22 replies to this topic

[Aleric]

Been watching and I havent seen much feed back on this yet, but am I the only one who thinks the mechs delivered look nothing like the Mechs advertised? Basically they look like the Highlander and Victor with simply a few add ons. So basically I wasted my money on painted up clones.

[Amsro]

Basically all the mechs look similar, because they are designed by one artist.

I don't however think a Battlemaster looks anything like a Highlander.

[Durant Carlyle]

"The 'Mechs delivered look nothing like the 'Mechs advertised?"

Ummm ... no. They are all done in the same style but they are all unique. And not just in the "few add ons."

[MeiSooHaityu]

I can't support the OP on this one. I think the mechs look very much like the artwork in overall appearance, but I did want the camo scheme to look more like the drawings.

Overall, I am happy with the mech designs and do not feel they look like other mechs in the game.

[Bishop Steiner]

MeiSooHaityu, on 21 November 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

I can't support the OP on this one. I think the mechs look very much like the artwork in overall appearance, but I did want the camo scheme to look more like the drawings.

Overall, I am happy with the mech designs and do not feel they look like other mechs in the game.

overall agreement. Not sure what the Thud is supposed to be looking like it's related. Battlemaster and Locust are pretty unique looking too. Shadowhawk is kinda meh and generic, but then, so was Alex's concept art with that tv set for a head.

[Alistair Winter]

Aleric, on 20 November 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Been watching and I havent seen much feed back on this yet, but am I the only one who thinks the mechs delivered look nothing like the Mechs advertised?

Yes.

Aleric, on 20 November 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Basically they look like the Highlander and Victor with simply a few add ons.

No.

Aleric, on 20 November 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

So basically I wasted my money on painted up clones.

As advertised.

[Aleric]

As advertised.


Actually that is the point of my post, the mechs do not look like the artwork, so it looks like I was the only person who feels like he was cheated out of his hard earned dollars for a product that took 6 months to deliver. If they had actually shown what the mechs would look like then I wouldnt have a gripe. This is the reason I dont play much any longer and in that one I am not alone.

[Bishop Steiner]

Aleric, on 21 November 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

As advertised.


Actually that is the point of my post, the mechs do not look like the artwork, so it looks like I was the only person who feels like he was cheated out of his hard earned dollars for a product that took 6 months to deliver. If they had actually shown what the mechs would look like then I wouldnt have a gripe. This is the reason I dont play much any longer and in that one I am not alone.

would be interesting if you gave actual examples. Are they perfect representations? 3D never converts seamlessly from 2D. Are they 95% the same? Yup. Baseless accusation is baseless without some sort of facts.



yup, scarcely recognize em!!!!!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 21 November 2013 - 08:27 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

kinda thought that might shut ya down, sparky!

[Mechteric]

Perhaps you need a new prescription for your reading glasses

[Sandpit]

Aleric, on 20 November 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Been watching and I havent seen much feed back on this yet, but am I the only one who thinks the mechs delivered look nothing like the Mechs advertised? Basically they look like the Highlander and Victor with simply a few add ons. So basically I wasted my money on painted up clones.

nevermind the opinion on what they look like (because I think they all ahve unique appaerances)

But.....

you saw the mechs. you knew what they looked like (because I mean, the big pictures of them all over the forums, twitter, loading screen, package sale screen, etc.), knew exactly what you were buying when you bought them, and then decided you wanted to complain about what they look like..........?

[SgtMagor]

the only thing that was a minor let down, was that the camo, paint job etc. the decals (over lord, numbers) gave it that over the top kewl to be you look.

[Aleric]

Well Bishop Steiner, you can eat it, your photoshop work does not impress me. Grabbing pictures they posted on webpages compared to what is in game is not the same thing.

Sandpit you can rub some more sand in your pit and join Bishop in the F Off from me. I paid for those mechs and I have a right to complain about the poor product I received.

As you can tell I don't play this game much any longer since it is not following the path the developers laid out. Running the same small maps over and over again is not my idea of fun. Perhaps when PGI comes out with the game they promised I will check back.

Edited by Aleric, 14 December 2013 - 02:27 PM.

[AlexEss]

So makes us understand... Go down chassie by chassie and describe what you feel is lacking.

Because i sort of have to agree with the others... Looking back at concept art vs mechs these are about the same as the rest in my mind.

[Sorho]

The BM is tad shorter and broader in game than the Artwork would lead me to believe, and the arms seem to be set a bit higher.

The Thunderbolt is pretty much spot on.

The Arms of the Shadowhawk look a tad boxier and much higher set and the in game model seems a bit taller and thinner than the artwork would imply.

The locust is pretty much bang on except looking a tad flimsier in game.

[Hans Von Lohman]

The OP argument was never about how close they came to their concept art.

It was the fact the concept art looks far too similar to existing mechs in the first place. A new Shadow Hawk looks a lot like an existing Highlander.

Side note: I mistake a Shadow Hawk for the Battle Master quite often. It is those shoulders armor plates that do it.

However, the OP fails to see that the art style of MWO is very much a single art style. Flying Debris/Alex Inglacias is the best artist for BattleTech there has been in a long time.

Also, the "boxy" look they've chosen to go for has a practical reason behind it. Keeping all surfaces of your 3D model in the X,Y, and Z directions, aka the "boxy" style is far easier to make a 3D model of than curved surfaces. Most 3D graphics programs like Maya, 3D Studio Max or Lightwave make it very easy to edit a 3D model if you don't have any curves.

I hate making complex curved things like a ship hull for an old sailing vessel when I make my own 3D models, even with a blueprint to work from. If I am just puttering around making a 3D model for fun I usually stick to just the X, Y, and Z coordinates as much as possible to keep it easy.

Also, applying a texture (which all new camo patterns are) is not very fun on a curved surface as you set your UV map coordinates and scaling. If there are a lot of surfaces in the same plane, then you can edit them all as a single batch together, speeding up the process.

As more and more camo patterns are added to the game, expect longer and longer gaps until they release a new one as the mech count goes up.

They're trying to keep it simple and boxy to speed up production rates for new mechs and camo.

[Unnatural Growth]

OP, yes, you have the right to complain.

And, at the same time, we have the right to disagree with you.

That doesn't give you license to be a complete tool to those that disagree with you.

Does the finished mech exactly match the concept art?

No.

But then the finished product in ANYTHING rarely matches the concept art exactly.

I personally think they came pretty close. At least 90% worth close.

But feel free to disagree with me.

[Nutlink]

I'm furious. The Mad Cat looks like a Catapult, but with arms! Such blatant copy-pasta! What a ripoff!

[SgtMagor]

@Bota49 The Mad Cat looks like a Catapult, but with arms! Such blatant copy-pasta! What a ripoff!


wrong thread , but the TWolf looks nothing llike a pult

Edited by SgtMagor, 15 December 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[Nutlink]

Sgt.....



Other than that, you do know how the Mad Cat received its IS name, right?

Edited by BOTA49, 15 December 2013 - 10:22 AM.