A while ago this was mentioned about Elemental, this was way before it was officaly anouced however.
'You can zoom out and see a cloth map of the world - and these are randomly generated worlds that look as if someone painstakingly created it with a sophisticated map editor, which the game does have built-in, too - and then zoom all the way in to a leaf on an individual tree in a forest in one smooth loop, where the ground and trees look as good as you’d expect in a high-end first-person shooter. '
Now the curent scren shots don't show any where near this level of detail, is this a cut feature, and if so how close can you zoom now, and what will it look like when zoomed in very close? I am loving the current art style, so I was wondering what the LoD close up is now.
And to "agree to disagree", I've done nothing of the sort. To "agree to disagree" is the heighest betrayal of the process of logic, and opinion is just a decision based on general perception of facts. Opinions can be wrong, if they're illogical or based on faulty presumptions.
So indeed, move on!
Edit: bah, double-post.
The thread has evolved beyond your 'Respect us theme' and all parties involved have agreed to disagree on the subject of E:WoM art, but on some subjects we are very much of the same mind.
Move on!
Without offence, really, I don't write exacly to you but for the subject.
And If paying attention to foruns, usually people 'waste the time' (or use it depeding on how we see it) worst then me. They would be talking about generic issues, chating around or posting "LoL" pictures. Discussions like this might be more productive than many around different foruns, because it at least forces us to think.
But I'm ok to end this, I just commented over the dissent issue someone posted.
Who else here has dared to disagree with the art direction, and who else has presumed to stand contrary to the majority of this thread, and who has dared to show dissent? lol
Opinions have been exchanged, neither side has budged but some areas have been smudged...so using logic what else is there to be done? Continue arguing the point? No...the only option is to move on!
Unless of course you are saying you're disagreeing, that you disagreed with me?
What's arguably even worse is that you've moved this from a discussion about the art, into something as presumptious as a discussion directed at you. A broad comment becomes "I have informed you I dont read your posts". In a way, you're a self-fullfilling troll that doesn't realize that it's trolling anymore, it just acts with the logic of "because".
A proponent of logic would never agree to disagree, but rather acknowledge the other parts abandonment of logic; often in the act of calling a "let's agree to disagree" (clarification: on part of the betrayer). Every feeling and opinion is a result of, at the very least, internal argument and weighing of the facts. Opinions aren't, and shouldn't be allowed to become, baseless.
Urmmm no I gave an opinion, you disagreed and by the sounds of it didn't like what you heard. Other people of dubious maturity made it personal. I choose to ignore them (informing them) Simple!
A proponent of logic would never agree to disagree, but rather acknowledge the other parts abandonment of logic; often in the act of calling a "let's agree to disagree" (clarification: on part of the betrayer). Every feeling and opinion is a result of, at the very least, internal argument and weighing of the facts. Opinions aren't, and shouldn't be allowed to become, baseless. While we are in agreeance that we both disagree, the "agree to disagree" carries with it a settlement of terms that is absent in this argument.
lol have you listened to yourself. Proponent of logic, abandonment of logic, every opinion is a result of internal arguement, opinions shouldn't become baseless.... impressive but wasted here on a discussion based upon 'I dont like the gfx'! My statement 'agree to disagree' holds true, dispite your insistance that the arguement is NOT settled, It is in my mind (you are not part of that equation - sorry).
...the graphics are not what I expect and make the game poorer for it!
Now surely a 22 year old Swede of your intelligence should realise that whatever you write, or say... will not change my opinion. Logic dictates! I on the otherhand can air my opinion, on a forum designed for that very purpose, in the freedom aloted to me here. The Dev's may or may not heed my post but whatever, I have given my opinion...
Your opinion is thus baseless and you are just opinionated for the sake of resistance, the opinion itself; like a troll, your only goal is to be in opposition, or be of a differing 'opinion', using "an opinion is an opinion, and I'm free to have one!" and "let's agree to disagree" as illogical crutches for a lack of logical argument.
It's logical fallacy to argue against someone that is inherently illogical in their approach to opinion. Which is why I left the argument and yourself to your delusions on page two.
You make it sound like it took great courage to say you don't like the art, and that anybody who does claim to like the art does so out of fear... I propose that few people on these forums have disagreed with the art direction because most of us happen to like it.
The reason why people jumped on you isn't because you disagree with the art direction, but because of the way in which you gave your opinion - arrogantly and hyperbolically. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you reread your first post at the end of the first page.
You were also the first person to turn the discussion personal, when you said this:
Like Vandenburg said somewhere in this thread, the tone makes the music.
