up completely. Nevertheless they choose the looks, mechanical
art and color/lightning in such a way it became as convincing 'real' as
possible, without being photorealistic.
Ofcourse there are styles, like an example you gave where they leave out
frames, that don't need that kind of realism look, but still, motion and
animation will appeal more to everyone when it's as 'natural and realistic'
as possible. Like (again) Disney's Dinosaurs. Of course without all that
detail in motion capturing, the movie would probably still be fun, but the
producer (and probably the artists too) want to have the detailed possible
thing. And I agree with them. When I model a character, I remodel it
everytime my skill increases or I learn something new. Maybe it's just me :)
(in that case, excuse me for all my babbling)
>
> >I think a GOD game would do excellent if someone could make a God game
that
> >has the same dark, gloomy ambience as the cutscene movies I just saw from
> >Final Fantasy 9. Where for instance the weather effects are as real as
> >possible, where the people are not some deformed midgets but real people.
Of
> >course a game like that would do great!
>
> Maybe, but I think people would play it for different reasons, it
> wouldn't appeal to the same audience as current god games.
>
> Anyway, why has nobody made a god-game with gloomy graphics yet?
Basically, because the God games are extremely complex. I don't know if you
had the chance to play Molyneux' Black & White? That game is so huge, so
open and so complex that implementing that kind of graphics, at this point,
would make the game too complex, or too huge for the 'medium' computers. I
wouldn't be surprised though if in a few years, or even next year this would
be possible. I'll give Peter a call ;) hehehe
The Engineer.
Stu Middleton
Bjoern wrote:
> I'm not a slave for the masses to provide
> them their mindless entertainment, so that they can happily become fat
> on thier couch and eat crisps all day.
Disregarding the literal implication of your use of the word "slave", and as a
professional artist working in the games industry I say this: that this is more
or less what I, and scores of other artists working in this field do each and
every day of the working week. Face it, almost all video games can be readily
classified as mindless entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> Why should I want to do that?
I'm not sure, but I do it because I love it, it's extremely fun, and I get to
make a decent living doing it. How the audience of the project that I'm working
on choose to live their lives is of no concern to me, I still get paid to design
and produce commercial works of art. What matters most to me is that they are
(hopefully) delighted by what they see on-screen, end of story. The audience's
reaction to my work means absolutely everything to me. My own personal vision,
whilst obviously inherent in most of what I do, is of no importance beyond myself
being satisfied with what I have produced - professional pride if you will, and
that is all.
> I'm not a nanny, I like to target grown ups.
Eh?
Stu
Stu Middleton
Bjoern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:05:54 +1200, Stu Middleton <s...@paradise.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Bjoern wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not a slave for the masses to provide
> >> them their mindless entertainment, so that they can happily become fat
> >> on thier couch and eat crisps all day.
> >
> >Disregarding the literal implication of your use of the word "slave", and as a
> >professional artist working in the games industry I say this: that this is more
> >or less what I, and scores of other artists working in this field do each and
> >every day of the working week. Face it, almost all video games can be readily
> >classified as mindless entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>
> I don't think all of it is mindless, some games are true works of
> genius.
Sure, but they're still commercially produced works of entertainment, nothing more. A
work of genius perhaps, but still entertainment, and for the most part mindless. I've
never met anyone who wanted to be preached to or enlightened or such by a mere video
game, they want to be entertained. Shareware and freeware games aside, the primary
purpose in the publication of a commercial game is to make money, and hopefully let a
bunch of people have a good deal of fun along the way.
> Just because something is entertaining, doesn't mean it's
> mindless.
Sure, but I think you're confusing great entertainment with art. I've found many games
to be incredibly entertaining, but in the process that's all they were: entertaining,
they just did their job well. I've never seen a game present anything more than that.
> For example, I'd say 'the Simpsons' or 'Futurama' are very
> witty and 'deep' in a way (one could for example put 'mokey island' in
> the same category),
I wouldn't go quite that far. They contain satire that often borders on the realms of
genius, but actually "deep" as such? I don't think so, but hey, we're all entitled to
our own thoughts.
> and at the same time very entertaining (more
> entertaining than 'Masters of the Universe xyz'). Most Hollywood
> movies these days don't entertain me anymore. I've seen the odd car
> exploding in a movie, I've seen the odd machine gun being fired, it
> just makes me yawn. Even violence (ripping bodies apart in all kinds
> of way) I'Ve seen so often now that it doesn't 'entertain' me anymore.
>
> Part of why I liked half-life was the witty humour etc. I think
> half-life was a piece of art (conveying a gllomy world view), not mere
> entertainment.
Well, regardless of your thoughts on this title, from a developer's/publishers point
of view every commercial title is first and foremost a piece of "mere entertainment".
If anything else get's in there then fine, but when writing up design documents anyone
thinking otherwise is dooming their project to rejection letter after rejection
letter. The games industry is well and truely part of the entertainment industry, not
the arts community.
> >> Why should I want to do that?
