It depends on what you mean through successful. My latest project (not yet published) uses music from this album. The musician appears to be pretty well established, but famous? I don't know.
I've been working on a game using these portraits and a few from the larger set here I couldn't help but notice that these three appear to be special; they're named (I kept their names in my game, BTW), and they're under a more liberal license. And I'm curious as to why. Thanks!
Those are actual screenshots from the game? They look rather big and empty... more like concept art actually. For that matter, did you just do the 3D modeling, or did you also design the environments? And do you have any right on these images? Cityscapes like that are relatively under-represented on OGA, especially in such high quality.
Okay, if you've never made a game before, I do have some advice that's always appropriate:
be ready to work long and hard, because even a small game isn't easy to make;
be ready to scale back your scope -- you won't be able to put in all you want, no matter what;
it's better to make one 5-minute game that's complete and polished than several epic tech demos that never go anywhere.
Also, whatever you do, make a game you'd like to play yourself. Don't think of a generic audience, think of yourself. If you like the result, other players will, too. Besides, you're going to playtest your own game again and again, until you're sick and tired of it. If you don't even like it, how will you find the will to persist?
As mcco0055 said; I made the preview for my roguelike tiles with montage and it worked just fine. Even better, you're likely to have ImageMagick preinstalled, as a lot of other packages rely on it for graphics processing. And if not, it's almost certainly in the repos. Documentation is extensive too, both in man page format and online. Good luck!
thats the point. I couldn't so why would I worry about it.
Because you were wrong. That is the entire point. Try to generate the same colors mechanically; see for yourself. I predict you won't even come close to the originals.
if you have to look at the values to tell the difference then its probably not worth worring about.
Really! If you can tell a palette was generated mechanically just by looking at it... then how come you were wrong about Gravity's? Pro tip: see what I wrote above about neighboring colors influencing each other, and the degree of coverage altering your perception of a color. Ever watched a graphic artist at work? Even they make sure to check out the hex code, despite having more than enough practice to eyeball colors. It's that subtle. And yes, the human eye can distinguish shades quite close to each other. Just... not always in the same way.
Edit: for that matter, I couldn't help but notice that mechanically chosen colors, such as those in the 215-color web-safe palette, always look a little strident, a little fake; the artists I worked with would often chastise me for not picking them by sight, such that they'll have a little randomness to them. In turn, I would marvel at the way their own choices would come to life on the screen, looking more vivid and natural than anything I'd have picked up. It really does make that much of a difference.
Anyone ever look into designing palettes for folks with colour-blindness?
Not me; I know there's research in this field, and color blindness simulators online, mostly for web developers, but I haven't looked closely into the issue. (Pun not intended.) It's tricky, because there are several kinds of color blindness, and people have it in various degrees. Mostly I just try to provide high contrast, and not rely on color exclusively.
Both definitely have their place but both require a significant investment of time and work to make. To each their own.
Oh, absolutely. But it's still worth discussing the relative merits of 2D versus 3D. After all, when starting a new project you want to choose the most suitable approach. And for that, you want to be informed.
Could it be that 2D games can be played almost anywhere (no heavy requirements) thereby increasing probable/possible audience for their game
Neah, the audience doesn't care what's under the hood. But for the developer it definitely matters. As I like to say, with software rendering all you need is a Turing-complete language and a surface to draw on. Whereas hardware acceleration is always very specialized. For example, modern GPUs can only do polygons, they can't help with voxels or raytracing. (Games like Minecraft pull lots of dirty tricks to optimize all those cube faces. In software.) And maybe you've heard about the way Amiga's incredibly clever 2D chips turned out to be completely useless once gaming moved on to 3D, while the weak CPU couldn't compensate. The simple, stolid, but upgradable PC won on generality.
Me, I like to explore that intriguing space between 2D and 3D, that after all these decades of gamedev remains a mystery. And no specialized hardware can help there.
Thank you very much, and sorry for raising a fuss!
It depends on what you mean through successful. My latest project (not yet published) uses music from this album. The musician appears to be pretty well established, but famous? I don't know.
I've been working on a game using these portraits and a few from the larger set here I couldn't help but notice that these three appear to be special; they're named (I kept their names in my game, BTW), and they're under a more liberal license. And I'm curious as to why. Thanks!
Those are actual screenshots from the game? They look rather big and empty... more like concept art actually. For that matter, did you just do the 3D modeling, or did you also design the environments? And do you have any right on these images? Cityscapes like that are relatively under-represented on OGA, especially in such high quality.
Okay, if you've never made a game before, I do have some advice that's always appropriate:
Also, whatever you do, make a game you'd like to play yourself. Don't think of a generic audience, think of yourself. If you like the result, other players will, too. Besides, you're going to playtest your own game again and again, until you're sick and tired of it. If you don't even like it, how will you find the will to persist?
Very nice! Like something out of an anime.
As mcco0055 said; I made the preview for my roguelike tiles with montage and it worked just fine. Even better, you're likely to have ImageMagick preinstalled, as a lot of other packages rely on it for graphics processing. And if not, it's almost certainly in the repos. Documentation is extensive too, both in man page format and online. Good luck!
Because you were wrong. That is the entire point. Try to generate the same colors mechanically; see for yourself. I predict you won't even come close to the originals.
Really! If you can tell a palette was generated mechanically just by looking at it... then how come you were wrong about Gravity's? Pro tip: see what I wrote above about neighboring colors influencing each other, and the degree of coverage altering your perception of a color. Ever watched a graphic artist at work? Even they make sure to check out the hex code, despite having more than enough practice to eyeball colors. It's that subtle. And yes, the human eye can distinguish shades quite close to each other. Just... not always in the same way.
Edit: for that matter, I couldn't help but notice that mechanically chosen colors, such as those in the 215-color web-safe palette, always look a little strident, a little fake; the artists I worked with would often chastise me for not picking them by sight, such that they'll have a little randomness to them. In turn, I would marvel at the way their own choices would come to life on the screen, looking more vivid and natural than anything I'd have picked up. It really does make that much of a difference.
Not me; I know there's research in this field, and color blindness simulators online, mostly for web developers, but I haven't looked closely into the issue. (Pun not intended.) It's tricky, because there are several kinds of color blindness, and people have it in various degrees. Mostly I just try to provide high contrast, and not rely on color exclusively.
Oh, absolutely. But it's still worth discussing the relative merits of 2D versus 3D. After all, when starting a new project you want to choose the most suitable approach. And for that, you want to be informed.
Neah, the audience doesn't care what's under the hood. But for the developer it definitely matters. As I like to say, with software rendering all you need is a Turing-complete language and a surface to draw on. Whereas hardware acceleration is always very specialized. For example, modern GPUs can only do polygons, they can't help with voxels or raytracing. (Games like Minecraft pull lots of dirty tricks to optimize all those cube faces. In software.) And maybe you've heard about the way Amiga's incredibly clever 2D chips turned out to be completely useless once gaming moved on to 3D, while the weak CPU couldn't compensate. The simple, stolid, but upgradable PC won on generality.
Me, I like to explore that intriguing space between 2D and 3D, that after all these decades of gamedev remains a mystery. And no specialized hardware can help there.
Pages