Wednesday, September 24, 2025

A Necessary Sacrifice

 

This odd-looking woman is one of many background characters ("NPCs", if you will) that will appear in BFD. She'll only be on screen for at most a couple lines and then disappear, though she may or may not show up in a CG or two, possibly with a more normal face. 

The role of NPCs like her is to establish that there are more people in the game's world beside the main cast. The concepts and conceits behind BFD's worldbuilding are of epic proportions and affect the entire human race, but BFD's story is focused on a tiny subset of humanity. I figured that including background characters would make the world feel more fleshed out and help players feel that there are a lot more stories going on in this game's world, stories that ultimately go untold but exist nonetheless. Also, some aspects of their designs are symbolic of certain aspects of the world's culture, but I'll leave that for players to discover. 

 These NPCs aren't necessary to include, and I've often wondered whether it's a good idea to include them in the first place. In other VNs, background characters usually aren't given sprites, instead appearing solely in the text, though sometimes you'll see them represented as generic silhouettes or faceless mannequins. They're almost never given full designs because there's no real reason to. There's no need to lengthen the development time by creating assets for them, and they're probably not worth the extra disk space. Even so, I feel that BFD's background characters add enough to the game experience to justify their existence.

Of course, I still recognize that these guys should be treated as minor set pieces in the grand scheme of things, so I haven't been putting a lot of time into drawing them. As a result, many of them look a little wonky, some more so than others. Most are unremarkable (but clearly messy in terms of anatomy and rendering), but a few are notable for being a little funny and uncanny. I think it really sells the idea that the world of BFD is not what it seems at a cursory glance.

At the very least, I hope players will be amused by their strange appearances. Besides not wanting to spend a lot of time on NPC art, one of the main reasons I haven't fixed the above woman's sprite is because her lopsidedness has grown on me. The audience will probably be spending a lot less time with her than I have, but maybe they'll feel something similar.

Some of you might be wondering why I've dedicated a whole post to some nobody that'll only be on screen for like 5 seconds while having nothing for the game's actual main cast. Rest assured, they're all fully-designed, and I'll write more about them someday, though it'll probably be sometime closer to Chapter 1's release (or at least when I have enough decent-looking art of them completed).

Thursday, September 11, 2025

Lines & Squiggles 2: A Lesson in Optics

 

This is a mandatory restatement of opening sentences present in most of my other blog posts that BFD is, in fact, still being worked on. However, there's a twist this time: progress isn't slow, it's just that I don't think it's worth sharing all of it on here. I've mostly been focused on art, including background art, an example of which being the above image. I have two other versions of this BG for evening and nighttime (as well as a secret third thing that will be present at the end of Chapter 1):


I'm not going to pretend there are no issues with these pieces or that I didn't use a specialized grass texture brush to paint the grass, but I do think they work well enough as BGs. At this point I'm fully committed to the idea of "settling" for flawed art just to get the game done---hence, progress isn't slow. 

 In terms of the actual "game" aspect of this project, I've also started putting the script together in Renpy, and I currently have all of Chapter 1's text with choices implemented. I have a few custom text boxes (may be subject to minor changes) and logos done as well (one of which is on the right side of this site).

 

 Now with the obligatory status update out of the way, I'd like to expand on some of the points I made in my previous post regarding lines and squiggles. Since I've been focusing on art assets, the technical and perceptual aspects mentioned therein have been haunting me. There was no need for me to use the grass brush in those BGs; I should've been able to draw the blades manually. I (allegedly) know how to draw them. I know how to paint them in theory, but as it turns out, knowing and doing are two different things. It's like how people learn physics in high school but don't apply it to the world beyond. Putting the top of a pickle jar you can't open in hot water for a minute and sprinkling water onto your food before re-heating it in the microwave seem like creative and novel ideas until you remember how thermal energy works. Then the realization makes you want to hit yourself on the head for being so stupid...it was so obvious, but you somehow completely missed it.

 How could this happen? 

 

There is a strange divide between theory and praxis at play here. Theory can provide a framework for praxis to work around: heat increases the movement of atoms--->heating up an object can cause it to expand--->you can make a pickle jar easier to open by heating up the lid. However, most people approach such problems in the opposite direction: I can't open this pickle jar--->I look up ways to make jar lids easier to remove--->I discover the heat technique, which can be explained with basic physics facts. Both of these trains of thought are linear, so their starting points determine how the situation is conceptualized (you either learn some theory and later come up with a practical use for it or you encounter a problem and discover why a particular solution works in theory afterwards). 

A nonlinear version might look something like this: I can't open this pickle jar--->I wonder why pickle jar lids are so tight and hard to remove--->I consider how jars are constructed, which could include going over the properties of the materials used in them--->using my knowledge of materials science and thermodynamics, I realize heating up the lid might make it easier to remove. This thought process might seem more convoluted than the first two, and it's probably less common as a result.

I approached the problem of painting the grass blades in a linear way: I need grass in this BG, how do I paint grass--->I look through my list of brushes and find one for grass textures--->after playing around with the brush and finishing up the BG, I notice how grass blades can be represented by long, thin strokes with lighter and darker-colored blades arranged in a certain pattern that creates the illusion of depth. While mulling over this, I realized something: most of my thought processes in learning art have been linearly-structured (I wanted to draw something but couldn't get it to look right, so I sought out solutions and discovered why these solutions worked as a posteriori knowledge. I suspect a lot of beginner (and even some intermediate) artists fall into this process. A lot of online "art tutorial" content preys on this; for example, if a fledgling artist is struggling to draw hands, they might search up "how to draw hands" on YouTube and watch several videos on how to construct hands from basic shapes like boxes and cylinders, only to be reminded that breaking things down into simpler shapes is a pretty standard technique that most beginner artists learn early on.

