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]

Here's the hunter:

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I dislike the idea of making a point to use such rigidly isometric sprites for dwarves and other characters, and I think pursuing that art direction is a significant mistake that seriously misunderstands the purpose of its use in the games that use it. This is not an art style that is intended for use in a game like Dwarf Fortress. If you ignore this fact, rather than being simply icons abstractly representing the position of characters, your characters will suddenly appear to actually be walking backwards and sideways down halls, and everyone will be looking off to one side together.

Before mimicking the styles of the games cited in this thread that used isometric sprites, note that every one of them not only had character facing, but had walk animations to provide dynamic posing. Not one of them would have used the same art direction if they didn't. Indeed, the oft-cited mock-up of an isometric DF that soup cites wisely avoids using isometric sprites, despite the way the terrain is rendered:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This use of non-isometric sprites and iconic poses is not ugly, and it is not a shortcut. It is smart design. It takes into account that units in Dwarf Fortress have no facing and will not be animating out of a default pose.

That doesn't mean you can't have your dwarves looking to the side. It doesn't mean you can't respect the fact that the world is isometric when drawing them. Let me give you an example of a game that better represents the sort of situation Stonesense is in:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is the open source game Battle for Wesnoth. They have larger sprites than the 32x32 ones you're working with here, but that's not the point -- the point is their stylistic approach, which uses dynamic poses and vague, indeterminate facing, while still having clear isometric aspects, despite the game not even using a true isometric environment.

Unlike Super Mario RPG, Wesnoth takes place on a hex grid and supports only two displayed facings: left and right. These have no gameplay impact and are just a horizontal sprite flip. Characters have no walk cycles, only one frame attack animations, and yet must look engaging and dynamic. Despite these restrictions, Stonesense is even more limited in what it can display than Wesnoth is. I strongly recommend, therefore, that you carefully consider how you pose these characters, and take their hint: Your sprites will look much better to a casual viewer if you do not line them up in a default pose with a clear facing, as if they were waiting to be rotated and animated.

[Footkerchief]

Despite these restrictions, Stonesense is even more limited in what it can display than Wesnoth is. I strongly recommend, therefore, that you carefully consider how you pose these characters, and take their hint: Your sprites will look much better to a casual viewer if you do not line them up in a default pose with a clear facing, as if they were waiting to be rotated and animated.

It is currently more limited, yes.  That will change, though, if not with Stonesense, then with a future visualizer.  There's a nontrivial chance that facings will become more important in DF itself, too, for LOS purposes, proper stealth, setting polearms as a formation, etc.

Right now it doesn't have "facing", but it has a directional bias that builds up as you attack in a certain direction repeatedly (which then opens you up to attacks).  That will be changed during the combat arc when I add something like a situational awareness skill.  I'm always wary of a strict facing.  I dislike vision cones and having to change direction manually.  It just doesn't seem that realistic, especially if you are in an alert state.  You have a neck to see all around you, which shouldn't take a turn to move and therefore you shouldn't have to control at all, the ability to use a stance that's more complicated than simply pointing in one direction (for example, how you position your legs can help determine whether you are more prone to being knocked over from the front or from the sides), and the ability to walk in all directions, not just the direction your head/body is facing.  On the other hand, you should be able to sneak up being a lazy guard that's facing away from you (rather than just using a magical sneak mode like we've got now).  I was thinking of doing momentum when you can differentiate between running and walking.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

This isn't a limitation with Stonesense. It's a limitation with Dwarf Fortress. Until and unless Dwarf Fortress provides facing information and runs slowly enough that multiple animations become meaningful (and provides sufficient information that you can figure out which to play), no visualizer will be able to make default axially aligned poses like those seen in Super Mario RPG a good idea.

[Deon]

I get your point, but even "walking backwards" they are nice.

Dwarfette Brewer:

[Footkerchief]

This isn't a limitation with Stonesense. It's a limitation with Dwarf Fortress. Until and unless Dwarf Fortress provides facing information and runs slowly enough that multiple animations become meaningful (and provides sufficient information that you can figure out which to play), no visualizer will be able to make default axially aligned poses like those seen in Super Mario RPG a good idea.

They don't look substantially less weird than other poses.  The ones in the Wesnoth shot will have just as bad of a "moving backwards" effect -- the facing there is only marginally less pronounced.  Axial aligning is a prudent choice in case facings do go in (see my edit above).

[Koolaidmanohya]

Alright Deon, your Dwarven Lasses are starting to make me swoon, great concept!

 
 

[Jadael]

Man are these fun to make.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I don't particularly like the big head look either, its a bit too cartoonish for my taste and I don't think it helps identify the creature at all.  The style that was used with humans and elves is what we I'd recommend.

[Dante]

We'll need an isometric icon of a big brown paper bag with a smiley written on it (in isometric perspective) with a bunch of legs/tentacles/etc coming out from underneath, as a generic icon for the 'horrors' in the next version.

Actually, this seems like a fairly elegant solution. Assuming there's no "base creature" that each randomised monster is based on, which could be directly extracted, then I can imagine this sort of default sprite fitting in well with the lighthearted, cartoony art Stonesense has now.

