Well, one could say that some of those scenes haven't climaxed yet and there could be more to come. But I have to correct you on the assumption that additional scenes for those existing situations would be easy to make.
The amount of time going into setting up the set and basic lighting scheme is a half a day's of work or so. In the total effort of creating a lewd scene, that's relatively minor.
The real time sink is in the posing of characters. And having a first pose done doesn't really make second in that series easier either.
So the time investment is substantial, regardless of the set already existing or not. A simple one stage lewd interaction might take a week to produce. Something with multiple stages to it, over a month. That half a day for setting up the set is a relatively small in comparison.
And so that word investment brings us to another point, which is that we're really picking our battles here with what to implement and what not, and it's getting more problematic.
Light of my Life has never been a runaway success commercially. I'm sure I'm to blame for a large part of that, as I hardly put any effort into promotion or publicity, and instead prefer to put all my time into creating the game, so whatever fame it's achieved, it's in spite of me rather than because of me.
At this point though, support is definitely in decline (I put a more detailed write-up on the future of Light of my Life up on
You must be registered to see the links
and
You must be registered to see the links
, as public posts). And while my aim was never to get rich doing this, it's hard to justify spending a few more years on this one project instead of wrapping it up in a proper and respectful way, and moving on the the next one, when, on an hourly basis, you're netting about (local) minimum wage, while the numbers are only going down, not up (and have been for a number of chapters now, so it's not just chapter 7).
So at this point, we're on the clock (although its still up in the air how much time is on that clock), and the choices for where I get to put the remaining development time are even harder than they were before. With lewd scenes being the major time sinks for this game, that's where the hard choices are going to come down hardest.
I must say, the thought of having to kill some darlings I've been looking forward to implementing for a long time is weighing a little heavier on my thoughts than I'd like to admit.
Thank you. I'm still hoping to get a little reprieve so I can spend a little bit more time on it, so that decision isn't entirely set in stone yet.
(for those not reading that post on patreon Joshy mentioned (see also my post above that), the question is whether or not the next chapter of Light of my Life is to be the last one, and that's not entirely settled yet)
Just recently discovered this and I am enjoying it. Good stuff so far dev and I will see about giving you some support when I get paid.
I have only one critique so far and it is that depth of field effects blow and I hate them in all things. Our eyes do that naturally so we don't need to further obscure our vision. /endrant
I have only one critique so far and it is that depth of field effects blow and I hate them in all things. Our eyes do that naturally so we don't need to further obscure our vision. /endrant
Depth of field in games is literally recreating the old limitations of film cameras. In games it is entirely unnatural and causes migraines for a lot of people.
Cool that you like it but this isn't the same as photography.
Depth of field in games is literally recreating the old limitations of film cameras. In games it is entirely unnatural and causes migraines for a lot of people.
Cool that you like it but this isn't the same as photography.
That's your opinion, but it shows you don't know much about photography.
A shallow depth of field is not a limitation of a film camera. On digital cameras it works just the same. It's all about the optics. (Mind you, I'm not talking about camera's in phones where the shallow DOF needs to be emulated by software). Using it, or not, is an artistic choice, whether it is in photo's, film or games.
I also find it very difficult to believe that this would cause migraine for a lot of people. Have you got a reliable source about that ?
That's your opinion, but it shows you don't know much about photography.
A shallow depth of field is not a limitation of a film camera. On digital cameras it works just the same. It's all about the optics. (Mind you, I'm not talking about camera's in phones where the shallow DOF needs to be emulated by software). Using it, or not, is an artistic choice, whether it is in photo's, film or games.
I also find it very difficult to believe that this would cause migraine for a lot of people. Have you got a reliable source about that ?
Yeah my doctor it increases eye strain. Aside from all that I don't need an in-depth knowledge of photography to think it looks like shit and dislike it. I also stated it was *recreating* an old limitation.
Many others feel the same as I do you can do a Google search if you don't believe me.
My opinion is what is it is so kindly accept it and move on.
Thanks.
Cheers for the kind words. The depth of field is here to stay though.
I don't really see the issue; it's a natural part of every type of real life imaging, and I've personally never heard of people that avoid live-action movies or regular photography, or film studios going out of their way to avoid it for degrading the audience experience. Which is not to say it's a non-issue for you, and perhaps you do avoid those things, but it's hardly as universally reviled as is suggested.
On the flip side, I personally strongly dislike when 3d rendered images do not employ depth of field, as I feel it makes the images look flat and unnatural, and I much prefer the images with depth of field for aesthetic reasons.
Cheers for the kind words. The depth of field is here to stay though.
I don't really see the issue; it's a natural part of every type of real life imaging, and I've personally never heard of people that avoid live-action movies or regular photography, or film studios going out of their way to avoid it for degrading the audience experience. Which is not to say it's a non-issue for you, and perhaps you do avoid those things, but it's hardly as universally reviled as is suggested.
On the flip side, I personally strongly dislike when 3d rendered images do not employ depth of field, as I feel it makes the images look flat and unnatural, and I much prefer the images with depth of field for aesthetic reasons.
Your game and it's fine but I don't see why people keep implying things I never said. I stated I didn't like it in games. I didn't say people avoided going to the movies or filmmakers didn't use it and all that.
3D images in games cause increase eye-strain over natural ones. This is why a lot of games say to take a break every couple hours. DoF increases that in some people. This is a fact.
All that aside a lot people dislike how it looks and turn it off when they can while playing games. Google it. It's fine to like it. That's all I said. Anything else is being conjured up by people that feel attacked I guess and it's pretty irritating.
Sorry I offended you all with my wrong think.
Your game and it's fine but I don't see why people keep implying things I never said. I stated I didn't like it in games. I didn't say people avoided going to the movies or filmmakers didn't use it and all that.
3D images in games cause increase eye-strain over natural ones. This is why a lot of games say to take a break every couple hours. DoF increases that in some people. This is a fact.
All that aside a lot people dislike how it looks and turn it off when they can while playing games. Google it. It's fine to like it. That's all I said. Anything else is being conjured up by people that feel attacked I guess and it's pretty irritating.
Sorry I offended you all with my wrong think.
No worries, and no need to read too much into it. You voiced an opinion, others voiced theirs, and in the end we figured out they differ. There's nothing unusual about that, and I feel wrong think is way too strong a term to apply here.
You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't make things up just to prove your point. Shallow DOF is not, and has never has been, a limitation in photograpy. I repeat, it's an artistic choice, made by the artist, with the purpose of isolating the subject from the background. And besides, the lenses and camera systems who can do this cost a lot more than those that can't. Funny that photographers/cinematographers would pay more just to have a limited system, isn't it.
(Besides, it's not even in-depth knowledge I'm talking about here. How to achieve shallow DOF is part of every beginner's course in photography.)
You don't like this artistic choice. Fine, that's subjective. But if you go on dissing it on grounds of imagined technical aspects you admittedly have no grasp of, it does not help your credibility.
In situations where you have to open up the aperture to get enough light onto the film, (think slow film speed, low light conditions, need a fast shutter to catch moving subjects), then it is a limitation in the sense that you had to have a shallow depth of field whether you wanted one or not, and it could make it difficult to get subjects at multiple distances in focus. Trying to get around this limitation is why, for example, some movies use
You must be registered to see the links
shots.
That being said, having a shallow DoF is also used a lot intentionally for artistic effect and to make the subjects stand out more in a scene. And I like it in LomL
In situations where you have to open up the aperture to get enough light onto the film, (think slow film speed, low light conditions, need a fast shutter to catch moving subjects), then it is a limitation in the sense that you had to have a shallow depth of field whether you wanted one or not, and it could make it difficult to get subjects at multiple distances in focus. Trying to get around this limitation is why, for example, some movies use
You must be registered to see the links
shots.
That being said, having a shallow DoF is also used a lot intentionally for artistic effect and to make the subjects stand out more in a scene. And I like it in LomL
Indeed. Another way to get around it is by using a shift lens which will shift the focus plane. For static subjects, focus stacking is a much used technique. Or you could just still close your aperture as needed. This will lead to underexposure of course, but with modern sensors, stacking your images and current RAW development software this is not as big of a problem as it used to be. Been there, done that. (Also getting off topic)
The way it is done here works really well. Naughtyroad once explained how he applied the basics of photography in his renders and this clearly pays off.
Very good game. One of the better here. The only one (for me) problem. The overpresence of the younger daughter. In the last update, it was impossible to spend time with the older without the presence of the younger daughter. I'm starting to vomit on her. In addition, a distraction in the form of the protagonist's work environment disappeared into the shadow. The game loses balance from the beginning.
so, if I interpret it correctly you are telling me that the game is over, that is, it is complete?
Please tell me that I'm wrong, I WANT MORE FROM THIS STORY
