After reading the "just had a great experience" thread, it motivated me to give custom spriting a shot. I've made these sprites (recolors) a long time ago, and I want your advice on how to make it better. I've tried so far to put a jacket on the character. Tell me what you think.

nope, not custom at all.



try real custom (aka not using GBA Sonic sprites as base), then we'll talk.

How about these? They're not custom though, they're just recolors.

They're not very interesting: you're not adding anything that could be seen as interesting to the original sheet, to the point where you're actually making it worse.
Now what do I mean by interesting? Well, to me it's something original, perhaps unexpected, which gets the attention of its onlookers. It gets this attention because it adds a new perspective to their perception.
What you've done with your edit isn't original, in the sense that you've recoloured existing sprites. It doesn't interest us because we don't understand why you chose the colours you did, and your technique (see the pillowshading) doesn't appeal to us.
Do not content yourself with these: if you really want to improve, your ambitions should be greater.
If you just want to make edits/recolours, then keep on making them: if it's a hobby of yours, that's fine, keep having fun.
We're not going to stop you making them, but the Sprite Discussion Board isn't their place, that's all.

ohai gais look at my super original character! DO NOT STEAL!


I'll say for the sake of it, I don't mean offence by this, but I'm not sure if trolling or just new.
if just new, then realise the best way to learn to sprite is learn the essentials of drawing, then sprite out of improvisation. Recolours and Edits do nothing for skill, the only arguable thing you can learn is contrast, even then shades are picked for you so if you get that wrong your doing something very wrong.

I just took the liberty of seeing what other works you've done I couldn't find any spriting topics but I noticed you were interested in making a sonic fan game, if this is why your editing sprites, its still very worth noting you need to know how to sprite before even making a good edit, try some unique workings, we'll be able to see where you accel and where you need work easier and likewise, we can help you easier.

I beg to differ. Re-colors helped me a lot when learning how to sprite, though I admit I never simply changed the color of a sprite.

I would re-create next to the original, using different colors. And not always pixel for pixel.

Like you, I started with sonic. But theres a lot more to screwing with the original sprite than changing the color.
Re-fashion the spines altogether, and use your own proportions for facial features and such. Like these:


If you're trying to mimic the style, this is a great way to do it.
Especially if style is important to the type of sprite you are trying to make.
As in, adding characters from different universes into another, such as these:


or even the same character as in this example from GBA scale to DS scale:


When it comes to spriting, theres absolutely no need to re-invent the wheel, especially if you're just starting out.
Study the way sprites come together, and eventually you'll be able to make your first 100% custom sprite.
(And I just mean creating one from scratch without a reference, not originality.)



Those of course were all years ago.This method becomes essentially useless once youre better. So just think of it as training wheels. And once youre able to take them off (I.e. stop using other sprites as a reference) you'll be golden.

there is no such thing as a DS scale to GBA scale.

but yes, edits and recolors (and the rest of the useless names they gave to that shit nowdays) might prove easier, but its utterly useless in the long run. even your worst scribble has more value and merit since you are the one who created it, rather than using some premade sprite as a creativity diaper.

The nathan graves, juste belmont, and soma cruz (AOS) sprites --all gba--- are smaller than the Soma Cruz (DOS), Jonathan Morris, and Shanoa sprites (DS)

You stand corrected my good sir. (This only applies when the franchise continues from GBA to DS. GBA sprites will always be less detailed.)

Oh, and a sidenote, a pile of poo is still a pile of poo. It has no value. Just because its original doesnt make it art or give it meaning or anything. The amount of effort and work put into something is what gives it value. Blatently recoloring... yeah thats poo. But spending hours editing, tweaking, and re-imagining a sprite has worth as well. Look at Apple. That company is worth billions. And all steve jobs did was release better versions of what was already on the market.

Just something to think about.

ya know, just because recolors and edits are a method to help you mimic a style doesn't mean they're worth posting.

It's a waste since you won't get much criticism on them, unless it's a really good edit (which I hardly ever see now a days) then it might be worth some minor crits. And I'm not talking about shitty sonic edits or random splice crap if that's what you call a good edit, which is a delusion all of it's own.

(05-04-2012, 03:58 PM)Mashuga Wrote: Oh, and a sidenote, a pile of poo is still a pile of poo. It has no value. Just because its original doesnt make it art or give it meaning or anything. The amount of effort and work put into something is what gives it value. Blatently recoloring... yeah thats poo. But spending hours editing, tweaking, and re-imagining a sprite has worth as well. Look at Apple. That company is worth billions. And all steve jobs did was release better versions of what was already on the market.

I mean, sure.


Go ahead.
Go spend hours editing and tweaking a sprite that already exists to get to a meaningful and completely useful product.

I mean,
sure, they're only multiple hours.
pfft, that's like nothing out of a day of work.

Not like they're hours that could be invested into making something from scratch or anything, which is so totally useless and stupid
but okay.


And don't worry.
No one will pay attention to any awful wreck of an example as your Apple one.
It's like it has no holes or problems revolving around why-the-fuck-are-you-talking-about-something-you-don't-understand and makes you sound like really smart thinking guy.

