@caeles: You're welcome to do that, it's kind of overkill.
The art submission form is already too busy as it is, and the fact that there's so much to fill out is a frequent complaint that we get from people submitting art. Checking a box beside the license icon (which is linked to the text of the license) is a perfectly reasonable way for a submitter to indicate which licenses they're releasing their work under. If they *want* to add additional info, they're free to do so in the Copyright / Attribution Notice section, but for people (like myself) who aren't particularly picky about how they're credited, I don't want to force them through an extra step on a page where there are already too many steps.
Regarding the possibility of confusion about whether or not the icon is an ad for the GPL, I'll say this much: OGA has been around for half a decade now, and in that time, even with all the varying confusion about licenses, we've never once (to my knowledge) had that particular issue. And if we did, really the worst thing that will happen is that the user might ask the artist for permission (which does happen on occasion if people don't know what the licenses mean). I'd be much more concerned about the possibility of a false positive (that is, someone believing that a work has a license that it doesn't have) rather than a false negative (that is, someone being overly cautious).
That said, if any of this stuff really is a point of confusion for people, I'd like to hear from the community.
There's no technical reason to use less colors in your palette, but there are two non-technical reasons I can think of.
Working with a more limited palette is a bit easier.
Picking a limited set of colors ensures some consistency of style.
Honestly, these are both just style choices, in my opinion, so if you want to not limit yourself in terms of colors, I don't think there's anything wrong with just using whatever ones you want and staying away from a limited palette, but that's just me.
Anyway, that portrait is excellent. If I were to change anything about it, I'd say think about adding some highlights and shadows to the hair, and maybe a highlight on her visor.
The hightlight tone doesn't have to be *much* different. Even a subtle change in hue can make things interesting, but for reference, I attached one with a slightly more dramatic change.
As for symmetricality, the issue is that it's just slightly off, which makes the the asymmetricality look like a mistake rather than something intentional. If you want it to be asymmetrical, you should probably make it more dramatic.
So, about materials, starting with the shiny purple dome on top of the saucer. My advice here is to take a look at reference images of shiny spheres and see how the light hits them. In particular, you'll want to think about where your main light source is. In this case, I'm going to assume it's lit by the sun, and that the sun is up and to the left, so the reflection of the sun is going to be in the upper left part of the dome.
Also keep in mind that the sun's light is a bit yellow, so as a rule, any highlights that are from the sun should be slightly yellower as well as brighter.
Here it is so far. Note that I cleaned the shape up a bit and did a mirror image to make everything symmetrical.
@caeles: You're welcome to do that, it's kind of overkill.
The art submission form is already too busy as it is, and the fact that there's so much to fill out is a frequent complaint that we get from people submitting art. Checking a box beside the license icon (which is linked to the text of the license) is a perfectly reasonable way for a submitter to indicate which licenses they're releasing their work under. If they *want* to add additional info, they're free to do so in the Copyright / Attribution Notice section, but for people (like myself) who aren't particularly picky about how they're credited, I don't want to force them through an extra step on a page where there are already too many steps.
Regarding the possibility of confusion about whether or not the icon is an ad for the GPL, I'll say this much: OGA has been around for half a decade now, and in that time, even with all the varying confusion about licenses, we've never once (to my knowledge) had that particular issue. And if we did, really the worst thing that will happen is that the user might ask the artist for permission (which does happen on occasion if people don't know what the licenses mean). I'd be much more concerned about the possibility of a false positive (that is, someone believing that a work has a license that it doesn't have) rather than a false negative (that is, someone being overly cautious).
That said, if any of this stuff really is a point of confusion for people, I'd like to hear from the community.
Hey, congrats on finishing your project!
Unfortunately, I don't have the right hardware to try your game out, but it looks like a neat concept. :)
Thanks for the heads up. I've fixed it.
Fortunately, that clause is explicitly *not* part of the license, so that makes things simpler.
There's no technical reason to use less colors in your palette, but there are two non-technical reasons I can think of.
Honestly, these are both just style choices, in my opinion, so if you want to not limit yourself in terms of colors, I don't think there's anything wrong with just using whatever ones you want and staying away from a limited palette, but that's just me.
Anyway, that portrait is excellent. If I were to change anything about it, I'd say think about adding some highlights and shadows to the hair, and maybe a highlight on her visor.
Darkened the far leg a bit in the running animation..
If you have a new set of images, I'd make a new thread. If you're revising these ones, I'd post them here.
But do whatever makes sense. We don't have any hard and fast rules about making threads.
And riding a broom (not animated). Turns out I was able to adapt one of the running frames for this.
The hightlight tone doesn't have to be *much* different. Even a subtle change in hue can make things interesting, but for reference, I attached one with a slightly more dramatic change.
As for symmetricality, the issue is that it's just slightly off, which makes the the asymmetricality look like a mistake rather than something intentional. If you want it to be asymmetrical, you should probably make it more dramatic.
So, about materials, starting with the shiny purple dome on top of the saucer. My advice here is to take a look at reference images of shiny spheres and see how the light hits them. In particular, you'll want to think about where your main light source is. In this case, I'm going to assume it's lit by the sun, and that the sun is up and to the left, so the reflection of the sun is going to be in the upper left part of the dome.
Also keep in mind that the sun's light is a bit yellow, so as a rule, any highlights that are from the sun should be slightly yellower as well as brighter.
Here it is so far. Note that I cleaned the shape up a bit and did a mirror image to make everything symmetrical.
And animated...
Pages