The anatomy point is pretty moot. What are character artists know for, what is the single most important aspect of figure drawing, character design, etc?
I'll give you one guess, it sure as hell isn't ballistic properties.
So when creating character work, there is not one single aspect more important than anatomy.
Now, when you consider designing something mechanical for a video game, what are your first concerns?
1. Does it look awesome, and does it fit the style of my game?
2. Is this something we could expect to reasonably execute with our engine/tech.
3. Does it appear functional, and menacing(if required to)?
4. Will these be able to animate/work with any sort of interactive systems(opening doors etc).
5. Maybe somewhere around here you start to question weather this is realisticly feasble. Well down the line of priorities for most sane individuals.
[edit]Just off the top of my head btw. Here is another one, that would be placed well above 5.
Are the details of the concept placed in a position where the player will actually see them?
"Incoming projectiles ricochet when they hit armour" is a concept that has been true since armour's first use in warfare. Even old plate mail is designed in such a way as to direct projectiles AWAY from the user. etc etc.
Look, there are many different approaches to design, and boogotti took a fairly realistic one. He mimics the feel of real world designs while adding in a design aesthetic that overpowers the functional aspects. That is a perfectly valid thing to do, because he wanted to make a cool tank, not a cool ultra realistic tank.
There are many aims in concepting, and making realistic things is only one of them. The key is mostly to find the blend between realistic and aesthetic in order to make a nice looking concept that doesn't read as complete bullshit.
Your analogy with anatomy is inaccurate, because you're talking about the specific visual languages of two different subjects: humanoid characters and military vehicles. Just as an orc with proper anatomy has the right anatomical features drawn in, boogoti's tank has all the right vehicle features. He's got boxes, panels, plates, treads, and such, and the final product reads wonderfully as a tank of some sort. Criticizing design features in his tank would be akin to saying, "Well that "ork" is bullshit. Those teeth are clearly evolutionarily and functionally impractical, and it's impossible to have skin that bright green because of biochemical blah blah blah."
Are those valid crits? Absolutely, orks are total bullshit, but we can all dig a good drawing or model of one without complaining about it. And compared to orks boogotti's tank is a much more reasonable design.
In short you're right, but you're nitpicking where nitpicking is not due.
If anyone could read, they'd realise I'm actually not calling his design invalid or stupid in any way. You might also notice I tried to deliver it in a way that was very clear I was only talking about the technical side. He didnt have to use any of what I said, but I put it out there because I would expect the same level of consideration in any feedback on my own work, be it from a technical or an aesthetic viewpoint.
I offered something for him to consider, and the reason I offered it was because this is a place where people discuss things. I didn't attack anyone yet people felt a need to "retalliate" to what I said. Is it only cool to say things if theyre the same as what everyone else thinks, or something?
not trying to be an asshole here but the armour is really poorly designed. The sloping would bounce incoming HEAT into the ground under the tank rather than away from it, and the back of the thing has a fucking epic shot funnel which would completely fuck the turret. Apart from that it has a pretty massive horizon profile with no apparant means to defend itself from frontal attack. Put it this way, if someone can design a tank which is smaller, and attack head-on, it's all over because the actual hull blocks the gun from firing down at it, if you get me. It's a great model but an ill-considered design imo.
Just from a technical standpoint.
Sorry, couldn't decide on which one I preffered. I'm a sucker for cats.
Well, you called his design poor of coarse you prefaced that with "I don't want to be an asshole"
C'mon you've gotta be at least a little bit of gear head/tank fan.
I wouldn't compare your crits to anatomy crits, it's more like saying the Orc's war hammer is too large to be a good weapon, an actual war hammer looks more like a claw hammer with a longer haft because they are design as puncturing weapons, not bludgeons (and they look really silly and non-threatening)
I offered something for him to consider, and the reason I offered it was because this is a place where people discuss things. I didn't attack anyone yet people felt a need to "retalliate" to what I said. Is it only cool to say things if theyre the same as what everyone else thinks, or something?
You don't need to say anything negative in order for people to rile people up. In this case we've got a pimpass concept, and the entire aim of his concepting and modelling flies right over your head and you go into technical minutia that is actually completely moot.
We draw cool shit. We model cool shit. We know it's not realistic, and we don't give a damn. Because it is cool shit.