So if you left the arguement on page two, are you resisting my dislike for the graphics now for resistance sake.. so in effect trolling me?
Yes calling someone gay is a corner stone to most solid discussions... (my english is bad is a poor cover story for the error). Or is 'Gay' the logical conclusion to someone who dislikes the graphics?
Have read it, and its quite obvious its directed at the Dev's. If you all felt personally offended then surely thats your issue.
Or was it the natural response to being called pretentious just because I find the In-Game graphics 'Childish'?
You entirely missed the point. It's irrelevant at whom your initial arrogance and hyperbole were directed. What is relevant is that you started off this discussion with an air of arrogance and pretty extreme exaggeration (you compared the art to My Little Pony... do I need to link a picture to make you see why that's exaggeration?). My point is that if you start off a discussion in such a fashion, don't expect responses to be particularly polite.
I guess I didn't really consider Nights Edge's post to be a personal attack because he made a valid point, especially given your initial attitude in this discussion (which you have thankfully tempered). The remark: "How do you expect anyone, especially serious wargamers, even serious fantasy fans to take this game seriously" was pretentious. You presumed to speak for a large group of people without their consent, and without many of those people even agreeing with you.
Edit: Back on topic, I actually have found an aspect of the city in this screenshot that looks kinda cutesy to me. The inner walls are kind of... bendy, they almost look elastic. Curves in walls are fine, and often serve a strategic purpose, but not like that... I'd much rather they straighten out those bendy segments.
I think I see what you mean. You mean how the inner walls appear to "bulge" inwards (and the upper inner walls slightly outwards)? I agree, but I think that's a matter of perception, it could look just fine from another angle. It really doesn't show enough for me to judge.. (unless I completely missunderstood your point).
No, you've got it. I don't think it's just a matter of perspective, though. If you compare the inner walls to the outer ones, it's pretty clear. And if it is a matter of perspective I would still have a problem with it, unless it only looks bad from a very specific angle.
Have you two finished with your personal crusades? Whatever you thought you were achieving with your post break downs I hope you think its done.
*Oh and for your info. I didn't know what JK meant...now I do. Flyguy apologies, but dont assume everyone is a forum nut and clued up with forum jargon. I can just about cope with wink, and smiles.
------------------------------------
Now onto the topic I highlighted:
I've already established that the style is cartoon in nature...as backed up by the devs quoted comments. Now the in-game gfx style.
To reinforce my opinion that the in-game gfx are Classic Fairytale in apppearence, I'd like you to draw this comparison....
Replace to blue roof tiles with red..
Disney, not groundbreaking, magical or particularly makes me feel alive.
.....I cannot believe that Stardock, the producers of the visually impressive Demigods are even contemplating this style of in-game gfx. Its as though, the producers said to artists (who I can only assume haven't read fantasy) I want a fantasy castle!!!!
They produce the above.............Wheres the imagination, the uniqueness, the originality?
I totally agree with Flyguy though that fantasy should be 'Magical, beautiful (at times) and the world should most definitely make you feel alive and part of it. The Gfx shown thus far fall short on every count.
If I had to make a beautiful city, and to give my opinion some weight then I would prefer a more muted one..less spires & less princess in distress (less classic fantasy) as per the bottom example.
http://www.bulbmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/castle.jpg *my insert link appears greyed out.
Cut away the gawking masses of buffoons and the somewhat mentally challenged characters and we have;
A highly stylized 'epic' fantasy castle, bar the somewhat pastel spires and the fact that the 'bricks' (of which none were shat) look like they're made of styrofoam.
Compare this to a few real-life examples. Compare this, again, with a few examples of contemporary fantasy castles; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - many that are far from the "prancing fairies of faggotry" that you're trying to make it out to be.
Second, what you linked to is more or less much of the artistic approach they're taking, but with the shadowing absent from the current graphics and screenshots, and with a slightly less stylistic approach (with the broad outlines, and cell-shading-like texture) - so again, no-one knows what you're getting at, except your continued desire to be 'unique' by being in opposition.
Seperated from my other post for obvious reasons;
Come to think of it, the 'base' of the outer walls looks a bit off, aswell. Like they're bent or bulging at the bottom. It's only really visible on the left wall that turns. Ultimately, these are very small things, but we can keep 'em as pet peeves until we get something real to complain about in future screencaps.
Also I understand these screens are work in progress... I do note that the drop shadow on objects on the map, tend to give the effect of floating slightly above the landscape. The objects, City, Towers, Trees etc... seem not to be part of the land itself.