> >
> >I'm not sure, but I do it because I love it, it's extremely fun, and I get to
> >make a decent living doing it. How the audience of the project that I'm working
> >on choose to live their lives is of no concern to me, I still get paid to design
> >and produce commercial works of art. What matters most to me is that they are
> >(hopefully) delighted by what they see on-screen, end of story. The audience's
>
> So why not create porn movies instead?
Well for starters I'm a multimedia trained artist. I have no training, experience in,
or desire to work in the film industry, let alone porn! :)
> I think you are probably putting more into your job than you make believe here.
No I'm not. Not to sound mean or anything, but who are you to suggest what I get from
my job? What I listed in my previous post is EXACTLY what I get from my job - "I love
it, it's extremely fun, and I get to make a decent living doing it" And to top it off
I like to feed off other's reactions to my work and challenge myself to do better each
time. Commercial art - especially in games - is designing for the masses!
> Why do you like
> your own art? What do you like about it?
I like the fact that I've created something that looks great, was done on time, and
recieved praise from my peers and intended audience in the process (ie, it's extremely
rewarding). I never sit at my workstation dreaming of changing the world through
creating 800 poly digital representations of humans or 256x256 8bit colour tiles, this
just isn't what my job is about, this belongs to the realm of fine art, and games just
ain't fine art.
>
> >reaction to my work means absolutely everything to me. My own personal vision,
> >whilst obviously inherent in most of what I do, is of no importance beyond myself
> >being satisfied with what I have produced - professional pride if you will, and
> >that is all.
> >
> >
> >> I'm not a nanny, I like to target grown ups.
> >
> >Eh?
>
> Just paraphrased what I said before, I don't see why I should try to
> fullfill every stupid desire of the masses.
It's a reality in game art that unless you're involved in the actual game design
process (or are already an art director) you simply are not going to get that choice.
You get told what to produce, and if you value your job you'll just have to do it. If
that means creating another top-heavy Lara Croft clone then so be it, but turning out
a more anatomically correct, realistically proportioned reperesentation of the fairer
sex just because you didn't want to "fullfill every stupid desire of the masses" is
just going to get you a quick trip to the employment office. Commercial art just
doesn't work that way.
> Even if I wanted, I
> couldn't, it just wouldn't be me.
That's great, and I wish you well... but this mentality just doen't belong in game art
I'm afraid. There's a certain degree to which one must detach oneself from one's work
in this industry.
Stu
Late
"Bjoern" <bjo...@blinker.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message > >Bjoern wrote:
>
> So why not create porn movies instead? I think you are probably
> putting more into your job than you make believe here. Why do you like
> your own art? What do you like about it?
I'm not advocating any pandering here, to be sure. I'm simply stating that
I don't think art for it's own sake is interesting in video games. I think
games are entertainment and are thus valued in terms of audience. All of
the creative endeavor must target the audience.
I'm doing this because I love to entertain people. I don't really think
that's possible to do with porn. Porn isn't exactly entertainment, it's
mostly about gratification. Entertainment has the power to evoke so much
more from an audience than just gratification.
I have taken a somewhat extreme viewpoint in this thread, but I was doing so
to contrast against the original poster who had disdain for photorealistic
games and wanted to find a job "where one can stay true to oneself".
Photorealism is just a tool for communicating to your audience. I wouldn't
want to work with an artist who refused to use photorealism where it was
necessary or beneficial.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:05:54 +1200, Stu Middleton <s...@paradise.net.nz>
wrote
> >reaction to my work means absolutely everything to me. My own personal
vision,
> >whilst obviously inherent in most of what I do, is of no importance
beyond myself
> >being satisfied with what I have produced - professional pride if you
will, and
> >that is all.
Agreed.
> Just paraphrased what I said before, I don't see why I should try to
> fullfill every stupid desire of the masses. Even if I wanted, I
> couldn't, it just wouldn't be me.
This isn't about pandering. There is a part of yourself in your game for
certain. It is still art. But it's for someone else - created by you to
evoke something in your audience - not just a perfect picture of the visions
inside your head. It's not simply for their gratification, but hopefully to
take them through some entertaining experience that is unique to your game.
To be fair, my comments about photorealism are a bit colored by my
interests. While I do believe photorealism is necessary to widen the appeal
of games, it's only really fair to say this in the context of immersive
games. I'm not really talking about more abstract games which have no
alternate reality or no need to make a player believe that some other world
exists. (e.g. some card games, mah jong, tetris, etc) Those kinds of games
don't make the same demands on the end-user's suspension of disbelief.
Bjoern
wrote:
[...]
>I like the fact that I've created something that looks great, was done on time, and
>recieved praise from my peers and intended audience in the process (ie, it's extremely
>rewarding). I never sit at my workstation dreaming of changing the world through
>creating 800 poly digital representations of humans or 256x256 8bit colour tiles, this
>just isn't what my job is about, this belongs to the realm of fine art, and games just
>ain't fine art.
