Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
DF Lee

Art Update #1: Creating a Visual Style, Part 1

Recommended Posts

Hey guys - long-time adventure player, first time poster. =)

Loving the dev info so far... I have a real weakness for this kinda thing. Never did art school so dispatches on how artists decide on style and how programmers support them are like champagne, cavier and crack to a crack addict. While I don't think anybody wants to distract DF from their work tooo much, I am curious to know what kinda detail we might expect over the coming year.

Will there be mood boards? Circles of fire?

Model sheets?! http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20600000/daffy-model-sheet-warner-brothers-animation-20630683-1024-814.jpg

How does Nathan convey his style to his fellow artists? What makes a Nathan Stapley face?

Annnnnd... what roll does SCIENCE have in all this? I've always had a fondness for Valve's publications - can't understand the formula, but love their attitude towards character and environment design... especially with TF2:

http://valvesoftware.com/publications/2008/GDC2008_StylizationWithAPurpose_TF2.pdf

Now - I'm just speaking for myself... I can't assume anybody else'd like the detail I'm after. But rather than just making the occasional comment on the whether something the DFA team is doing is 'good' or 'bad', I think it'd be really exciting to learn a little about the methodology of creating a visual style, so we can - perhaps - make some useful contributions.

Well - either way, it's thrilling to see the gears go into motion with the DFA. DFA, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns and Pinkerton Road - exciting times. =)

--Rev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that was a thread that exploded. Took me a couple of sittinga to get all the way through and kept getting longer everytime I came back! That'll learn me to spend too long away from the forums. :-)

Anyway, like many here, love the background, not such a fan of the character. But neither is final design, and even if it was, I don't need to love it to love the game. I never much liked the art style of Psychonauts, but I ADORE the game.

But that aside, love seeing all the nuts and bolts at every step of the process. Way more info than I expected (was just thinking it'd be the monthly video updates and occasional polls and milestone type posts from the team). This year's gonna be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all honesty, I was expecting more pixels.

But I don't care! I trust Double Fine with all my heart, and I'm sure the Adventure Game is going to be fantastic. Can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think they should let the backers put in feedback about the genre and then go from there.

No. Too many opinions would make it hard to get to a point at all. This is not a good idea.

I really appreciate that we get information about the progress, but I do not think that we should have too much power about decisions which would affect the game in a great way.

(I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say, as a non native english speaker)

I agree with you. I mostly just meant asking, before starting, what general kind of a game their target audience might want to play and that would be the extent of the power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like where this is going. I personally hope that the game is a bit lighter and more colorful and not as dark and grey as a general art direction... the pastel colors are beautiful, though and it's great to see some early development!

Also, seems like the fine young lumberjack now needs a cameo in the game... somewhere. Though he looks like he fights like a dairy farmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like seeing the effects break-down and how it affects the visuals, but I'm really hoping this won't be the art-style, it doesn't clash well with me at all.

I don't mind the style for the environments and the settings, but I'd rather have a more cartoony style for the characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I'm personally sketchy about the art style, but this is a pretty rough mock up so...

I think Nathan needs to work on the faces slightly more to have a sense of smoothness and having more expressions. It's the eyes. They look like bug eyes, it almost makes me creeped out with the same stilted, wide mouthed expression. I'd like to ask him to animate the face a little, make the mouth open and close sometimes and blink. Maybe make it whistle to see what it looks like as an idle animation. The eyes need to roam a little in the environment as if he's interested in what's around him, not sharp jerks, but in a smooth quick transition. It could be great for seeing something in the environment, like the "hint" Manny got in Grim Fandango, he would look at something important as a clue to the player or tilt his head.

If I must inquire, have you guys heard of another Kickstarter project called Spriter? http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/539087245/spriter

That should help you guys in the animation department if you're going with the stick figure type of movements. Should help even more for the Mobile version too to keep resources down.

