🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:14:02 UTC No. 994607
>Putting textures on simple geometry isn't real ar-ACK!
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 18:37:03 UTC No. 994622
>>994607
Looks nice.
Could look better.
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:40:16 UTC No. 994644
>>994607
game? it reminds me of The Tower map from second gen MonHun
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 02:15:35 UTC No. 994656
>>994607
Hmmm... I saw a thread on /v/ earlier with an eerily similar picture,.. The same picture, even.
https://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/688081
Is this you, OP?
>>994644
The linked thread answers the question
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 11:36:17 UTC No. 994675
I really, really like it. Excellent job.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 11:39:27 UTC No. 994676
>>994675
Wait, you didn't make it. Never mind, please promptly kill yourself OP.
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 00:14:27 UTC No. 994734
>>994607
Is learning to draw required to get to this level of making textures
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 02:20:56 UTC No. 994752
>>994734
No, you can make these textures from stock images
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:58:45 UTC No. 994788
>>994607
There's a reason we don't do this anymore
(It looks like shit)
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:06:27 UTC No. 994802
>>994788
Could you show OP something that looks good then?
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 16:50:37 UTC No. 994818
>>994788
I would take this over the current mess of flat amateur cities and copy pasted dreck from foriegn asset farms any day. Or do we need to trot out the screenshots of Starfield again?
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 01:45:52 UTC No. 994855
>>994802
>>994818
You are a pair of contrarians that don't even believe what you're implying
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:09:43 UTC No. 994856
>>994855
>See a pic of a beautiful environment with complexity and depth to it, the kind that fills one with curiosity and makes them feel the urge to explore
>It's apparently from a mobile game from 2015, so it even has a practical excuse to be low res, not that it would need one
>More people like it than dislike it
>It's actually le bad because... MUH GRAFIX!!!
>NO, IT'S ACTUALLY EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S THE CONTRARIAN!!!
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:27:43 UTC No. 994858
>>994788
>There's a reason we
>we
PYW
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:36:27 UTC No. 994863
>>994860
looks nice
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:43:41 UTC No. 995115
>>994607
how do I achieve this look?
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 23:10:27 UTC No. 995125
>>995115
Alot of it is pretty simple stuff.
First off, start looking for photos that get kinda close to what you're looking for. In this instance looking for old stone/clay buildings, historical sites, things like that.
Grab stuff from them using a perspective snip tool. Something like Fspy or Shoebox would be what I use. There might be other tools for it though.
After you've grabbed a bunch, start smashing them together, getting a nice looping texture. paint in a little bit, fuck with it some, photobash, all the usual things.
In this case, a sandy sort of overlay would work, so hi density noise with brownish color variation will work.
Finally, unite the colors together. an easy way to do this is to grayscale everything and then add color back in, which was pretty standard practice on the PS2 for saving texture memory. They often would use vertex color, but here you can just put it into the texture.
After that, reintroduce some color variance in the textures using multiply or soft/hard light.
If you wanna do it low-res, Scale down using Lanzscos-3 Non Seperable, as it will keep detail and contrasts more consistently than other rescale methods.
Option 1: Just use Pixatool/Pixel Composer/Spritemancer to palettize and add dithering. Grab a palette from Lospec or whatever. (fastest option)
Option 2: use a dither pattern set to overlay or hard light, and a posterize layer to limit the palette to the set color number you want.
I used Option 2 in this instance because I was learning Affinity Photo when I made this. I also made specific cuts in the mesh to add vertex color shading along spots for color.
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 23:13:33 UTC No. 995126
>>995125
I want to stress though, BE WILLING TO GO OUT AND TAKE YOUR OWN PHOTOS. Being a shutterbug is MANDATORY for this kind of work, but you don't need a fancy camera to do it, just a steady hand or camera stand.
If you're doing lowspec, that becomes alot less of an issue. You can use some pretty grainy or blurry photos as long as you use Lanzcos Non Seperable for downscaling and are willing to touch up things a bit.
Go out and have fun!
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Sep 2024 05:30:01 UTC No. 995309
>>994788
Who's "we"? You and the voices in your head?
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Sep 2024 12:51:45 UTC No. 995323
Fine
>>994802
>Could you show OP something that looks good then?
ok
>>994818
I'm talking about
>Putting textures on simple geometry
And having them take up most of the screen vs not doing that. Not shitters who are behind art.
>>994856
>It's apparently from a mobile game from 2015
I assumed it was from an old PS2 era game, why? because compared to what you can do today it looks like shit. "It's good for X" and "It's good for Y" doesn't mean it doesn't look like shit. >>994860 looks better, it's not even close. It still wouldn't beat someone competent doing an actual model, stylized or not.
>More people like it than dislike it
Liking shit is fine but denying what it is, is something else. You people onions out just like those you mock for baseding out, the difference is it's oldslop instead of goyslop. You are not as keen as you think.
>It's actually le bad because... MUH GRAFIX!!!
The problem is not what can be done today, it's the people doing it. Everything's about streamline this and streamline that nowadays, everyone looks for automatic or speed optimal solutions to everything. Old artists were good, new artists are bad, old tech is bad, new tech is good. You lot love this shit yet refuse to use old software
>>995309
>Who's "we"?
