My only feedback would be that the transition tiles could use a little work.
The grass to water transitions work quite well. The mud bank at the top with the grass over hanging on the bottom and sides creates a nice bit of faux perspective. I also like that on these, the grass seems to overlap more on the bottom than on the sides, again this aides the faux pespective of it.
The grass to dirt transition looks ok also, could maybe use a slightly more exaggerated shadowing along the bottom. Well, it seems to have a nice fark shadow in the grass to dirt transition set (first set) but much less shadow in the dirt to grass set (second set). I think it could also benefit from going a little thinner on the grass overlap along the sides. Again, this seems to be the case in the grass to dirt but not dirt to grass set.
The dirt to water transition needs the most love. The large overlap area and the strong shadow conspire to make the water look like it is above the dirt. This is true in both the dirt to water and water to dirt transition set. I would consider going with a hard edge along all sides for this one. It can be bumpy/jaggy, but I would try to avoid heavy dithering here. It works for the grass because it suggest little blades of grass but it doesn't work as well for water/dirt transition since both substances are generally more solid/smooth along the edges. Similar to the grass/water transition, I would go with thicker shadow along the bottom, slight shadow along sides and no shadows (possibly a thin bright) along the top.
Well, that's just my two cents, hope it helps and thanks for sharing!
Saturday, February 6, 2016 - 14:27
Awesome! Inclusion of lower case is a big plus! thanks for sharing!
Friday, February 5, 2016 - 13:48
Just tried this on my Win 10 PC and had the exact same issue.
Tried also from my iPhone, same problem.
So at least it's not an OS or browser specific thing.
Pretty sure this used to work as I have often browsed jams by author in the past.
oh, and also, I commend your choice of subject for your first pixel art. :)
Monday, February 1, 2016 - 14:25
Looks good!
My only feedback would be that it uses a lot of fine color gradients. Kind of gives it a look of a VGA PC game, like DOOM or something where they had many more colors to play with. Not as much SNES or NES where they had much fewer color registers to play with. That's not meant as a complaint or criticism, just an observation really.
Well, the copyright holder can always license and re-license a work however they like (again provided there are not entanglements with other works (eg. a derivative of a CC-SA-BY work)).
They can freely offer the work under whatever terms the want, and can offer it under different licenses and allow users to select the license they wish to use it under.
What they cannot do is retroactively rescind a license once they have released the work under those terms. They don't have to continue to personally distribute the work under the license, but they can't sue or otherwise go after people for using the work under it's terms. Meaning, you can't release a work as CC-BY-3.0 one day, change your mind, switch it to CC-BY-SA and then sue someone who in good faith obtained to work under CC-BY-3.0 and used it under those terms.
Other than that, the original author/copyright holder, really has carte-blanche to do what they like.
As for 'upgrading', 'downgrading', etc. licenses from one to another, unless there is absolutely crystal clear language in the license itself which allows for transmutating itself (as with some GPL licenses), I'm very wary of such schemes. Even very liberal licenses like the MIT license, don't allow the text of the license itself to be altered or removed from a distribution, meaning you can add new terms if you like, but you can never fully convert the license to somethig else (unless that something happens to begin with the identical text from the MIT license) and you certainly can't simply replace the license with something deemed 'compatible'.
> Idea: Optionally select to bundle a copy of the (plain text) license(s) of the thing you are downloading with the download.
Yes! This is my holy grail idea for clarifying license stuff on OGA. I think every download should be a bundle of the work plus a readme with the author's name, available licenses and attribution instructions and a plain text copy of each available license.
However, I must admit that in addition to backend work that would be required to make this work, there have been a few use cases raised where this behavior would be annoying:
Although, reading your post just now, I had another brainstorm, instead of archiving the work with the license and all that, maybe an OK 2nd best solution would be just to roll the info into the filename. Again, a 2nd best solution, but I could still see it being useful.
I guess the format would be something like: imagename.username.license(...).file_extension
ex.
instead of 'reallycoolsprites.png'
the site could serve up:
reallycoolsprites.capbros.OGA-BY-3.0.GPL-2.0.png
Again, not the cleanest solution in the world, but it might work better than what we have now (aka nothing).
No worries, i think it might have just been in the comments for a submission and not a proper forum topic. And at any rate, repeatedly raising an issue is the best way to get it addressed ;)
As for the submissions, I can't recall which was the first I saw do this, but I was able to find a few just literally searching for '4.0'. Here's an example:
It's fantastic submission and you'd hate to see it pulled on a technicality but at the same time, in the bigger picture it's really critical that the works on here be licensed by the selected license(s), otherwise searching by license will be useless and everyone will just have to manually read the notes field from each submission to understand the terms for it's use.
Yeah, I had inquired about this on an earlier thread somewheres.
Aside from the advantages of cc-4.0 vs 3.0, the issue I see is that we've started to see submissions marked as cc-by-3.0 with a note stating the license is really cc-by-4.0. It doesn't quite seem fair to flag submissions for this when 4.0 is not provided as an option, but at the same time, it's not good for the long term health of the site to have things marked as one license but 'noted' as another.
Nice!
The base tiles look good!
My only feedback would be that the transition tiles could use a little work.
