Hlavco's Stuff.

13468915

Comments

  • edited May 2010
    I dunno, I had a level 8X Blaziken that totally decimated level 100 Water Types even with fire attacks.
  • edited May 2010
    I remember that! You asshole, you always blew me out of the water!
  • edited May 2010
    I was actually referring to battle tower...but sure...

    Please note that the fact that my Pokémon were always like 20 levels higher then yours had NOTHING to do with it.
  • edited May 2010
    Nah, you stopped playing for a while and I caught up. You still kicked my ass, and I had the element advantage. Hell, I was more strategic than you were in that game anyway as far as my move set went, and you just tore me to shreds.
  • edited May 2010
    Plus that one kid stole Ruby from me and overwrote my file, totally had a level 92 Blaziken, takes forever to level anything in Ruby and Sapphire.
  • edited May 2010
    I'm still disappointed that they made no attempt to bridge second- and third-generation Pokémon games so we could transfer monsters from the originals.
  • edited May 2010
    I think it might be because they changed a lot of stuff between the two generations. All the TMs were redone, so a pokemon holding a TM on second gen would get screwed up going to third. I think they changed some other stuff too.
  • edited May 2010
    The only change that might have proven difficult was changing the stat ratios. I doubt it would be hard to just have items you could only get through trades from second-gen but still program them into the game. Or do it like the trades between first- and second-gen, where you couldn't do the trade if the Pokémon or attack didn't exist in the older game, and just apply that rule to item attachments.
  • edited May 2010
    I always figured it was part of their business strategy. If anybody knows how to milk kids and their parents for all the money they're worth, it's the Japanese. Seriously. This country is notorious for creating toys, then creating cartoon series specifically for selling the toys.

    It being difficult to transfer pokemon from old gen to new gen may be an extra factor, but I doubt it was relevant. Think of it this way: how many people do you know have actually filled their pokedex (at least at the time of Diamond/Pearl)? I've been out of the scene for a while, but when I left there was trading capability between Ruby/Sapphire and Fire Red/Leaf Green and Diamon/Pearl. Andrew and I had the six of those between us in college, and there were still gaping holes in our Pokedex from portions the old Gold/Silver pokedex, most notably their starters. I think that many of these holes could be filled through other games, and through Pokemon tourneys and events, which also know how to get gamers spending more money on knick knacks and other crap.

    Gotta catch 'em all.
  • edited May 2010
    I had a full PokéDex in the Gold/Silver era, so doing it all over again was definitely not my primary focus in the later games. I just built up an awesome team from the resources at hand... then Sapphire's clock battery died and I couldn't grow berries anymore.

    Kinda thinkin' of jumping into my Gold game again, kicking Red around a bit. Good times!
  • edited May 2010
    The whole reason you couldn't transfer them over was because they completely reprogrammed the data structure of games themselves, especially how pokemon stats grew and how evs were given out. Not only would the programming from the first and second gen not work the third generation, but even if it did by some miracle, first and second generation pokemon would be way too overpowered and game breaking.
  • edited May 2010
    Also, yeah, the way to get Gold/Silver pokemon on GBA was through the Gamecube games. I bought a used Pokemon XD for that purpose but haven't played it yet. I probably should, I've heard it's an okay game.
  • edited May 2010
    I doubt it's as cool as Pokemon Stadium.
  • edited July 2010
    pichubove1.png
  • edited July 2010
    Very nice detailing and a good use of bold lines. It shows how much you're improving stylistically.
  • edited July 2010
    That dandelion might be better with some shading, but other then that VERY small nitpick,

    'Tis awesome man, keep up the good work.
  • edited July 2010
    AWWWWW! That is so kawaii (cute)!

    The lines are super clean, did you do that in illustrator? Though like, as cute as it is (that little face is just haha!) like there should lines at the top of the eyes since there are like lines around the rest of the eye. That would like, make more sense. And like the shadow is actually like in the incorrect spot or whatever. If you look at like the shading like on the face is a bit lower so naturally the shadow would follow the shading, or the shading the shadow I guess. I don't know, that like, would make sense, wouldn't it?

    Also like the black lines in the background like really flatten out like the space or whatever because like, you know, like the sidewalk seems like it has. . . . I don't know, let me think. . . . . .. . . . . Okay, so like the concrete blocks feel like they're floating next to each other in this weird little subspace or whatever. So getting rid of the lines would definitely help or something.


    Oh and like it just really flattens out the space I guess.


    Oh also like, the highlights of hte eys would dotally I don't know, like, um, be where the sun is hitting them, not the same direction as the pupils, haha!
  • edited July 2010
    Yeah, I guess the shadows could use some work. I'm not sure I get what you're saying about the sidewalk, though. I forgot to add lines on the top of the eyes, because usually I don't use lines on the bottom either, and I was changing that up for this picture. As for the pupils, I usually use the white spots as a sort of inverted pupil rather than as a highlight. I know it's not correct realistically, but if I did it realistically it would be sorta creepy-looking.
  • edited July 2010
    You've always got good perspective, keep on truckin'.
  • edited July 2010
    20. None properly used.
  • edited July 2010
    shakeycat wrote: »
    20. None properly used.

    I counted as well.

    Also, nicely done Hlavco.
  • edited July 2010
    It took me nearly five minutes to figure out what you two were talking about.
  • edited July 2010
    I know, like, seriously.
  • edited July 2010
    Azrodal wrote:
    I know, like, seriously.

    son_i_am_disappoint.gif
  • edited July 2010
    AGAIN. I was called a 4chan troll?
  • edited July 2010
    What is wrong with Simon Cowell?
  • edited July 2010
    hlavco wrote: »
    Yeah, I guess the shadows could use some work. I'm not sure I get what you're saying about the sidewalk, though. I forgot to add lines on the top of the eyes, because usually I don't use lines on the bottom either, and I was changing that up for this picture. As for the pupils, I usually use the white spots as a sort of inverted pupil rather than as a highlight. I know it's not correct realistically, but if I did it realistically it would be sorta creepy-looking.

    Okay, so, ignoring a lot of the meanies ( :( ).

    What I like mean by the sidewalk thing that I was talking about. . . Okay, so if you look at the side walk by itself, it looks like there is a space in between the actual cement blocks to me because the perspective is right and everything. The darker color that is the filling or whatever that would be on an actual sidewalk almost looks like it's almost a bunch of blocks sitting next to each other without the filling in there.

    All I was like trying to say is that, just try removing the lines from the background to see if that makes the background have any more punch or something. Try to create a different element in the background you know, like it doesn't have the same exact build as the actual character, because they still would have like a lot in common in the way you drew them (just lacking the outlines haha) it probably wouldn't feel totally different or whatever.

    Also that doesn't look creepy at all! It looks like he's looking at me! Still so cute. :3
  • edited July 2010
    Actually most sidewalks don't actually have that filling between the blocks, because concrete expands and contracts with heat, so the reason for that space is so that it doesn't crack, hence usually not filled.

    Judging from the lines in the spaces of the concrete at the corners of the blocks, the lack of this filling seems to be the case in Hlavco's picture.
  • edited July 2010
    Yeah, there's no filling between those ones. You can tell by looking at where the sidewalk meets the grass, you can see a tiny bit of dirt as the crack is below ground level.

    I was walking around my neighborhood, and most of the time I've noticed that every other crack is filled in. So I guess it would make sense for me to fill one of the two in.
  • edited July 2010
    7. A major improvement. I'm proud of you.