"We" is not most of this board I can tell you that, a lot of you are shitters. I will die on this hill I don't give a fuck
You lot better not be the same people who talked shit about that Ian Hubert dude or that kid that won an award for making dumpling robot short. They did the same shit you're championing in this very thread.
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:08:34 UTC No. 995326
>>995323
>ok
So when are you gonna do that?
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:22:33 UTC No. 995329
>>995328
I'm not him retard, but FFXV looks like ultra generic asset store shit. It does not look good by any stretch of the imagination. Even among games going for realism it looks fucking bland.
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:44:42 UTC No. 995355
>>995323
Yes I love dudes in a grassy field, that's my favorite game!
It does a much better job of provoking the imagination than what OP posted, probably because the graphics are gooder.
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Sep 2024 20:51:24 UTC No. 995370
>>994607
It's real if you use the displacement input. But real isn't hot. It's hot if you decimate after that, and use flat colors.
Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 20:35:19 UTC No. 995485
>>995323
>You lot love this shit yet refuse to use old software
Some of us do, but that doesn't stop you from throwing a shit fit anyways.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 16:16:18 UTC No. 995559
>>995323
>>995324
Oh lol, I see what the problem is. You’re completely tasteless.
I image searched your work and I found your deviantart. I get it, you have skills, but you’re using those skills to make fanart and presumably assets for slop games made by corporations that just want to squeeze money out of people.
If we want to talk about art that actually isn’t shit, let’s talk about some of the things the old masters made. I don’t know why this goes over the heads of so many people, even artists, but the goal of the old masters wasn’t just to make “good” art, you know, to be skilled at their craft, but also to create works of art that had some sense of aesthetic beauty along with some depiction of a moral or cultural value in order to enrich the mind of the viewer. That is what made their art actually good and not slop, and your models don’t have any of those qualities. Most of the generic sci-fi/fantasy shit you see in games today doesn’t have any of those qualities. OP’s pic may not have a message or any cultural meaning, but the person who created it at least had a good sense of aesthetics, and that’s why it works in spite of the somewhat poor execution.
I’m not trying to imply that I’m on the same level as the old masters, but what I am saying is that you’re a shitter just like everyone else here, you’re just better at it. Get over yourself or get better taste if you want to act like that.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 18:13:51 UTC No. 995575
>>995559
This picture looks like AI slop to be honest.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 19:09:22 UTC No. 995580
>>995575
I laughed a lot and then got sad because of how true it is.
Anonymous at Wed, 18 Sep 2024 09:58:13 UTC No. 995673
>>995329
next
>>995355
next
>>995485
looool
>>995559
Flattered that you think I might work in a studio based off of a 5+ yr abandoned account because I know how much it's championed among the mouth breathers. But no, I've never worked nor ever had the intention of working for a company. In corporations you're less of an artist, and more of a cog that performs tasks. 'we' aren't simple cogs, 'we' are just people with heads screwed on their necks, cog or not. Now if you'd call static models rendered on a grey background 'art' art, they're not, and I didn't intend for them to be traced to.
And by the way, I don't hold old masters to the same degree as artists commonly do. They're overrated and the constant circle jerking and overanalyses just gets on my nerves. Also If an old master painted OP it would look way better than OP, that's the point. It's like you guys have overthought things to where you start ogling at OP's sludge. I actually can't believe this shit.
Anonymous at Wed, 18 Sep 2024 19:59:05 UTC No. 995717
>>995673
God you're annoying. Shut up.
How about you guys teach some stuff about making art instead of whining all the damned time?
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 07:48:30 UTC No. 995872
>>994734
nothing in that image invokes draftsmanship
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:51:26 UTC No. 995875
>>995872
You're right, it doesn't.
Nor does it EVOKE draftsmanship.
If you're gonna pretend to sound smart with special words, at least use the correct ones.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:11:33 UTC No. 995913
>>995875
please we've gone past people caring about words, semantics, grammar in this post zoomer world. who really cares?
Anonymous at Sat, 21 Sep 2024 07:30:26 UTC No. 995970
>>995913
I care.
t. zoomer
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:14:44 UTC No. 998507
Haha, got 'em!
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 00:54:41 UTC No. 999018
>>999016
Looks good anon
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:29:58 UTC No. 999051
>>996564
This looks so soothing to the eyes, nu-games could never.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:27:26 UTC No. 999202
I was playing thrones and liberty and couldnt stop thinking about how much more aesthetically pleasing wow classic is with .0001 of the polygons
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:35:25 UTC No. 999203
>>994788
that's not the actual reason.
the real reason is all of the talent in the gaming industry was chased and banished away because shit-leftists/liberals/woke-shitter
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:37:20 UTC No. 999204
>>995970
and I care that he cares because I also care about precise usage of words.
t. 30-yo boomer
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:41:45 UTC No. 999205
>>999051
there's an island in Sea of Thieves that has that vibe either in Ancient Isles or Shores of Plenty biome
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:12:13 UTC No. 999210
>>995323
ah yes, good graphics = "grass field with mountains in the distance™ that has been done to death since crysis 1"
i genuinely can't tell if you're a good troll or a just a tasteless schizo
how delusional do you have to be to think that you're better than anyone here or whoever made OP's image when you don't know the difference between graphic fidelity and aesthetics?