(22.32.14)
snowdrop: Q_x: Read your post. I think I _almost_ understand what you're after now... =)
(22.32.40)
Q_x: uhh, good to hear that snowdrop
(22.32.59)
Q_x: Its not that I had right in the first post there
(22.33.39)
snowdrop: Q_x: Though, it's still not crystal clear to me exactly what you mean with " My point is the style must vary from faction to faction" .... with style you don't mean the technical of the artist, but, rather - stuff like what posture a creature has of different factions? Or what's depicted mostly?
(22.34.20)
snowdrop: Q_x: in essence, how do you use the word "style" in the above quote? Could you give 2-3 variables that would be an example of that?
(22.34.32)
Q_x: I'll try
(22.34.44)
snowdrop: that TOGETHER would make up PART of the "style" you suggest must differ.
(22.35.39)
Q_x: ithe lineart is pretty smooth in elven stuff - may be thicker, little bit more rigid in Empire and feverish, unstable in undeads
(22.36.23)
Q_x: the colour is in watercolor-like manner now, may be way more filthy in undeads
(22.36.45)
Q_x: this is first thing
(22.38.07)
Q_x: second thing is we mostly depict static scenes now, with some exceptions, there are rarely things showing a state or process, like the crumbling tower, even the guy who just stabbed and blood drips of his sword is pretty much static
(22.38.20)
snowdrop: Q_x: Thats pretty major thing to change. That's what I called being in a different "universe" stylistically, in my reply, I think. I mean, isn't the lineart defining how we percieve the reality in Wesnoth? Doesnät what you suggested now compare with that you could look at me, and at the same time it wouldn't at all be like looking at a door when it comes to the contours...but, in reality, it is - we're all made of atoms etc. Eyes percieve all matter more or less the same way (ok, solids at least)
(22.38.52)
snowdrop: Q_x: Yeah, i agree about the second thing - the lack of process - being a problem. 100%.
(22.39.12)
Q_x: I see it organized more like language, where there are various parts of it and they show different things
(22.39.28)
snowdrop: Q_x: However, again - it's also budget related: You have 1 guy or you have 2 guys, or 5 guys. Each additional guy would almost double costs.
(22.39.36)
Q_x: qualities, processes or "things happening" and so on
(22.39.56)
snowdrop: Q_x: IF we stick to guys. I mean, theres nothing saying that a process cant be composed of something else, and that would lower costs dramatically
(22.40.33)
Q_x: with lineart - I'm not targetting revolution really, just a small, but significant change
(22.40.43)
snowdrop: Q_x: But in this we agree fully - I've been thinking much about it, but haven't really found a smooth solution. It's mostly about lack of creativity on my behalf, and here I feel you have way more to deliver on that front than I have.
(22.41.57)
snowdrop: Q_x: Could you find me ANY game thats heavy on graphics that does what you suggest with the line art, so i could actyually see how huge variations you suggest... i mean, its hard for me to picture it the way you do, since i have no reference a all = /
(22.42.38)
Q_x: artist will know it without saying, this guys feels it even now
(22.42.58)
Q_x: goblin = not sharp weapon
(22.43.07)
Q_x: and so on
(22.43.09)
snowdrop: Q_x: And now im not talking about a game where there is an apparent variation between how you depict a ghost and how you depict a human, clearly they're off different materials, ghost can be transparent, fuzzy aand so on. However, a human can't / isn't, unless you have eye problems... and, ofc, unless the whole style of the game is like that.
(22.43.28)
snowdrop: Q_x: aha. so its pretty subtle stuff?
