Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Digital Art / Professional Harry WilsonMale/Australia Recent Activity
Deviant for 5 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 235 Deviations 2,527 Comments 46,154 Pageviews

Newest Deviations



Should Quake be Remade? Scrag Personality Test by Harry-the-Fox
Should Quake be Remade? Scrag Personality Test
Amateur Psychology For Teh WIN!
Something else I've wanted to do for a while- an opportunity to simultaneously show a few crazy Scrag ideas, contemporary video game commentary, and to try my own amateur psychological personality test (I'm a Psychology student in case anyone was wondering):
SO- the goal of this game is this:
Imagine id Software is going to remake the original Quake: You must pick which Scrag you think is more appropriate, and then read the following personality description. Let me know if they accurately describe you!
Don't be afraid- there are no wrong answers (except two of the choices- cough) and any feature you *think* was on the Scrag is honestly, as good a guess as mine really...
So, without further delay, the results of each choice:

1- Freakish gaping lamprey face.
You imagine quake as a horror game, and you find this the most horrifying and disturbing to look at- likely because you are afraid of many real-life elements of the animal kingdom.
You may suffer some form of phobia of:
"blood-drinking animals with serrated circular cookie-cutter mouths that don't apply anesthetic to your wounds but plenty of anti-coagulant that keeps the wound bleeding for a very long time".
Nonetheless, you are likely inclined to do a google search on horrifying real-life creatures, like the Lamprey- with great eagerness (PS- if you don't know what a Lamprey is- keep it that way, for your own peace of mind). You are, or would be, a big fan of the horror design of "The Thing" and H.R. Geiger, while enjoying themes of H.P. Lovecraft.
You may also prefer this version because you believe the original scrag spat projectiles, and therefore requires some kind of mouth for this to make any kind of sense- despite a love of lovecraft, sometimes things have to make sense.

2- Wraith-like with hood made from own flesh.
You like the gothic element of Quake, and you like themes of death and are drawn to the undead, and are likely to be a goth. If asked "what kind of sinister demo-god or evil entity outranks all the others?" you would probably suggest some kind death-god, such as the Grim Reaper. You are also likely to have played every id game since DOOM (including Quake 3 Arena), and actually like the art style of the most recent ones more.
You are the kind of person who adapts with the times, and is reasonably up-to-date in at least one area of the contemporary world- this is apparent because you are actually choosing a completely new design for an old monster. You either enjoy zombie films, or you are disappointed that the 'zombies' aren't convincingly "dead" enough for your taste. It is also possible that you picked this one because you think lovecraftian designs look silly (in which case you may feel shame deep down inside).
You may also prefer this version because you believe the original scrag spat projectiles, and therefore requires some kind of mouth for this to make any kind of sense.
Alternatively, you picked this simply because you interpreted the original to have no mouth (and to be fair, it's impossible to tell); and feel this is an important feature to retain.

3- Faceless
You are obsessed with H.P Lovecraft. You know that Lovecraftian themes were a large inspiration for Quake, and have likely cross-referenced every Quake monster to a lovercraftian one. The particular monster you think the Scrag is wasn't described in enough detail for you, and the original low-poly model left too much to interpret; so your imagination met with cepholopod-mania filled in the gaps similar to this design.
You are either an oceanographer/marine biologist, or dissatisfied with your life and can't quite figure out why:
(ANSWER: it's because you're (a) not an oceanographer/marine biologist when you probably should be, or simply (b) the last official release of the original Quake universe was almost 20 years ago)
Alternatively, you may have also selected this because you believed the Scrag shot projectiles from its eyes (magic rather than biology- explaining why it can also fly)- and thus being a supernatural creature, does not need a mouth. That, or you never really thought about it and don't really care how 90s gameplay mechanics operate when it comes to an enemy looking awesome.