View the lake centre screen for my observation..
https://www.elementalgame.com/Screenshots/Kingdom_Scott_City_1280.jpg
Everything is in 3d, and will have "real" shadows, but it's done as if it's simulating 2d (painted landscapes and maps). As far as I know, no other game have attempted to do so, ever, and I - who have always said that 3d will never be as beatiful as painted 2d backgrounds and units - may ultimately have to bite my lip.
Now, if they could only make a proper remake of Baldur's Gate...
The picture you linked there is extremely beautiful. But I suspect that the artist behind that painting could make a castle like the one in the Elemental screenshots look just as beautiful. One of the biggest reasons why it's so beautiful is because of the insane detail and the amazing setting, neither of which is possible to implement in the game (to ask for it would just be crazy talk).
Personally, I don't think that spires = fairy tale princess in distress fantasy. It's like your previous "cartoon = childish" argument. A castle with spires can look like your classic, childhood fairy tale castle, but it doesn't have to. And frankly I don't think the one in the screenshots looks it. I think what makes the Disney castle look like classic fairy tale (other than being the definitive fairy tale castle ) is the gaudiness, the colors and the trappings. I look at it and expect it to be filled with luxurious rooms and chambers. Plus the whole thing is just different shades of blue, with some gold. When I look at the castle in the screenshots, the spires look uncomplicated. It doesn't look shiny and bright and happy (dark red shingles aren't bright and happy in my opinion). I look at it and expect the interior to be utilitarian. There's even a chimney spouting smoke from the great hall.
And failed miserably, except in your own la-la-land.
I agree with Anomander. The art style is definitely cartoon in nature. I just don't see that as a problem, or as childish.
It's kind of ironic for you to accuse the developers in a company named Stardock of never having read fantasy. In case you don't know, the company's name is taken from the name of the magic academy in the Riftwar Saga by Raymond Feist. Also, you're being arrogant again. After all, anyone who doesn't agree with you has obviously never read any fantasy... And to be honest, by this point it's pretty impossible to be original when it comes to castles. Castles have been done so often in so many different media that no matter what Stardock does it will be reminiscent of something that's already been done.
Oo I forgot about that. Do you remember where that was said?
Yeah I think the walls are are tapered (thicker at the bottom, thinner at the top). I don't have a problem with that, it's even realistic. Tapered walls are much stronger than straight-up vertical walls, and the angle of inclination made battering rams (and sometimes projectiles) less efficient.
I have read all of Feist's works...all! I happen to think him second only to Steven Erikson (Tolkien of course being the Zeus of the fantasy writers). I didn't on the otherhand know that the company was named after the old academy..interesting, thanks, is there no copyright infrigement there somewhere?
Regardless of that fact I assume the founders named the company, and at this stage and due to their well earnt success have taken a more hands off role when it comes to each project. I doubt they sit beside the artists saying "No more spires, it needs more spires!".
Though my opinion hasn't changed, I do feel that 'This look' is the path they have chosen...the classic fantasy. It is early yet but I am hoping with polish it'll evolve into a more presentable game for me...(or in this case less polish, more grit).
I have no doubt the game content will be excellent. Some of the stuff being banded about has got me quite excited. My only problem 'at this stage' is the gfx. I suppose in the worse case scenario, if its produced and goes gold like this *shudders*...modders will give it a overhaul and perhaps theme it to various fantasy worlds.
Its not the say Stardock wouldn't do a great job with more realistic graphics, has they did it with Sins and DemiGod. What gives Elemental the cartoon graphics appearence, is the 2d feel (has if it was draw; the contours arround everything) and the colored graphics. But there is a painting feel to it that breaks it; the mountains, the ground/grass, the ocean waves and the bird here: https://www.elementalgame.com/Screenshots/Kingdom_Scott_City_1280.jpg
A game like King's bounty, is a game that want to have cute graphics(compare the first pic's castles with Elemental castle):
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/901/901391/kings-bounty-the-legend-20080820105241306_640w.jpg
http://fidgit.com/kings_bounty.jpg
http://gry.o2.pl/upload/files/Kings_Bounty_w_d_10.jpg
Look that there is no real scale for things in there, and how the castles are small and fat. What I mean is that Elemental graphics, aren't meant to be cutie. Scale for exemple is a important thing that I like, I like that the citzens and windows are very small comparably(this allows dimension to the castle, it feels like a huge structure has it should be realisticaly). Also comparing the colors present on Elementals pictures and in King's Bounty, the latter is much colorful. The colors in Elemental are even a bit darker, the ground in the dense part of the forest is dark brown, the downright part of the ocean is dark green has is the mountain's green, the roofs of the castle are dark red. Just try to compare it with another colors.