I guess it depends on the definition of art. Most people seem to think
art = rebellious, trying to change the world, overall annoying,
anything that gives you a headache (recent examples include shit
paintings and animal corpses cut in half).
I don't think so. And I think if you are creating a good game, you ARE
changing the world to a better place...
[...]
>> Just paraphrased what I said before, I don't see why I should try to
>> fullfill every stupid desire of the masses.
>
>It's a reality in game art that unless you're involved in the actual game design
>process (or are already an art director) you simply are not going to get that choice.
>You get told what to produce, and if you value your job you'll just have to do it. If
>that means creating another top-heavy Lara Croft clone then so be it, but turning out
>a more anatomically correct, realistically proportioned reperesentation of the fairer
>sex just because you didn't want to "fullfill every stupid desire of the masses" is
>just going to get you a quick trip to the employment office. Commercial art just
>doesn't work that way.
I don't know, there must be some employers that are reasonable, too? I
don't think any of you would stick with your job no matter what was
being asked of you? Like if the money guys would ask you to make a
game about genociding jews, you would go ahead, no questions asked,
because who has the money sets the rules?
I wouldn't quit my job because somebody would ask me to inflate the
boops on some character, but if overall I didn't like any of the
things I was asked to do, I think I would quit. Since I like some of
the games out there, I don't think it's such a hopeless situation,
there are other people who share my tastes.
>> Even if I wanted, I
>> couldn't, it just wouldn't be me.
>
>That's great, and I wish you well... but this mentality just doen't belong in game art
>I'm afraid. There's a certain degree to which one must detach oneself from one's work
>in this industry.
Sure, but only a certain degree.
Bjoern
Bjoern
<ru...@engine-software.nl> wrote:
>> That may well be, but personally I guess I differ from other people in
>> that I really don't care how something is being made, I just care how
>> it looks. Ie if music sounds good, what do I care if it has been
>> created with electronic or accoustic instruments?
>
>To enjoy music I don't care either :) But since I also create music, on
>synthesizers, at points I do listen to how it is made, if it's accoustic or
>not etc. But that is a different point of view and has nothing to do with
>this discussion :)
Sure, in that regard I am interested in how it's being made, too, to
perhaps employ the same techniques for my own devices.
>> I'm not sure what you mean? In some styles, 'detailed and realistic'
>> just doesn't seem to apply?
>
>Yeah..err..it's hard to explain :). Let's stay with the Matrix example: The
>directors probably had an idea on how it should look like when Neo was
>'freed' from the Matrix, something that is so completely unreal that they
>had to make it up completely. Nevertheless they choose the looks, mechanical
>art and color/lightning in such a way it became as convincing 'real' as
>possible, without being photorealistic.
You mean when all the walls turned intio number columns? Always
amusing when filmmakers try to convey the workings of Computers in
that way.
I don't know if I get your point, after all, the film was
'photorealistic' to begin with, it would have been strange to just
switch into cartoon mode, for example.
>Ofcourse there are styles, like an example you gave where they leave out
>frames, that don't need that kind of realism look, but still, motion and
>animation will appeal more to everyone when it's as 'natural and realistic'
>as possible. Like (again) Disney's Dinosaurs. Of course without all that
>detail in motion capturing, the movie would probably still be fun, but the
>producer (and probably the artists too) want to have the detailed possible
>thing. And I agree with them. When I model a character, I remodel it
I think at the moment we are still in that stage, but it's going to
pass. Jurassic Park was a hit exclusively for it's animations, but a
few years later, animated dinosaurs are not so exciting anymore.
Not that I have anything against realistic animation, mind you.
>everytime my skill increases or I learn something new. Maybe it's just me :)
>(in that case, excuse me for all my babbling)
No, I don't think it's just you ;-)
[...]
>> Anyway, why has nobody made a god-game with gloomy graphics yet?
>
>Basically, because the God games are extremely complex. I don't know if you
>had the chance to play Molyneux' Black & White? That game is so huge, so
No, is it out yet? But I just looked for it and found this quote about
Molyneux:
"He claims he wanted to come up with a game that afforded him the same
intense pleasure he used to get from burning ants in the garden with a
magnifying glass or sparing them if he felt particularly
benevolent."
I guess that won't make him popular with animal rights activists. A
game that mimics the pleasure of burning ants. Hmm...
Bjoern
[...]
Stu Middleton
Bjoern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:11:49 +1200, Stu Middleton <s...@paradise.net.nz>
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >I like the fact that I've created something that looks great, was done on time, and
> >recieved praise from my peers and intended audience in the process (ie, it's extremely
> >rewarding). I never sit at my workstation dreaming of changing the world through
> >creating 800 poly digital representations of humans or 256x256 8bit colour tiles, this
> >just isn't what my job is about, this belongs to the realm of fine art, and games just
> >ain't fine art.
>
> I guess it depends on the definition of art. Most people seem to think
> art = rebellious, trying to change the world, overall annoying,
> anything that gives you a headache (recent examples include shit
> paintings and animal corpses cut in half).
>
> I don't think so. And I think if you are creating a good game, you ARE
> changing the world to a better place...
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.
> >It's a reality in game art that unless you're involved in the actual game design
> >process (or are already an art director) you simply are not going to get that choice.
> >You get told what to produce, and if you value your job you'll just have to do it. If
> >that means creating another top-heavy Lara Croft clone then so be it, but turning out
> >a more anatomically correct, realistically proportioned reperesentation of the fairer
> >sex just because you didn't want to "fullfill every stupid desire of the masses" is
> >just going to get you a quick trip to the employment office. Commercial art just
> >doesn't work that way.
>
> I don't know, there must be some employers that are reasonable, too?
Sure, everyone's opinion is valid, but at some point someone higher up will make a call,
and it's your job to follow through and produce what's asked of you.
> I don't think any of you would stick with your job no matter what was
> being asked of you?
Of course not, there are always limits.
> Like if the money guys would ask you to make a
> game about genociding jews, you would go ahead, no questions asked,
> because who has the money sets the rules?
If I find something morally reprehensible then of course I would refuse to do it, and if it
costs me my job then so be it. However, I haven't seen any commercial games that I'd refuse
to work on, some that I may have some "issues" with perhaps, but nothing that I'd refuse
outright to do.
> I wouldn't quit my job because somebody would ask me to inflate the
> boops on some character, but if overall I didn't like any of the
> things I was asked to do, I think I would quit.
Unfortunately not everyone has that luxury, for all sorts of reasons there are people
everywhere working in jobs they hate.
> Since I like some of
> the games out there, I don't think it's such a hopeless situation,
> there are other people who share my tastes.
Sure, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that to survive and enjoy working in the
games industry you just have to be prepared to work on games that you yourself wouldn't
want to play, wouldn't spend your own money on, and may quite possibly hate. I think in
part this is why the mod and shareware scenes exist, people are making exactly what they
want to make with a degree of creative freedom that just doesn't exist in the commercial
realm.
> >That's great, and I wish you well... but this mentality just doen't belong in game art
> >I'm afraid. There's a certain degree to which one must detach oneself from one's work
> >in this industry.
>
> Sure, but only a certain degree.
Why of course, as i said :)
Stu
Bjoern
wrote:
[...]
>> I don't think so. And I think if you are creating a good game, you ARE
>> changing the world to a better place...
>
>I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.
No problem.
[...]
>> I wouldn't quit my job because somebody would ask me to inflate the
>> boops on some character, but if overall I didn't like any of the
>> things I was asked to do, I think I would quit.
>
>Unfortunately not everyone has that luxury, for all sorts of reasons there are people
>everywhere working in jobs they hate.
Maybe, but does that imply that it's pointless/hopeless to try to get
a job you enjoy? I think quite a few people succeeded in that, too.
>> Since I like some of
>> the games out there, I don't think it's such a hopeless situation,
>> there are other people who share my tastes.
>
>Sure, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that to survive and enjoy working in the
>games industry you just have to be prepared to work on games that you yourself wouldn't
>want to play, wouldn't spend your own money on, and may quite possibly hate.
I can't believe this. Surely, on any project, it will never be 100%
what you want, because everybody working on it has different
viewpoints. I agree you have to be able to compromise, or not be so
stubborn in the first place (it's not like you have one and ONLY one
vision). But that you HAVE to work on projects you hate??? Why? I'd
rather do something else for a while (ie internet programming) than
work on a project I hate.
[...]
Bjoern
The Engineer
> what you want, because everybody working on it has different
> viewpoints. I agree you have to be able to compromise, or not be so
> stubborn in the first place (it's not like you have one and ONLY one
> vision). But that you HAVE to work on projects you hate??? Why?
Basically, because it's your job. You get paid to do coding/graphics/audio
for the company. Now I have to say that in most of the companies in this
industry, employees do have a say in what they do and how they do it, but
not all the time. Creative fun job or not, there will always be times when
you have to do something you'd rather not. If you're still able to do that
job to the best...that makes you a profesional.
Beside that basic fact, there might be influences from outside the company
that make you do things you're rather not. For example, when you are a
developer and work with a publisher, the publisher might make you chance
stuff or implement certain things you would rather not do, but they are
paying for the job and thus, are in charge. Or when you develop a licensed
product, let's say a videogame based on Futurama...in that case Fox or even
Matt Groenig himself could tell you how to do the art, and maybe that
contradicts with your own ideas, but it's not your decision to make.
Oh, and in reference to the Black & White thing, no it's not released yet,
it's been delayed to next year...grmbl.
The Engineer.
Floyd Yancey
I have taken a somewhat extreme viewpoint in this thread, but I was
doing so
to contrast against the original poster who had disdain for
photorealistic
games and wanted to find a job "where one can stay true to oneself".
Okay, And where did I say that?
I said I like color.
