Okay. Show you something of similair or better quality of something done within an hour.
Did you even read Nd's post?
Yep.
I'll post the link again:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/15981.htm#
Yes I saw it when helm posted it in the creativity thread.
And as I told helm, that is a fairly simple piece and certainly doable within an hour.
Maybe I should have explained it a bit more?
*Note I am not trying to rag on helm here, and I am not saying its a bad piece*
But:
1. The pose is very simple. No wild perspective, Nothing that pushes the limits of pixel art in any way.
2. Mostly 90 or 45 degree angles on the body, which are easy to do.
3. The creature is not based on anything that we are too familiar with, so none of the features have to be very correct. I.e. He can have upper arms that are bigger then the foream and noone will really notice. Same with the head and other parts.
4. Very little muscle definition on the fur, makes for much easier work.
5. No fingers or toes, helm cheated a bit IMO and just wrapped them up and hid them.
6. Lighting is actually pretty sparse, there are some parts that should have a lot better lighting but don't. Again, probably because it was done in an hour.
actually helm agreed with me that it was simpler then the piece I was attempting.
1: No, the pose is not very amazing, I'll give you that. But it serves it's purpose. I like the pose of your yeti more, though.
2: That's a common technique. Since 90 and 45 degree angles don't require AA, it can often make pixel art look better [You can't screw up on the AA after all] and also reduces the work load a bit.
You don't need complicated lines to make something look better. Why complicate things when it looks just as good with a simpler aproach?
3: It IS based on a real creature. It's simply a gorilla with the head of a manta ray. Unlike a Yeti, which is pretty much based on nothing. Though I'd say yours has something of a gorilla.
4: That's actually a big problem in your yeti: He shouldn't have so much muscle definition. The muscles obscure the fur texture, and make him look more like a shiny bodybuilder.
5: Your yeti's toes aren't very prominent either. In fact, especially those on the front arm don't work that well. The whole hand looks a bit seperated from the arm.
6: There isn't alot of lighting. So? That's just a matter of preference. Helm chose to do so so his glowing eyes would be more prominent, and he'd get and overall more menacing look. [That's my interpetation anyway]
The lighting on your yeti is a bit TOO prominent. Fur doesn't glow that much, unless he just got out of the water or something.
I made a colour edit here, maybe it's a bit too extreme, but bear with me here.
I really toned down the contrast. I think it's nescassery here though.
Fur just doesn't glow like that. I also got rid of those strange stray pixels you had going on here.
[Yes, I also think Helm's colour edit is still too high contrast. Too shiny.]
Very few people have offered any real advice ( except for the edits at the top of this thread ). A lot of the "advice" offered is just arm-chair pixeling and thinly veiled insults.
If you are truly interested Opacus, and if helm doesn't mind, I can point out the flaws in his piece and explain why I don't think its at a similar level to the one I did. I'm sure that would stoke the fires of hell some more, but hey 
That is, if your really curious and not just saying this to argue.
No, I'm not here to argue.
Helm's has flaws. Sure it does. But yours also has flaws. It ain't any more perfect than Helm's is.
It's very nice, certainly, but it still has issues.
And I think you just did pretty much point out what you think is wrong with it, right above here, ey?
Say hello to your seeing-eye dog for me.
Let's keep it civil here please. That's uncalled for.
