I enjoyed playing this! I've been a sucker for this kind of game ever since I first laid eyes on Alien Breed, but good homebrew examples are kinda hard to come by. Many developers seem to manage to put way more effort into it and still get the basics completely wrong.
Looks like about half the sprites and tiles went unused.
That doesn't happen for everyone. You would be unlucky if it happened for you :-( It could be that for some people, the two skills compete for the use of the same part of the brain. There is a lot of individual variation in how people learn skills! It's possible that could be happening to you, but it doesn't seem very likely.
Generally the limit for the things you can be good at is just the limit on the amount of stuff that you can do regularly. There are only 24 hours in a day and most of those are already taken up with the basics of just being alive, so there's only so much stuff that you can regularly practice. If you don't do something for a while then you will get "rusty" on it and lose some skill. However, for most people, with something which they have once really gotten into and gotten good at, if they come back to it after years of not doing it, they will start "rusty" but then they will fairly quickly get back to the skill level that they were at previously. I've gone years without doing art sometimes.
Looks like it would go with a minimalist, abstract style based on unshaded coloured shapes. For that purpose I guess it might be more useful in vector form, or at a much higher resolution. I'd also add a few "stars" very close to the edges (but not crossing them), so that it wraps better.
How expensive is it to create an NFT from a piece?
If the cost isn't significant, then somebody is right now running a crawler bot which is making NFTs of every file that it can find on the web. Also, all sites (especially ones like OpenGameArt) will eventually run code that automatically NFTs everything uploaded to it.
Basically, right now somebody can sell an NFT of a piece of art that they don't have the rights to, and there's very little concrete to stop them. But as it says in the Forbes article linked above, "caveat emptor" applies. Just like anyone who fences stolen goods, the thief is not just stealing from the creator but also from the buyer.
If the piece later turns out to be actually valuable, a digital art historian could come along tomorrow and use the Wayback Machine or other internet archives to prove that the seller didn't have the rights.
If they've laundered the money effectively then they'll be long gone, and the buyer could easily wind up out of pocket, like anyone else who buys stolen goods. If they want to keep this bit of their wealth then they're going to have to try and bully the system into retroactively and unfairly giving the rights to them - there are various nefarious ways that they could go about this.
If the seller hasn't laundered the money effectively, then they run a pretty high risk of copping consequences; their identity is right there in the ledger, and it might be much easier for the buyer to go after them than to try and squish the original creator. What's more, this could happen even if the piece is never really worth anything, because then the buyer can potentially get some of their money back by proving that the seller never had the rights. They might actually hire the art historian to do so.
@FiveBrosStopMosYT Most of the Space War Man designs won't work that great with the Super Dead Merc set due to style and scale differences.
I have reworked a few of them into this style, and here you go! They are really rather titchy next to the other sprites in this set, but they ought to work OK if you use them well.
I don't understand it that well myself, and what I do understand looks kinda worrying.
Basically there's some crypto blockchain magic which can be used to prove that you've paid X amount for a specific piece of digital art. It's proof that you "own" this art, which is independent of any legal jurisdiction - it's based on mathematics, not on legal institutions. Of course, traditional legal jurisdictions might not decide to recognise this right, and then you don't actually "own" it as far as they're concerned.
So it looks like the NFT craze is basically a lot of people with far too much money, betting that this way of defining art ownership will eventually dominate over traditional legal institutions, and trying to amass a collection with a good chance of containing some piece that will be worth a lot in some future legal jurisdiction. For example they might imagine that in the future the law might enforce that anybody sharing one of these images might have to pay them a tiny amount just to do that, and they want to be in with a chance of owning Ceiling Cat or that image of DiCaprio smirking from Jango Unchained.
Imagine that some rich guy in the time of Leonardo Da Vinci had a vision that somebody was right then making a painting which would one day be worth so much that it would be guarded more zealously than any living person; and he was convinced that this vision was true, but he didn't know what it would look like or who was painting it. So he went around buying up any painting he could find that looked like anyone was interested in it. That's what I think is happening here, except that it's lots of rich guys at once. And they're doing this kind of gambling because the monetary system is overloaded with centralised capital that has nowhere to go for an ROI that its owners are prepared to get out of bed for.
The other side of the story is a gold rush for content creators (and art thieves) to try and get a piece of this crazy cash which is being thrown around.