Mashuga:

I think the point Metaru wanted to make was that there isn't a scale for each console's graphics-it really depends on the context of the game and on the specifications of the console. However, as you have pointed out, when the game pans out on several platforms, the graphics can be subject to change because of hardware limitations, aswell as for esthetic reasons.


Basically, I have an issue with your use of "value". What is value exactly? Who is it for?
In Blueblur's case, value is the emotional and technical importance he gives to his work. In everybody else's case, value is the esthetical appreciation of his work.
Value has different meanings in other contexts, of course.

I'm going to disagree: the amount of effort and work put into something is not what gives it value.

It's how the work is perceived by its creator: according to how he perceives it, it will have more or less value. Now, if he intends to sell his work, we're going to also talk about mercantile value: this is adding a value to the work which is bound to the effort/time to make it, as well as covering resources costs plus adding a profit margin.
It's how the work is perceived by its viewers: not all viewers are aware of the amount of time/effort is needed to produce a piece. What I'm getting at is that esthetism is not inherently bound to the effort needed for production. You can appreciate the craftsmanship, sure, but is that appreciation esthetic? Or is it the quality the piece has in the eyes of its spectators that is esthetic?
I also want to make a point on effort and work: despite all the effort you put in a project, there are chances that it will be poorly received by the people who experience it. This is about perception, subjectivity and of course esthetism, or in other words, taste.

I think what you're forgetting is that Apple is giving a perceived price of their products, which means based on the image they're giving off of themselves, they're playing with that impression their potential customers have of Apple being a high quality and desirable brand to create more mercantile value. That's partly why it's worth billions-it's also due to the very good designs and advertizing campaigns which allowed their products (the Ipod is the best example to me) to break through their targeted markets.
But let's not confuse the value of a company with a value of a piece of art. We're also entering the realms of design by mentioning industrial products (Apple).

(05-04-2012, 03:58 PM)Mashuga Wrote: Oh, and a sidenote, a pile of poo is still a pile of poo. It has no value. Just because its original doesnt make it art or give it meaning or anything. The amount of effort and work put into something is what gives it value. Blatently recoloring... yeah thats poo. But spending hours editing, tweaking, and re-imagining a sprite has worth as well. Look at Apple. That company is worth billions. And all steve jobs did was release better versions of what was already on the market.

Just something to think about.

I'll try and do this quickly.
Value in this case is too vague. In artistic skills specifically I can name very relevant values in work but I'd like to highlight one in particular:
Educational value - an original piece of poo is worth infinitely more than an edited piece of poo, an original piece of poo can be improved, an edited piece of poo can only be edited more (there is a significant difference)

To cut a long story short,
To try and fail and try again is a trait of someone willing to see and learn from their mistakes,
To edit and fail and edit again is a trait of someone still waiting to try for the first time.

I'd not like to touch on how irrelevant the apple comment was, all that says is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" which is true, but whatever "it" is, it need to be made first.
Similarly I hardly think apple took stuff from microsoft and edited it, no they started by making the ORIGINAL personal computer and kept improving it. (I'm not a mac person myself but analogy speaks for itself)

implying that every new version of the iphone's(or basically any mac-based product nowdays) "improvements" or "upgrades" arent just a small fraction of what the original should had been in the first place.

reverse-engineering a sprite into something else does not make it an improvement, since for basically 90% there is no understanding on the techniques or concepts behind the creation of such sprite. one would hardly label it as an improvement, but rather a lazy, fruitless attemp to skip the learning curve that developing new content carries within for the sake of attention, or recognition. rather than the value given by the creator of the piece, i'd rather say its the purpose what drives him to do it.

(05-04-2012, 05:26 PM)Proton Wrote: I mean, sure.


Go ahead.
Go spend hours editing and tweaking a sprite that already exists to get to a meaningful and completely useful product.

I mean,
sure, they're only multiple hours.
pfft, that's like nothing out of a day of work.

Not like they're hours that could be invested into making something from scratch or anything, which is so totally useless and stupid
but okay.


And don't worry.
No one will pay attention to any awful wreck of an example as your Apple one.
It's like it has no holes or problems revolving around why-the-fuck-are-you-talking-about-something-you-don't-understand and makes you sound like really smart thinking guy.

Calling me out on a bad example doesnt make you any smarter than me. All it does it make you look like a self-hating egotist.

Theres enough time in a life to spend hours on whatever it is you will. Whether that be spending hours editing a sprite, creating a sprite, or jerking off to sprites. It's a matter of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's stop this before it turns into politics.

(05-04-2012, 05:26 PM)Chris2Balls [:B] Wrote: Mashuga:

I think the point Metaru wanted to make was that there isn't a scale for each console's graphics-it really depends on the context of the game and on the specifications of the console. However, as you have pointed out, when the game pans out on several platforms, the graphics can be subject to change because of hardware limitations, aswell as for esthetic reasons.


Basically, I have an issue with your use of "value". What is value exactly? Who is it for?
In Blueblur's case, value is the emotional and technical importance he gives to his work. In everybody else's case, value is the esthetical appreciation of his work.
Value has different meanings in other contexts, of course.

