Show example of artist 1 and artist 2 to compare.
If what you posted is by 2 artists then they are equal in quality and you are being unfair.

The lower row is not very consistent with the first row. The first row look nicer, maybe with some pixels to clean. The lower perspective is more difficult to pixel, but it's not correctly done yet, specially the chest and legs of the griffin, the front leg of the lizard and the back of the horned creature. Also the perspective of the horned one is wrong, in the upper row it's facing right-down, so in the lower it should face left-up, not up as its hips seems to point.
Also what you say about the bulldog pose it's somehow true, in the upper row front and back legs are more or less the same lenght so the back of the creature is parallel to the ground, in the lower one it's not.


ps: I think the are elements in the second row that point that it's a little "franken-pixelled" (with pieces of the upper row, as I think that red thing in the back of the horned creature it's the remains of the mouth from above).


Edited by dyluck - 18 March 2015 at 10:45am

That's also correct. And it's a MAJOR flaw. I should have noticed, it's even more obvious than what I pointed. But the more eyes, the better feedback.
HAHAHA
The tail reminds me of the ones of the dragon figures of the boardgame "Runewars"... they had the same fatal design flaw.
A tail is part of the spine, should be aligned with it, not in the butt.

ps: I dislike saying negative comments about other people's work, I'm sorry, I'm just beeing sincere. The art on the lower row needs more work.



Edited by dyluck - 18 March 2015 at 10:54am

The sloppiest edit ever (I can't spend more time on it). Just to show how do I think it should be the shape of the body from that angle.


I'have just noticed that both wings of the griffin are in the upper row, actually not correct in perspective, they look too side perspective.

Edited by dyluck - 18 March 2015 at 2:05pm

I'm so sorry to know he got upset!
The art was inded very nice but in my opinion still unfinished!

I really like the textures, specially the wings.. I'm not sure if I can do it better, but if he really is no further interested, and you need it finished, I'll try my best.
Now I feel bad.

Okay. If you do it, don't forget to mention Iscalio as the original griffin author:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/93127.htm

He is very talented, because he never done any isometric art before, yet created some of the best isometric characters I've seen.

Actually, he got upset because I've made a joke around him calling himself experienced.

The problem is that this guy refused to acknowledge that the sprites have problem and tells that he has done isometry before for a few big trademarks. Although a few very experienced pixel artist refused it outright, saying that isometry is a difficult subject.


I haven't mention his name here, so it shouldn't damage his reputation.


Yes. He had some good sideview works, but I havent seen there any isometry, although he told that he done it.


He is a freelancer, because the indie project can't afford to keep full time employees.


His resume says he say an art degree.


As I said, I haven't mentioned his name. That was just to show him, why I'm not accepting his current result.


Edited by snv - 18 March 2015 at 3:48pm

Both have issues regarding isometric construction and things not lining up properly. This stems from working free-hand and without a solid skeleton etc. You can notice this when looking at the same toe on each leg and drawing a line between them, like RHL did. Or by looking at the heighest point of the gryphon wings.

However, the bottom row clearly rely a lot on mirroring and copying with slight edits. Even some parts that were edited share the outline (scythe hand for example).

While the bottom one isn't absolute crap and could pass in a game depending on your budget, it's nowhere near the same quality as the top row. But beyond that; even if it was the same quality, using a mirroring technique like this reduces the workload and thus the time spent by a lot. This is why frankenpixeling is sometimes chosen for a game; it can reduce the time to create a secondary sprite to only a quarter of the original.

What you have to ask yourself is this; is the work worth the money? If he's asking the same rates per sprite as your primary artist, then no. If he's asking the same rates per hour, possibly, depending on how fast both are.

I have the feeling you picked the secondary artist to be secondary because he's cheaper or faster. And in that case, although the sprites are less quality, he can still be okay on a 'value' scale - you're simply choosing to have cheaper sprites.

I would like to say that the sprites of the secon artist were cool.
We usually post wip stuff here to ask for help to see flaws that other eyes see better than the artist's ones, for learning and practise purposes mostly, and here tons of feedback are provided to polish it and make it as good as the artist wants to work on it.

To be honest, my feedback was provided to solve the issues if they were unnoticed by the artist; For 20$/griffin-like piece I think it's ok, but I see a few little flaws and pixels that could be cleaned in no time.

Since it's a payed work, we would need to know how much money was spent on each piece to say wheter if the artist was sloppy or not.

That's where I think the misunderstanding is; if you payed 20$ for the griffin, he probably couldn't be able to work more time on it, since he would be literally loosing money. That's another thing that separates 'us mortals' from really pros: I can do something decent, but it cost me insane amounts of time, but they do it probably in a fraction of time.

Said that:

I'm working on an isometric back-sided version of the griffin, just because I think it's tough and challenging and I like the original art.

snv, if you ever like the result, I shall gladly take your 20$, but said that I'm not capable of working this for money.
Since I'm not an experienced pixel-artist, and I never did isometric sprites (and this one I think is really difficult) I'm not sure how much hours would it take me to finish it, but I fear that a lot!



