Update #68: ART!

[Hassat Hunter]

And, again, if the road's not twisting 72-feet out of the way, who the hell's going to say "Hey, I know this is an already established bend in this road, but... now that that tree's gone that was the reason this road went a bit to the right here in the first place, we should totally start spending all our time and effort cutting that grass and foliage out of the way and rolling our wagons across the uneven ground there, instead of across this consistently-trodden road that's just 10 feet to the right. THAT'LL SAVE US LIKE 3 SECONDS ON OUR TRIP, MAN!"

Politicians.

Cause they already do so with roads.

 

"Hey, lets spend 1 billion to make people get 3 minute faster on their destination"

"Sounds like a great idea!"

 

EDIT:

Above post appeared. Not to mention the music. Those BG tunes exploring the wilderness... just, so good. Hopefully PE gets similarly amazing tracks.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Sensuki]

Recently I have made some IE areas in Blender just to see how it can be achieved with relatively low effort.

 

I like your trees probably better than Obsidian's trees.

[Posbi]

Recently I have made some IE areas in Blender just to see how it can be achieved with relatively low effort.

 

The is also a topic in the Baldursgate forums:

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/22488/new-landscape-environment-art-for-infinity-engine-games-with-blender/p1

You know, the initial images you link to in that thread are way better than what you've posted here.^^

[Posbi]

This here looks decent. far from perfect, and many elements don't really mix that well, but it's certainly better than the example above.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Posbi

[Ulquiorra]

This here looks decent. far from perfect, and many elements don't really mix that well, but it's certainly better than the example above.

 

This look stupid as ****.

 

We have a route to the bridge andf under a bridge we have a river .. then why 2 meters far whe have no bridge acros the river part ?

 

It looks horribly non-realitic and stupid to me .. by the what "stone bride" .. they have money to bulid a bridge with stone but they didin't make in longer so we can go acros the river next ? Who was making this art ? 10 year old kid ?

[Posbi]

I have no idea how old satananas is.

[Ulquiorra]

I have no idea how old satananas is.

 

Ok i understand that in game some thing can be non-logicly pure design. But seriuslt if they put something like this eceryone abobe 20 years old whoud laugh at it ...

 

Seriusly good art but ... totaly non-logical/ non-realistic design ...

[Lephys]

Politicians.

Cause they already do so with roads.

 

"Hey, lets spend 1 billion to make people get 3 minute faster on their destination"

"Sounds like a great idea!"

Ehh... more like "lets spend 1 billion dollars on this unnecessary road so that the people who've backed my campaign and/or with whom I've got lots of stock can fill that new road with business establishments that will make everyone ultra rich."

 

Very few politicians are very interested in things that don't really benefit them in some way, though some are. But, they usually don't get enough backing to build billion-dollar roads. (I realize "billion" is a bit exaggerated.)

 

Besides, that's mainly modern politicians. Back in the day of dirt roads, no one took it upon themselves to politically send teams of road crews out to course correct dirt roads, or plow down people's houses to build bypasses... especially not on a constant basis. A railroad or something, maybe (although that's a bit past P:E's time), but not just a means of getting through wilderness without needing a machete and 17 spare wagon wheels.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Lephys

[Posbi]

Seriusly good art but ... totaly non-logical/ non-realistic design ...

 

*shrugs* As is the stronghold preview we got.

[Lephys]

*shrug*... If the game doesn't simulate the consequences of illogical design to the point of having us deal with all the specific problems that would arise from such a design, then I'm really not that worried about it, unless it gets ridiculously out-of-hand.

[Ulquiorra]

*shrug*... If the game doesn't simulate the consequences of illogical design to the point of having us deal with all the specific problems that would arise from such a design, then I'm really not that worried about it, unless it gets ridiculously out-of-hand.

 

Stronghold at least looks "accepteble" but previous work that i was refering to ... no...

 

Ok i can uderstand nontlogical line of route, threes and grass in general, stupid looking trolls (but it's my point ow view) .. but this brige ... sigh ...

[Lephys]

Stronghold at least looks "accepteble" but previous work that i was refering to ... no...

 

Ok i can uderstand nontlogical line of route, threes and grass in general, stupid looking trolls (but it's my point ow view) .. but this brige ... sigh ...

