Sprite Updates

[Cottoncat]

I personally feel that it's good to update older sprites sometimes. Seeing all the added details and stuff is just really cool and so far I've enjoyed the sprite updates, especially the Holly and Silver ones; the updates made me want to collect even more of the sprites and the new Holly sprite quickly became my favorite. While I do consider the older sprites cute and nostalgic, I still don't mind change at all.

[sroo]

I'm one of the "pokemon players", I have to collect 'em all(!!). I don't like all the breeds, as a fact I don't like most breeds. However liking is not the issue. If I were collecting paintings, I wouldn't want my curator coming and chancing aspects on my older pieces. I like to look at my collected sprites and marvel at the advance in pixel art, look at the times and styles passing (oh man I'm getting old :P). Sure the oldest sprites don't have the HD-effect, but that doesn't mean they need it. And I get if artist wants to retouch their sprites they can. However.. an artist wouldn't be able to retouch a piece in a museum.

 

Honestly though, I've never understood how people want these pixel dragons to be "life-like/anatomically correct" or "more realistic". These are pixel art of DRAGONS. There's nothing real or life-like in a dragon.. it's all in everyone's imagination. You must know about the thing with imagination.. there's no 2 a like!

 

ps. I'm not saying it's bad or good to have an sprite update. I just miss the old sprites I once had. They were pretty even though they weren't "anatomically" etc. correct. They told a story. And that's the important thing of a sprite. To tell a story you as an individual can have and cherish. But do the updates/retouches/remasters/replacements/what evers, I'm still just going to collect the sprites, did I like them or not.

[Ruby Eyes]

I stopped collecting Nilias after their change. They were cute and joyful-looking, and now they look like they don't know how to fly properly but are trying anyway. I still don't know why the artist thought they needed updates at all.

[Nerei]

4 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

This this this. The sprites on our scroll are like cave paintings, or treasured paintings that hang in museums. Sure we as a society may have better understanding of anatomy and better ability to draw detail, but do we go painting over every single old piece of art? Of course not. Old art is treasured. The Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, The Starry Night, those old pieces of art are treasured and loved, not destroyed and done away with in the name of progress. If we were talking about scientific drawings in a textbook then yeah of course they should be updated, but we aren't. We are talking about art in an art-based collection game.

But the thing is, the site isn’t a museum. If it were, all different styles of dragon would be accepted, not just the more realistic types we’ve been striving for. If DC were a museum, anatomy wouldn’t matter in the slightest, and simply *anything* found pretty would be allowed, no standards. Do we see cubist dragons? Impressionist artwork? Pop art? No. Because despite how interesting and beautiful that could be, DC is not that type of site. It doesn’t exist to house outdated art, it is not a history or art museum. 

[Alrexwolf]

Okay I think I seriously underestimated the amount of stock people put in these fake sprites. Comparing it to "fixing," people? Really? 

 

It's not like you can just wake up and say, oh, I want to see the Mona Lisa today! Sure, you can see copies and reconstructions all over the internet. But the physical painting? That's an entire trip. So who cares if you have to go to a different page to see the "real" art of a dragon. 

 

The only reason people can even do side by side comparisons and complain is because the art DOESN'T vanish. It doesn't REPLACE it. 

 

It's more akin to a museum deciding to put one of their paintings in storage and put a different one up. Did anything happen to the original? No. Does it exist? Yes. Can you see it? If you work at it.

 

You will ALWAYS have the old sprites. But it's high time to put some of them in storage and let something else be on exhibit. Especially when they're the only pieces of modern art in an entire Museum or private collection that is now otherwise dedicated to contemporary landscape pieces. They don't look like they belong. And they can be switched out without anything happening to the original.

 

It's not like a sprite update goes out there and replaces the sprite on every corner of the internet. It still exists.

[Ruby Eyes]

Those Sinii Krai do look pretty "pop-arty"

 

DC doesn't need to house all outdated art, it should just house its own art - and the old sprites are part of this. Not everything that's older than other things needs to be declared "outdated".

 

4 minutes ago, Alrexwolf said:

The only reason people can even do side by side comparisons and complain is because the art DOESN'T vanish. It doesn't REPLACE it. 

It DOES replace it.

 

So you build something creating tile X and tile Y, and the manufacturer of what you built comes and just REPLACES tile X with tile Z. That's what those updates do.

That's because those sprites LONG stopped being stand-alone art - there are lineages around them. They are part of MORE than just one sprite.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Ruby Eyes

[Spootedleaf]

On 10/19/2018 at 6:48 AM, Ruby Eyes said:

Not everything that's older than other things needs to be declared "outdated".

 

Well, some of the older sprites are okay (like balloons) but some of them should have some tweaks. (like stone dragons) Not a redo of the whole sprite, but a touch-up. 