I'm going to disagree: the amount of effort and work put into something is not what gives it value.

It's how the work is perceived by its creator: according to how he perceives it, it will have more or less value. Now, if he intends to sell his work, we're going to also talk about mercantile value: this is adding a value to the work which is bound to the effort/time to make it, as well as covering resources costs plus adding a profit margin.
It's how the work is perceived by its viewers: not all viewers are aware of the amount of time/effort is needed to produce a piece. What I'm getting at is that esthetism is not inherently bound to the effort needed for production. You can appreciate the craftsmanship, sure, but is that appreciation esthetic? Or is it the quality the piece has in the eyes of its spectators that is esthetic?
I also want to make a point on effort and work: despite all the effort you put in a project, there are chances that it will be poorly received by the people who experience it. This is about perception, subjectivity and of course esthetism, or in other words, taste.

I think what you're forgetting is that Apple is giving a perceived price of their products, which means based on the image they're giving off of themselves, they're playing with that impression their potential customers have of Apple being a high quality and desirable brand to create more mercantile value. That's partly why it's worth billions-it's also due to the very good designs and advertizing campaigns which allowed their products (the Ipod is the best example to me) to break through their targeted markets.
But let's not confuse the value of a company with a value of a piece of art. We're also entering the realms of design by mentioning industrial products (Apple).

You make a good argument. Especially that last part. Say our OP was someone recognized like Dazz, then he'd most likely be subject to less criticism.

As for the definition of "Value," I was merely stating my own perspective on it. That's how I percieve value. Though I admit its not that simple. For me, this is where ethics come in. But let's not start a philosophical debate on the meaning of value. That's an argument neither side can win.

(05-04-2012, 07:31 PM)Bombshell93 Wrote: I'll try and do this quickly.
Value in this case is too vague. In artistic skills specifically I can name very relevant values in work but I'd like to highlight one in particular:
Educational value - an original piece of poo is worth infinitely more than an edited piece of poo, an original piece of poo can be improved, an edited piece of poo can only be edited more (there is a significant difference)

To cut a long story short,
To try and fail and try again is a trait of someone willing to see and learn from their mistakes,
To edit and fail and edit again is a trait of someone still waiting to try for the first time.

I'd not like to touch on how irrelevant the apple comment was, all that says is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" which is true, but whatever "it" is, it need to be made first.
Similarly I hardly think apple took stuff from microsoft and edited it, no they started by making the ORIGINAL personal computer and kept improving it. (I'm not a mac person myself but analogy speaks for itself)

Once again another great argument. But when I'm suggesting an edit I'm suggesting more than a few tweaks and color changes. Anyone would call my red-hedgehog up there an edit, though the truth is I created it in front of a class of 32 for a presentation, without a reference. (Originally he was bald and had pink high heels. Last time I take suggestions from a class of highschool kids xD)

I'll adress that last part briefly to avoid getting off topic.
Apple did create their own computer, this is true (Then they tried to sue microsoft for releasing a GUI.) But the ipod and i believe the i-phone -- dont quote me on that because im not sure what the first smart phone was, it could have been the i-phone -- were just "edits" of existing phones and MP3 players that were on the market from less renown companies.

I'm not saying what they do is right, but it did improve the overall quality of the MP3 Player lineup, now that other companies were rushing to compete with the I-pod.

It's different with spriting, but what can be accomplished from editing is developing a basic understanding of how sprites are formed. Shading, shape, hue-shift, even anti-aliasing, (Though doing this by hand is... just... not recommended.) If you jump into spriting without a god damn idea what youre doing and just a smile on your face, you'll only slow down your learning curve. Even tutorials are based on the idea of using their tutorial as a reference. If you can't study, you can't learn, and if you can't learn you can't do.

But thats why communities like this place exist. For thoughts and input.
Who knows, this guy could wind up being very good one day.

(05-05-2012, 03:45 AM)Meta Wrote: implying that every new version of the iphone's(or basically any mac-based product nowdays) "improvements" or "upgrades" arent just a small fraction of what the original should had been in the first place.

reverse-engineering a sprite into something else does not make it an improvement, since for basically 90% there is no understanding on the techniques or concepts behind the creation of such sprite. one would hardly label it as an improvement, but rather a lazy, fruitless attemp to skip the learning curve that developing new content carries within for the sake of attention, or recognition. rather than the value given by the creator of the piece, i'd rather say its the purpose what drives him to do it.

It seems this is where our problem lies. We're on two opposite sides of the opinion spectrum. We'll have to agree to disagree.

we all started doing shit edits at some point. the point though, is to not encourage or value them for a rather simple reason: they're shit on the long run, and you learn shit fromr ecoloring shit.

because edits do not carry any study at all, nor any development nor understanding on how or why the shading was done in such way. your early sprite edits are not fueled by such goals, but rather for the sake of having a character done quickly and effortlessly, within a particular aesthetic.

even when one does work on an sprite edit with a much elaborated and developed knowledge and understanding on how an sprite in a particular fashion looks was done, it becomes obviously useless to edit an existing one since you should be able to make one completely new(and better, if you do really know what are you doing)