I did not say that I would impose my will on everything I do and would
not
do work that would fit in with the rest of the game. The work I did was
a test
for a job. The test/s required that artwork be a specific size, color
level etc.
I tried to be original within those limits.
Even a photographer tries to improve on real life.. If you're trying to
immitate
rl without enhancing it you're going to be a failure. I'm sure in any
work you do,
you subconciously try to enhance it. Whether it be a misty forest, or a
street corner
you need to take the primary elements and enhance them.. make it more
misty, try to
give it a gloomy feel. On a street corner.. put lots of signs around..
lots of shops..
Make it "Feel" busy and populated.
Without some sort of feel.. it's boring.
Silent Hill is a good example of it.. It's done in a realistic way, but
is exaggerated
by the artists to give it a feel in the different areas.
And no matter what you say.. If you try to directly immitate a photo,
you're wasting
your own time, and that of the company. There is no logical reason for
it. Simply take
a photo image and paste it in. An artist shouldn't waste time doing that
sort of thing.
Use your skills on creating stuff the camera can't.
-Floyd
Stu Middleton
> >Unfortunately not everyone has that luxury, for all sorts of reasons there are people
> >everywhere working in jobs they hate.
>
> Maybe, but does that imply that it's pointless/hopeless to try to get
> a job you enjoy? I think quite a few people succeeded in that, too.
Of course not. I love my job, many people I know love their jobs too. But I have never met
anybody who loves everything about their job all the time, and I've met many people who if
given the choice would opt to do something else with their working lives. It's a matter of
balancing the good with the bad.
> >Sure, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that to survive and enjoy working in the
> >games industry you just have to be prepared to work on games that you yourself wouldn't
> >want to play, wouldn't spend your own money on, and may quite possibly hate.
>
> I can't believe this. Surely, on any project, it will never be 100%
> what you want, because everybody working on it has different
> viewpoints.
And also that one's degree of input into the project is often dependent on many other factors
(position within the company, experience, background, etc).
> I agree you have to be able to compromise, or not be so
> stubborn in the first place (it's not like you have one and ONLY one
> vision). But that you HAVE to work on projects you hate???
Unfortunately, you just have to, because your job is your job regardless of the project at
hand. You can of course always quit.
> Why?
Again, because it is your job. You cannot say no and expect to be pandered to.
> I'd rather do something else for a while (ie internet programming) than
> work on a project I hate.
I most seriously doubt that any games company would be willing to rehire you solely on the
basis that the project is to your liking. Such an attitude would reflect a very poor level of
professionalism. Along a similar vein I believe that doing the rough stuff, the crap jobs
(chimp jobs I like to call them) is character building, and it makes me a better professional
for having done them. This is of course so long as they are offest by a fair amount of more
fun, creative tasks. I think it reasonable to apply similar logic to the project level too.
Here's an example: over the past week or so I have had to convert some title screens and other
assorted graphics from original art files so that they may be displayed on PlayStation. This in
itself isn't so bad, it's a straightforward enough process (at least in this case, it often
isn't when dealing with PSX). It's a relatively boring job but it only takes a few minutes per
screen or graphic. The problem is I have had to convert and reconvert these graphics more than
a dozen times in the past week, which is as irritating as hell. However, I was assigned the
task of handling these conversions and so handle them I must, that is what is expected of me. I
dislike the fact that someone somewhere is constantly ordering changes to these graphics, but
so be it.
Stu
Bjoern
wrote:
>Bjoern wrote:
>
>> >Unfortunately not everyone has that luxury, for all sorts of reasons there are people
>> >everywhere working in jobs they hate.
>>
>> Maybe, but does that imply that it's pointless/hopeless to try to get
>> a job you enjoy? I think quite a few people succeeded in that, too.
>
>Of course not. I love my job, many people I know love their jobs too. But I have never met
>anybody who loves everything about their job all the time, and I've met many people who if
>given the choice would opt to do something else with their working lives. It's a matter of
>balancing the good with the bad.
I agree on that - I think overall we agree on most things, it's just
that for this discussion, you seem to stress the negative aspects,
while I try to stress the positive aspects ;-)
[...]
>> I agree you have to be able to compromise, or not be so
>> stubborn in the first place (it's not like you have one and ONLY one
>> vision). But that you HAVE to work on projects you hate???
>
>Unfortunately, you just have to, because your job is your job regardless of the project at
>hand. You can of course always quit.
I'm not sure what the typical employment pattern of people in the game
industry is. I sort of imagined that people tend to be more like
freelancers, if not officially, then practically. Isn't it quite
customary to change jobs often these days, anyway?
Of course you can't just quit your job when the first unpleasant
problem arrives, I am not saying that. Somebody like that really would
be useless to hire.
I assume that once you agreed to work on a project, generally you'll
do your best to pull it through. But you don't have to agree to work
on every project in the first place.
That said, I suppose there can be reasons for quitting during a
project.
>> I'd rather do something else for a while (ie internet programming) than
>> work on a project I hate.
