Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:
>after all.  As a first entry, you didn't do too badly, really.  A couple of

Heh. This wasn't my first entry, although you have to go back to the
Horror round to find the prior one.

>You actually downplayed the work you did, saying that some things were
>simple and easy.  Anyone reading that is going to think "Well, if *she*
>didn't think it was difficult, why should I?"  That'll lower your scores a
>bit.

The only score this /should/ lower is technical, and I should be clearer
that I wasn't outright insulted by my technical score, although it was a
bit lower than I thought it might be. It was the conceptual and artistic
scores I had a problem with. I don't ever expect to get particularly high
technical scores simply because I know my images are not technically
intricate, and they'll likely never be. And I don't mind if I end up
simply average on the other scores, since they're both very subjective,
and I enter more for the feedback then anything else.

The rest of your comments are appreciated, although I do have to say that
I don't understand what about my textures you felt were poor. The symbols'
textures are simple because such things generally are, and of course,
they're marred slightly by being behind another texture. I suppose I could
have made the objects ornate but I didn't -want- ornate objects.  As
beautiful as the very intricate Grail cup entry was, I suspect that if 
the Grail exists it will turn out to be quite plain. How would you have
done it differently, if you don't mind my asking?

As to posting my stuff, if I can ever find a Windows-based newsreader I
like, that will probably be my alternative to IRTC entries, since all I
care about is the feedback. Unfortunately it's a little tricky to handle
the binaries groups with a text-based newsreader. :) I'm currently
evaluating Forte Agent, I may just buy that and use it.

Post a reply to this message