The art style was really not what eyeDAMNIT I expected. From the style of it, I keep getting a old Russian style vibe from it, like a fairy tale story is happening. I'm slowly starting to like it, but it took some getting used to after spending a few minutes looking over Nathans portfolio. It definitely suits the Double Fine art style of weirdness, though the mainstream yokels won't like it. I think he has potential with this game, but it needs some work to get there. Can you try an After Effects mock up where there are beams of light or more details in the background with bugs going from bush to bush? I dought it will make it in the final game, but if this was going in it, I would love to see something more detailed than what is being shown. The art itself is flat, but the style of it looks nice for the most part.

That's my critique so far, not sure if anybody will read any of this, but I hope it has helped out.

EDIT: Just had a sick idea! Use a Line for a gradient alpha channel over the character! Check the attachment!

Gradient Line.jpg

578d0021bf94a_GradientLine.jpg.3a0b01591

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the genre (storywise) of the game has already been decided?

Shouldn't that come first? The story could be horror, action adventure, mystery, film noir, crime, romance, shouldn't that be decided before visual style?

Right now it's just test concepts. They're basically playing around with different things to see what they like the best.

Yeah that makes no sense to me, shouldnt they decide genre of the story before showing any art period??

That said I'm sure whatever genre the story is this artist can adapt to, also his personal style is irrelevant it doesn't matter if its painterly or pixelly or inked or cardboard cutouts....It just doesn't.

It's called pre-production for a reason, because it's the phase of development that occurs before "real" production begins.

Right now they're experimenting how the style of Nathan Stapley might work in-game. Also they mostly figure out the technical issues of creating these graphics. Multiple graphical layers, parallax, shadows, zoom-ins.

From your questions I'm not sure if you're just curious or worried. Maybe they already know the general direction of the story, maybe not, so I'm also not sure either if they would need to know about it. But I don't think so. I guess that this is the typical work that gets done at the start of a project.

Mostly confusion honestly....But if it's figuring out technical aspects and not addressing art style then this makes total sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a really promising start, to me. Not sure about the big-headed character style but I'd get used to it quickly enough if they ran with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The larger-than-screen scenes and use of both side-scrolling and depth-scrolling are very satisfying but I'm very glad the character is just a placeholder.

For a test art style, the scene art is very nice. Not a developed enough style to be a final thing, but it has the potential to become something satisfying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that we will expect easter eggs to be shown between the depth layers in the final product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty good. The camera is movement is great and I think that could work. Art style is good but can't wait to see what the proper art will look like.

Keep up with the good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was disappointed when Tim announced that the characters will be influenced by Nathan Stapley's artstyle. I looked at the portfolio several times and I still can't warm up to his style. Don't like them at all. To me, they keep looking bland and expressionless. But hey, I gave DF an expensive carte blanche to make the game they want. That also gives me the right to chunter into my beard as long as I want to when I finally play the game.

If you're really considering Cutout / Bone Puppet Animation as a viable option for character animations I would be glad if they would at least look as good as to what Vanillaware did in Odin Sphere. Basicly starting with such an After Effects puppet and ending up with painting over the unpleasant spots until it looks stunning. The result are nearly as fast to come by as flat vector animation but it looks much nicer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEMBRpd9c98

This would also allow you to keep a very textured, painted look to the characters if purely drawn animation is not an option (e.g. because those lazy animators in Korea want to have two days off on the weekend).

I don't think most people here would be happy with this style, I think it's far too sleek. It's unlike anything Tim has ever worked on

I don't think you're not tripping balls.

VanillaWare quite simply has the most technically beautiful 2D spritework in the entire industry. An attempt to replicate its quality (if not its style) is only a good thing. And "too sleek" has never been a bad thing. Ever. EVER.

And being unlike anything Tim's ever worked on is a completely irrelevant statement, especially when you consider that few of his works ever have anything visually in common with eachother. Does Psychonauts resemble Grim Fandango? Does Costume Quest resemble Day of the Tentacle? Does Stacking Resemble Brutal Legend (for that matter, does Stacking resemble anything ever done in a game before?)?

Now then, I'm going to get on everyone's hate list here, but it's necessary since so many of you are pulling your punches or flat out refusing to deliver them in the first place; When DF invited us to participate and provide feedback they were asking for constructive criticism, not adulate worship.

Let us give serious analysis to the elements of Stapley's art:

These have character:

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/seesaw.jpg

Abstract and dead eyes, but the implied motion gives it life. The abstract is of a great enough degree that it can get away with the eyes. Still, not appropriate for a video game that isn't set in the Neverhood.

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/top_secret.jpg

Delightful and surreal, if a bit off.

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/Deliverance.jpg

His eyes give him a great deal of personality

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/baseball.jpg

The lack of facial details place emphasis on the action. The guy in the corner is lifeless though

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/trumpet2.jpg

Okay, this one's just pleasant to look at. Very Psychonauts-y

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/pope.gif

Lot's of character in his facial construction and expression. His garb expresses his purpose well.

These lack character:

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/old_lady.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/internet.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/civilwarwbeard.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/crowd2.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/fernando.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/coletrane.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/crowd.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/humanmonkey.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/Luigi.jpg

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/grill.gif

The common element? Dead eyes. So very dead. The mouths are typically terrible as well, opening onto nothing. And red noses immediately evoke drunkenness or Santa Claus. Human Monkey is just creepy.

Should we dismiss these completely? No. While the art style is unattractive, there is much to be gained from the subject matter of some of these pieces.

So, what's successful?

The crowd pieces would in fact be good for standing crowds; the art style lends itself well to people who do not matter. For example, if you look at the Scott Pilgrim game simple 2-frame sprites with a general lack of expression are used for background characters who did not appear in the books while more complex and expressive sprites are used for characters from the books.

Coletrane is actually a piece of fair talent among these. A shame about his eyes being as dead as the rest--they could have lent him a good deal of personality.

Grill. Grill provides me with an interesting idea, a character who expresses the intent of what he says in his teeth. In terms of an NPC's mechanic it could only work well in a high detail game, but imagine what could be written in those teeth: Starting with HELLO THERE, go to things like GOOD BYE, BLOODY MURDER, and any other emotional state. Think of the Elcor from Mass Effect. In grill bling form.

I will readily admit to Stapley being a solid background and area concept artist:

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/sf.jpg

Beautiful really. Excellently composed.

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/milkhouses.gif

Surreal.

Of course, some of it can be... simplistic... at best:

http://www.nathanstapley.com/images/boat.jpg

Well, that's it from me for the moment. If you have a differing opinion that amounts to more than "NO U", please share. And remember: criticism can be constructive, flattery builds nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[A whole bunch of stuff]....

If you have a differing opinion that amounts to more than “NO U”, please share. And remember: criticism can be constructive, flattery builds nothing.

How about I just think you're wrong? I don't really have anything clever to add to that. I just think the criticisms you laid out are wrong. It's a subjective thing, I know, but I don't think the eyes are bad, I don't think the mouths are bad and I think it's a bit weird to be judging those elements in isolation in the first place and I don't think any of those pictures lack character in the slightest, although some of them certainly have different feels to others.

I'm sorry I can't really provide a bunch of pictures and examples as to why I think you're wrong, but it really is that simple. You don't like some of the art and have your reasons. I disagree with you, and your reasons. I see what you are saying, most certainly, but when I follow the dots I still find myself looking at all those pictures and thoroughly liking what I see.

So where does that leave us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[A whole bunch of stuff]....

If you have a differing opinion that amounts to more than “NO U”, please share. And remember: criticism can be constructive, flattery builds nothing.

How about I just think you're wrong? I don't really have anything clever to add to that. I just think the criticisms you laid out are wrong. It's a subjective thing, I know, but I don't think the eyes are bad, I don't think the mouths are bad and I think it's a bit weird to be judging those elements in isolation in the first place and I don't think any of those pictures lack character in the slightest, although some of them certainly have different feels to others.