(22.44.25)
Q_x: its happening right now, you don't even notice
I'm saying that we may go little bit further, but to do so, we must know direction
(22.45.15)
Q_x: Its like sticking few tags to each faction and translating it into art-stickable terms
(22.45.33)
Q_x: pretty obvious would be elven=deep green
(22.45.54)
Q_x: but elven = smooth lines, clean clothes, sharp weapon
(22.46.46)
Q_x: goblins = blood-stained, not too sharp weapon, skin armor, dumbass, and so on
(22.47.22)
Q_x: undead = chaotic, filthy, deadly-sharp weapon, rotting carcasses
(22.48.10)
Q_x: step further with the undeads would be making this chaotic things apparent also in the style of the graphics as well
(22.48.21)
Q_x: a little bit of course
(22.48.45)
Q_x: and this guy feels it without saying, he maybe needs gentle guidance
(22.49.02)
snowdrop: lol
(22.49.02)
snowdrop: = P
(22.49.13)
snowdrop: oki, interesting stuff
(22.49.28)
snowdrop: as you write, nothing i have refelected over, and maybe never would... lol = P
(22.49.47)
snowdrop: this is why you must start art directing, as soon as possible.
(22.50.30)
snowdrop: its better you do that, and i sound the alarm if you do something really crazy seen from a laymans / average joes perspective, than you having to explain stuff toi me, and i to the artists etc
(22.50.50)
snowdrop: after all, i have zero insight in this field of work.
(22.51.38)
Q_x: I can explain it to the artist, but we must agree on that first
(22.51.59)
snowdrop: so, if you wouldnt mind, I think you should start directing both this overall stuff, as well as the piece by piece stuff, with start already - i could just send the next piece's lineart to you when i get it and you will pick up from there.
(22.52.01) DaBASCHT: *yeaha* my framework works as well as this morning >.<
(22.52.06)
Q_x: plus, I don't have a clue where you're taking your ideas from
(22.52.18)
snowdrop: DaBASCHT: Code often doesnt degenerate by itself ; )
(22.52.27) DaBASCHT: yes ^^
(22.52.30)
snowdrop: Q_x: Ideas about what?
(22.53.01)
Q_x: ideas with what should be drawn
(22.53.31) DaBASCHT: I could implement drag&drop, but that's crazy, while deleting elements don't work ... and it's the only thing, which doesn't work ^^
(22.54.01)
snowdrop: Q_x: Im not. Thats the oh so ugly problem here: It has almost been pure improvisation really, without any greater plan. And I'm aware that's a problem and would be one, and a more apparnt one the further along we progress...
(22.54.13)
snowdrop: Q_x: hence I'm really relieved you are around =)
(22.55.38)
snowdrop: Q_x: What was important to me was actually to a) check the skills of this guy. To do that I had to see a number of things and compare them with BfW stuff, hence some portraits. b) To keep the ball rolling, so that SOMETHING is ALWAYS drawn, no matter what, to save previous time, since this guy doesnt work full time for us. It takes him kind of like 1 - 1,5 week or so per piece.
(22.55.54)
snowdrop: I didnt want us to fall behind too much in scheduele that doesnt exist ; )
(22.56.45)
snowdrop: i think much of this discussion is also related to the style document you uhave begun, in wiki, right?
(22.57.04)
snowdrop: think i saw a draft of it on your personal page.
(22.57.09)
Q_x: its not yet
(22.57.22)
Q_x: I mean the things are not yet in the wiki
(22.57.32)
snowdrop: yeah, i know... but they seem related.
(22.57.46)
Q_x: sure, this is how style is coined really
(22.58.21)
snowdrop: and that "grand graphical plan" is really something i cant pull of myself, as said -- I'm clueless. I can just deliver the laymans opinion and my guesses on how the masses would take it (or reject it).
(22.59.01)
Q_x: but, as we chat, you understand the things, right?
(22.59.07)
snowdrop: yes, more.
(22.59.27)
snowdrop: ill still reply though to your post when I get the time later this week... but i think we agree on most things.
(22.59.53)
snowdrop: maybe we should dump this chat in there as a reply as well. lol.
(23.00.20)
Q_x: I think this should be really heavily illustrated thread, but it would take months in this case
(23.00.26)
Q_x: you may dump it
(23.01.23)
snowdrop: yeah, ofc... i mean, all this graphics stuff MUST be illustrated