 |
| ||||||||||||
if you look closely, the description has the " [it's a pixel-over] " and "[used as reference/base/whatever]" on it.
What's so wrong about a pixel-over?
Is it not pixel art?
I suggest finding a clean one over the internet, then I'll rest my case.
This piece looks so much better then anything in that video, it's epic. That song is really nice though.
Only things bugging me are the AA on the blue highlight, the kinda red blobl at the back of the hat, and the AA or lack of on some of the outlines.
This is kind of an old case but I thought I'd try to explain.
The character design, the perspective, the form, the colours, the shading and the lineart are the work of the original creator. Your part was only transferring that from non-PA to PA. This means that if we were to criticize this piece, we'd be criticizing the work of somebody else- who wouldn't be there to make any use of the critique (be it positive or negative).
It is common to try your own shading/colourscheme on somebody's lineart- then we can post crits on the shading and colours. In this case, pretty much all we could comment on is the AA (admittedly well done IMO). But (and hopefully this answers your question) anti-aliasing itself can hardly be considered "art".