It feels suficiently dark to me comparing to other games. Not too much bright, not to much dark. It isn't to say, I don't like games with very brigther or darker coloring style. But without the shading is looks in the balance to me if I were to call it bright or dark in its colors. But the game uses many different vivid colors and biggest thing is that there isn't much color variation. Maybe with the shading, the trees should cast shadows on each other for exemple (but I don't understand much about it)
Indeed games that use contours and are colorful are usually called cartoon style. What I try to say is that it isn't bad and it isn't exaggeratedly so(nor is explicit cute). Games like Fire Emblem GBA, Zelda, many Final Fantasy's, even Kings Bounty are great games. In the Kings Bounty forum I used for exemple, many congratuled the graphics and the feel it gives.
I'll show a pic from another game that could probably be the realistic representation of Elemental's, notice even the pink trees. This game graphics are really amazing and artistic and follows another style. But Elemental's is also great style for me to look at.
Is it impossible to call these so realistic graphics cute? I think it is too, probably because it is a board game.
Elemental could be a great game in those graphics, has can be with the current. They are just different styles. I would never say a dark fantasy game would suck, it can be great, is just that a colorful style doesn't generaly suck and how it was used for Elemental isn't a exaggerated cute thing, since it is less cute than many games.
Not to meantion that graphics are close to nothing if the game isn't good. Also, graphics range till animation and other things. It's kown that the animation of the battles of Elemental are being designed to be great and fun to watch. The pic I showed is from ROTKXI, but that game have simplistic battles without animation and not many strategic options. Even Civilization isn't close to the realism of ROTK graphics, probably because those are more representative games with much bigger maps (ROTK is just ancient china). You usually have to represent a river or mountain small because of the range, while the rivers at ROTK are and can be huge, because the scope is not big. And lets consider Elemetal is fantasy theme while ROTK is more historical theme which doesn't mean one couldn't possible be portraited very well with the contrary designs. Fire Emblem was one of the greatest games I played, and the graphics were a small colorful GBA graphic, tough I played many PC games.
Tough ROTKXI is a good (~8.0) game, in terms of graphics you won't see battles like this there (or more than little animation):
This pic, IMO don't forces to think about cute, but beautiful instead and first. It looks colorfuly dark and magical and the designs are modeled to realistic scale (men to horses, men to catapults). It looks like cartoon because of a design choice.
To like styles is a matter of opinion, I'm giving my vision and why I like it. The only thing I would stand has a fact is that Elemental art do not make use of very cutish style, since it is a different thing. Still someone can find it very cute or not.
I've wondered the same thing about copyright infringement... I actually have to confess that I haven't read a single one of Erikson's books . I fell way behind on my reading in college and I never caught up...
You actually couldn't be more wrong! Have you seen a poster by the name of frogboy or draginol (2 names 1 person) around on these forums or any of stardock's others? He's a pretty frequent poster, and he is also the owner of Stardock, Brad Wardell (it is still a private company). He is also pretty much the sole AI programmer for all of SD's games. His mantra is that he makes games "for gamers, by gamers," ie, he makes games that he wants to play. I think if he had a real problem with the art direction of one of his games he'd try to influence it towards something he likes.
In the first dev journal, introducing the different team members working on Elemental, Brad Wardell is the first one mentioned:
- Frogboy/Draginol (Brad Wardell): CEO, Game Designer, AI Programmer -For those that don't know, Frogboy is the head of Stardock, barking orders and coding things up. Needless to say, he'll be around.
[PSA]
When one wants to put an image in their post they should click on the "tree" icon, which is next to the "chain" icons (they are for links) then paste in the link. If they did it correctly the image should show immediately.
[/PSA]
Perhaps its time for me to start 'Mordor Media'.
I take that back then... if they are so hands on, then they obviously approved everything we see....including 'Santa's Reindeer' in the frozen waste screenshot.
-----------------
Thanks for the last Screenshot of the battle scene... that does look interesting, though I am wondering whether the battles now will become something similar to the chess match on the Millennium Falcon. Moving forces in a chess like manner, for them to fight it out when paths cross...
The castle examples you also show are cuter, I agree than the castle in E:WoM but to me its just levels or degrees of cute. Your examples go from the sublime to the ridicules. I cant be convinced otherwise, sorry!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
