These are some sprites i'v been working on for quite a while, wanted to use them in a platformer, but never got around to making one.
If you have a project, but lack the sprites, perhaps I could work with you, if I find your project to be worthy enough~.
The sprite tiles are split up in 20x20, which is kind of odd, but that's what i worked with at the time.
As you can see thou, certain sprites break the tile rule, such as the trees.
Click the picture to enlarge!
If the picture link is broken, it's probably because the webserver is down, usually it's not down longer than 12 hours.
Forgot to credit JAY FRUDY for the tree & stone sprites!
Any updates/additions done to the sprite sheet, will be posted below in replies.
- 2010-12-15
* Made the castle set less round.
* Added more contrast to castle set.
* Added loopable stairs to castle set.
* Added some background cave sprites to all 3 sets.
* Added more variety of sprites to grass, snow & rock sets.
* Added even more variety of sprites, mainly cave background sprites.
The trees are really excellent, and I also like the boulders/grass/door.
The main background tiles are too repetitive though, and have too much contrast - especially the bricks. Sprites in the foreground would get lost against that kind of background. You want try to keep the contrast lower for backgrounds, by using either mostly dark or mostly light colours.
I wouldnt say that there's anything wrong with the contrast, it's a thing that variates from person to person.
Personally i like the contrast, because it gives the illusion of a sprite having more detail than it actually does.
I'm guessing by "get lost" you also mean "blend in", which.. I dunno, is it a bad thing or a good thing?
I wouldnt want things in the foreground to stand out from the background too much, or at all.
At the moment, it's quite repetative, because i lack hundreds of variety sprites, i want this sheet to be .. Unique & artistic, so that you can make a game, where you dont get the feeling that you've been there before, but actually havnt.
Thanks for the comments.
I'm glad you liked the door, it took me about an hour to figure out how to draw it, without it looking odd. >.<
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that statement.
It's not something that varies from person to person. Foreground objects *must* stand out from the background, or it will affect gameplay (it's not just an aesthetic thing).
The player sprite must stand out so the player can clearly see what they're doing.
Enemies must stand out so the player doesn't get killed by something they didn't even see. Collectible items must stand out so the player knows they can be picked up, and aren't just part of the scenery.
The fact remains, I believe it's a matter of opinion, and because I believe it is, it makes it true.
Because my view on the matter is diffrent than yours.
Thou, unlike you, who says it MUST be in one way, and not the other, I actually allow for you to have your own opinion as well, instead of enforcing my own.
I'v been doing pixel art for the past 6 years, the last 3 years I'v dedicated to saturation & contrast.
In this time, I'v noticed several diffrent types of pixel art, I draw in my own way, so I dont read much of other peoples guides, instead, I write my own guides, and share the knowledge & perspective I'v gained.
But I dont encourage anyone to read my guides to "learn" pixel art, that comes from within, and not from a guide.
Interactable objects are usually drawn with an outline, or with some kind of hint system programmed into the game.
Monsters are "almost always" on the move, and should be well animated enough to be spotten on the background.
If they're not on the move, they're most likely intended to be seen as background, much like a trap.
Just because the background has high contrast doesnt mean a monster ontop of the background will suddenly vanish.
If you believe this to be a lie, then I suggest you go see an optometrist, you most likely have some issues with your eyesight. (no offense meant)
While I agree that the castle set (bricks) are waaay too repetative, it's also not done, I recently started working on that set.
However, the other sets, have a total of 13 diffrent rocks that loops, it may look like the exact same thing, but it's still quite an unique loop.
I find it funny thou, you speak of foreground sprites, when I havnt even drawn any yet.
I do understand that FAR background objects should have far less contrast, and naturally just look like 1 color with a few closeby shades.
Much like the trees, two versions were made, one for background, and the slightly blueish with less contrast, for the far background.
Anyways I could argue about this all day long.. So lets not argue about this on this thread.
If you must argue, lets do it in private.
I dont want this thread closed.
Wow. Do you realize how arrogant that sounds? "I've been doing pixelart for years, and I'm awesome, and I have my own style, so I can't learn anything from anyone else"...
Personally, I've been doing pixelart for a lot longer than 6 years, but I still don't presume to know everything about it. Of course you can be taught to make better pixelart - sure there are different styles and you need some artistic talent, but stuff like perspective, shading, color theory, use of contrast, etc can all be learned.
Anyway, I'll make one more quick point, and then I'll leave you to it...
There is a huge difference between making static pixel art, and making art for games.
Everything you say is true of static sprites, but not for a game.
And yes, a background with a lot of contrast will make it harder to pick out details. A light object will stand out against a dark background. A dark object will stand out against a light background. *Nothing* will stand out as well against a background composed of both light and dark colors. It's a fact, and to be honest, it's common sense.
Why not try this little test: Draw some text (any color you like) over the top of those bricks, and see how easy it is to read. I'm guessing not very easy at all. Now trying reducing the contrast and making the colors a little darker (or lighter) overall. Now isn't that better?
That's it. You can reply if you wish, but I'm done commenting on this thread, as per your request.
Now you're just flaming me, making stuff up, from your point of perspective.
You're now completly ignored, i'm not gonna argue with you anymore,
as you've resorted to flaming since you obviously cant stand being wrong about something.
Normally i'd flame you back more than this, but i'm not gonna put myself at your level, you would surely beat me with experience.
Originally Posted by Zethell Now you're just flaming me, making stuff up, from your point of perspective.
You're now completly ignored, i'm not gonna argue with you anymore,
as you've resorted to flaming since you obviously cant stand being wrong about something.
Normally i'd flame you back more than this, but i'm not gonna put myself at your level, you would surely beat me with experience.
I don't think what Sketchy is doing constitutes flaming. He's simply arguing for his point, which he is doing in a rather civil manner from what I see. He's not flinging swear words, not calling you names, just using logic and experience to articulate his opinion. I think you're taking it wrong.
And your signature indicates that you've stooped to a lower, more juvenile level than he has.
I agree with Sketchy by the way. Just my two cents.
Originally Posted by Zethell Now you're just flaming me, making stuff up, from your point of perspective.
You're now completly ignored, i'm not gonna argue with you anymore,
as you've resorted to flaming since you obviously cant stand being wrong about something.
Normally i'd flame you back more than this, but i'm not gonna put myself at your level, you would surely beat me with experience.
I don't think what Sketchy is doing constitutes flaming. He's simply arguing for his point, which he is doing in a rather civil manner from what I see. He's not flinging swear words, not calling you names, just using logic and experience to articulate his opinion. I think you're taking it wrong.
And your signature indicates that you've stooped to a lower, more juvenile level than he has.
I agree with Sketchy by the way. Just my two cents.
When he said "I've been doing pixelart for years, and I'm awesome, and I have my own style, so I can't learn anything from anyone else".
It kind of pissed me off, because that's not what i said, or what i meant.
He asked for the picture to be done, i simply did it and used it as signature for now.
Now, i would agree with him, but he's talking about things that dont even exist on the sprite sheet yet.
And he could of been nicer and just say "I accept your opinion, you do as you wish." Instead of "it MUST be done like this, you MUST do it like this! otherwise it does NOT work!"
When someone goes and does that, it only tells me what an asshole he really is.
I'll leave you with this picture, showing you exactly what i talked about, it makes NO diffrence.
Castle setting, at night with moon.
Character ontop of the bricks, no visibility problems.
Character INSIDE the bricks, with an obvious design change, still no visibility problems.
Originally Posted by Zethell When he said "I've been doing pixelart for years, and I'm awesome, and I have my own style, so I can't learn anything from anyone else".
It kind of pissed me off, because that's not what i said, or what i meant.
He asked for the picture to be done, i simply did it and used it as signature for now.
Now, i would agree with him, but he's talking about things that dont even exist on the sprite sheet yet.
And he could of been nicer and just say "I accept your opinion, you do as you wish." Instead of "it MUST be done like this, you MUST do it like this! otherwise it does NOT work!"
When someone goes and does that, it only tells me what an asshole he really is.
I'll leave you with this picture, showing you exactly what i talked about, it makes NO diffrence.
Castle setting, at night with moon.
Character ontop of the bricks, no visibility problems.
Character INSIDE the bricks, with an obvious design change, still no visibility problems.
Well the reason he's saying "it MUST be done like this" (which isn't what he's saying) is because high contrast backdrops do create issues with certain types of other graphics on top of them, as he demonstrated in his picture. Your picture isn't a good example of what he was getting at because you used a think font of a large size, so that it's big enough to be noticed by virtue of the massive amount of uniformly colored area. His example uses a small font, which demonstrates that when using fonts that size (or any other bright/dark graphics of a small size) you'll run into visibility problems with certain brightnesses. His example demonstrated that there was enough brightness in those bricks to obscure other bright graphics, and enough darkness in those bricks to obscure other dark graphics.
Your second picture still doesn't do what he asked for, and you used the bricks in a different manner than you did in the very first picture. You have the relatively bright bricks used as a platform, without other similarly bright bricks behind the sprite (as would have been the case based on your test picture). The darker bricks that you used for the tunnel would actually fall in line with what he was telling you, because there isn't as much brightness in those bricks, so that only dark graphics would be obscured, with a noticeable contrast between bright graphics and the dark bricks creating improved visibility as compared to the brighter bricks.
The reason there are no visibility problems with the character on top of the bricks because of two things: one, he meant overlapping the bricks, not standing on top of them, and second, because the character isn't a thin bright thing or thin dark thing, which is when it would run into problems. For the character in the tunnel, there are no visibility problems with the text is because it is bright on a dark backdrop, and the reason there are no visibility problems with the character in the tunnel is because he is both sufficiently bright to create a contrast between his colors and those of the bricks, and because he is large enough that he can't blend in. If you were to use the sprite to overlap the bricks, you still wouldn't have a problem because of your color choice for the sprite, but Sketchy still had a valid point.
Not to be arguing or anything, but I'm just making absolutely sure that your responses aren't the result of a misunderstanding of what Sketchy was doing/saying.
Advertisement
Edited by Zethell
. . .