Edited by dyluck - 20 March 2015 at 12:41pm

Hi again, in my last edit, height, size and proportions had issues.
I tried to fix it. Maybe I should make the chest bigger?
The head perspective is now more correct.

¿Where would the light source come from?¿From southwest? ¿Between them?

*Also tried to add texture to the head but its quite difficult to makethe head texture alike the one in the original. My attempts looks like if the feathers in the head were quite more short and regular.

Oh dear. There are just so many things I need to discuss about this thread. I'm going to try to be positive and fair, etc. But judging by our interactions in the past and this thread I don't believe snv minds discussing this stuff in the open. I will aim to avoid specific monetary compensation discussion and so forth.

Well first off. Hi I'm Artist #1. All the originals of these creatures can be found on my gallery in the order created. The most recent being a Beholder that's awaiting acceptance that I just posted.

I want to say thus far in only my own interactions with him I believe SNV has been quite reasonable in expectations, requirements, fixes asked for, compensation, etc (for ME specifically, no clue what interactions have been with any other team members).

My Creatures - I made the originals. Also the lizard on the right was a creature I volunteered to make as a test as to whether I could be sufficiently competent at isometric creatures for the game. I did not know it was going to be purchased and used. I think the quality of work I've done has improved since then, but I do certainly struggle with isometric perspective.

The Images that SNV Posted - I'm not sure what's going on with the original image but I can't see it clearly and when I download it it errors for me in photoshop and will not open. So it's hard for me to see it clearly.

Isometric Perspective - your isometric diamond platforms (see griffon post above this one) seem to be slightly different than the ones I have gotten from you as a sample of a space in game. If someone's working on the griffon turnaround snv you may wish to post that square for reference. I don't believe these isometric ratios match up so it looks like the creature I designed is standing on a surface that is tilted dramatically different than what I designed it to stand on. This may make the creatures appear here in the thread to be incorrect in ways they actually are not. I will leave it to snv to post that image if he wishes, but I will say it is very clean with a 2-to-1 pixel ratio whereas the one I see in the post above is rough with a much more pronounced tilt.

Light Sources - My original tests and designs were based on an upper left/front lighting source. But as I got more example characters from SNV and realized these characters might be flipped I have since tried to make (as subtly as possible) more neutral, front/top lighting.

Character Flipping - I can't see the original image well, but the lizard and griffon were designed facing left. So they have been flipped. I note in the much clearer image in the post above that the right-facing griffon is not a perfect pixel match for the original I made. If this is the case with the original image this may be slightly changing the way people see the quality, cleanness of pixeling, or perspective of the creature. When asking questions of relative quality on a forum like this these many different, seemingly minor issues may take on more importance to a reviewer.

Again this is my first attempt at isometric characters. I'm attempting to do as good a job as I can with the time I have to do the work vs compensation. And I think all in all I'm quite happy with it, but there will no doubt be some errors.

I will continue this response on another reply just to keep these to a sane length and only address one group of issues at a time.



Edited by Iscalio - 21 March 2015 at 6:59pm

About the rotated sprites made by the other artist...

I have no clue who the other artist is. I have always interacted through SNV and I thought other people were part of some small local group he was working with (in Russia?). If I'd known about them being a PJ artist I probably would have tried to reach out to keep us on the same page, but didn't want to step on toes or do anything that could alienate someone when this is one of my first paid commissions as a pixel artist.

Seeking Advice - SNV, first off I'd suggest you send me this image or have me talk to your other artist before you come here. You did so with the first animation of the rat. My only concern about responding to your request for critique is that I would have given you too much or you would have thought you needed to implement things that weren't critical. Or that my critique would not be well received by the artist.

But I could have pointed out problems probably pretty clearly. Maybe you wouldn't have the perfect response from a whole community of 20 year isometric veterans, but you don't necessarily need that level or volume of input in order to get a good product. I could help the other person fix some things and if all else fails you can pay them for their work and find someone else (or whatever people are suggesting based on contracts, this is completely new to me).

I would suggest we at the very least try to work with the artist to fix what they have done and ensure they are paid for the time they have put in.

Size of Sprites - The size images you've got me making are quite big for pixel work I think. Often they are somewhere around 64x100. This takes me a good 6-8 hours at least from image reference to sketches and/or grey marker silhouette shapes to linework to pixeling, etc. Maybe an experienced pixel artist could work faster, but I'm not sure how much faster while rotating them in isometric perspective and maintaining very strong quality. The designs as well (based somewhat on what you already had for your dragon, skeleton, orc, etc) are fairly complex and likely a challenge to read and replicate.

I am sure if I was taking someone else's sprites and trying to quickly turn them in isometric perspective and animate them I'd have a hell of a time with it. I struggle to get the perspective right on my own character/style doing a single frame.