The grass to water transitions work quite well. The mud bank at the top with the grass over hanging on the bottom and sides creates a nice bit of faux perspective. I also like that on these, the grass seems to overlap more on the bottom than on the sides, again this aides the faux pespective of it.
The grass to dirt transition looks ok also, could maybe use a slightly more exaggerated shadowing along the bottom. Well, it seems to have a nice fark shadow in the grass to dirt transition set (first set) but much less shadow in the dirt to grass set (second set). I think it could also benefit from going a little thinner on the grass overlap along the sides. Again, this seems to be the case in the grass to dirt but not dirt to grass set.
The dirt to water transition needs the most love. The large overlap area and the strong shadow conspire to make the water look like it is above the dirt. This is true in both the dirt to water and water to dirt transition set. I would consider going with a hard edge along all sides for this one. It can be bumpy/jaggy, but I would try to avoid heavy dithering here. It works for the grass because it suggest little blades of grass but it doesn't work as well for water/dirt transition since both substances are generally more solid/smooth along the edges. Similar to the grass/water transition, I would go with thicker shadow along the bottom, slight shadow along sides and no shadows (possibly a thin bright) along the top.
Well, that's just my two cents, hope it helps and thanks for sharing!
Awesome! Inclusion of lower case is a big plus! thanks for sharing!
Just tried this on my Win 10 PC and had the exact same issue.
Tried also from my iPhone, same problem.
So at least it's not an OS or browser specific thing.
Pretty sure this used to work as I have often browsed jams by author in the past.
this is great! love the snaps!
Beautiful! Wonderful work, thanks much for sharing!
oh, and also, I commend your choice of subject for your first pixel art. :)
Looks good!
My only feedback would be that it uses a lot of fine color gradients. Kind of gives it a look of a VGA PC game, like DOOM or something where they had many more colors to play with. Not as much SNES or NES where they had much fewer color registers to play with. That's not meant as a complaint or criticism, just an observation really.
Since you mention you're just starting out, it might be a useful exercise to take this guy and re-color him using the DB32 palette: http://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16247
That's a real well optimized palette for doing lower color stuff if your interested in that sort of thing.
@cron:
Well, the copyright holder can always license and re-license a work however they like (again provided there are not entanglements with other works (eg. a derivative of a CC-SA-BY work)).
They can freely offer the work under whatever terms the want, and can offer it under different licenses and allow users to select the license they wish to use it under.
What they cannot do is retroactively rescind a license once they have released the work under those terms. They don't have to continue to personally distribute the work under the license, but they can't sue or otherwise go after people for using the work under it's terms. Meaning, you can't release a work as CC-BY-3.0 one day, change your mind, switch it to CC-BY-SA and then sue someone who in good faith obtained to work under CC-BY-3.0 and used it under those terms.
Other than that, the original author/copyright holder, really has carte-blanche to do what they like.
As for 'upgrading', 'downgrading', etc. licenses from one to another, unless there is absolutely crystal clear language in the license itself which allows for transmutating itself (as with some GPL licenses), I'm very wary of such schemes. Even very liberal licenses like the MIT license, don't allow the text of the license itself to be altered or removed from a distribution, meaning you can add new terms if you like, but you can never fully convert the license to somethig else (unless that something happens to begin with the identical text from the MIT license) and you certainly can't simply replace the license with something deemed 'compatible'.
> Idea: Optionally select to bundle a copy of the (plain text) license(s) of the thing you are downloading with the download.
Yes! This is my holy grail idea for clarifying license stuff on OGA. I think every download should be a bundle of the work plus a readme with the author's name, available licenses and attribution instructions and a plain text copy of each available license.
However, I must admit that in addition to backend work that would be required to make this work, there have been a few use cases raised where this behavior would be annoying:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/on-the-importance-of-citable-license-g...
Although, reading your post just now, I had another brainstorm, instead of archiving the work with the license and all that, maybe an OK 2nd best solution would be just to roll the info into the filename. Again, a 2nd best solution, but I could still see it being useful.
I guess the format would be something like: imagename.username.license(...).file_extension
ex.
instead of 'reallycoolsprites.png'
the site could serve up:
reallycoolsprites.capbros.OGA-BY-3.0.GPL-2.0.png
Again, not the cleanest solution in the world, but it might work better than what we have now (aka nothing).
No worries, i think it might have just been in the comments for a submission and not a proper forum topic. And at any rate, repeatedly raising an issue is the best way to get it addressed ;)
As for the submissions, I can't recall which was the first I saw do this, but I was able to find a few just literally searching for '4.0'. Here's an example:
http://opengameart.org/content/toens-medieval-strategy-sprite-pack-v10-1...
It's fantastic submission and you'd hate to see it pulled on a technicality but at the same time, in the bigger picture it's really critical that the works on here be licensed by the selected license(s), otherwise searching by license will be useless and everyone will just have to manually read the notes field from each submission to understand the terms for it's use.
Yeah, I had inquired about this on an earlier thread somewheres.
Aside from the advantages of cc-4.0 vs 3.0, the issue I see is that we've started to see submissions marked as cc-by-3.0 with a note stating the license is really cc-by-4.0. It doesn't quite seem fair to flag submissions for this when 4.0 is not provided as an option, but at the same time, it's not good for the long term health of the site to have things marked as one license but 'noted' as another.
Pages