You can do a 3x3 's' character like this:
011
010
110
I enjoyed playing this! I've been a sucker for this kind of game ever since I first laid eyes on Alien Breed, but good homebrew examples are kinda hard to come by. Many developers seem to manage to put way more effort into it and still get the basics completely wrong.
Looks like about half the sprites and tiles went unused.
That is looking quite cool.
That doesn't happen for everyone. You would be unlucky if it happened for you :-( It could be that for some people, the two skills compete for the use of the same part of the brain. There is a lot of individual variation in how people learn skills! It's possible that could be happening to you, but it doesn't seem very likely.
Generally the limit for the things you can be good at is just the limit on the amount of stuff that you can do regularly. There are only 24 hours in a day and most of those are already taken up with the basics of just being alive, so there's only so much stuff that you can regularly practice. If you don't do something for a while then you will get "rusty" on it and lose some skill. However, for most people, with something which they have once really gotten into and gotten good at, if they come back to it after years of not doing it, they will start "rusty" but then they will fairly quickly get back to the skill level that they were at previously. I've gone years without doing art sometimes.
Looks like it would go with a minimalist, abstract style based on unshaded coloured shapes. For that purpose I guess it might be more useful in vector form, or at a much higher resolution. I'd also add a few "stars" very close to the edges (but not crossing them), so that it wraps better.
It's the intro to a song that Dimmu Borgir never wrote! :-P
How expensive is it to create an NFT from a piece?
If the cost isn't significant, then somebody is right now running a crawler bot which is making NFTs of every file that it can find on the web. Also, all sites (especially ones like OpenGameArt) will eventually run code that automatically NFTs everything uploaded to it.
@Malifer It could potentially happen either way.
Basically, right now somebody can sell an NFT of a piece of art that they don't have the rights to, and there's very little concrete to stop them. But as it says in the Forbes article linked above, "caveat emptor" applies. Just like anyone who fences stolen goods, the thief is not just stealing from the creator but also from the buyer.
If the piece later turns out to be actually valuable, a digital art historian could come along tomorrow and use the Wayback Machine or other internet archives to prove that the seller didn't have the rights.
If they've laundered the money effectively then they'll be long gone, and the buyer could easily wind up out of pocket, like anyone else who buys stolen goods. If they want to keep this bit of their wealth then they're going to have to try and bully the system into retroactively and unfairly giving the rights to them - there are various nefarious ways that they could go about this.
If the seller hasn't laundered the money effectively, then they run a pretty high risk of copping consequences; their identity is right there in the ledger, and it might be much easier for the buyer to go after them than to try and squish the original creator. What's more, this could happen even if the piece is never really worth anything, because then the buyer can potentially get some of their money back by proving that the seller never had the rights. They might actually hire the art historian to do so.
@FiveBrosStopMosYT Most of the Space War Man designs won't work that great with the Super Dead Merc set due to style and scale differences.
I have reworked a few of them into this style, and here you go! They are really rather titchy next to the other sprites in this set, but they ought to work OK if you use them well.
I don't understand it that well myself, and what I do understand looks kinda worrying.
Basically there's some crypto blockchain magic which can be used to prove that you've paid X amount for a specific piece of digital art. It's proof that you "own" this art, which is independent of any legal jurisdiction - it's based on mathematics, not on legal institutions. Of course, traditional legal jurisdictions might not decide to recognise this right, and then you don't actually "own" it as far as they're concerned.
So it looks like the NFT craze is basically a lot of people with far too much money, betting that this way of defining art ownership will eventually dominate over traditional legal institutions, and trying to amass a collection with a good chance of containing some piece that will be worth a lot in some future legal jurisdiction. For example they might imagine that in the future the law might enforce that anybody sharing one of these images might have to pay them a tiny amount just to do that, and they want to be in with a chance of owning Ceiling Cat or that image of DiCaprio smirking from Jango Unchained.
Imagine that some rich guy in the time of Leonardo Da Vinci had a vision that somebody was right then making a painting which would one day be worth so much that it would be guarded more zealously than any living person; and he was convinced that this vision was true, but he didn't know what it would look like or who was painting it. So he went around buying up any painting he could find that looked like anyone was interested in it. That's what I think is happening here, except that it's lots of rich guys at once. And they're doing this kind of gambling because the monetary system is overloaded with centralised capital that has nowhere to go for an ROI that its owners are prepared to get out of bed for.
The other side of the story is a gold rush for content creators (and art thieves) to try and get a piece of this crazy cash which is being thrown around.
Pages