Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'genre'.
Found 3 results
Greetings lost wanderer ! Soooo , for the past weeks , I have spent time drawing a few arts in order to develop my skills but then a major blockup came across my path , I am unable what art style to use . So the questions are : - Is it ok to have multiple art style instead of just one? I feels like , sometimes , an art style can be specific to one artist and can even portray their signature , but I cannot be satisfied with only one art style ! Therefore , would it be ok this way ? - Among those five drawings-drafts ( I actually have a dozen other art styles but I only used four of them with my graphic tab so far .) which one do you actually prefer ? First artstyle is almost chibi-like with minor shading but a slightly wider color palette for the hair . Its sketchy and colors are solid. Unlike other artstyles , legs are not very realistic and goes from thinner by the thighs to thicker by the feet : Second artstyle (I have already published on another topic , I do know) , the artstyle is not chibi-like but not too realistic either . It's simplistic but has a bit of details . Proportions are more anime-like with bigger eyes , bigger head , droopy shoulders , very round features and structure . It has shading and a bit of lighting for the hair. The "outer" outlines are black but the "inner" outlines are lighter and the color is closer to the filling : Third artstyle is a closer aspect of the anime style but still in a cuter art style . There are a bit more details , minor lighting for the hair and shading . The "outer" outlines are black but the "inner" outlines are lighter and the color is closer to the filling : Fourth artstyle is a more realistic in proportions . It has less lighting effect but has a more detailed shadowing ( I guess ) and more details . The outlines and the shading are sometimes a bit smoothed down on the ends . The "inner" and "outer" oulines are both black : Fifth artstyle is quite similar to the third one but with a cuter aspect and the head is even bigger than the body . It has more shading ( there is one shading for the part that is facing the light , and a shading for the part that is hidden from the light source.) It has a bit of details but it is mostly for the eyes and the patterned areas . The "outer" outlines are black but the "inner" outlines are lighter and the color is closer to the filling : Thank you very much for taking your time to read this post . It is greatly appreaciated !
Hey all, I thought it might be interesting to post any uncommon things we've done or seen done with the various iterations of RM; things that the engine was not 'intended' to be used for. Hopefully, seeing what the maker is capable of will encourage some of us to try a few new things. I'd like to avoid this thread devolving into another discussion of whether or not these things 'should' be made in other engines; think of this thread as showing what the engine is capable of, not whether other engines are more capable of doing it better. Personally, I've only done a handful of 'other' things. - In VX I converted Wilde's The Importance of Being Ernest into a sort of movie? That wasn't particularly difficult for the engine; just talking and moving after all. - Again in VX, I made a little arcade package containing DigDug, Space Invaders and Pacman; a little more strenuous since I couldn't script at the time but entirely possible. - In VXA, I made a pretty comprehensive tower defence game: that did require a fair bit of scripting tbf. - In VXA, I recently did that minigame that's a bit like those 'somethingsomething Run' apps; again mostly evented since I'm rusty with RM now. I've seen, and rarely played, some more outlandish things; I remember FPS became weirdly popular towards the end of VX's lifespan. But 2D fighters, platformers, and ofc 3D games have been shown to possible RM. What have you seen/done?
I was thinking about what "Fantasy" as a setting/genre actually means to me and why I would include some works and not include others. In my mind there are roughly five types of fiction: Realist, Speculative, Fantasy, Metafictional, and Surrealist. They can be thought of as a scale from most grounded in reality to least, but the lines are not always that clear cut. Realist fiction covers stories that are explicitly set in a world that is identical to "real life", or at least a world that differs form real life in ways that can be fully explained by a little artistic license or a lack of research. Speculative fiction means it is set in a world that is assumed to be like real life except when it's explicitly not. Fantasy means the world operates on very different metaphysical rules and diverges sharply with anything that can be thought of as realistic. Metafictional fiction means the story is it's self about and based of the rules of a story. Surrealist fiction means there are hardly any rules and most things are purely symbolic, random, and/or just look cool. There is overlap between these categories of course, but for the most part a lot of things labeled "fantasy" can fit snugly in other categories. A lot of fantasy I would count as more speculative or just surreal. It's a hard balance to make sometimes. Too over the top and nonsensical and it seems more like surrealist fiction. Too grounded in reality and focusing on building a realistic world with some odd elements that change things up and it seems more like speculative fiction. Also, to me there is a difference from plain old fantasy and real capital F "Fantasy". Real capital F "Fantasy" means a setting that is based around the "fantastical". The classic example of "Fantasy" is the works of J. R. R. Tolkien such as The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. However, I don't really think most of his imitators really fall into capital F "Fantasy". Why? Because they tend to stick with a set formula. Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs do not make a story into capital F "Fantasy". Tolkien included and defined Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs as fantastical and original elements in his stories without any common formula to fall back on, even if they were named based on myths. The element of the fantastical requires a lack of formulas and preexisting rules. Oddly another good example of real capital F "Fantasy" that I can think of is The Legend of Zelda. Now you may at first glace think it's just another Tolkien rip off, but it's really not (or if it is, the cultural barrier between the English book and the Japanese game creators has introduced enough originality to offset it). All of the races and monsters are vastly different, the way the world works is quite unique, and even as far back as the original game the setting seemed just a bit more fantastical then Generic RPG World 452. I guess the Final Fantasy series counts too, but it seemed to me to barely introduce more then a handful of original interesting elements before veering hard into over the top sci-fi surrealism so fast that I am not sure what it can be counted as now. What do you guys think? I was gonna post this as a blog but I think I would like to see some discussions about it, because I am not sure if my way is the best way to look at it or not. After all, I am always saying how much I hate to use formulas or lump things willy nilly together, but I thought I would talk about how I tend to see it.