[Deon]

Milker:



P.S. Parade:

 
   

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I may not come across as likable here, but that is because I am responding with alarm at what appears to be a near consensus on what I regard to be a very poorly thought-out art direction. Please be wary of falling into the trap of disagreeing with me just because I take a very forceful tone in my argument. I am suggesting how you can avoid alienating a number of potential users, and the merits of my argument should not be dismissed out of hand.

Let me make my assumption explicit here: Using an uglier and more jarring art style that is specifically designed to be used as a baseline for rotation and animation system based on the speculation that Dwarf Fortress might someday support such things months or years from now is not a sound idea. I propose you design sprites that will look good now, not a year or two from now, if ever.

If you disagree, or are even offended with my assertion that this is an "uglier" art style, I'm almost certain that what you're latching onto is the pseudo-3D effect. I fully agree that, as Deon puts it, this is nice. I don't wish to demean the artistic merit of these sprites. But they are not iconic -- they are systematically dry, directional poses that mimic a system designed for another game. They look like the character is facing a direction and waiting for animation to be applied, which is exactly what that art style is designed to do. You are wonderful artists and I know you can do better than that, and you don't need to model your work after a system that isn't suited for this game.

Sprites for Stonesense and any other visualizer or graphics set should be iconic. They should capture the spirit of the thing being depicted in all aspects -- shape, color, pose, even expression if you have the fidelity to do so. They should not imply a specificity that does not exist. Having a character look to the right or left as part of their dynamic pose is not even in the same league as having their head, shoulders, hips, and feet all pointing in the same direction with their hands at their sides like they're waiting for an animation sequence to be applied.

Take 7¢ Nickel's humans for example. They are:
- Looking to the side without implying a clear facing.
- Posed differently by profession.
- Very iconic.

You can monkey with their 3D-ness if you don't like it, but these sprites can very effectively represent entities in Dwarf Fortress. I strongly urge you not to regress away from this principle.

[Deon]

Well, it's the specific sprites I like, Like Beefmo's, not the whole style.

The good thing is that it's easy to replace characters, and I already have almost everything in 2d, now it's time to try iso, it's just a fun activity for me.

If you don't like iso, you can use 2d easily.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I don't wish to dissuade you from personally making this style of dwarf sprite, Deon. Regardless of the fact that I am criticizing the style simultaneous with your posts of characters in this style, I am not actually attacking your work. What I am alarmed by is the seeming haste with which this seems to have been taken for granted as the natural and correct style for sprites in an isometric game. I hope that clear arguments, counter examples, and a strong voice of dissent will succeed in getting across the idea that it is not, and slow down any headlong rush to alter the already very attractive style of Stonesense's sprites into something that isn't even intended for this type of game.

[soup]

I may not come across as likable here, but that is because I am responding with alarm at what appears to be a near consensus on what I regard to be a very poorly thought-out art direction. Please be wary of falling into the trap of disagreeing with me just because I take a very forceful tone in my argument. I am suggesting how you can avoid alienating a number of potential users, and the merits of my argument should not be dismissed out of hand.

Let me make my assumption explicit here: Using an uglier and more jarring art style that is specifically designed to be used as a baseline for rotation and animation system based on the speculation that Dwarf Fortress might someday support such things months or years from now is not a sound idea. I propose you design sprites that will look good now, not a year or two from now, if ever.

If you disagree, or are even offended with my assertion that this is an "uglier" art style, I'm almost certain that what you're latching onto is the pseudo-3D effect. I fully agree that, as Deon puts it, this is nice. I don't wish to demean the artistic merit of these sprites. But they are not iconic -- they are systematically dry, directional poses that mimic a system designed for another game. They look like the character is facing a direction and waiting for animation to be applied, which is exactly what that art style is designed to do. You are wonderful artists and I know you can do better than that, and you don't need to model your work after a system that isn't suited for this game.

Sprites for Stonesense and any other visualizer or graphics set should be iconic. They should capture the spirit of the thing being depicted in all aspects -- shape, color, pose, even expression if you have the fidelity to do so. They should not imply a specificity that does not exist. Having a character look to the right or left as part of their dynamic pose is not even in the same league as having their head, shoulders, hips, and feet all pointing in the same direction with their hands at their sides like they're waiting for an animation sequence to be applied.

Take 7¢ Nickel's humans for example. They are:
- Looking to the side without implying a clear facing.
- Posed differently by profession.
- Very iconic.

You can monkey with their 3D-ness if you don't like it, but these sprites can very effectively represent entities in Dwarf Fortress. I strongly urge you not to regress away from this principle.

I can see where you are coming from, but I think that creating both iconic and isometric sprites would not hurt the progress and/or success of stone sense. I'm sure the artists contributing would be glad to do both. Beefmo's isometric sprites are great, and 7¢ Nickel's human sprites are amazing as well.

Personally, I would love to see both sets made using the style expressed by both of them.

Iconic sprites might be the most practical system as of now, but it'd be nice to have some progress made for when DF does implement face direction.

tldr; We aren't losing any progress by using both art styles, why choose?

EDIT: I do actually see what you mean, I would prefer to see an iconic DF sheet finished before the isometric one. (Especially 7c Nickel's.) It would be unfortunate to see potential iconic artists work specifically with isometric sprites, instead of iconic or both.