[Flare]

Its these bits, its the AA that seems to make the circle uneven.

[Gambit]

I'm guessing you're referring to the inside portions of the rings. I dunno, I don't really see a problem with them myself. The light source is coming straight down, so there's going to be a section on the sides like that where the shadows transition.

EDIT: Yeah, I think I got it now. That shadow on the one side is a bit darker for some reason. Dunno why, but if worse comes to worst I can just copy the left side and paste it on the right and it'll be fine. Or at least it should be. Another thing to remember, is that this icon won't ever be seen bigger than just the little tiny very I posted on the page before, so that detail on the shadows won't really matter.

Here's this thing with a thicker border.

This post has been edited by Gambit: 23 August 2009 - 09:51 PM

[Canned Karma]

I'm thinking this one is good to go now. Any more changes won't even be able to be seen. Nice job on that one Gam.

[ICEknight]

Yeah, it looks good as it is now.

[Shanesan]

Original/Old/New

Sorry guys, but I have to come back to this.

The yellow/black lines are wrong. They aren't supposed to change on their rotational axis, but they need to become SHORTER HORIZONTALLY as they approach the curve to simulate said curve.

CODE

/ /  /   /    /     /  \     \    \   \  \ \

Just looking at that looks like it's cylindrical if you use a little imagination, does it not?

The "caution tape", as far as the design is concerned, needs not change. It just needs to crush together as it reaches the curve. Just look how the originals pixelated version goes not change the degree of the tilt of the line, but shortens the lines as they reach the curve.

Also, the dots on the bottom are supposed to simulate light relections. They're not there to show "shiny" or there just for show. The engine coders should handle light reflections on the bottom of the ball there.

Other than that, fantastic work.

This post has been edited by Shanesan: 24 August 2009 - 02:06 AM

[The Growler]

I'm guessing you're referring to the inside portions of the rings. I dunno, I don't really see a problem with them myself. The light source is coming straight down, so there's going to be a section on the sides like that where the shadows transition.

EDIT: Yeah, I think I got it now. That shadow on the one side is a bit darker for some reason. Dunno why, but if worse comes to worst I can just copy the left side and paste it on the right and it'll be fine. Or at least it should be. Another thing to remember, is that this icon won't ever be seen bigger than just the little tiny very I posted on the page before, so that detail on the shadows won't really matter.

Here's this thing with a thicker border.

What about the highlight/shine on the top of the circle? And secondly, why did you put a gold rim around the outward part of the circle? It's certainly not in the original, and TBH I'm still not really convinced that it improves the look of it/suits it.

Thirdly, whenever I see this icon the red circle always looks like it's out-dented, rather than indented like you've made it.

I can appreciate where you're going with this, but I seriously don't think it suits the style better than the original icon.

This post has been edited by The Growler: 24 August 2009 - 12:48 PM

[Blast Processing]

Look at how small that is. When you're working with such a small piece of art (not to mention a limited pallette) you just can't add anything like that - and exactly why should we stick ridigly to an icon so constrained by it's small dimensions and technical limitations.

[Caitlin]

What about the highlight/shine on the top of the circle? And secondly, why did you put a gold rim around the outward part of the circle? It's certainly not in the original, and TBH I'm still not really convinced that it improves the look of it/suits it.

Thirdly, whenever I see this icon the red circle always looks like it's out-dented, rather than indented like you've made it.

I can appreciate where you're going with this, but I seriously don't think it suits the style better than the original icon.

You want the original?



Problem solved. Now stop worrying about asinine improvements to otherwise crappy art or this project will never get anywhere. At the rate you "Original Pixel Fags" are allowing this to progress, Duke Nukem Forever will no longer be the project with the longest development time.

[ICEknight]

What about the highlight/shine on the top of the circle? And secondly, why did you put a gold rim around the outward part of the circle? It's certainly not in the original, and TBH I'm still not really convinced that it improves the look of it/suits it.

Thirdly, whenever I see this icon the red circle always looks like it's out-dented, rather than indented like you've made it.

I can appreciate where you're going with this, but I seriously don't think it suits the style better than the original icon.

You want the original?



Problem solved. Now stop worrying about asinine improvements to otherwise crappy art or this project will never get anywhere. At the rate you "Original Pixel Fags" are allowing this to progress, Duke Nukem Forever will no longer be the project with the longest development time.

...Seriously, please let the others express their oppinion in constructive ways, thank you.

The Growler made some valid points there. Even at that size, the little emblem shares some similarities with the starpost in its shading.

This post has been edited by ICEknight: 24 August 2009 - 04:47 PM

[Master Emerald]

The Growler made some valid points there. Even at that size, the little emblem shares some similarities with the starpost in its shading.

I already suggested that but my mockup was awful (I have to agree but it was only a mockup XD) and the idea was canned. >.>

[lotharstar]

Looks great! Part of me wants to be an OPF, but honestly, I don't think anyone's going to notice a difference. I kind of also agree that being an OPF on the title screen selection emblem (isn't 2P VS mode out for the time being anyway?) is pretty pointless.

[ICEknight]

The Growler made some valid points there. Even at that size, the little emblem shares some similarities with the starpost in its shading.

I already suggested that but my mockup was awful (I have to agree but it was only a mockup XD) and the idea was canned. >.>

Interesting. At that size and in that context, it even makes a bit more sense using that kind of simple "button" rather than a full-fledged emblem.

This post has been edited by ICEknight: 25 August 2009 - 02:21 AM

[Chimpo]

What about the highlight/shine on the top of the circle? And secondly, why did you put a gold rim around the outward part of the circle? It's certainly not in the original, and TBH I'm still not really convinced that it improves the look of it/suits it.

Thirdly, whenever I see this icon the red circle always looks like it's out-dented, rather than indented like you've made it.

I can appreciate where you're going with this, but I seriously don't think it suits the style better than the original icon.

It's a tremendous improvement over the original and adds detail and interpretation that an upscaled piece of artwork needs to look good when compared to all the other upscaled art. No one in their right mind will be bugged about the cosmetic changes in this, and they probably won't even notice the difference.

I understand your attempt of wanting to keep as close to the source as possible, but when the source only has 1 to 2 pixels for detail, there's gotta be something to fill in the empty space and Gambit did a magnificent job of filling it and bringing it up to par with the rest of the art. At this point, your criticism relies not on sticking to the source, but being nitpicky about details that don't even exist. Going for something lesser than what he submitted would be a crime.

[ICEknight]

Going for something lesser than what he submitted would be a crime.

Unless somebody actually makes something that has as much detail and is more faithful.

Right?

[steveswede]

Going for something lesser than what he submitted would be a crime.

Unless somebody actually makes something that has as much detail and is more faithful.

Right?

I don't see what you see wrong with this. It's a massive improvement over the original.