Not every sprite update has to completely remake the whole sprite.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Spootedleaf

[Sazandora]

I don't get this whole "new Reds look nervous and stiff-legged"-thing. They look far better now with more details and less blur. Sure, the old shade of red was a little nicer but them's the breaks. If anything, the new Red looks regal and majestic, like a true dragon should be IMO. I love that proud grin they have on their faces.

[HeatherMarie]

I'm really not understanding why people think sprite updates are *not* 'replacing' a sprite. That is literally what it is. The old sprites that used to sit there on our scrolls are *replaced* by newer updated versions. That's literally what 'sprite update' means. If they were not being *replaced* then we would still have those old versions on our scrolls. But we don't. I really really don't get how 'you can find it somewhere online' somehow means the sprites aren't being 'replaced'. They *are* being replaced, on the DragonCave website, on our scrolls. And that's where it matters. That's the *only* place it matters. That's what this whole argument/debate is about. No one is arguing to replace (or keep) every single instance of an old sprite online, that's not what the topic is at all. This is about sprite updates *on DragonCave*. What does or does not exist elsewhere is irrelevant. (Otherwise I could argue we don't need the Trading Hub because we could trade just fine off-site, we don't need Groups because we can just make spreadsheets or take screenshots, etc etc etc....)

[Guillotine]

8 hours ago, Sazandora said:

I don't get this whole "new Reds look nervous and stiff-legged"-thing. They look far better now with more details and less blur. Sure, the old shade of red was a little nicer but them's the breaks. If anything, the new Red looks regal and majestic, like a true dragon should be IMO. I love that proud grin they have on their faces.

I really think it's just trying to justify why they like the old one more, the old one looked downright concussed with busted ankles, like it'd lost a fight. The stiff-leggedness was there from the beginning, you just didn't care to look; it was a huge factor in why I hated their sprite. And again: you are free to think that the new ones are a poor replacement. Doesn't change that the old ones are not the same style and they do not fit, and nostalgia is not sufficient reason to keep a sprite that no longer fits the desired style around.
 

[StormWizard212]

1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

I'm really not understanding why people think sprite updates are *not* 'replacing' a sprite. That is literally what it is. The old sprites that used to sit there on our scrolls are *replaced* by newer updated versions. That's literally what 'sprite update' means. If they were not being *replaced* then we would still have those old versions on our scrolls.

 

I see a distinct difference between an 'update' and a 'replacement'. Sure, if you want to argue semantics, a new image file might 'replace' the old one, but I think that's kind of missing the point. If an update keeps 90% of the original and just improves shading or has slight anatomical tweaks,  and is so subtle that your average user doesn't even notice (which I'd argue is the case with the majority of examples on the list olympe posted) then that's a totally different scenario to a sprite being completely overhauled. They are two separate situations which will elicit very different emotional responses from the community, and should therefore be treated differently. A slight update in shading is not going to upset nearly as many people as an entirely new sprite with different pose, anatomy and colouring. Whether you want to call it a 'replacement' or an 'overhaul' doesn't really matter, but I do think a distinction needs to be made. 

[HeatherMarie]

I agree that an 'update' is different then a 'replacement' in theory. However, from my own experience in this game, the majority of 'updates' have seemed to be more on the side of 'replacements'. There have been tweaks subtle enough to not mess with the overall sprite too much, but to me that's been the minority. Reds, Silvers, Golds, Seasonals, and Nilias are the biggest examples of *replacements*, but many others would fall into that category for me as well. I personally don't think picking apart every single past update is the best idea, but to show a little of how I see things: Geodes seem to have 'bulked up', lost their air of lightness/sleekness. Neotropicals, the female is noticeably darker then before. Horses lost their smoothness, seem more muscle-y. I believe I've commented on the Splits before, while they've technically retained the pose their bodies are very different, more muscle-y, not cuddly-looking like the old ones. Waters have a fairly noticeable change in pose, while keeping the 'spirit' of the old it's definitely fairly different.  ... Etc etc etc. 

 

I am not against 'updates' when it means slight anatomy tweaks, fixing an awkward limb, etc. But that is very very rarely *all* that happens during 'updates'. Most updates, at least for me, have noticeably changed the overall feel of the sprite. That's why I've grown to be against 'updates' in general, because the idea of updates simply meaning a slight tweak that doesn't change anything significant is more a myth to me. It simply doesn't happen that way most of the time. 

[Ruby Eyes]

To be honest, most of those updates I didn't even notice. But I don't really have a photographic memory - the most glaring updates, for me, were Golds (from 2 dimensions to 3, and I'm still wondering why the female's wings need to be so small) and Nilias (which hurt me.) I did notice the Reds' change immediately, but I actually think both the old AND the new sprite look good; it's just sad that the old one is gone from the site completely. I don't see why it needed to be removed.

[blah]

It is that same reasoning that makes people think that films need a remake. They usually really don't and the HD cameras and awesome special effects do not improve the film.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

On 10/19/2018 at 10:37 PM, Guillotine said:

I really think it's just trying to justify why they like the old one more, the old one looked downright concussed with busted ankles, like it'd lost a fight. The stiff-leggedness was there from the beginning, you just didn't care to look; it was a huge factor in why I hated their sprite. And again: you are free to think that the new ones are a poor replacement. Doesn't change that the old ones are not the same style and they do not fit, and nostalgia is not sufficient reason to keep a sprite that no longer fits the desired style around.
 

 

I really agree here. I know everyone has different eyes and points of view but to me the old Red certainly did not look like it was about to leap - the legs are all straight, lacking hint that they were about to pounce, and genuinely look as though they aren't all standing on the same straight line. It looks as though the sprite has been tilted at an angle by accident lmao.

  

 

I can't describe how thankful I was for its update ^^;

 

Either way, I really advocate for all sprite updates. Whether it's a full update like the Reds, or something much more subtle like Neotropicals.

 

On 10/19/2018 at 3:14 AM, Kavalier said:

Because there is a significant difference in quality between two items that represent that same product. If I were a showing a portfolio to a prospective employer, I would not use old pieces that cannot and do not reflect my current ability- even if I liked that piece when it was made. It would no longer be something I'd want to represent me, because it shows inconsistency between the other pieces I have, and portrays the idea that I am attached to work purely for the sake of nostalgia, and not on the merit of my ability to which it was made. You do not walk in to a meeting wearing a dress shoe on one foot and a beat up, half-tied sneaker on the other. As a business owner, you do not put out old, obviously outdated stock while you have countless better items in the back, just because you prefer the one old thing over several new. It's selfish, it's shoddy, and it gives onlookers and potential costumers a misguided idea of what they should expect.

Some older sprites would likely not even necessitate entire revamps. The occasional touch up? Sure, maybe. But we cannot sit here and say that leaving blatantly broken sprites the way they are is okay, since a handful of people still like them -- because it's not. We are allowed to love the things for what they are, but it is unwise to keep them on a pedestal. Doing so does not allow them to change, for better or for worse. Defunct sprites have not ceased to exist because they were updated. They are still a part of DC. We are still allowed to cherish them, put them in our profiles, in signatures, avatars, etc etc. - but we as a userbase cannot cling onto them and suffocate the progress and betterment of the site because we prefer how the sprites looked 10 years ago. 

 

I couldn't have put it any better myself! *applauds* I fully agree that the site should all look of the same quality, and really don't think that some of the art displays that. Some sprites lack depth of shading, and have indisputably broken anatomy. I really think they should be changed to better fit the quality of what's being accepted in nowadays. Like, they wouldn't stand a chance of getting in-cave nowadays, so why should they be allowed to sit at that poor quality?

[Guillotine]

On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 9:34 AM, blah said:

It is that same reasoning that makes people think that films need a remake. They usually really don't and the HD cameras and awesome special effects do not improve the film.

There is a very large difference between a film remake and updating a sprite, especially these days. A more accurate comparison is a remaster, which could still have huge issues (like how the method the Disney Cinderella remaster used annihilated a lot of line detail in an attempt to remove the grain) as well as more subjective points (you might have preferred the artifacts of the aging tape... which is fine, but you need to acknowledge that they are artifacts and not the desired result (or in the case of sprites, that they don't work with the site's aesthetic direction and/or have objective anatomical flaws)).
 

[Fuzzbucket]

On 10/21/2018 at 12:34 AM, blah said:

It is that same reasoning that makes people think that films need a remake. They usually really don't and the HD cameras and awesome special effects do not improve the film.

 Indeed not....

This is a very apt analogy.

On 10/20/2018 at 12:14 PM, HeatherMarie said:

I agree that an 'update' is different then a 'replacement' in theory. However, from my own experience in this game, the majority of 'updates' have seemed to be more on the side of 'replacements'. There have been tweaks subtle enough to not mess with the overall sprite too much, but to me that's been the minority. Reds, Silvers, Golds, Seasonals, and Nilias are the biggest examples of *replacements*, but many others would fall into that category for me as well. I personally don't think picking apart every single past update is the best idea, but to show a little of how I see things: Geodes seem to have 'bulked up', lost their air of lightness/sleekness. Neotropicals, the female is noticeably darker then before. Horses lost their smoothness, seem more muscle-y. I believe I've commented on the Splits before, while they've technically retained the pose their bodies are very different, more muscle-y, not cuddly-looking like the old ones. Waters have a fairly noticeable change in pose, while keeping the 'spirit' of the old it's definitely fairly different.  ... Etc etc etc. 

 

I am not against 'updates' when it means slight anatomy tweaks, fixing an awkward limb, etc. But that is very very rarely *all* that happens during 'updates'. Most updates, at least for me, have noticeably changed the overall feel of the sprite. That's why I've grown to be against 'updates' in general, because the idea of updates simply meaning a slight tweak that doesn't change anything significant is more a myth to me. It simply doesn't happen that way most of the time. 

 

This, exactly.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

On 10/22/2018 at 6:41 AM, Guillotine said:

There is a very large difference between a film remake and updating a sprite, especially these days. A more accurate comparison is a remaster, which could still have huge issues (like how the method the Disney Cinderella remaster used annihilated a lot of line detail in an attempt to remove the grain) as well as more subjective points (you might have preferred the artifacts of the aging tape... which is fine, but you need to acknowledge that they are artifacts and not the desired result (or in the case of sprites, that they don't work with the site's aesthetic direction and/or have objective anatomical flaws)).
 

 

I think this is a much more accurate analogy. A lot of old remasters are really successful in restoring the art more accurately though - especially more recent ones where technology allows for accurate restoring without losing too much detail. Which is how I view the artists on DC today - skilled at art in a way they could accurately restore a sprite without losing too much of what made the old one  

[Ruby Eyes]

8 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

without losing too much of what made the old one

Except that some do lose. And don't just lose "grain" or "artifacts", they actually lose their original personality.

Shading, re-doing colour - I get that, this is actually new skills being used (aka remastering).

But re-doing the line work and pose is a remake.

 

Fun fact, right now in the cinemas is running a remake of an old movie script, A Star Is Born. It's version #4, with Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper.

The movie is good, I liked it (besides it not having the happy ending I'd have preferred), but I didn't see any of the previous 3 versions. Someone who saw the previous versions or even the first version might think differently because they might have grown attached to the original. But if they want to see it in a cinema, all they get is the new version - none of the old ones.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Ruby Eyes

[Fuzzbucket]

God yes. Anyone who saw the original Wicker Man, full of glitches and very dated, but quite brilliant, will be appalled to see the dreadful new version, well filmed, nice and tidy and the rest, but with no character at all. Travesty does not begin....

[Dragon_Arbock]

Not sure what all the film discussion is about, but I will say I am one of the people very pleased with the Red update. I think it's been needed for years.

I'm not gonna say every old sprite needs to be changed. To me, dragons like the Whites still hold up. But Dorsals, Vines, especially alt vines.. they need work. They've never even received  any form of touch up, unlike the Purples. Dorsals and Vines are in major need of more colors and shades, and in some cases anatomy tweaks in order to meet the current site standards.

Also.. there's the Holly. The Holly already did get a color revamp, but sadly the anatomy was not fully fixed. I find most issue with the wings.

[HeatherMarie]

The Holly I can kinda-sorta agree with, there is still some wonky anatomy going on there.... But alt Vines? This is what I'm talking about when I say that art is completely subjective and people will probably never completely agree on what needs updating and what doesn't. The alt Vines, perhaps the head could use some more definition and maybe a tad bigger, the head kind of blends into the body too much. But other then that I don't really see issues with them. I like the dark colors and what some might term 'rough' shading, it makes the sprite *feel* like it's actually underground (to me at least). 

[Nerei]

Some sprites really do need a little tweaking. Greens and whites come to mind—both are gorgeous sprites… that completely lack shading inside their wings. Adding additional intermediary shades to the inner wings would be such a simple and easy improvement. It’s little touch ups like this that a lot of older sprites could benefit from.

[Dragon_Arbock]

Well, if I remember correctly, the older sprites had a strict color limit. Maybe every sprite that permission is granted for should just get a color/shading 'face lift', so to say.

[HeatherMarie]

As long as it's just slight shading tweaks, I agree about the Whites. Dragon_Arbock is right, long ago there was a much stricter color limit on sprites... I'm not sure what all went on behind the scenes when the *original* sprites were done, like the whites, but I'd assume there was a fairly low color limit there as well. Besides Whites, I think Blacks could use a bit of a shading update (but don't change the pose of that hatchling pleeeease!!), Mints are small so it's not as noticeable but they do kind of suffer from that low color limit as well......

 

But as I've said before, slight shading/anatomy tweaks are *never* all that happens during sprite updates. If there was some sort of confirmation that was *all* that was going to happen, I'd be all-in with certain breeds. But it's never like that. Ever. The entire feel of the dragon gets changed, no matter how 'subtle' people claim the changes are. They are noticeable. They are *very* noticeable to people like me who've been around for a long time and grew to love the old sprites. So personally, I'm still firmly in the 'PLEASE NO' camp when it comes to updates, because experience has taught me that 'minor shading updates' just don't happen.