 |
| ||||||||||||
yes. there are redundant colors. yes, in hindsight some of them could've been cut out; however, I chose not too. Most of the redundant colors exist for a purpose - to make working with the background easier and to prevent things from getting intermingled. There were also a few instances, such as in the bottom bricks, where using the same colors would have been inappropriate. to add subtle distinction between layers, objects and other defining contexts, there are additional shades - in a background so defined by its lack of saturation, it is even more necessary to add distinctions. very rarely is there abuse in the amount of colors utilized (aside from the grass), it is simply a matter of different areas utilizing different colors. I felt no need to homogenize the product prior to upload.
Don't forget the Pixelation credit.
Way too many redundant shades. This is the your palette:
Looks like your colors got away from you. Seems like 8-16 is all this should be using. Game layers don't matter.
"Very cool looking BG but 65 colors seems a very large color count."
the color count is mostly because there are actually three "layers" of background here (the front pillars and brickwork, the grass, and the architecture in the background; though if I wanted to be fancy, I could probably have it be 4-5 layers) and I wanted to keep them from bleeding into eachother. I also wanted different areas to have differing contexts; I didn't want the brickwork to be as contrasted and bright as the edges of pillars. I probably could've cut-down a little bit, in hindsight, but I feel that a lot of the subtle nuances and the inclinations might've been lost.
I assume by parallax you mean you'd want a gif showing how the background would look while running through it, with the differing layers scrolling accordingly? I'll see what I can do, but I can't make any promises. ):
Thank you for the comments, everyone!
Very cool looking BG but 65 colors seems a very large color count.
This is really cool!