I've tried making Resource Packs in the past, however usually just ended up removing them due to boredom or failure to commit to the project. I'd say the pack is pretty close to being done, but I'm uploading it here in hopes of some good suggestions and recommendations. I'm not going to change the simplistic style, nor the size. I don't like noise so I won't be adding any (I hate it so much). This pack is mainly for me and my gaming group ROMRot but I figure I should share so let me know what you think. I already tried going to the subreddit with it, but they seemed pretty disinterested. I'm hoping to get better results from the forums.
You need to provide screenshots so people actually download it..
That makes sense. How are people supposed to know whether they'd like to try it if they don't even know what it looks like, right? Anyway, thanks for the advice, I've added them in the post. Hopefully this might spark up some more users.
Though, I do notice you put detail in some of your blocks, they just lack shading. Im not saying that you have to change to something other than simple, there's nothing wrong with simple packs. It's just that your blocks could use a lot more shading. Your cobblestone, for example, is too flat. It has shape, but not exactly any form.
Your grass needs to be redone, and needs a lot more detail. Try putting some blades on there to make it look more detailed and shaded. A lot of your blocks could use some shading actually, and those logs looks like they copy some of default lines, which I guess is okay, but it's nots recommended to use any form of default textures as that's what resource packs are mainly about; to get away from the default look and feel. Go back in and add some shading and I'll give another go. For now. I'm not a huge fan with how flat it is.
Bucket filled grass, outline traced on default, palette taken directly from default... Check, check, and check. Though the name is kinda nice. "Rotting Sight" is far more descriptive of this than "simplecraft" or "flatcraft" or "cartooncraft" or any of the other names this pack is usually released under. This pack, having been released almost weekly by one person or another since Alpha, is in fact a pretty Rotten Sight.
I don't think you've grasped the concept of "simplistic".
Just like you've failed to grasp the distinction between "simplistic" and "boring".
Grass is a flat green piece of plastic instead of, you know, grass. The lines on the wood are just painted on a big block of plastic. Everything is flat and dull with big empty color fields and no shading or any sense of depth. It's pretty much literally just "default, but flat and boring".
Except your glowstone. That's actually pretty good. More textures like that, please!
Just like you've failed to grasp the distinction between "simplistic" and "boring".
Except your glowstone. That's actually pretty good. More textures like that, please!
Boring is a matter of opinion, based entirely on whether you enjoy this sort of style.
It's called Rotting Sight because this is the base. This is Rotting Sight (Light). Basically just a retexture without removing too much of the feel of the original. I'm also working on Rotting Sight (Night). That turns the world dark, demonic, eerie, and so forth. However, before I can consider working on making a hellish encounter of the alternative, I have to make sure that I at least have it finished.
I'm absolutely opposed to noise. Don't even recommend it because I won't listen. However, I'm starting to wonder if I misinterpreted what you are all trying to tell me. I want to keep it 16x16, and that frankly isn't a lot of space to work with. I want to add more of a "personal" feel to it, because I understand it needs more character and "spice" aside from just being simplistic. But that's why I'm asking you guys. What do you all mean by "depth" and "shading" and "detail" without defining noise and spread?
...What do you all mean by "depth" and "shading" and "detail" without defining noise and spread?
Values, Tints and Shades, Lights and Darks. Just because it's simplistic doesn't mean it doesn't have to lack those things. Take a look at Shadow_Forge_Master's pack, StarfishCartoon. His pack is rather detailed, and shaded; All while maintaining a simplistic style. Same with Barytyrannus's DreadNight was very detailed in some blocks, while still maintaining a simpistic style. Same with ThePiDay's Papawer: Respawn pack, things being super simple, but having it's own personality and it being, you know, SHADED.
Those first two RP's were way too messy for my taste. They had a good style, but in terms of shades, colors, palettes, I usually like to keep it a lower number. This doesn't blend very well, but that's kinda the point.
That last one, however, was more what I was headed towards. And as CyrusOfSky pointed out, I'm actually looking for minimalistic, not just simplistic.
Also wanted to add that those all looked great and I definitely took inspiration from them. They sparked some ideas, but I'm still not going to add shading to a simplistic pack.
So then it's minimalistic, not simplistic. Or both. Either way, I stand by my statement. Simple and Detail are not synonyms. If I'm making a simplistic texture pack, I think people would expect it to be simple. I guess the style is classified under minimalistic though. I have to admit, I hate all the labels. I only put them there for organizational purposes.
I didn't make this post because I wanted you to like it. I made it because I wanted to know how many people liked/disliked it and what about it was wrong. I also find it offensive to call it a "bucket fill" as if all I did was use one tool to cover up everything and called it good. If you really think my hard work results in something cheap enough to be called "bucket fill" then I respectfully decline your "criticism".
[Pack can be downloaded here from Dropbox.com]
I'd like to offer thanks to anyone who can help out ahead of time, since I know there's already so many packs out there.
Current Version: 1.2
Completed?: Nope! But it's close!
That makes sense. How are people supposed to know whether they'd like to try it if they don't even know what it looks like, right? Anyway, thanks for the advice, I've added them in the post. Hopefully this might spark up some more users.
Sorry! We don't like bucket fill packs!
Though, I do notice you put detail in some of your blocks, they just lack shading. Im not saying that you have to change to something other than simple, there's nothing wrong with simple packs. It's just that your blocks could use a lot more shading. Your cobblestone, for example, is too flat. It has shape, but not exactly any form.
Your grass needs to be redone, and needs a lot more detail. Try putting some blades on there to make it look more detailed and shaded. A lot of your blocks could use some shading actually, and those logs looks like they copy some of default lines, which I guess is okay, but it's nots recommended to use any form of default textures as that's what resource packs are mainly about; to get away from the default look and feel. Go back in and add some shading and I'll give another go. For now. I'm not a huge fan with how flat it is.
I don't think you've grasped the concept of "simplistic".
When I think about the word "simple", the word "detail" is probably the last thing that comes to mind.
Bucket filled grass, outline traced on default, palette taken directly from default... Check, check, and check. Though the name is kinda nice. "Rotting Sight" is far more descriptive of this than "simplecraft" or "flatcraft" or "cartooncraft" or any of the other names this pack is usually released under. This pack, having been released almost weekly by one person or another since Alpha, is in fact a pretty Rotten Sight.
Just like you've failed to grasp the distinction between "simplistic" and "boring".
Grass is a flat green piece of plastic instead of, you know, grass. The lines on the wood are just painted on a big block of plastic. Everything is flat and dull with big empty color fields and no shading or any sense of depth. It's pretty much literally just "default, but flat and boring".
Except your glowstone. That's actually pretty good. More textures like that, please!
Boring is a matter of opinion, based entirely on whether you enjoy this sort of style.
It's called Rotting Sight because this is the base. This is Rotting Sight (Light). Basically just a retexture without removing too much of the feel of the original. I'm also working on Rotting Sight (Night). That turns the world dark, demonic, eerie, and so forth. However, before I can consider working on making a hellish encounter of the alternative, I have to make sure that I at least have it finished.
I'm absolutely opposed to noise. Don't even recommend it because I won't listen. However, I'm starting to wonder if I misinterpreted what you are all trying to tell me. I want to keep it 16x16, and that frankly isn't a lot of space to work with. I want to add more of a "personal" feel to it, because I understand it needs more character and "spice" aside from just being simplistic. But that's why I'm asking you guys. What do you all mean by "depth" and "shading" and "detail" without defining noise and spread?
Values, Tints and Shades, Lights and Darks. Just because it's simplistic doesn't mean it doesn't have to lack those things. Take a look at Shadow_Forge_Master's pack, StarfishCartoon. His pack is rather detailed, and shaded; All while maintaining a simplistic style. Same with Barytyrannus's DreadNight was very detailed in some blocks, while still maintaining a simpistic style. Same with ThePiDay's Papawer: Respawn pack, things being super simple, but having it's own personality and it being, you know, SHADED.
Can I just
That last one, however, was more what I was headed towards. And as CyrusOfSky pointed out, I'm actually looking for minimalistic, not just simplistic.
Also wanted to add that those all looked great and I definitely took inspiration from them. They sparked some ideas, but I'm still not going to add shading to a simplistic pack.