I'm sorry I can't really provide a bunch of pictures and examples as to why I think you're wrong, but it really is that simple. You don't like some of the art and have your reasons. I disagree with you, and your reasons. I see what you are saying, most certainly, but when I follow the dots I still find myself looking at all those pictures and thoroughly liking what I see.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves you in the perpetually neutral to positive ground and willingness to employ the contradiction without substance form of argument (4th tier argument of 7), and me wondering what's actually viewable as distinctly good (as opposed to okay) in such blank, lifeless, personalityless works. I also wonder what sort of games/animations/paintings/art in general you enjoy that such art is somehow charming. But that's just me, for lack of a better word, flabbergasted.

It also leaves me as one of few in the thread willing to state an opinion and back it up with the eternal why.

On another matter, following the link to your games that you sometimes make, I like the character design style of The Wager, lots of personality, and dislike the art style in general of March of the Rorgers--too much dissonance going on in MotR's screenshots.

argument.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great update :)

And I didn't know that After Effects is also used in game development (I only use it for movie postproduction).

P.S. I especially like the style for the background!!! I must say it reminds me a little bit of DOTT, which is something I like about it. But you'll never find a style that everyone will approve of though. So... if you want to go with this style, it would be pretty cool !!!! I would not want to have a visual style that looks like any other game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[A whole bunch of stuff]....

If you have a differing opinion that amounts to more than “NO U”, please share. And remember: criticism can be constructive, flattery builds nothing.

How about I just think you're wrong? I don't really have anything clever to add to that. I just think the criticisms you laid out are wrong. It's a subjective thing, I know, but I don't think the eyes are bad, I don't think the mouths are bad and I think it's a bit weird to be judging those elements in isolation in the first place and I don't think any of those pictures lack character in the slightest, although some of them certainly have different feels to others.

I'm sorry I can't really provide a bunch of pictures and examples as to why I think you're wrong, but it really is that simple. You don't like some of the art and have your reasons. I disagree with you, and your reasons. I see what you are saying, most certainly, but when I follow the dots I still find myself looking at all those pictures and thoroughly liking what I see.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves you in the perpetually neutral to positive ground and willingness to employ the contradiction without substance form of argument (4th tier argument of 7), and me wondering what's actually viewable as distinctly good (as opposed to okay) in such blank, lifeless, personalityless works. I also wonder what sort of games/animations/paintings/art in general you enjoy that such art is somehow charming. But that's just me, for lack of a better word, flabbergasted.

It also leaves me as one of few in the thread willing to state an opinion and back it up with the eternal why.

On another matter, following the link to your games that you sometimes make, I like the character design style of The Wager, lots of personality, and dislike the art style in general of March of the Rorgers--too much dissonance going on in MotR's screenshots.

argument.png

Surely the whole point of what I said was that all I can offer you here is contradiction without substance. I think we're dealing with highly subjective value judgements here and the things I say in praise of the art are likely to be as alien to you as your point are to me. For example:

"Dead eyes." You say that they are. I don't agree. They're low detail, but they fit the style, they don't, to me, seem out of place, and I think saying they are dead implies they are out of place.

And so on. We just don't agree on this, there's not much more to say. Call it contradiction without substance if you like, but it is what it is.

If I must provide examples of what I think are good: I enjoy the use of colour, I like the general form of the figures though I couldn't tell you precisely what ABOUT the form I like. I like the combination of quite high detail shading and gradient with quite low detail features, again, I don't know why that works for me, but it does. I like the slightly creepy quality that all of them have, and yet again it's very difficult for me to pin down exactly what it is about the brushtrokes that does that for me, except that I wouldn't describe it as 'dead eyes'. Lots of things. I think all the characters come together very nicely in all those pictures. Will that do?

As for my own art in my own games, briefly: I don't really consider myself a very accomplished pixel artist but I have fairly good sensibilities as far as design goes so I can use the medium to make something that looks coherent. MotR was my very first attempt at doing this, and was done in 2 days while I was also working on music and designing the gameplay. The Wager was made over a longer period, with better software and a touch more experience creating pixel art, and with a little more care and attention because we were more invested in the game as a concept. So... thanks for your analysis, but I don't think there's any real reason why one looks better than the other, except that I did The Wager after, and spent more time on it. :)

If you can see what I worked on right after The Wager, you might agree I've progressed further still:

archititlesbig-660x377.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, fun pills and sleds for everyone. Go have fun.

[End of line.]

Smiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here, fun pills and sleds for everyone. Go have fun.

[End of line.]

Smiles

You know it is possible to be having a disagreement and be having fun at the same time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The common element? Dead eyes. So very dead. The mouths are typically terrible as well, opening onto nothing. And red noses immediately evoke drunkenness or Santa Claus. Human Monkey is just creepy.

Should we dismiss these completely? No. While the art style is unattractive, there is much to be gained from the subject matter of some of these pieces.

So, what's successful?

The crowd pieces would in fact be good for standing crowds; the art style lends itself well to people who do not matter. For example, if you look at the Scott Pilgrim game simple 2-frame sprites with a general lack of expression are used for background characters who did not appear in the books while more complex and expressive sprites are used for characters from the books.

Coletrane is actually a piece of fair talent among these. A shame about his eyes being as dead as the rest--they could have lent him a good deal of personality.

Grill. Grill provides me with an interesting idea, a character who expresses the intent of what he says in his teeth. In terms of an NPC's mechanic it could only work well in a high detail game, but imagine what could be written in those teeth: Starting with HELLO THERE, go to things like GOOD BYE, BLOODY MURDER, and any other emotional state. Think of the Elcor from Mass Effect. In grill bling form.

Sorry but your perception of the art is just overly critical. Dead eyes ? have you not seen Coraline ? one of the best clay animation movies around and most of the characters have buttons for eyes. Having dead eyes doesn't make the character look dead or stop them from coming to life.

Unattractive ? seriously ? this artwork is extremely creative, surreal and a joy to look at. You take away the eyes as a way to express emotion that doesn't stop a character from expressing it in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

internet.jpg

I think in your post chibi this is one of the pieces of artwork that lacked character ? I think you missed the point on this one. The character on the outside seems empty but for a purpose he lives in the computer. Look at the screen and then to the character on the outside. For you to not see that just makes me think you are not actually seeing the point of the artwork.

baseball.jpg

Americas favourite past time am I not correct ? how many people actually go to a game of baseball for the actual baseball. Isn't it the atmosphere ? The character underneath is more interested in drinking his beer than watching the game.

I could look at this artwork you posted above and I'm seeing completely different things than you but I don't see lifelessness within any of the characters regardless of them having eyes that seem dead or lifeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chibi Kami, I've got to chime in here and say that I think "lifeless" or "dead" is the last thing I think when I look at those eyes.

Ultimately, this is a subjective value judgement and so it's not productive or useful to get all Vulcan super-logical over it. There's no test you can run over those artworks to assess how dead or alive the characters look, it's a judgement call on your part. We can't get up to the top of that hierarchy of disagreement because you don't really have a central point beyond "stop liking stuff I don't like".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The common element? Dead eyes. So very dead. The mouths are typically terrible as well, opening onto nothing. And red noses immediately evoke drunkenness or Santa Claus. Human Monkey is just creepy.

Should we dismiss these completely? No. While the art style is unattractive, there is much to be gained from the subject matter of some of these pieces.

So, what's successful?

The crowd pieces would in fact be good for standing crowds; the art style lends itself well to people who do not matter. For example, if you look at the Scott Pilgrim game simple 2-frame sprites with a general lack of expression are used for background characters who did not appear in the books while more complex and expressive sprites are used for characters from the books.

Coletrane is actually a piece of fair talent among these. A shame about his eyes being as dead as the rest--they could have lent him a good deal of personality.

Grill. Grill provides me with an interesting idea, a character who expresses the intent of what he says in his teeth. In terms of an NPC's mechanic it could only work well in a high detail game, but imagine what could be written in those teeth: Starting with HELLO THERE, go to things like GOOD BYE, BLOODY MURDER, and any other emotional state. Think of the Elcor from Mass Effect. In grill bling form.

Sorry but your perception of the art is just overly critical. Dead eyes ? have you not seen Coraline ? one of the best clay animation movies around and most of the characters have buttons for eyes. Having dead eyes doesn't make the character look dead or stop them from coming to life.

Unattractive ? seriously ? this artwork is extremely creative, surreal and a joy to look at. You take away the eyes as a way to express emotion that doesn't stop a character from expressing it in other ways.

there is nothing like "being overly critical" when it comes to art. as one delves deeper into art, realizes how much of what is readily available is actually quite bland and subpar. same goes for music.

his has nothing to do with Coraline, havent seen it. nevertheless, it seems that kami likes neverhood, so you might be just misunderstanding him/her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I am I just see it differently. I might not be able to express that as accurately on here but the dead eye comment is what I don't understand. You take something as humans we take for granted away (like the eyes). That in real life hasn't stopped us from expressing emotion. A blind man has dead eyes he sees the world differently than us expresses emotion to an extent differently. Take away a persons voice and the hands and action become that voice. Same if you take away sound action and visual cue becomes sound.

Dead eyes to me doesn't stop a character from coming to life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chibi Kami, have you looked through his comic that he's posted on the Double Fine website (called "My Comic About Me")? It's a lot sketchier/rougher, as the DF Comics often are, but it also shows a slightly different style with more expressive, cartoonier faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I'm really liking the process so far, the inputs and the detail that's been given to each of these posts.

I think this game is going to be great looking at how the people involved talk about their work :)

Also, some interesting posts on the art style and comments. I think when an art style has lots of character it's going to be loved by some poeple and hated by others.

In this case I think the style of Nathan is very interesting for a game. The way he blocks the subjects and lights them seem perfect for this kind of games imho.

Like in this one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f3CF_YOanKs/S_S-VTxb6TI/AAAAAAAAA7I/llMVVjakeA4/s1600/fairy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're not tripping balls.

VanillaWare quite simply has the most technically beautiful 2D spritework in the entire industry. An attempt to replicate its quality (if not its style) is only a good thing. And "too sleek" has never been a bad thing. Ever. EVER.

And being unlike anything Tim's ever worked on is a completely irrelevant statement, especially when you consider that few of his works ever have anything visually in common with eachother. Does Psychonauts resemble Grim Fandango? Does Costume Quest resemble Day of the Tentacle? Does Stacking Resemble Brutal Legend (for that matter, does Stacking resemble anything ever done in a game before?)?

I guess I must not be not tripping balls then, because I see similarities in all his games, I never said that VanillaWare art wasn't impressive, I think it's very well done and very sleek.. It's very foreign to anything DF or TIM has ever worked on.

but hey, I'm not an expert like you, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say I'm really liking the process so far, the inputs and the detail that's been given to each of these posts.

I think this game is going to be great looking at how the people involved talk about their work :)

Also, some interesting posts on the art style and comments. I think when an art style has lots of character it's going to be loved by some poeple and hated by others.

In this case I think the style of Nathan is very interesting for a game. The way he blocks the subjects and lights them seem perfect for this kind of games imho.

Like in this one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f3CF_YOanKs/S_S-VTxb6TI/AAAAAAAAA7I/llMVVjakeA4/s1600/fairy.jpg

See I love that image just looking at it makes me think the people within that world are expressionless almost if I should take from star trek Vulcan in behaviour and that it's the world around them that is vibrant and emotional. Just seeing that little gnome like person on the table smiling almost as if he's trying to get the man sitting at the table to smile just a great piece of artwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...