25 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

I voted sometimes, since the Jenner, Hunchback, Catapult, and Atlas they took their time with.

[CDLord HHGD]

I voted other because I don't think one is better than the other. I view the artwork as the 50's era drawing of a hot car vs the car itself on the showroom floor.

I think the artwork rocks as well as the Mechs in game. There is no fail here IMO.

[General Taskeen]

cdlord, on 28 June 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

There is no fail here IMO.

The AWS is very fail :-D

[Avimimus]

DaZur, on 28 June 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

Couple 3D art design points to keep in mind:

1.) Artwork utilizes dynamic posing for effect while our 3D iterations are limited to either shut-down / at rest or powered-up... leading to static poses that don't emote a lot of "life" for lack of a better definition.

2.) The 3D models need to be modeled in such a way that regardless of the torso rotation, arm elevation / traverse plain, or ancillary weapon-model swap, they do not intersect / clip though other sections of the body. This tenant often leads to the certain concessions in design, most notably the broad chest / shoulders which placates this requirement.

3.) Right-wrong or indifferent... I think a lot of the scale issues echo back to a creative decision to make some concerted effort to match a perceived volume with the mechs potential weapon loadout. It's the 4 gallons of poo in a 2 gallon bucket premise... Let's be honest... a lot of TRO art design pays absolutely no attention to practical scale and necessary scale / volume to accommodate the various proposed weapon loadouts.

Yes.

Although it would be nice if the vehichles looked like they were trying to manage their cross-sections / vulnerable areas... the concept art does a better job of giving an armoured appearance (minimised surface area).

[Shazarad]

I am very happy with both concept art and 3D models. I do not pay much attention/creed to the concept art because I know for a fact that the in-game model will differ from it in some way. Nice to make a poster of, but not to base anything gameplay wise off of.

The in-game models are fantastic, if a bit dark and muted when it comes to colors. They really push using custom camo patterns, as those really shine compared to the default pattern.

Compared to TRO art, in-game models and concept art are many many many times better, as they actually you know...put spaces for the weapons to show. Imagine if they put the Lancelot in-game as it is in the TRO art. Nobody would have any clue as to what its carrying visually.

[General Taskeen]

Shazarad, on 28 June 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Compared to TRO art, in-game models and concept art are many many many times better, as they actually you know...put spaces for the weapons to show. Imagine if they put the Lancelot in-game as it is in the TRO art. Nobody would have any clue as to what its carrying visually.

Some Mechs are pretty much exactly based on TRO art... otherwise you'd have something completely made up in MWO and no inspiration to draw from. Where old art took liberties to place things in odd locations, since there were multiple variants, newer TRO art attempts to show more accuracy. An Atlas still looks like an Atlas, a Jenner still looks like a Jenner. And an Awesome, however, looks like an Awesome stretched and ate too many Jenners.