4- Authentic Low Poly
You like this design because it most resembles the collection of rectangular blocks and blurry vague texture that the 1995 engine was capable of, and you don't like change.
For some reason, you interpreted the original, ambiguous entity as a featureless snake-thing with knob-arms and a frowny-face, and believe anything else would be completely unfaithful to "the original material" (or lack thereof due to technology limitations).
You want a reskin to the point your eyes aren't aching from seeing pixels 4-inches wide (if converted to real-life scale), but that aside you'd actually be fine if every monster in a remake was as faithful to every pixel and every crude blocky silhouette as possible. It is likely you also want the humanoids to retain this, and don't realize that no human could possibly fit these physiques.
You want a new Quake game because you've hardly touched an old-school game in 20 years, and for some reason refuse to acknowledge obvious old-style games like Serious Sam are exactly the same thing, because it is more obviously upbeat and casual (and doesn't dilute its colour scheme enough).

5- A humanoid cyborg.
This is a STROGG. You chose this option because you are really waiting for a remake for QUAKE 2- and the two Strogg games released since then don't count.
It is possible that you may have played this so-called "sequel" first, and then attempted to play the "original quake"- assuming  two games that have the same name AND same logo, augmented by a sequential number would somehow indicate a SEQUEL (rather than a lazy attempt to get 90s gamers to notice a popular brand name). Instead you found yourself falling into a similar traumatic experience that haunts every fan of the CNC and Unreal franchises:
Upon playing the game you were slightly puzzled by the opening room and magic themes, but quickly relaxed when you entered a base full of cybernetic PEOPLE, and presumed they might be STROGGS. After playing further it quickly became clear that you were wrong and this game had nothing to do with the STROGG WAR. Your subconscience began to apply self-defense mechanisms such as somehow trying to rationalize a subvertive prequel connection to the later games, so as to shield you from the painful reality that you purchased a game that had nothing that you expected.
Either that, or you hate castles and fantasy because it's for "wimps", and wanted to pick an outrageously cybernetic character to make a protest to id not to make a game that is literally 93% castles with exactly 4 hitech levels solely to initiate an episode; which has filled you with pure rage that a game about guns sees you mostly shooting men with swords.
(PS ignore the goofy cartoon look- ran out of time- I actually think Quake 2 is awesome)


(Ahem- yes, basically 2 serious-ish ideas, one pseudo-lazy but plausible that I personally think is awesome, and two complete jokes)
Something I've noticed in really,really old games is how fans react to companies trying to recreate them; some love the new approach, some resent anything out of the original being applied.
As a fan the entire Quake series (well, the three games made by id) since they came out (as a kid), I feel I put myself in the first group, and like to see franchises evolve.

The tricky part for Quake however is that it came out over two ERAS ago. When a game where the player kills enemies by circle-strafing could still be considered dark and serious. Since then, games have moved in two major directions:
1- continuing to follow the old style, but accepting that audiences probably aren't going to see it as a 'serious' game, and instead embrace a light-hearted and silly theme and allowing creativity to flourish around these freedoms (Serious Sam franchise- though the most recent game managed to pull off both)
2- Going modern- every attempt of making a scarier or more serious game has typically been through a more modern FPS interface (Far Cry 3, Modern Warfare, etc). These games tend to reward either lazy itchy-triggerfingers or methodological and meticulous planning and technique, ironsights and reloading. They do NOT reward hitting the "A" and "D" keys while pointing the mouse in the direction of your enemy. These games DO often cut corners in making level layouts and player-controlled gameplay in favor of hand-holding, out-of-bounds scenery and cutscenes; along with a lot of tutorials (to be fair, they kinda need them).
As it is, any remake of Quake would be faced with a choice of 3 options:
1- be a reskin of Quake 1; and hope nostalgia will override everyone who feels circle-strafing has gotten boring over the decades.
2- embrace the modern perception of "old school" games and be like Serious Sam- and acknowledge that "old school" games are going to be considered a more light-hearted experience (at the same time somehow avoiding being completely flamboyantly silly; something Serious Sam 3, strangely, does quite well).
3- Stay true to being dark and gloomy- and somehow transferring Quake to "New School" FPS interface- and carefully scrutinizing which 'modern' features would actually work, vs those that didn't.

Anyway, thoughts?
VORE teaser by Harry-the-Fox
VORE teaser
Getting back into art FULL SWING!
I decided to make a homage to one of my all-time video games- QUAKE!

Depicted is a reinterpretation of the three-legged spideresque monster called the "Vore" (or Shalrath).

This has been a LOT of fun to work with so far; and with the sub-minecraft graphics technology of the time, much of this creature is open to interpretation- except that it's pale, has massive teeth, and seemingly, a horizontal pair of fang/mandible things.