I was under the impression that that, as well as the rendering posted before it (with the lake in the center, and the archway?) were simply examples of how BG (or IE game) maps could be redone in a different style. In which case, A) the actual logistical design wasn't the artist's idea (if there was no 2nd bridge in the original, then there's no second bridge in this current one), and B) these were made relatively quickly, and were not at all intended to be finished products.

 

If you can't quickly whip up much better results than that, then there's absolutely no reason to judge someone's creation like that.

 

Also, the difference between you and me is not that I'm going to sit here and argue with you about how logical it definitely is to have only one bridge, but instead that I'm going to ask "why is there only one bridge?" before I actually decide it's stupid. Maybe there's no city/establishment/main road coming from the north/northeast (from across that second body of water), so the only route people are worried about taking has them either coming from the west/southwest, or from the east/southeast, and the only river they care about crossing is that one that's in the image. *shrug*

 

I have no idea. Do you?

[Ulquiorra]

 

Stronghold at least looks "accepteble" but previous work that i was refering to ... no...

 

Ok i can uderstand nontlogical line of route, threes and grass in general, stupid looking trolls (but it's my point ow view) .. but this brige ... sigh ...

I was under the impression that that, as well as the rendering posted before it (with the lake in the center, and the archway?) were simply examples of how BG (or IE game) maps could be redone in a different style. In which case, A) the actual logistical design wasn't the artist's idea (if there was no 2nd bridge in the original, then there's no second bridge in this current one), and B) these were made relatively quickly, and were not at all intended to be finished products.

 

If you can't quickly whip up much better results than that, then there's absolutely no reason to judge someone's creation like that.

 

Also, the difference between you and me is not that I'm going to sit here and argue with you about how logical it definitely is to have only one bridge, but instead that I'm going to ask "why is there only one bridge?" before I actually decide it's stupid. Maybe there's no city/establishment/main road coming from the north/northeast (from across that second body of water), so the only route people are worried about taking has them either coming from the west/southwest, or from the east/southeast, and the only river they care about crossing is that one that's in the image. *shrug*

 

I have no idea. Do you?

 

 

Im not aguing about "artistic vision" with is allway "non-10%-realistic"

 

Im arguing about non-beliveble artistic visions

 

Creating non-beliveble route, bridge or costruction.. for 2d designers is the same for me as creating non-beliveble character in a book ... for me it's non-beliveble ..so lame ...

[Lephys]

I didn't accuse you of arguing about artistic vision. I'm saying that the person who made that was simply trying to make an existing map from an existing game in a different style (with 3D terrain instead of 2D terrain). So, he's not saying "Hey, look, I just sat down and said "Hmm, what would be a really good world-map section to come up with, in a believable world?", then drawing that, and worrying about all the little details that make it believable.

 

For example, the only thing in that bridge shot that's weird to me is how, to the east of the bridge, there seems to be a rather abrupt cliff, with no clear route/road to navigate it. Other than that, it's exactly as I said (that you seem to have ignored?): what if no one CARES about crossing the river to the north because no one LIVES up there? There's a nice stone road to the west, so maybe there's a nice settlement/city/keep over there, and there's a bridge that connects to that eastern landmass below the northern river. So, what if there's a settlement over there, protected on the north by the river? And the only way they care about going at the place where that bridge is built is west, to NiceStoneRoadVille.

 

That seems like a perfectly possible thing, so unless you have information I don't about the specifics of that map/environment, I don't understand why you're saying that it just in no way makes any sense for a river/canyon to exist over which a bridge is not constructed.

[Gorth]

Just a routine check in to see that things stays civil...

[calavicci]

Concerning the shot with the trolls:

 

It might just be that I've been staring at it so long that I can't see it any other way, but the perspective doesn't seem consistent on the land and the water; it feels like I'm looking at the water from directly overhead. I don't feel like I've ever noticed this in any of the art before. Does anybody else see this? Is this perhaps a known thing?

[Silent Winter]

We have a route to the bridge andf under a bridge we have a river .. then why 2 meters far whe have no bridge acros the river part ?

 

It looks horribly non-realitic and stupid to me .. by the what "stone bride" .. they have money to bulid a bridge with stone but they didin't make in longer so we can go acros the river next ? Who was making this art ? 10 year old kid ?

