Minecraft Forums

9.8/8 m8 yo cobble look gr8, Meaps (Sorry I don't get many occasions to make an **** out of myself...)

Fishy, really diggin into that technological fun you're getting into. I can already see some retro robots from the '50/'60's popping up as mobs XD

Ignaf:

Great, consistent style.

On the downside, it isn't obvious what many of the blocks you've show are.

The blue blocks are prismarine and sea lantern, aren't they? If so, I think they are pretty recognizable ingame (Ocean Monuments)

I like the design, Ignaf

I'm pretty sure I can tell what all the blocks you guys have showcased so far (with the exception of the top two rows in Ignaf's pic but I assume they're the sandstone variants?), but more to the point, for most blocks it really doesn't matter if you can tell what they are or not.

All decorative blocks that aren't used for crafting can basically be whatever you want them to be as they're just used for building. I don't know why it would matter what you're placing down as long as it looks nice and matches your other materials.

For stuff like ores or some tools making them recognisable is nice for playability but the players will likely get used to the changes in time anyways.

Just my 2c!

EDIT: Btw, would anyone be down to check out my new pack and give me a bit of feedback on it? It's mostly ready for first release now but I'd like to make sure there aren't any glaring issues (there will still be some vanilla stuff for now though)

Quote from XSSheep»

I'm pretty sure I can tell what all the blocks you guys have showcased so far (with the exception of the top two rows in Ignaf's pic but I assume they're the sandstone variants?), but more to the point, for most blocks it really doesn't matter if you can tell what they are or not.

That depends on how you intend the pack to be used. For adventure maps and creative mode-- sure, make everything look like whatever you want. For survival though, I think it does matter-- except for those rare blocks that will be always obvious from context.

Ignaf may decide for whatever reason that easy identification of the blocks isn't important, but I still think "I don't know what I'm looking at" is generally valuable feedback.

Quote from Irish_Pixels»

Decided to test out some colours, ended up making some tools in 3 different resolutions, feedback would be great :

I don't think a black outline is generally a good choice for a 16x pack. It is fairly harsh, and extremely limiting when you want to make something really thinner than 3 pixs.

Quote from Ignaf»

That's the Point. I think it doesn't matter at all in survival. As far i know, you can obtain prismarine blocks only in underwatertemples.If you see them first time it's pretty obious what they are.

My comments aren't directed at the Prismarine (which is arguable a block identifiable from context), but at your pack in general.

I'm quite impressed with the style, and I say that sincerely.

But to clarify what I was trying to get at, there's a strong element of "guess/memorize which arbitrary abstract pattern of squares represents which block". And the palette is reduced to the point where it adds to the problem since, even diamond and lapis are nearly the same color. Quartz, Sand, Bedrock, Clay, Stone, Cobble, etc. none of these patterns look especially smoother, solider, or more granular than the other. If you switched any of those textures, and recolored the block appropriately, would it make any difference? (Some of those are probably actually re-colors, i haven't compared them carefully).

I just wish the great style could be applied to various blocks more expressively and meaningfully.

Makes me want to get back to working on Visibility...

... So I did:

Totally revamped Stone, Grass, Dirt, Sand and Leaves. Going for abstraction without getting mysterious-- simple, clean and smooth. Also 9 variants of the main natural blocks to get a nice mosaic effect, made possible by my new mastery of photoshop's slices. So convenient and quick.

It's quite refreshing to work on something so different from Lithos.

The brown you mixed in with the podzol and grass looks really unique and cool I think. The textures look very natural and the colours are nicely picked too.

I have to say the stone bricks look quite out of place compared to the rest of the textures though - they look a bit too flat and the cracks are also a bit too dark imo. Would be nice to see slightly less rounded bricks too, always looks a bit odd at 16x imo.

Still, you've done a really good job in general, the rest looks very consistent and colour and style-wise it reminds me a bit of thine explorers pack (I'm pretty sure that's what it's called) which I really liked!

As for fishies robotic stuff at the top of the page, it seems pretty obvious to me: Redstone repeater and comparator.

Quote from Ignaf»

and... I cheated

to edited the palette to make the sand look more finer and smoother.

Well, it's still not 100% clear what what is, but at least it is easier to memorise.

The new quartz looks quartz-ier. The stuff on the right-- is it colored clay? Looks bricky.

What's a palette for anyway? It's supposed to be helpful and useful to make the pack better-- so if it isn't, ignore it. That sand does look better.

@Eleazzaar:
The mosaic effect fits really well in the world of Minecraft, it makes everything so much more interesting, and exciting.

It is kinda remarkable how the variations seem hardly visible in photoshop, but when veiwed over the terrain seem really obvious.