Ah, it's spelled "parallax", not "parexel". Not trying to be rude or anything in pointing it out, it's just that if you want people to be able to find this easier, it really would be best to correct that particular typo!
It's strange to me that the rich text forms on this type don't seem to work with my browser's (and presumably some other people's browsers) spellcheck function. That would've caught the typo for you. Oh well.
It's... not entirely clear what the usage restrictions on these are. If culling images from Flickr is your thing, it's probably best to stick with one 'author' at a time for a given pack, and search for those images specifically on the pages of the participating institutions participating in "The Commons", or at least to be particularly fastidious about noting exactly where they're coming from so that you're sure of the copyrights attached to them.
Like, not all of these were posted from the "NASA on the Commons" page. Several of them are actually from the Smithsonian Institute that I can see, this being one example:
And while keeping NASA's media use policy in mind is probably a good idea for those images posted by NASA, it's worth noting that those images they've posted on that Flickr account are only beholden to the Flickr license, as far as I'm aware (though if any of them say otherwise on the specific image page, that should definitely be noted, of course. Though perhaps that should also be brought up with Flickr as well, as if any of those accounts are doing so, it seems like that'd go against the whole purpose of that license in the first place).
Hah, well, if we're going to be nitpicky, several of these birds are actually dimorphic, and it's also questionable whether or not a blue jay could be called a winter bird -- many live in the same place year-round, and it's only those that live further up north that tend to migrate in the winter.
But personally, I don't really see why any of that matters when it comes to these cute pixels, lol. Unless you're specifically making a game about birds that requires that kind of in-depth detail about bird appearences and migratory patterns. Which... could be interesting, actually? Hmm. Either way, I now feel the need to go bird watching sometime soon, so there's that, haha.
As for, y'know, actual advice about the art, you might want to consider lightening some of the darkest grays/blacks a little bit. Particularly with the stellar jay and the chickadee, they're so dark that they're near or completely indistinguisable from the outline and the eyes. It's also kind of a problem with the cardinal and waxwing, but in those cases the placement means that the location of the eyes is easily infered, so how much of a problem it is, if at all, is debatable.
I don't think there's ever really been any single definition for what's 'HD' or 'HQ', as that always changes with the times and the hardware capabilities of modern computers. I think these would count as of now, though. :)
Also, love the cloud details. Really adds a lot imo.
Oh, wow, these are great! If I ever have need for 2D trees, I know where I'm gonna look!
Love the bright colors, and the "sticker effect" is a really clever way of distinguishing important foreground elements from background elements.
Also, that's a fun little prototype. Controls are extremely slippery though, at least with the keyboard. Maybe it works better on mobile.
Ah, it's spelled "parallax", not "parexel". Not trying to be rude or anything in pointing it out, it's just that if you want people to be able to find this easier, it really would be best to correct that particular typo!
It's strange to me that the rich text forms on this type don't seem to work with my browser's (and presumably some other people's browsers) spellcheck function. That would've caught the typo for you. Oh well.
It's... not entirely clear what the usage restrictions on these are. If culling images from Flickr is your thing, it's probably best to stick with one 'author' at a time for a given pack, and search for those images specifically on the pages of the participating institutions participating in "The Commons", or at least to be particularly fastidious about noting exactly where they're coming from so that you're sure of the copyrights attached to them.
Like, not all of these were posted from the "NASA on the Commons" page. Several of them are actually from the Smithsonian Institute that I can see, this being one example:
And while keeping NASA's media use policy in mind is probably a good idea for those images posted by NASA, it's worth noting that those images they've posted on that Flickr account are only beholden to the Flickr license, as far as I'm aware (though if any of them say otherwise on the specific image page, that should definitely be noted, of course. Though perhaps that should also be brought up with Flickr as well, as if any of those accounts are doing so, it seems like that'd go against the whole purpose of that license in the first place).
Love the color choices!
Hah, well, if we're going to be nitpicky, several of these birds are actually dimorphic, and it's also questionable whether or not a blue jay could be called a winter bird -- many live in the same place year-round, and it's only those that live further up north that tend to migrate in the winter.
But personally, I don't really see why any of that matters when it comes to these cute pixels, lol. Unless you're specifically making a game about birds that requires that kind of in-depth detail about bird appearences and migratory patterns. Which... could be interesting, actually? Hmm. Either way, I now feel the need to go bird watching sometime soon, so there's that, haha.
As for, y'know, actual advice about the art, you might want to consider lightening some of the darkest grays/blacks a little bit. Particularly with the stellar jay and the chickadee, they're so dark that they're near or completely indistinguisable from the outline and the eyes. It's also kind of a problem with the cardinal and waxwing, but in those cases the placement means that the location of the eyes is easily infered, so how much of a problem it is, if at all, is debatable.
I don't think there's ever really been any single definition for what's 'HD' or 'HQ', as that always changes with the times and the hardware capabilities of modern computers. I think these would count as of now, though. :)
Also, love the cloud details. Really adds a lot imo.