Less is more, but only to a certain degree. I think that with this game, removing or toning down details will take away the lively feel. What's so cool about the art style as it is now is the detail level - trees, vines, flowers, blocks, background, water, etc. It all looks very cool. It's much more than what a Sonic genesis game transformed to 3d would like. However, I do like the mock-up you posted a bit earlier. With lighter shadows and a bit more vibrant colors, I think it looks great.
I'd opt against removing details. People bitched about Sonic 4 lacking the detailed environments, now there's a fangame that manages to faithfully adopt the rich world of 2D Sonic into HD 2D, and people want to cut back on the details. Yes, less can be more, but the order IMO is solid basis => add detail => stop when it distracts from the basis, preferably at a point where the whole thing seems cohesive. Unless the whole "less is more"-approach is part of the art-style, it's only too much when it is just that, too much and distracting from gameplay. The colour changes suggested 2 pages ago look pretty much awesome IMO, although the island in the background seems pretty much buried in fog. It makes for a nice "I didn't notice this at first"-detail, but I distinctly remember the islands in the background of Emerald Hill Zone (Green Hill Zone even more so) being very much visible, giving the whole game a feeling of a very full world. I guess that's where the whole "fog as means to less distraction"-thing comes in. Still, these changes make the whole scenery seem much clearer, and also more Sonic-like. The direct comparision of the two settings made me realize that, colour-wise, the original reminds me of the MegaMan X series in its colour-choices. I think there was an article on cracked.com about the different colour-settings of movies and how there's a stock filter for ever genre. Well, when it comes to Sonic I personally would prefer a bright filter then. Also, since I dropped in the MegaMan-X analogy: These games also had a ton of background details going on, and were absolutely playable. As were the Sonic games. Having detailled backgrounds with lots of detail can definitely be pulled off, even in a past-paced action game.
The colours are part of the ‘problem’: A number of us feel that everything is too blue. I don't know where I stand on whether or not the level of detail is a problem; to judge properly, I'd like to see it in better colours!
Well I'm no expert on these things but my few layman comments: · The image CriticalMass suggested is without question easier on the eyes. Disregarding everything but the effort required to view the picture, the changed version takes less of it. · I agree with the comments about it being too blue. The badniks, grass and leaves and vines all have a blue sheen or reflection and I don't really know why that exists. But this blue combined with being darker makes the Buzzers and Mashers really disappear. It's hard to even notice the colours at all on the Buzzers. · My inexperienced opinion believes that the grass simply should not pop more than Sonic. I love the grass, it looks great, but it's kind of the star of the show. Its colours and contrast are so strong that the eye wants to notice it more than most other things. And my personal preferences: · I definitely prefer the less blue mountains of CM's pic. · I prefer the more reflective water of pelikan's version. And the bigger shoreline. · I think the grass is too strong in one, too foggy in the other. Having seen CM's comparisons, I too think colour management is going to make a bigger difference than detail management. While I do prefer some things in the original, overall I support the point CM was making with his edited image; that the colours can remain just as appealing (moreso with the mountains) while the whole scene is simply much less demanding for the eye to take in.
Why do you people think removing all lighting detail and raising the saturation a shitload looks nice? I can hardly stand to look at that picture without going blind.
I just like it since it keeps the focus on the foreground, while keeping the sense of beauty. Still, it does depend on how this would be pulled off, since the image above is but a mock up.
I don't think anyone is saying “Yes, perfect; leave it exactly like that!”, but rather that it's a step in the right direction. I think that mock-up is a start, but I can criticise it—e.g. I think the grass may be too green, and deficient in contrast.
I only think the background should be involved in the change, the foreground can be left as is, I think.
It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than specular city. It also looks like I could make out what I'm actually looking at while playing.
I'm not sure I'd leave the foreground totally unchanged but I think I agree that the background's most in need of work.
Hello there. For what's worth: 1) It was a mockup, but lighting detail wasn't removed, just reduced in intensity. I've written articles as a consultant on color information loss . Also as I mentioned, the point of the mockup was color scheme, It could be improved enormously. 2) I didn't "raise the saturation a shitload". His image already has an enormous amount of saturation, more than mine,. A maximum convolution matrix in any given shape of these two images will result in the original content having more saturation except on the grass, and that's barely a 5% difference, considering the amount of shadows that were removed. A maximum convolution matrix on the entire stage will return a much higher saturation on the original - while this wouldn't mean anything since two opposite shapes would null themselves out if they have opposite colors, in this case it's because of the massive blue people complain about.
For what it's worth, I see a lot of value in CriticalMass's mockup. The mockup itself seems less "vibrant" than the demo, but I think that was the point—he was correcting color to reduce unnecessary contrast. I was sad that Pelikan originally listened to the members of the board who complained about it being too bright and blue—in the demo, we now see very harsh bright-to-dark balancing. And the harsh shadows and lighting also has other ill effects. Polygons in the demo look sometimes like polygons instead of the things they are supposed to represent—sometimes breaking blocks, etc, because the very hard lighting makes it easy to see the hard edges. In the original pictures released for SFR, the coloring does a much better job of masking the polygons, and those original pics seemed very mature in how they avoided that over-shiny, over-blocky polygon look that happens when you pump up the shadows and contrast as in the demo. That was changed for the demo, as far as I can tell. (Compare original to demo.) Just because CM's mockup doesn't have tons of harsh, black shadows doesn't mean he's blowing out or oversaturating the image. His image is much more pleasing to the eye explicitly because every object doesn't need to express the entire contrast range. I whipped up this comparison to illustrate: I understand that CM's mockup is just a mockup—implemented at the programming level, there are lots of optimizations that are easy to do but difficult to do in Photoshop. But I hope Pelikan sees the value in it—CriticalMass does indeed seem to have a very thoughtful take on this stuff.
Whoa... that makes me a little sad actually. Really makes the blue stick out like a sore thumb too. I hate to be so whiney and I feel sorry that Pelikan has to see so much critical feedback on something he's clearly conscious of, but I have to say I prefer literally every part of the original there. :/ Except Sonic's model itself. Special mention for the blocks in the ground. I know a considerable amount of time surely went into adding that moss etc., and that it's overly nitpicky to say this and probably just my personal preference, but I really prefer the "clean" (not mossy, dirty) blocks. The mossy version is just kinda boring or ugly. Nitpick I know, and I also acknowledge that I am possibly misunderstanding my own complaint - perhaps it is the difference in colours, not the moss, that is forming my opinion. It's probably more a case of green+orange+blue sheen being less pleasing to look at than orange+white sheen. Well, had to get that out. I prefer the more orange/cleaner blocks, and the more coloured mountains. That said, the mossy/duller look is very fitting in the rainy act. I quite love the whole look of the rainy act really. Anyway, mainly just showing my support for the original (compared to demo) pic there.
Yo, only the first act is too blue for you? If not, it's probably your monitor. If it's a TN lcd, usually things are blueish. Speaking of monitors, what types are y'all using? Cuz this game looks pretty different between my monitor (TN) and plasma. Very blueish on the lcd and not the tv, but it could also be because my monitor is terrible.
I haven't been able to play it on my underpowered laptop. My opinion is based on all the screenshots I have seen. Also, I will try to make this one of the final instances of me belabouring this particular point, but I agree with this:
