True to the roots
I'm actually of the opinion that evokes the Nintendo 64 graphics, much improved in a more dramatic feel. Good work, and while I'd like to see your update, this is a great pic anyway.
True to the roots
I'm actually of the opinion that evokes the Nintendo 64 graphics, much improved in a more dramatic feel. Good work, and while I'd like to see your update, this is a great pic anyway.
Hey thanks!
Rough-looking
"Portal" was sleek, in general; this is too rough by comparison. Looks more like Stargate, actually. Nice effect near the portal itself. ^_^
Good point, thanks for the criticism.
Awesome!
THAT is a fantastic Gaz model! Great job!
Thanks, I worked hard on it!
Steel
Looks like a huge steel construction of apartments or something. Awesome!
Hey thanks! :D
No sense of scale
Excellent texturing, normals, and polygon work. But there's no sense of scale. Is this a small hill, a dune, a Rockies-size mountain, or a 10x Everest size mountain? Heck, I thought this was the ocean at very first until I looked at the background. I see the rover, but I had to read the title to get it, and it still doesn't contribute to the sense of how big this things is supposed to be.
Fair criticism. Thanks for the comment.
Interesting idea
I like the look overall, but I'm a bit confused by the disjointed symmetry. The top and bottom are *exactly* identical with the exception of color (red/blue exchange) and the stars, but at the center they don't meld at all. Why was it necessary to mirror the top and bottom without a smooth transition between them? Heck, why didn't you just take one half and make it the whole image? The disjoint-mirror effect is too distracting to the piece as a whole.
Thank you for the honest, helpful review. I was hoping the symmetry would be more pleasing than distracting--I'll consider your advice.
It's okay
(a) It's primarily a photograph that you added a 3D model to. Since the Art Portal bans photography, the only "portal-appropriate" part is the 3D model, which is small, overly simple, untextured, and not very captivating.
(b) The primary light source is correct, but there's front-light on the apples that's not on the model, and his specular shading doesn't agree either.
(c) That creature's structure is confusing: is that a nose, hair, an antenna, what?
(d) If the apples and droplets were in 3D, you'd have gotten more 5/10's.
a) I dont add a 3D model, I draw it by my self
b) it's very hard to take into account all details
c) Thanks for axplanation, it's very important for my :]
Too simple
Simplicity can be extremely effective, but when you go too simple (like here), the point is lost. Heck, put in a vapid action-movie title at the top would greatly increase the interest, like "The Sphere", or "From Within," then at least the object would represent something deeper.
Thank you for the comment.
Woah!
Just, woah! Fantastic 3D work in my opinion, and bollix to the people who voted less than 2.
Thank you!
I don't spend much time here anymore, but it's nice to see the site still with its wide spread of user-generated content.
Male
Developer
Columbia University
Joined on 12/16/09