>
>I most seriously doubt that any games company would be willing to rehire you solely on the
>basis that the project is to your liking. Such an attitude would reflect a very poor level of
>professionalism.
Rehire maybe not, but there might be other companies?
It all depends on the proportions, though. If my company puts me on a
disliked project for 3 months, it would be a different thing than 2
years.
>Along a similar vein I believe that doing the rough stuff, the crap jobs
>(chimp jobs I like to call them) is character building, and it makes me a better professional
>for having done them. This is of course so long as they are offest by a fair amount of more
>fun, creative tasks. I think it reasonable to apply similar logic to the project level too.
I agree that whatever one does, there will be very crappy tasks to
overcome. But there has to be some motivation to put up with the crap.
If I don't believe in the overall project, I don't see where it should
come from. Money? Everybody says that outside the games industry you
earn more as a computer person. So why put up with crap in games
industry, if you could as well put up with the crappy non-games job
and make more money?
>I dislike the fact that someone somewhere is constantly ordering changes to these graphics, but
>so be it.
As I said, I think it all depends on the proportions. Clearly in any
project/job, there will be unpleasant things to do.
Bjoern
The Engineer
Since I am in a more or less managerial position within the company AND I
work in the development team myself I can see more than one side of the
proces. Which widens my understanding of the same project. Like stu said in
his last posting, to answer on one of Bjoerns remarks, as an artist in a
development team you WILL have to do stuff you don't like, and you will
always be involved in a project. Even if you don't like that project.
For example, we develop quite a few games for the Gameboy Color. We have a
PC/PSX team and two GBC teams. When I need to, I will involve an artist from
the PC team in a GBC project. The PC artist will in 99% of the cases NOT
like this, since he is used to working with 3D programs and hi-res, hi-color
drawings. On the GBC he is forced though to work with 4 colors for each 8*8
pixel tile and 32 colors per screen, in low-res. It's completely
understandable too, but if the project requires another artist which we
don't have, there's no choice. He/she will have to live with it or leave. Of
course you always try to put someone on a project he/she enjoys working on,
but in a lot of cases, you don't have that luxury.
Of course the larger the company is, the more possibilities you have to
shift people around. And I also have to agree with Stu that 'drifting'
around is not a good idea since every developer strives for steadiness and
security. We work with freelancers too, but only as additional staff.
The Engineer.
Stu Middleton <s...@paradise.net.nz> schreef in berichtnieuws
39CA0362...@paradise.net.nz...
> Bjoern wrote:
>
> > I agree on that - I think overall we agree on most things, it's just
> > that for this discussion, you seem to stress the negative aspects,
> > while I try to stress the positive aspects ;-)
>
> I think many people approach the games industry with rose coloured
glasses... and the first and
> hardest lesson to learn is that it's not all fun and games (pun intended).
In my experience 80-90%
> of what gets done is absolutely dead boring, although the other 10-20%
more than makes up for it
> (and in a big way). I guess I'd like to shatter the illusion of "making
games" just a little so that
> perhaps people will approah this industry with just a little more sense of
the reality of what's
> involved.
>
>
> > >> I agree you have to be able to compromise, or not be so
> > >> stubborn in the first place (it's not like you have one and ONLY one
> > >> vision). But that you HAVE to work on projects you hate???
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, you just have to, because your job is your job
regardless of the project at
> > >hand. You can of course always quit.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the typical employment pattern of people in the game
> > industry is. I sort of imagined that people tend to be more like
> > freelancers, if not officially, then practically.
>
> Not really. Some people may prefer to float between companies, but there
are only so many games
> developers out there, and you can rest assured that everyone you go to
will want to know why you
> left your last job. Freelancers as such do exist, tho AFAIK this tends to
apply to roles not so
> integral to internal development - musicians, high-poly FMV animators and
so on.
>
>
> > Isn't it quite
> > customary to change jobs often these days, anyway?
>
> It's getting more and more like that. In games though an experienced,
well-oiled dev team is an
> invaluable asset. People with a tendency to "drift" are generally not
going to be seen as conducive
> to establishing and maintaining such a team.
>
>
> > Of course you can't just quit your job when the first unpleasant
> > problem arrives, I am not saying that. Somebody like that really would
> > be useless to hire.
> >
> > I assume that once you agreed to work on a project, generally you'll
> > do your best to pull it through. But you don't have to agree to work
> > on every project in the first place.
>
> Err, if you are hired as an artist and complete one project you'll be
expected to move on to the
> next (unless your contract has expired of course). If you just don't like
what's coming up then
> sure, you can leave, but like I said in an earlier post if you do this
simply because you do not
> like the nature of the project ahead then this will look quite
unprofessional on your part.
>
> But believe me, by the time you get to the end of one project you'll be
absolutely dying to move
> onto anything that's even remotely different! :)
>
>
> > That said, I suppose there can be reasons for quitting during a
> > project.
> >
> > >> I'd rather do something else for a while (ie internet programming)
than
> > >> work on a project I hate.
