alien's 'dark' history has already been documented with photographic evidence of before and after by pinstadium
you are quoting me from a post that was made before updated Houdini's appeared at expo.
Houdini before = DARK, especially the lower playfield.
Houdini is better lit today because AP listened to people who told them it was too dark. it WAS an issue that was acknowledged by AP. they lightened the playfield colors and added spotlights since my post.
BLACK is not BLINDING.
and i am not crazy.
JW, im going to assume you are talking about TNA's lightshow and GI. i was clearly talking about the pf art. they are two different things. IMHO, the addition of the pf art and 'mood lighting' made the game darker than some may have been expecting when they first saw all the neon pinks and purples. i dont think anybody was expecting BLACK. im not sure i would would categorize the photos below as 'crazy bright'. but im willing to listen. do you want to argue the playfield doesn't have darkness issues and that players [of all abilities] arent going to have more trouble picking up a silver ball racing against a BLACK background vs an alternative color scheme? or, do you still have no interest on commenting on the playfield art?
JW, i dont mind people who present counter arguments. but when they think/try to make it look like they made their point when when they failed, how am i supposed to answer other than to point out their flaws.
with Houdini, you failed because you used a quote of mine from an earlier point in time that is no longer relevant today [essentially quoting me out of context].
with TNA, you failed because you didn't argue my points [which you dubiously left off when you quoted me], which were the use of black in the center of the pf and Matt Andrews being on record that he didn't believe this to be a good idea, but went ahead and did it anyway. this is one of the games biggest negatives. did you find his quote by the way?
im very humble and will freely admit if/when im proven wrong.
but please, dont try to make me look bad unless you truly can.
Speaking of quotes, here is one from another professional artist commenting on the TNA art package in the Spooky production thread.
Quoted from jwilson:
there are *tons* of rules when it comes to art - colour matching, structure, focus, etc. There are some universal truths about what is pleasing to the eye and how you draw attention that doesn't ever change.
Anyway, I'd also like to stop talking about TNA art as it's complete and no amount of hot air is going to change it. Besides, it's perfectly great the way it is.
he starts off like he was really going critique it from the viewpoint of a professional artist. finally, an expert evaluation for everyone to read. all the art school buzz words started running through my head: line, color, shape, form, space, texture, value, contrast, balance, emphasis, rythym, proportion, harmony, unity, variety, pattern, interpretation.
but then what does he say?
"i don't want to talk about it."
his entire critique: "it's perfectly great".
which pretty much tells me - absolutely nothing. not one specific point on elements and/or principals. no interpretation. an unwillingness to even say i like/dont like this or that. whats going on here? is it a professional courtesy that the most qualified people to offer an opinion [professionals in the same field], dont critique/discuss another colleagues work?
why didn't you go ahead and offer your opinion? because the art was complete and nothing was going to change? well, to me that seems like to best time/reason to offer an art critique, when the work is finished and not subject to change.