Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

That's right

That is right

[Deon]

Well, I still saw a great troglodyte in a flat form here . And I don't take it personal. And I don't consider that everyone took it "for granted", I think it's just interesting to make.

Also, another reason to have a female mayor:

[soup]

Deon I am loving your female dwarves here's a gigantic fox I made, lol.

[CobaltKobold]

Iconics don't look like they should be doing something, yes. *marks check*

[Deon]

Oh, so it's you loving them? They didn't issue you .

Nice fox

[soup]

Thanks 

I would like to help with some of the iconic sprites as well, I wonder if Nickel has any dwarf base sprites that need assigned jobs...

[Footkerchief]

They should not imply a specificity that does not exist.

This is a great-sounding principle but it falls flat pretty fast when you examine it.  Does DF specify the style of the breastplates, the height of the grass, the texture of a wall, or the length of a sword?  No.  Does that mean that artists shouldn't depict these things for fear of making an invalid implication?  Of course not.  The point of a visualizer (and even of most graphics sets) is not only to depict the details that DF does contain, but fill in the details on which it's silent.

[Deon]

Miner, stoneworker:

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I'm not saying nobody should make sprites like Beefmo's, I think they're lovely. Nor am I even advocating a non-isometric sprite system. I am defending such a system, since several people have criticized the fact that most artists have submitted non-isometric sprites, but I'm also arguing that you can still use an isometric system without looking to Super Mario RPG and Tactics Ogre idling stances for your isometric poses, which I submit is a bad idea no matter what angle you prefer to look at your sprites from. I don't wish to insult Jadael and Xandrin here, mind -- I truly adore Jadael's 3D dwarves based on the Super Mario RPG style (I'm just very strongly arguing that this style is inappropriate for actual use), and Xandrin was suggesting Tactics Ogre with the idea of having multiple facings and walk animations, not with the intent of just using a single facing's idle frame to represent the entire unit.

I think I should clarify my use of the word iconic, since I apparently gave the impression that I meant it as a synonym for 2D. I'm actually saying that both 2D and isometric sprites should have an iconic quality. They should be memorable and symbolic, interesting and representative. Deon's mayor, for example, has an upturned hand, and a large mouth, as if she's speaking and gesturing. Those are what I mean by iconic elements in pose and expression.

They should not imply a specificity that does not exist.

This is a great-sounding principle but it falls flat pretty fast when you examine it.  Does DF specify the style of the breastplates, the height of the grass, the texture of a wall, or the length of a sword?  No.  Does that mean that artists shouldn't depict these things for fear of making an invalid implication?  Of course not.  The point of a visualizer is not only to depict the details that DF does contain, but fill in the details on which it's silent.

Taken literally and to an absurd extreme, you're certainly right, but you are misinterpreting my point by a fair distance when taking it that far. Aligning all your dwarves to have a southeast facing is not just adding details -- it is like making every workshop in your visualizer look like it's made out of microcline and justifying it by saying you don't know what material the workshop is really made out of. If you don't know what material it's made out of, sketch in the details and use a generic gray rock without specifying with such precision as to jar the viewer with the degree of its inaccuracy. If you don't have sprites for every type of tree, better to make your generic tree sprite look like an oak than a willow. I know my dwarf travelling to the north is not facing to the east -- so why is your sprite so overwhelmingly dead set on convincing me otherwise? The purpose of a visualizer is not to contradict what I already know about my fortress, and it should avoid doing so.

As I said in the post you are quoting, there's a big difference between having a character look into the right and aligning everything's head, shoulders, chest, hips, and feet in the same way on the same axis. One is artistic expression to provide interest and detail to the sprite -- the other uses a bad design principle that will tend to strip away the iconic quality and encourage a literal interpretation of facing, giving a false and disjointed feel to your fortress. Following this guideline and having isometric sprites are not mutually exclusive.

[Deon]

There's a difference between making a workshop out of microcline when there's one and between making a dwarf to face east while there's no facing. First case it disinformation, second case is assumption.

Why are there so many words and so small amount of sprites/ideas? It's easy to make words, try to help instead .

[Footkerchief]

If you don't know what material it's made out of, sketch in the details and use a generic gray rock without specifying with such precision as to jar the viewer with the degree of its inaccuracy. If you don't have sprites for every type of tree, better to make your generic tree sprite look like an oak than a willow. I know my dwarf travelling to the north is not facing to the east -- so why is your sprite so overwhelmingly dead set on convincing me otherwise?

That's your opinion.  Mine is that all the "iconic" sprites I've seen, I find more jarring, because none of them look like they actually belong in the world that Stonesense depicts.  The argument you're starting boils down to "look good"/"doesn't look good," and no amount of words will change anyone's views on such a basic point of aesthetics.  There are artists here who seem to agree with you, so for the sake of this thread, just be happy with that and don't bother trying to convince everyone else.

[Jadael]

He's got a point though, he's not just arguing 2d vs. isometric, he's arguing for sprites like Beefmo's. They're isometric, but they're stylized, posed, super unique. They're more like figurines on a game board instead of depictions of what the creature is actually doing, where they're facing, etc.

[Footkerchief]

Yeah, that confuses me, because Beefmo's sprites very definitely have their entire bodies aligned with an axis, and would lend themselves excellently to an implementation of facing.

[Jadael]

They would, but they look fine even without, is the point. Especially ones like the olm, or the alligator someone did.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

There's a difference between making a workshop out of microcline when there's one and between making a dwarf to face east while there's no facing. First case it disinformation, second case is assumption.

Why are there so many words and so small amount of sprites/ideas? It's easy to make words, try to help instead .

There is a difference in that in one case the game does provide information contradicting it, but with facing, the player can very easily see when a facing is wrong, and that is the correlation I draw. If the player will know you are depicting incorrect information, don't stress that information. Thus, it is important to not emphasize the facing so much as to make it a significant aspect of the sprite.

With regard to why I don't contribute sprites, it's because I'm not an artist, actually, I'm a designer, which in the context of the game development industry means almost by definition that I am a thoroughly irritating person whose job includes writing papers and arguing about things.

That's your opinion.  Mine is that all the "iconic" sprites I've seen, I find more jarring, because none of them look like they actually belong in the world that Stonesense depicts.  The argument you're starting boils down to "look good"/"doesn't look good," and no amount of words will change anyone's views on such a basic point of aesthetics.  There are artists here who seem to agree with you, so for the sake of this thread, just be happy with that and don't bother trying to convince everyone else.

I think if you review the post you are quoting, you will realize that I am not advocating specifically for 2D sprites, and that I am using iconic as an adjective that applies to both 2D and isometric sprites. I specifically said that in the paragraph above the one quoting you, actually. In fact, I'm advocating a better way to give a sense of 3D that will be more visually pleasing without sacrificing the priorities you are describing. Nor am I dead set on convincing everyone to develop a 2D sprite set and abandon isometric sprites.

I must implore you to review what I've actually said to review whether you actually have a disagreement with me or not, since my impression from your responses has been fairly consistent that you do not actually disagree with the fundamental point I'm making. Maybe I'm poorly communicating the point, but I suspect it's more that I'm coming across as excessively critical.

[Deon]

I was not talking about you not contributing. I mean the whole thread is a huge talking bazaar and I add to this too by this post . I hope Jonask comes soon and puts it in a right route .