Originally Posted by DrHax
I sport Odlov's old texture set. To me, it was EXACTLY what I looked for in a set. Incredibly interesting focal points, and nice space to even it all out. Everyone knew who Odlov was, and it was incredibly easy to point the set out from a crowd. I've also preferred to have sets made by you (hanz0) for this very reason.
I don't see any appeal in squeezing unnecessary details out of a 512 by 512 block. I laugh because I'm probably more autistic than I am artistic, but I have to assume being creative with your lines, good shading, and high concept is a better use of your time than grafting out this complicated (or convoluted...) clusterfuck within such small spacing.
In the end, I have more appreciation for sets like Shezcudio's, Odlov's, KamiKo's, War_Hero, etc. with simple, easily identifiable concepts, than.. well I don't want to call out a bad set since that'd be rude but use your best judgement.
Your point is valid, although it's quite funny for me, as You are the person I will always join with very detailed sets. I remember You from 2009 and quite interesting purple, graffiti set.
Still, You just mentioned one of few the best texture sets I've seen- KamiKo's one. Of course, it is not perfect. But everything matches there. It's great concept and piece of good work, and as a whole result is astonishing. Another one is- again- set which hanz0 (as far as I know, if I am wrong- please let me know about it) created for 19LoLek25 (/dl /lp if You don't know it). No idea if anybody remembers it, but it is also great in its simplicity. Even tho I don't like whole crysis-set idea, whole presence is quite awesome.
But, I have a question: how would You classify tribalish sets? I am not talking about pure abstract-tribals, but rather something like Mrama sets from 2008/9 (I know m0s is wearing one, I own one- made for Verax- as well: pictures below). Whole "idea" is always simple, so are shapes, but on the other hand- their amount often makes those sets quite complex. It leads to question- how to define "simplicity" if talking about sets- if it's case of textures elements or rather idea standing behind a whole?
Set that Mrama made for Verax
lol@price. Who cares about it, really. I consider this set above^ as 1kk one, but nobody would ever pay that much it. Powas got over 500k offers for his one, and it is still not the greatest price achievable as simplicity and perfection of his set concept makes it priceless. As it was mentioned before, price is not good criterion at all.
Last edited by Thrandir; Apr 27, 2014 at 12:43 PM.
Awwww no one mentionned my set 
My heart goes for simple sets. I mean toribash's 3D design is simplistic, "simple" geometric shapes, so textures should play along with it imo. Plus the fact Toribash is about movement, meaning most of the time you focus on a "non-zoomed" point of view to see your whole body.
Very detailed sets feel like their only purpose is to be detailed, I'll never zoom close enough during a game or a replay to see all the details of a very detailed set, except if I zoom just for the sake of seeing those details.
Just my opinion tho, plus I've seen some really well balanced detailled sets. So I guess it's not an universal truth ;o
My heart goes for simple sets. I mean toribash's 3D design is simplistic, "simple" geometric shapes, so textures should play along with it imo. Plus the fact Toribash is about movement, meaning most of the time you focus on a "non-zoomed" point of view to see your whole body.
Very detailed sets feel like their only purpose is to be detailed, I'll never zoom close enough during a game or a replay to see all the details of a very detailed set, except if I zoom just for the sake of seeing those details.
Just my opinion tho, plus I've seen some really well balanced detailled sets. So I guess it's not an universal truth ;o
I totally get what you're saying, Hanzo. I came into toribash a few years ago and I got very excited when I realized that body parts can be textured. I studied design and my skills with mapping during that time was fine. I was really surprised at how low my sets were going for whenever I released them. I put a lot of thought into my work but no one seemed to place any substantial value on the mental labor. It's kinda sad but I started to make more detailed sets just to get a higher appraisal for my work. I've met a couple of texture makers that share this experience.
I'm starting to think that most of the community just doesn't get it, you know?
It's like they see a simple vector set and they automatically bite down on the thought that " well shit I can do that, why should I pay a lot for it?"
Maybe it's an age thing. - or maybe it's because of the fact that people tend to feel better about purchasing textures that are obviously labor intensive detailwise. I'm still not sure to tell you the truth.
I love making both kinds but the lack of love for minimalism is just </3 , especially when you know that you're accomplishing so much with so very little.
oh, and I also don't get why a lot of people dislike symmetry even on sets where it's most effective. " left side and right side are exactly the same, 2k"
seriously, guys.
I'm starting to think that most of the community just doesn't get it, you know?
It's like they see a simple vector set and they automatically bite down on the thought that " well shit I can do that, why should I pay a lot for it?"
Maybe it's an age thing. - or maybe it's because of the fact that people tend to feel better about purchasing textures that are obviously labor intensive detailwise. I'm still not sure to tell you the truth.
I love making both kinds but the lack of love for minimalism is just </3 , especially when you know that you're accomplishing so much with so very little.
oh, and I also don't get why a lot of people dislike symmetry even on sets where it's most effective. " left side and right side are exactly the same, 2k"
seriously, guys.
Last edited by illv; May 2, 2014 at 09:22 PM.
Reason: removed unwatermarked image.
