Pillow shading is just the style I'm using. I could have used a blur process to make it look smooth but I like them this way. Not to mention that becomes very hard to manage for a lot of icons.

Well maybe I should also say I can whip up characters in half the time if i don't focus greatly on shading. Probably is my main reason although admittedly I do like them a bit.

Zecronious wrote:

Also, part of the concept of using 'Corax Software' is that at any point I'm able to take on an iconner who could redo the icons much better. Hard finding an iconner though.

Correction. It's hard to find an icon artist who isn't lazy and uses cheap, ugly methods to "get stuff done fast." I could care less about fast. In the time it takes me to program everything and debug the game, a good icon artist who actually took a little effort and pride into his work will have already finished and be reaping the monetary rewards I pay for his services. A great quote from my First Sergeant, "Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast." In this case, it means if you take things slow and put in a little time on your work, the icons will seem to just knock themselves out. Repetitive tasks find their own smooth way of automating themselves, and icon artistry is no different. You'll eventually just pick a number of colors, a number of shades, go to town, you already know how the shadows lay from the other 100 sprites you've done, this next one will just be another sprite to finish.

TL;DR: People don't pay for pillow shading, and certainly won't give you a second chance to redeem yourself.

"Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast." This applies to programming and development as well. Players will just pass by your game, thinking another terrible newb project if they see terrible newb art. But even if they see great art but awful gameplay, then you're still in a hole. You never want players to "Just put up with" something in your game. You want them to enjoy it, as much of it as you can. If players are just shrugging off your art without any attention, then you, as a Game Designer, have failed. For now, I would just use those icons a placeholders until you've finished with your programming. From there, you can push for an Alpha test, and when you have your actual icons completed and whatnot, move to Beta. The first step is getting down your gameplay. The next is making that gameplay look attractive for players.

Minecraft is an awful example. It was a simple block-style game from the start, as it was meant to me. Minecraft was never meant to have awesome TES style graphics, it was build as a block adventure, and anyone expecting more detailed artwork obviously played the game for the wrong reason. The point of a game is matching the art with the game you're portraying. It doesn't matter about level of authenticity or whatnot. If your game was supposed to be a retro style, but you added BF3 style graphics, you completely kill that retro feel. Matching art to the mood is what your goal is. You wouldn't want dinky, big eyed, bloated head, anime sprites for a serious monster horror genre, would you?

If players are just shrugging off your art without any attention, then you, as a Game Designer, have failed.

I couldn't disagree more.

MLaaS didn't have the best graphics. I was actually pushed away from this game the first time ever playing it. When I got past the art, the game-play would be enough to create a permanent impression for me as one of the best games on BYOND by far.

Ah, again, I fail to realize that I do indeed speak to people who's plethora of games in forum conversation consists of BYOND games only. I was speaking more about all games in general, not only BYOND games. Not very many BYOND games can hold their weight in toilet paper when compared to the average indie game in the open world, much less stand up to the test of artwork quality. Even the worst games in terms of artwork comfortably outdo the most common BYOND games on the website. I believe the problem is that BYOND games are often build to compete with other BYOND games, not striving for overachieving the quality of other indie games. There are a few notable examples that have accomplished this, most recently we have NEStalgia by Silk Games, which was a wonderful example of game play excellence along with art that matches the retro style. The graphical quality was NEStalgia was "good" in reference to the fact that it matches the play style you expect from a Retro RPG. Good artwork is artwork that matches the medium your portraying it in. Do you think that Pablo Picasso would be considered such an amazing artist as he is when comparing his art to Leonardo Da Vinci's style? Not at all, but since his art was judged in a totally different style, he was an amazing sculpture and art maker.

Art in games cannot be judged alike. FPS's are often judged on realism. Sidescroller's are typically more Stylized. Horror is darker and (more often than not) weirder. RPG's are a fickle genre to judge on art. This is definitely a class that must be judged on Gameplay alone, as art is so variable between games, it's difficult to judge on anything to do with it. The only thing you can really stab at with RPG's, is, "Does it fit the game?" The more it fits, the better the artwork is rated, which is why games like NEStalgia are judged so well in art, even though they're not as modern as some would like. Personally, I think NEStalgia wouldn't have done half as well without the retro art it had.

Excuse me, let me be as quaint as I can then. If you fail to choose art that brings your game to life, then you fail in one step of producing a "quality" game. Text-based MUDs are inapplicable since they are, "Text Based" as the name suggests. But if your game requires artistic graphical representation, then you're certainly a fool not to at least spend enough time on it to make it acceptable and enjoyable for the players of said game. People will "Put up with" a dinky, big-headed, player sprite standing bowlegged with his arms outstretched like an American Western parody, but no one says that they will enjoy it being that way, and most players would certainly rather it in a better position. Does that sum up the tangential issue for you that I posed prior? I never said that the games themselves were complete failures, now you're just adding information and assuming my motives based on no credible source. I simply stated that if you're too Lazy to choose an art style to best fit your project, you may as well not bother with having art at all.

Take a little pride and put a little effort into your work, and the personal satisfaction will outweigh any accolades presented by your players or other third parties.

I apologize for "coming off strong", so to speak, however it does bother me when people have the physical ability to improve, but lack the willpower to do so. Lazy is a programmer's virtue, please don't take that from us. If you do, I just might cry.

Also, I must apologize my letting my emotions get away on me. As you probably know it's not something I'm the best at doing and it does lead me to saying things I really shouldn't.