For this, I decided to dust off my old "Scorpion Man" concept and a 3D vore sculpture I did over a decade ago (I might still release these ones)- which both basically shoved the fangs inside the mouth as another pair of jaws- the lips simply wrap (well, stretch) around all of them, providing a nasty grin. Sadly, the vore sculpture looked a tiny bit comical as the stretched mouth looked like a chimpish grin- so later (also unreleased) concepts I actually had the lips curve suddenly upwards to bare the fangs- a sort of cleft palate of some sort. Further experimentations with (ANOTHER) unreleased manticore concept played around with mouths that went from normal human faces to wide shark mouths- where I put extra attention into playing around with cat-lip shapes that imitate the nasal socket of the skull- this looked AWESOME, and feeling in the mood for a Quake image, decided to try it on the Vore- and it looks sweet!

Otherwise, the only alteration I did was the four pairs of arachnid eyes- which gives it a delightfuly freakishly vicious yet cold and unemotional look IMO.
Vanquisher 3- hull layout by Harry-the-Fox
Vanquisher 3- hull layout
This is an important reference to settle various discussions about how the layout of the turrets could work.

I used skewed rectangles for the grid and a pure circle (with an admittedly messy interior but smooth exterior) whose 'skew' box was aligned to the corners of the grid, and then resized to make the other circles (only the four sizes shown). All the lines are perpendicular and the rings are all aligned correctly- nothing has been doctored on the roof.

THIS layout shows the largest turret sizes physically possible to actually put together on the same hull- building UP from the driver's hatch, and down from the remaining space available.

The mini-turrets (either manned- shown by hatch-sized rings) or unmanned, are still the same size as the smallest possible turrets in (a) real life and (b) possible that could still hold the various custom armaments we wanted to include. 

The mini turrets are also planted on the MAXIMUM roof size show that it could potentially be problematic to mount two of them.

Hope this is helpful.
Vanquisher- Rough variants teaser by Harry-the-Fox
Vanquisher- Rough variants teaser
Just two of my own crazy ideas for the HULL-4 tank:

The pair at the top I've dubbed "Big heads" simply because they have massive turrets.
This simply works by my shorter-base=bigger-turret principle. With no mini turrets taking up space or requiring elevation to peer over, these guns can fill a huge area- the turrets themselves are big enough to house a huge amount of stuff on the roof with plenty of space left over; and big enough to house THREE standard vanquisher cannons (compared to the regular two), or TWO extra-large guns.
The turret can be positioned at the middle/front, providing room for two rear-pointing and AA-capable guns to be mounted on the back (the main turret is therefore limited to firing in a forward 180 degree arc and cannot shoot backwards). The alternative is omitting these mini turrets altogether, and allowing a 360 range of fire for the main gun (which can be mounted on the back of the chassis, if you choose).
I think this design is quite promising- trading support fire for pure damage and resilience.

The OTHER idea is one that I must admit sounded great on paper- but looks kinda... odd.
A simple concept- take a standard vanquisher turret (sans rear compartment) and place it on the front of the chassis to fire a forward 180 degrees. Build a platform behind it and place ANOTHER vanquisher turret on top (with 360 field of fire). Might be a little top-heavy, but meh. It could possibly work with a a lower turret size.

Vanquisher- Design Augmentations by Harry-the-Fox
Vanquisher- Design Augmentations
AKA what's keeping me up at night....
Just a few other design considerations for the Vanquisher's general design:
In particular, outwardly simple design possibilities that have been driving me nuts.

1) Ways to reduce  the height of the tank:
So, the first (left-most) design shows my first iteration on the tank: built on a nice smooth dome. Because the surface is uneven, the mini-turrets must be based on a platform at least as high as the highest point in the curve: and the main turret that shoots over them must of course be even higher.
BUT- my next move (as recommended by teammate Zeyd) was to bulk up the chassis by making it more 'rectangular' (making bulges on the lateral sides). Thus it conceals the turret bases a bit more- and with the increase in implied interior space, I could afford to shorten the top a bit (my most recent concept).
After submitting it, I realized I could take it down further. However, wanting to retain some space below the turret to house either gunners or ammo/components (to make it nice and feasible), I noticed that if I subtracted the doubled tracks (or made them narrower), the empty space they left could still easily house the crew. So with that done, it boiled down to simply 'squashing' the vertical axis of the chassis to be flatter.
With all of this in mind, I'm VERY certain that this should carry over to OTHER Hull-4 variants (I think).