> > >
> > >I most seriously doubt that any games company would be willing to
rehire you solely on the
> > >basis that the project is to your liking. Such an attitude would
reflect a very poor level of
> > >professionalism.
> >
> > Rehire maybe not, but there might be other companies?
>
> I honestly think you should drop this as a line of debate. As I stated
earlier, there is more than
> one reason why drifting from company to company, project to project is a
bad idea. You may well
> feel as if things are going poorly with the comapny you are with, and so
it may well be time to
> look elsewhere. But believe me in most cases the project itself would be
only one part of the
> problem (personality clashes, contractual disputes and so forth would be
much more likely). Games
> companies should not be viewed as an infinite resource, and your
reputation may well begin to
> precede you.
>
> Stu
>
Stu Middleton
RavenII
I work for a very large gaming company and have been totally enthralled by
this thread. My position for this company is art director/technical artist.
Here's what I've gathered from this thread:
1) The original artist has an honest will to work in the gaming industry.
However, the level of work that I've seen does not warrent an interview. The
company I work for (and I HIGHLY doubt Konami) would contact him based on the
"3D" work on his page. I'm not trying to bash the artist. I would just say
that you should keep practicing.
2) There's nothing wrong with using bright colors as long as it fits the
overall art direction of the game. :) When I looked at the tile work and
spaceship contol station, I had a nostalgic feeling run over me. It was neat
seeing art that brought back memories of Wing Commander I et. al. However,
that style of art is not being used by anyone anymore. We don't use tilesets
(the company I work for anyways) anymore and require a more rounded 2D/3D
artist. I'm sure Blizzard would be interested in a tile artist (Diablo),
however the quality of work that I've seen isn't up to speed for them either.
Sorry.
3) From the attitude of the artist, after some of you have started bashing his
artwork, he's definitely taken the wrong turn of becoming defensive. However,
this was not all of his doing. From what I've read, a lot of you started
hammering his artwork due to his negative attitude. Both sides are to blame
here. However, the rate at which this happened has assured me that the
company I represent and work for will never hire this person. The whole idea
of team based creation HAS to be in the forefront of the artist's creative
talent and sometimes art is completely rejected by the art director. If a
negative or defensive attitude is portrayed after that, then it's down the
road kicking stones for you.
4) Someone mentioned that ~80% of art creation in the gaming industry is mind
numbingly boring. When I read that I laughed. It is SOOOO true! A lot of
artists suffer burn out from doing the same mundane job over and over again.
For example, how many times would you want to create art for front ends?
All I can really say is for the artist to keep practicing. Getting into the
gaming industry is not a difficult task as long as you have the skill set to
create outstanding computer based artwork. It will be tough. Expect to be
rejected, but always keep your chin up.
-RavenII
In article <8q81oj$30du$1...@buty.wanadoo.nl>, "The Engineer"
--------------------------------------------
Insert whatever the hell you want here.
--------------------------------------------
Michael Duffy
"Floyd Yancey" <fya...@wsp1.wspice.com> wrote in message
news:39C74BCC...@wsp1.wspice.com...
>
> Okay guys, I bow to your superior knowlege of color theory. I really
> appreciate
> Please let us know what you do and how you got into the video games
> industry.
> from you.
> Obviously I have a far ways to come to get up to par with your level of
> mastery.
> -Floyd
> http://www.twu.net/~fyancey
I'm not sure of the tone of the above response, but to be safe I won't read
anything into it. (^_^) Some of my tile artwork can be found at the
screenshots on http://www.studioblue.com. My art includes the tileset, the
banners on the walls, the temporary interface art, and some of the in-game
and inventory objects. There is no glorious use of color theory here, but
everything is consistent and fits well together.
I would consider the level of my artwork to be at the very lowest end of
what is considered professional level art for a commercial game. With these
samples and some others, I MIGHT be able to get a job doing tile artwork at
Blizzard or Ensemble Studios or the like, but I'd have to round out my
portfolio with a lot more samples than this, and it would still be a bit
tough. But then again, my primary role is that of a programmer, not an
artist, so I can't say for certain. (^_^)
Hope this helps,
Michael Duffy
mdu...@ionet.net or mdu...@studioblue.com
P.S. Please, nobody yell at me at how out of date our web page is. The
"team" is down to just me now and the game is in a holding pattern right
now. I'm not abandoning the game just yet, but it isn't making
spectacularly fast forward progress, and it is actually mutating quite a
bit. That's all. :)
Paul
my two-cents worth. I don't work in games development per se, although I
have in the past, but I agree with RavenII - quality of work is the KEY
factor of finding work in the games industry. With all the best will in the
world, the right attitude and being a 'team-player' will only get you so
far.
You may question my stance, especially considering the fact that I am not an
artist in the industry, but seeing as I am actually a recruitment consultant
that specialises in placing people in the industry, I'm well placed to judge
the emphasis that companies place on work samples.
