High Resolution Maps

[Rotonen]

So far this thread has provided us with nothing beyond three points.

1) A tile based effort is the only one manageable with our scope of plans.
2) We're far from what we want to be.
3) We're slowly starting to have enough competent, motivated and committed workforce to get there during our lifetimes.

If you have nothing to add beyond that, please don't flog the dead horse around indefinitely.

[zick]

Another thing that tile makers should consider, besides trying to do something that is very difficult, is practicing "obliterating the grid" so that it doesn't look like you're using tiles. Lets take an open plain for instance. If you make a repeatable pattern in grass thats 4 tiles (2x2) instead of 1 tile over and over, and then make an alternate of each tile (same edge pixels, yet slightly different middle), you can really make a very powerful scene. Not to mention, placing objects like trees or rocks, etc. which lets say you create a couple of variations of each of those.

[Len]

Another thing that tile makers should consider, besides trying to do something that is very difficult, is practicing "obliterating the grid" so that it doesn't look like you're using tiles. Lets take an open plain for instance. If you make a repeatable pattern in grass thats 4 tiles (2x2) instead of 1 tile over and over, and then make an alternate of each tile (same edge pixels, yet slightly different middle), you can really make a very powerful scene. Not to mention, placing objects like trees or rocks, etc. which lets say you create a couple of variations of each of those.

Most of us are already aware of this

2] (the real reason I'm making this post) There's a major, major misconception that a lot of people get, going into pixel art, and that is the misconception that whatever their tile size is should act as the "unit size" for everything in the game. That is to say, they feel compelled to make most objects a full tile wide, without leaving blank space between it. They also are afraid of having sections of tile art that can't be broken apart into single tiles - they're afraid of having large, say, 64x64 chunks that can only be used together as a 64x64 chunk.

The danger that comes from this is that it makes one's tile art look very stilted and artificial. I would strongly suggest taking a different tack at things; at drawing more organic shapes while ignoring any of the constraints of having to chop them up as tile art, and then after they are drawn and look good, modifying them to be more modular and reuseable. In my experience, it has really helped to make my tile art look a lot more natural.

Btw a grass tile (or any other tile) could actually be 4 32x32 tiles that give a specific pattern rather than just 1 over and over again

Also you can create cluster tiles, in which you would have multiple mushrooms grouped together rather than just individuals evenly spaced apart.

the topic of breaking from the insanely reusable 32x32 style came up. The question is, do we apply simultaneous attention to the new area's graphical development and the old area's graphical refinement.. or should we focus on one, then the other?

I think we can all agree we don't want a landscape that looks like a bunch of 32x32 squares (even if it technically is)

I think adding some variation tiles would do.

Not to bite your head off, but it takes time to get the ball rolling