2 replies to this topic

[Major Tom]

You have done a great job with the concept art so far, and I have a couple of questions:
Much of the original Battletech/Mechwarrior artwork, does not maintain an internal consistancy/physics related to weapon mass, size (critical space), or function. However from what I have seen it looks like you are attempting to maintain a level of consistancy when possible. What kind of guidelines do you use when determining the look and size of a weapon? (For example: many lasers in battletech have barrels, when it really doesn't make sense. I have noticed your lasers tend to be barreless and instead have lenses/optics on the bussiness end.)

I have also noticed that some mechs have floruishes that make certain body parts more/less prominent and targetable. For example: The Catapult cockpit is definataly more vulnerable than tiny Dragon cockpit, or the Centruions heavily shielded portal. Do you have to worry about how these art design decisions will impact gameplay, or is it the develoeprs problem to figure out what the 'hit box' size will be?

[Helmer]

*bump*

(Just because its a interesting question)


Cheers

[Seabear]

The one thing about most original art that has been a glaring defect is , as stated above, the disconnect between the loadout and the look. Some mechs seem to have small lasers bigger than gause rifles. Glad to see the new takes more in line with what's actual there.