To that end, if anybody out there who is interested in finding out more
about opportunities for industry-experienced artists in the UK, I'd be very
pleased to hear from you.
Cheers guys (and girls) keep up the good work.
"RavenII" <do...@bother.com> wrote in message
news:%kmz5.354575$8u4.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> >> Okay guys, I bow to your superior knowlege of color theory. I really
> >> appreciate
> >> all the constructive critism..
> >
> >As I said before, if you can't handle critism, and you obviously can't,
go
> >do something else.
> >
> >>I'd love to know where you guys work..
> >> Please let us know what you do and how you got into the video games
> >> industry.
> >
> >I 'got into' the industry since I never did anything else. Since 1990
I've
> >been creating gamegraphics (first as a hobby) on the MSX computer (pretty
> >unknown in the states but big in Japan and Europe) where I made tilebased
> >graphics for the games Dix, Dass and Pixess. Later I founded a software
> >development company with a good friend of mine and was involved as
graphic
> >artist for the Super Nintendo game 'CornBuster', the PC games Dix, Razor
and
> >Dynamike and a couple of Multimedia CDs. Latest gamegraphics I made have
> >been for the Gameboy Color (seven games so far), where you HAVE to pay
> >attention to decent coloring since you work with a non-backlit LCD screen
> >(and you have to pixilize every tile). Our clients include Vatical
> >Entertainment, Mattel Interactive, Vicarious Visions, THQ and
Nickelodeon.
> >Lately I haven't been creating a lot of graphics, mainly because I am to
> >busy producing the games to be involved in development myself.
> >
> >> Could you please post some urls of your artwork here so that I may
learn
> >> from you.
> >
> >www.engine-software.com
> >I made all the graphics for the site, and also there are screenshots of
most
> >games I mentioned.
> >
> >> I'd love to see some tile artwork.
> >> Obviously I have a far ways to come to get up to par with your level of
> >> mastery.
> >
> >I would rather say 'the required level' and not 'your level'. You won't
hear
> >me say I am a better artist than you are, since there is no way of
telling
> >that. Maybe you DO have the required level to be a decent artist in this
> >industry, but so far you only have been way too sensitive about remarks
on
> >the stuff you have shown, instead of proving me (and some others) wrong.
> >
> >> Thanks for all the help!
> >> -Floyd
> >
Stu Middleton
> 4) Someone mentioned that ~80% of art creation in the gaming industry is mind
> numbingly boring. When I read that I laughed. It is SOOOO true! A lot of
> artists suffer burn out from doing the same mundane job over and over again.
> For example, how many times would you want to create art for front ends?
I think the phrase you're refering to here was something I posted a few days ago.
After posting that I thought that I was perhaps making it sound much worse than it
really is, but then again I don't believe I was being at all innacurate. Indeed,
if I had any real comprehension of the numbers of times I've had to revise, redo,
and in some cases totally redesign what is essentially the same batch of graphics
of the past few months I'm sure I'd sitting in a rubber room eating pills right
about now :)
As things are tho, since I've been working in the games industry never have I not
wanted to go to work in the mornings. And as one of the programmers said to me a
couple of weeks ago... "at least you get to draw" :)
Stu
David Allyn
F., I say stick to your guns (no pun intended). I am relatively new to the industry... in fact, I haven't even penetrated the market yet. But I'm a vetran of the argument. I used to work in theatrical scene design. And whether someone thinks something is art or not -- it always comes down to the client's wishes. And his decisions are based on his bosses wishes... which are based on market analysis. If any pixel of a game is based on anything... they are based on the company's perception of what will sell the most games. If a company thinks that photo-realizm is boring and more colors are needed... then they will steer the artist in that direction. The subjectiveness of the first response to your posting was not based on market analysis, it was based on the persons eye.
And I BET that you know everything that I'm saying inside and out (based on your justifications). Even the argument of the theory of art v. product is subjective. In the shop, we would argue and debate those same circles over and over.... and ya know.... we have'nt come up with an answer. Maybe that's what makes us artists... I don't know.
I read your initial posting and the begining part of the dialogue... but then I got bored with the postings.
Good Luck with your Game Design career....
Sincerely,
Dave Allyn
Floyd Yancey wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
>
> "Floyd Yancey" <fya...@wsp1.wspice.com> wrote in message
> news:39C6012D...@wsp1.wspice.com...
> > Flat colorless textures bore me. I wanted something vivid for a change.
>
> I like bright colors. However, your pictures are hopelessly incoherent.
> Bright colors work best in pairs of complementary colors (or similar color
> schemes), not when you randomly throw lots of them together.
>
Okay guys, I bow to your superior knowlege of color theory. I really
appreciate
all the constructive critism.. I'd love to know where you guys work..
Please let us know what you do and how you got into the video games
industry.
Could you please post some urls of your artwork here so that I may learn
from you.
I'd love to see some tile artwork.
Obviously I have a far ways to come to get up to par with your level of
mastery.
Thanks for all the help!
-Floyd