I get the impression that the lower part of the river is far down from the land but the upper (Northern?) part can be easily forded - no need for a bridge if they're not bringing wagons along it.  You can see rocks sticking up so maybe the bottom isn't far down there.

Alternatively - the tower looks like a ruin - perhaps there was once a bridge there (maybe even a simple wooden one) but it was taken down to make it defensive against aggression from the North - the southern bridge would still be needed to bring in supplies / troops (or for retreat).

[satananas]

Well, the scene with the bridge was my first attempt to work with Blender. I'm not the graphic guy. I just wanted to see what is possible with Blender and all the add-ons (and that is a lot). E.g. the bridge is made with the Masonry plug-in in 15 min.

 

And it doesn't need the look realistic at all. It is fantasy, after all... And to make that should be easlier than recreating reality. Because they do not have be perfect. And should not be perfect. Because I don't want to rebuild our would. I want to create something new.  And you can do things that are not possible in reality. Like in a cartoon.

 

I like bright, saturated colors. And you can even find those colors in reality. Just search for "emerald lake" or "painted desert" in google.

 

I 'm not sure yet. Maybe my next approach is to create an indoor area like a dungeon.

[igorina]

Posting Blender images is a great opportunity to make a little suggestion. As i mentioned before, PE art from this topic looks very photorealistic as far. To me - even too photorealistic. Satananas' images from the other hand, look too vivd and intense. These also have too sharp edges.

So my suggestion is to make environments sth between totally realistic and definitely unrealistic. It may be shown in colors (little more vibrant than they are now), shapes, plants (various types of plants, that don't exist in real world), etc but also in art style. I enjoy concept arts very much. I don't expect the game to look that much cartoonish, but it would be awesome to implement a bit from that beautiful, oldschool style.
I think, that adding light in future will change the look of areas a lot.

About trees - in both cases it is easy to find same tree pasted multiple times. I don't know if final work changes the appearance of trees and makes same model unrecognizable or not. If not, then it would be good to use more various tree/plant models.

There is one more thing, that makes PE areas look a bit weird to me, it is grass. Having in mind proportions - it looks like well maintained lawn.

It would be nice to see one of areas above in final version, to compare how much final painting changes the effect. I think it will push away most of concerns

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

[...] PE art from this topic looks very photorealistic as far. To me - even too photorealistic. [...]

While I respect your opinion, I can't help but imagine PE with WoW/DoTA/LoL/D3 graphics. And this hurts me sooo bad.

Not because the visual style used in these games is bad, quite to the contrary, but it just doesn't mix well with what PE is is trying to achieve as a spiritual successor to the old IE games. It would be like Necronomicon printed in Comic Sans... On a vanilla scented, pink paper... With a robed Fabio on the cover.

 

I'm glad Obsidian is pushing for a conservative visual design with this game.

 

[gnappoman]

Hello,

that isn't art, it is too flat. This is art

 

thus not being perfect, it gives you something, it is "warmer" , and returns an ambient style.

 

The following is art too

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

I love how you simply divide things into flat objects and art.

[Azrayel]

I love how you simply divide things into flat objects and art.

iK,r?

 

I'd say I've seen some pretty flat art in my day; lots of paintings at the US National Gallery, for instance   still, I get what he's saying, even if it's simplistic and I wouldn't say you can disqualify anything as "art" so easily as it lacking a component one would prefer.

 

 

It's like when people propogate the delusion of binary gender!

[gnappoman]

flat emotionally, trolls

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

Hmmm, *emotionally* flat? Call me naive but I think Satananas did quite a brave thing here: he had an idea, he created something to express it, he showed it to us and took all the harsh critique very calmly. If only every *artist* did that. I kinda admire him for that, good sir.

It's not about his 3d models being good or bad - usually it is by making mistakes we learn how not to make them. Satananas made his first step in 3d modelling and I hope he'll make another (bearing in mind our advice and opinions), maybe someday he'll become another Hector Espinoza? It's easy to say "that's not art" and discourage everyone from doing basically anything. It's a bit harder to provide some constructive comments. You consider his images flat and thus devoid of emotion, I'm cool with that. What I don't agree with is "this isn't art, it's too flat". Deciding what is art and what isn't is a slippery slope I think it would be slightly less dickish and more productive to say "hey, your images look flat, what I think would help add some depth to them is..." 

But hey, who'd listen to a troll.