Now, this fledgling artist might be a little better at drawing hands after watching those videos and practicing for a bit, but have they gotten better at drawing in general? If they internalized the shape technique and figured they can apply it to pretty much anything they want to draw, then yes. The thing is, many beginners don't internalize basic techniques, and many more probably don't even seek them out, preferring to watch several videos about other body parts and blindly copying them without fully digesting the theory they're built on. The issues with linear thought trains should be apparent here; more often than not, they're constructed around finding immediate solutions to short-term problems, only taking things in at a surface level. Recall how the human brain is built around energy optimization first and foremost, and you should have a decent idea of how deep this problem goes.

What matters more: how things are, or how they appear?

 

I'm not a good artist by any means, but if there's one thing I've gleaned from my experience thus far, it's that looking at something and seeing something are not the same. Shapes and lines are helpful for simplifying the artistic process both intuitively and mechanically, but they aren't real (at least not in a tangible sense). They are illusions, in a sense. In the tangible world, or the world governed by the laws of physics, the only visually-perceived thing that "exists" is light. For all intents and purposes, shadow is an extension of light. To understand and master art, you must internalize the idea that everything you see is an effect of light and shadow. 

There are a lot of ways to put this idea into practice. One way is to completely forgo the sketching and lineart steps, instead creating everything from the ground up with splotches of color (gray is technically a color, so grayscale work is compatible with this). If you really must use lines or shapes, you could start off with the colors and using your knowledge of light and shadow to craft "edges", or you could add lineart at the very end by drawing over your color blocks. Again, I am not a good artist so you may want to take my words with a grain of salt, but I think these observations could be useful for people who feel "stuck" in terms of their art progress. It's certainly helped me, at least.

Thursday, April 24, 2025

It's just lines and squiggles bro it's not that hard lol

 Find a really great piece of art online, save its image to your computer. Then open the image, look at it, and wonder, "How the hell is it even possible to paint colors and textures like this?"

Now zoom in. Those ripples on the water? Those soft strands of hair? Those shifting patches reds and blues on human skin? Those blades of grass? The entirety of the piece's complex and beautiful interpretations of light and shadow? It's all LINES and SQUIGGLES.

Up close, everything looks like BABY MODE MS PAINT BULLSHIT. Every detail that pulled you into the piece and took your breath away is actually RANDOM-LOOKING ASSORTMENTS OF COLOR AS APPLIED BY A FINGER PAINTING CHIMP. How could anyone think to arrange it all like this? How the hell does it all add up to a coherent, aesthetically-pleasing painting?

Is my perception of light fucked? Too complicated? Too unclear? What is optics? Do I even understand physics or have I been PLAYING MYSELF THIS WHOLE DAMN TIME, STRUGGLING TO IMPROVE MY OWN ART WHILE NOT ADOPTING AN ACTUAL ARTISTIC MINDSET? 

Literally the first thing they tell you in middle school art class is that we often aren't truly SEEING the things around us, just LOOKING at them. The amount of times you've looked at something is positively correlated with the amount of details that get filtered during sensory processing—this is the main reason why people struggle drawing human bodies despite inhabiting such a body and being surrounded by other human bodies for most of their lives. When you engage with artistic theory and/or take an art class, you learn how to perceive and draw humans figures through abstraction, by capturing the gist of the form and dynamics of a body with representational lines, curves, shapes, and polyhedrons. Everything in art is founded on abstraction, and it takes surprisingly little to convey whatever you're trying to depict if you're strategic with abstractions. It's similar to how scientific and mathematical models aim to reproduce complex physical phenomena: they take in as few parameters as they can get away with to capture the essential behavior. 

The fundamentals build up skill over time. You get better at seeing, perceiving, and analyzing the world around you, breaking everything up into simple patterns and somehow getting closer to depicting it accurately (both in terms of hardcore realism and aesthetic goals, aka getting better at making something look good and more accurate to your mental vision of it). At its core, improving at art involves unshackling yourself from the filters, assumptions, and heuristics, looking beyond the energy-conserving cognitive shortcuts. Look beyond yourself, and you might just get a little closer to seeing things as they actually are.

 Alright then, seems like a pretty straightforward technique. I'll try it out now...

...

...

...

...Wow this looks like shit

Sunday, February 23, 2025

Non-update

 I was originally going to wait until I finished something significant to write another blog post, but I figured I should put this out now since progress has been moving very very slowly again. The project is not dead, I am just worn out by school and have been spending a lot of my free time unwinding from all the cringe ass homework I've been doing (as well as working on my senior project, which is going terribly because I'm trying to write Mathematica code to model various systems to include in the project paper, and I fucking suck at Mathematica, I have to get the first draft done in two weeks and if I don't learn to code quick enough I'm going to have to post screenshots of models from other papers [with citations of course if it comes to this] or draw the models manually, both of which will make me look like a complete dipshit). In terms of progress, I am about 80% done with the draft for the last alternate route in Chapter 1 and about 10% done with editing for said route, but on the bright side I'm done with both the drafts and editing for all the other routes. I will probably make a more detailed post once I finish this route, though I might try to finish up some other stuff before posting it too idk yet.