2) The biggest hurdle I've been trying to figure out has, ironically been the mini turrets. One-man armoured turret designs seem to be fairly rare in the Soviet Union. The smallest seem to be those mounted on APCs, and those are fairly large (about the size of any other APC or IFV turret). The bigger problem is they are designed to make maximum use of roof space they get on their own vehicles, and thus have very broad sloping forms. That sadly isn't possible on a tank like this, so I decided to provide the following example.
(NOTE- the 3 turret designs are the minimum size- the ones depicted in the ABOVE example are probably the maximum size- short of being all-out tank turrets in their own right)
As you can see, roof space is the limit of how SMALL the turrets can get relative to man-size (so a person can actually climb inside): but the wider the bases ultimately limit how large they can get, in turn, without cluttering it up or demanding the tank be WAY larger to fit them.

3) Dalek platform sizes!
Just for laughs really- I think everyone understood this idea anyway.
The turret platforms are of course conical (they're wider at the bottom than the top- for maximum protection) with bases exactly the same size.
Each design is short enough for the previous one to shoot directly overhead. Thus, in order to shoot over another turret, the platform must be taller- and thus the roof is narrower, and can only fit a smaller turret on top.
This means that any designs that include a LOWER tier of mini-turrets, the main gun would actually need to be reduced in size. Lacking mini turrets, the main gun can be over twice as large; providing some food for thought in designing some of the Hull-4 variants.
The joke is I didn't submit an April Fool's artwork this year (but as I did two last year, it makes up for it)!

(In truth I'm a bit tied up with assignments and an apprenticeship this year)

Anyway, let's hope the internet came up with better pranks than "We found the missing Malaysian Air plane" today.
  • Mood: Neutral
  • Listening to: DEATH METAL and chillout
  • Reading: Uni shit
  • Watching: Doomsday Prepper (funny shit)
  • Playing: Nothing- have to work
  • Eating: Random junk
  • Drinking: Thai Tea


Harry Wilson
Artist | Professional | Digital Art

1) Can I use your artworks?
My answer is usuially... Yes! Just ask for permission first, and what you plan to do with it, and ensure you retain my watermarks on it.
Non-profit use I often allow- but IF you are making something for profit, I do expect to be PAID :P

2- Do you take commissions or sell publishing rights to existing images?
YES. ALL of them! Notable past clients I have done this with include Penguin (Dorling Kingsley), Deisterweg and Ken Derby!
Also, if you want alterations, you will be happy to read my * point in the next question :)

3- How do you work?
In Photoshop (using layers). I simply draw the sketch, colour in beneath it, and apply 'attached' layers over the base colour for shading and such. Each character or object is often a (complete) stand alone layer I do separately and reposition in the overall artwork later- designed so I can move it around where I want, and alter the colour as required. Because I ALWAYS retain the original photoshop file, I can alter the images to suit any new preferences easily.
*In other words, if you wanted an image with the Spinosaurus by itself, I would simply click and drag it onto a new background in mere seconds (it is actually complete and high-detailed).

4) I noticed an error on your works- mind if I chime in?
YES! You are most welcome! I have had some excellent feedback about horizontal Titanosaur posture, and corrected Russian translations in the past, among many other excellent suggestions that have been a huge benefit.
-My only gripe are people who are upset at feathered dinosaurs or <20m Megalodons.

5) Are you a Furry?
NO. The ears are a joke.

6) Are you a metal-head?

AdCast - Ads from the Community


Add a Comment:
Extraxi Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2015
Happy birthday to ya! :w00t:

Hope you've had a great day!
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Sure am mate, cheers!
The-Polybius Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2015
Happy birthday! 
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks mate!
g8ut Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2015
Happy birthday m8 ;) (Wink) 
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
g8ut Featured By Owner Apr 26, 2015
:) (Smile) 
Terring Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2015
Happy birthday :)
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks mate!
Phillipzu Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Happy birthday, Harry! :party:
Add a Comment: