Technically, every screen has space around the pixels. But it was more noticeable on the GB because it wasn't backlit. Our current screens are simple, flat black when they're off. We light up pixels to create the image (instead of darkening them), and the light tends to bloom/glow a bit, which makes the pixels 'spill over' into the gutters. In fact, a modern backlit pixel often has more empty space around it (relatively, that is) compared to a monochrome unlit pixel.

This image illustrates the effect a bit:

The lone white pixel should stand out much more than the black one does.




Aaaaaanyway.

Yes those last tiles are a good bunch better. The tiles themselves have a much better sense of shape, material and lighting. The grass still feels too hard and blocky though. And to be frank, you're still going to run into the problem I described earlier; strong local depth will lead to weak overall feeling of depth. This image from the tutorial eishiya linked shows it well:


Is there any particular you're switching to a monochrome palette? If it's because you think it's simpler than using colors, well you might be half correct. You won't have to worry as much about selecting a nice palette, but it'll be harder to accurately portray a material, and you need to think better about your color choices to get a good visual disctinction between objects.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't go monochrome. In fact, it'd be great practice. You limit the amount of tools you use (from hue/sat/lum to just luminance) and you're forced to think about some focused issues instead of many different ones. This means you'd learn much more about shape/form and prioritization than you would with colors in your palette. I'm just saying you need to be aware of the impact of going monochrome.

I don't think there's a rule against it or anything, but it seems a bit rude to me to remake the same post just to bump up your thread, just to make it look like you're not double-posting.

Between what has been told to you, the various tutorials linked in this thread, and your own observations of real grass, you should already have everything you need to make great-looking grass. Experiment! Try different things, different ways of applying what you've learned from this thread.

It sounds like you're expecting people to tell you exactly how to proceed. That's not how art works. We're not here to do your work for you, we're here to help you learn. You'll never get good if you don't take the time to think critically and experiment on your own.

Well then... what do you all make of this! I'm sure this is at least close to being some sort of cliff wouldn't you say?

You're still using the same value range for both materials, and you're still not putting the tileset in context.

It means using them in an environment/map, seeing how they work with other visuals (other tiles, characters, etc). The easiest way to put your tiles in context is to make a mock-up of your game using them, and fill in any missing parts with suitable colours or rough drawings of what you plan to make. Doing so helps see whether your tiles work well together early on. Working on anything in a vacuum (without context) usually leads to spending too much time on it, and then having to redo it anyway because it doesn't fit xP

For the sake of context, the backgrounds, other tiles, etc don't have to be refined pixel art, they can just be rough sketches that give you an overall idea of how they'll look. Otherwise, it's be pretty pointless - you'd have to finish each section before putting it all together, which is the exact opposite of the goal here xP

As for backgrounds in pixel art in general, since eventually you'll probably need to do them - it's not as hard as you might think. Being backgrounds, they shouldn't be as detailed as the foreground, so you'll actually be using a lot of solid areas of colour. You'll also probably be working with fewer colours for the backgrounds, since backgrounds need to have less contrast to avoid clashing with the foreground.

As for your updated tiles: I'm honestly not sure what to suggest anymore. There are a lot of different ways to go from here, depending on the look you want. The only real suggestion I have is to consider if the highlights need to be so rough or if they can be rounded. Depending on the kind of rock you're trying to depict, rough ones might be suitable, or they might not.

Perhaps you should try adding some colours, and refine the details once you have everything coloured and tiled. I recommend starting from scratch on the colours instead of using the old ones you had.

I have, and in all cases I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to end up with, so it was largely a matter of just getting the pixels down.

Remember: You're the only one who knows what you want these tiles to feel like when they're done. Any feedback you get here is based on our (most likely highly inaccurate) ideas of what you're aiming for, so make sure you don't follow it blindly. For example, having a sense of large form to the rocks combined with some smaller details is a good idea in general, but in some games, it might not be desirable, you might want it to be flat.

I think your apparent lack of a clear visual goal and the fact that you're working from details outward (starting with rock tiles rather than a sketched out level/map) are what's causing you to have so much trouble.

Sketch in whatever medium you like. Or, block the entire stage out (e.g. make solid squares for solid tiles, other kinds of squares for other features of the stage, etc) and then draw the tiles on top of that.
The way I usually do it is I block out a level that would use those tiles, then sketch features over it (cliffs, houses, trees, etc, all to scale but very roughly drawn) then do my pixel work on a layer above that.

Since sketching isn't one of your strengths, I recommend working on it. You don't need to have great pencil control, but the general art skills that go into making a good drawing or painting are helpful for pixel art. The art tutorial I linked earlier covers most of those skills, but it's up to you to practice them and put them to use.

(Unfortunately I can't give you feedback on your sketch because Photobucket hates me. If you can use it to direct your pixelling, then it's fine.)

Well I made another sketch I think may be better. It isn't pixel art so if you guy don't want it here I can remove if necessary but here it is.

 

Your sketch doesn't seem to show a lot of texture, or contrast in just about anything everything is just grey there is no black or white.

Hopefully this helps you
One of the important skills he displays is proper crosshatchingd]

Edited by Limes - 30 November 2014 at 9:07pm

Have you tried sketching on a PC? Like, in photoshop or MSPaint but crudely, and not like pixel art. I ask because on a PC it's much easier to edit composition and balance. Think of the time it takes to shade the entire sky with a pencil, for example. On a PC you could just use paintbucket/floodfill.

Well I've recolored and altered a bit, which one do you like more?



The grass may not look great but I'm keeping it for context, I plan on altering later.

it's more readable, that's for sure. the second of two is the better.

Practice drawing rocks just like this then try to incorporate them into the design. At the moment the dirt looks really messy and all over the place try to simpilize it just PRACTISE ROCKS

yeah just draw rocks individually so they make sense when putting them into the big picture.

Seconding what Limes said. Imo, you're more likely to get better results if you try drawing each individual rock into a tile instead of doing them all in one go. Then it gives you a better idea of how all the rocks effect each other in terms of lighting. You don't need to do it that way, but you may get better results.

If you want your tiles to really pop, try to emphasize on your darker colours instead of making your dominant colour the lightest in your palette.

Think about it in terms of edges. You have a rock that has a certain amount of sides, which side will be darkest and which side will be the lighest? As oppose to making small cracks to separate each rock from each other.

Edited by ADrawingMan - 10 December 2014 at 4:15am

They look more like tufts of fur to me. They could work if you're going for a flowstone look, but then those colours are not appropriate. I was under the impression you were going for more of a boulder look, anyway? I have no idea though, you still haven't actually said what you're trying to depict.


Edited by eishiya - 16 December 2014 at 7:48am

I would like to stress that my ultimate objective is to make a good cliff and grass tileset. so basically I should make the shape of the rock as the darkest color and add lighter shades to it and take note of the lightsource and I'm good to go?

How do these rocks look?



Edited by Turon - 17 December 2014 at 4:54am

is it bad to drag lines down? 

what are "some of fools works"? your not being very clear, unless I'm mistaken...

um... forgive me if I appear ignorant but what er... point were you um... trying to make with those awesome pieces of pixel art?

Ohh I kindove just assumed you knew who fool was. These are examples of fools rocks.

Fool is the most... "decorated" pixel artist.

Edited by Limes - 19 December 2014 at 10:18am

"Fool" is the artist's username.

That's your decision to make, not anyone else's. Consider why those lines are there. If there's a good, useful reason, then keep them. If there's not, then get rid of them. They make your rocks look indistinct and drippy. If that's your intention, that's great. If it's not, then you should consider making changes.