"Experienced Pixel Artist" - Everyone is trying to find work and this term is in no way a stretch for almost anyone to put on a resume. I have no problem with this artist using this phrase, especially if they've done a few (hopefully successful) game production cycles. The games industry will not chase you down to hire you, you have to sell yourself and fight for work (this is something I've struggled with consistently). If you have experience you need to tell people so and be confident in your work. Then an employer can look at your portfolio and make the decision what quality level they believe you can bring. And if the level of quality is consistently not what you want then decide to continue working with that person or not.

Although I understand you are trying to find answers, I know if I was Artist 2 I would be quite upset that this was brought to the forum. Artist 2 needs to use this forum and interact with these people to improve and find new work. You may not have used their name, but maybe they've already told some people they were working on this project. You've always been ok with us sharing this information (thanks!). Maybe they'll want to post some of their work for this project to their gallery, which instantly connects them to you and this thread.

How to get the right feedback....hmmm...maybe if I couldn't help them you could encourage them to go to the forum themselves and post this stuff? It's amazing how much people can improve their own work with feedback. If the work isn't quite there initially often it can be improved to at least workable given time and will. It's tough though when the pay is limited to also put in extra (free?) hours to struggle over difficult fixes.

***********

As for my own work I'm a little shy about it being posted to a thread like this. Usually the employer would not see a thread like this directly. Thus a person could normally get productive critique without the person they are doing work for seeing any negative responses to their work. Even though you like my work you are getting feedback from people with a lot of experience who are able to point out flaws you would never notice or be concerned with otherwise. Or perhaps flaws that weren't even in my originals but are in images that have been flipped or changed as I've previously described.

Hi dyluck,

Here are some quick corrections to your griffin, which I quickly made using ruler tool and exploiting isometry properties without much thinking.

Hi dyluck,

>About the height of the lion part, I couldn't see trough the wings.
Iscalio's PJ portfolio has the griffin without wings
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/93127.htm

>I didn't know there were isometric pixel tools, I'm using paint as I always do but I wasn't putting too much accuracy. ;)
I recommend using GIMP or Photoshop. Both have ruler tool, which isn't really "isometric tool". Using isometric cubes and other primitives as voxels could also be useful to do measures and painting. Real isometric tool would be 3d renderer, like Blender, set into isometric projection mode, which could be helpful for an inexperienced artist.

Hi dyluck,

hope this tiger will be helpful in studying cat's anatomy in isometry.

> I'm not sure if I'm supposed to match the original or do it a little more realistic like the example you provided.
Try matching the original as this is an exercise in spatial thinking.

>I did the head rounder and changed the beak, corrected the height, head and legs positions.
Yup. That is closer to the original.

>I understand now that my previous head was more in 3D rather than isometric
Actually, isometric projection is a kind 3d projection. Maybe you meant it was "more in perspective"?

I added a feather texture for the head, and since the previous head was just closer to the original, but still not alike, I tweaked it some more to resemble more the working material.



*I would like to know your opinion on the wings made by the artist number 2, to know if I can use them (editing them, since I think they're quite ok) or if I should start over.

*I've studied (a little) lion bone anatomy and definitively, the way I should go would  be considered a little anatomically incorrect, but for project sake I'll try to match the original. I'm just working for them to look natural but resembling the original ones.

And thanks for the advice, Iscalio!


Edited by dyluck - 24 March 2015 at 11:42am

Very glad to know!!
Thanks a lot! It took me quite a long time.



Edited by dyluck - 24 March 2015 at 11:38am

It still needs some cleaning, and the legs still are not correct. The tail shape considering the original art I think should be like this.
Still figuring out how to draw the wings.
:P





Edited by dyluck - 26 March 2015 at 11:49am

It seems correct, the griffin looks better the other way, but sure it is not in the same pose than the original. With snv's approval I'll go more like this:


ps: This is a quite difficult exercise to me. Instead of working on it on little time gaps, I should have waited for time periods long enough to think better what should it look like. This way I'm making too many mistakes and some of them I didn't even noticed. :P


Edited by dyluck - 27 March 2015 at 5:01am

Yep, the entire back legs still are in progress. I did a slightly bigger head, I'll post an edit asap, but for now I think the shape of the body is right.
After some cleaning I'll start the wings. I already did some sketches but none that I like.

I think I have fixed the shape of the legs. And the shape of the head. The wings are still in progress, but the ones above are similar on my thoughts on how should they look like.
I would like to work a little more on the chest and legs and maybe the feather texture for the head.
I faced this as a long term exercise to do it as possibly good as I can, if you need it done asap, and you like the current sprites you can use them to be given to more experienced/better performing artists for polishing it quick (for free).


Edited by dyluck - 28 March 2015 at 8:52am

i will really not contribute, but that's why this is so hard.... crazy stuff to do this right.

Okay. Here is a 4-times smaller version of the griffin. I think it should be easier to rotate it, then enlarge (using some edge tracing method) and texture.



Believe me, perspective projection is harder than isometry.

Edited by snv - 30 March 2015 at 1:09am

Isn't that kinda mean? It seems dyluck has been working hard on the sprite now all of his effort is for nothing? I know I'm not involved, but still...