I try not to pay much attention to what others have rated, and give them the rating I feel they deserve. Though when I see something I like and I see that they only have a one dragon avarage, I tend to vote a little higher than I was initially intending to vote.

I think everybody votes in his/her own personal way for their personal reasons, and I think that's exactly how it should be.

My 2 cents...

I tend to look at the proportions of the character in the picture, but I don't mean they should be 100% realistic. Everything has to fit nicely. Also the style. I like anime and manga, so if I saw some art done properly in this style I'll give em a little extra points.

Ya know, if it looks bitchin', like that Ancient Sub Zero I saw awhile back. Or the Artist gave me some sort of bribary*Wink wink* Then I'd give it some good points. Yep... either good work... or bribary...*Wink Wink*

Very interesting thread.

1. Well the fakes get very low ratings. Why, I judge them on the same scale that I judge "real" art that someone has created themselves. I mostly rate on artistic ability and talent and those take no skill. How do I know that, because for a while I did the same type of images, except that was 8-9 years ago and they have only gotten easier to do. Now if someone goes above and beyond and creates a new background or a new character (like that 2D Kai someone posted) then that will boost it up maybe to a 2. If someone makes a joke fake or something funny then that will boost it some more.

2. For actual originals, again it's going to be quality and ability and then also originality. I've seen some really great pictures that were almost exact copies or similar to the game images. True the whole thing was drawn by the poster but none of the ideas were their own. That will be a lower score, 2-4 depending on the quality. For example, Bleed and Raptorman get 4.5-5 consistently whereas Switcher was getting 3-3.5 most of the time. Beyond that, anatomy, perspective, shading, coloring etc. all play big parts. I don't penalise someone if I don't look there drawing style if it's good. Spoon is a good example there. I think anime is pretty goofy most of the time but I won't let that effect a rating. If someone is going for realism then I judge much harder than I would others. Generally realistic pictures get better scores than more cartoony stuff.

3. For 3D, well I could go on and on but I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the terms. I have done level design, evironmentss and character models for cinemas for a few games now and I've worked on numerous shorts and movies doing 3D work. My yardstick for quality there is pretty high. In general watch for poly edges and non-planers, never leave default textures as they are, avoid default procedural-textures, warping along image-texture axis', watch for textures patterns that come from tiling. Make sure to dirty up your models so they look more realistic. And on and on.

4. If it's mine I'll beat it up worse than any of the others I look at.

Wyatt

RaMeir Wrote: Very interesting thread. 1. Well the fakes get very low ratings. Why, I judge them on the same scale that I judge "real" art that someone has created themselves. I mostly rate on artistic ability and talent and those take no skill. How do I know that, because for a while I did the same type of images, except that was 8-9 years ago and they have only gotten easier to do. Now if someone goes above and beyond and creates a new background or a new character (like that 2D Kai someone posted) then that will boost it up maybe to a 2. If someone makes a joke fake or something funny then that will boost it some more. 2. For actual originals, again it's going to be quality and ability and then also originality. I've seen some really great pictures that were almost exact copies or similar to the game images. True the whole thing was drawn by the poster but none of the ideas were their own. That will be a lower score, 2-4 depending on the quality. For example, Bleed and Raptorman get 4.5-5 consistently whereas Switcher was getting 3-3.5 most of the time. Beyond that, anatomy, perspective, shading, coloring etc. all play big parts. I don't penalise someone if I don't look there drawing style if it's good. Spoon is a good example there. I think anime is pretty goofy most of the time but I won't let that effect a rating. If someone is going for realism then I judge much harder than I would others. Generally realistic pictures get better scores than more cartoony stuff. 3. For 3D, well I could go on and on but I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the terms. I have done level design, evironmentss and character models for cinemas for a few games now and I've worked on numerous shorts and movies doing 3D work. My yardstick for quality there is pretty high. In general watch for poly edges and non-planers, never leave default textures as they are, avoid default procedural-textures, warping along image-texture axis', watch for textures patterns that come from tiling. Make sure to dirty up your models so they look more realistic. And on and on. 4. If it's mine I'll beat it up worse than any of the others I look at. Wyatt

Hehe, very interesting. I agree that going for realism should be graded a bit harder. I'll have to keep that in mind thanks!

By the way, I can't draw worth cr*p. Hehe.

-shoe

Unless I know the person, I generally don't rate something unless I like it - that means it's pleasing to me eye, I like the colors, the style, the blahblah. That doesn't mean it has to be good. Why is this? I just don't want to give some negative-sounding, sylistically biased-opinion on something that is probably good but I just don't like. Unless it's Switcher, and then I can bitch about it all I like.

As for when I do grade, I go by colors, technique, process (like if they put the line art on top or on bottom :b), Character design, effort, attention to detail, care/love. I take it all into consideration. Added bonus if it's Scorpion. ;) Personally I'm not too thrilled when people attempt realism, as it has to be done so perfectly or else it looks warped. Only a few have managed to impress me with realistic interpretations, so I tend to lean more favorably towards the cartoony guys. :D

For me it's mainly about Creativity, Composition, having an Original idea or concept, and Style.

This way, even those who aren't yet up to others ability here for drawing skills or are at a younger age level get a fair shake in how their work is rated.

Same goes with fakes.
It may be considered a "cut and paste" work, but it requires creativity and composition to put a good one together.

If there's a piece of work that I particularly like though, I'm bound to give it a point or two extra when I see it.

Great post Shoeunited.

RammSpOOn wrote: As for when I do grade, I go by colors, technique, process (like if they put the line art on top or on bottom :b)

You're so funny.

Jonin01 Wrote: For me it's mainly about Creativity, Composition, having an Original idea or concept, and Style. This way, even those who aren't yet up to others ability here for drawing skills or are at a younger age level get a fair shake in how their work is rated. Same goes with fakes. It may be considered a "cut and paste" work, but it requires creativity and composition to put a good one together. If there's a piece of work that I particularly like though, I'm bound to give it a point or two extra when I see it. Great post Shoeunited.

Hehe, sorry to bring this up here, but thanks. I just got done reading the FAQ. So the compliment may have meant more than I thought.

As dense as a block of supercondensed Tungsten...

-Shoe