Your attitude would render all of our cool shit conceptually crappy, and we're not so keen on that.:poly124: You know, it's just one of those sentiments that doesn't have much place in most model/concept threads; It just defeats the purpose of the entire endeavour.
Your attitude would render all of our cool shit conceptually crappy, and we're not so keen on that.:poly124: You know, it's just one of those sentiments that doesn't have much place in most model/concept threads; It just defeats the purpose of the entire endeavour.
have you ever tried to actually go with form and function equally?
How can you just claim that for anything to be plausible it has to look like shit? same for the guy who made the claw hammer comment. It just comes off as ignorant.
Just explain to me by what authority you make this claim.
Harry, you pull the "oh so anyone who has a different opinion is wrong" card and then continually insinuate people who disagree with you are stupid with your comments.
and honestly, your post history shows that your a mil-tech-nerd with a persecution complex anytime someone says "that's just nit-picking" you act like someone kicked down the door and threw a bag over your head.
[/I'm not trying to be an asshole]
see my tags, that means you can't get mad, neener neener
Until someone can actually give me a reason why functionality = horrible aesthetics invariably, idea-xenophobia is all i've got to go with as far as understanding your arguments.
it doesnt, but it does lead to things looking similar or having only a few variations. look at nature to see different species evolve the same way or wildly different industrial designs converging as the best/better design becomes clear. ignoring this allows greater variation and also drama and aesthetic to give our images more meaning to people that dont think alot about tanks
Nobody said functionality = horrible aesthetics, Harry. I don't know where you're getting that from.
What people did say is that in our line of work, aesthetics > functionality in most cases. Not everyone is making a 100% realism-based shooter, and there is actually more at stake than the purely functional a lot of the time.
Something worth bearing in mind is that, for example, if I make a spaceship I might put huge jet engines and air intakes on it, even though i know perfectly well they will be useless in space. It's a style and design decision made by the artist (note that I'm not calling anyone an industrial designer or anything else - art is what we do).
Partly why this is done is to give the audience a perception of what the device is actually meant to be, using simple visual cues that they can understand and make a connection with, even if they actually stopped and thought for a minute they'd realise it doesn't really make sense.
You'll notice a lot of professional sci-fi illustrators and designers routinely do this (look at Star Wars ships, for example - classic and great designs which actually don't make all that much sense if you stop and think about it), but the point of the design is to allow the audience to draw a parallel with something in the real world without the item in question actually being a carbon copy of the real world thing.
So sure, it's entirely possible to make stuff that looks cool and still "technically functional" (in fact I love to do that sort of thing, I do think if you pull it off right it can really add to the quality of the end result), but while I understand this, I routinely ignore it because it is faster, more fun, and often far more visually interesting to make something that has little to no practical function.
Nobody said functionality = horrible aesthetics, Harry.
Your attitude would render all of our cool shit conceptually crappy,
it is faster, more fun, and often far more visually interesting to make something that has little to no practical function.
If you wanna talk about what people never said, I never said everyone should think the way I do. I offered some advice to Boogotti (which he apparently appreciated) and I was attacked for it. I defended my viewpoint because I think it's just as valid as yours.
I'd also like to clarify that, if he'd said in the thread that he was only going for looks I wouldn't have touched it. Because of how his work presented (ie, featuring plenty of real world features) and the fact that he said he was open to all criticism, I gave my opinion.
So far you have actually failed to acknowledge or even try to come to terms with anything anyone here has said, it seems like you're just ignoring everyone and furiously fighting a defensive that you have thrown yourself into?
Looking at your post history, you come off as quite a troll. Having one post of valid (if badly worded) critique in a hundred posts of flaming, swearing vitriol is indicating to me that if you keep this up you will be looking at a temporary ban until you calm down.
So far you have actually failed to acknowledge or even try to come to terms with anything anyone here has said, it seems like you're just ignoring everyone and furiously fighting a defensive that you have thrown yourself into?
I feel the same way about "the other side" of this argument, which makes me think there's some kind of miscommunication going on.
I don't care about the banning shit. I'd prefer to work this out but if youre prepared to mention it this early on then I don't know how much point there is. This happens almost every time, I'll make a crit, everyone but the actual person it was intended for will tell me how wrong I am, I'll defend myself like anybody would, and I'm labelled a troll.
and I'm pretty sure i did acknowledge your points. Boogotti still hasn't indicated to me that my input was un wanted. In fact quite the opposite was conveyed to me via PM when i apologised to him for the state his thread descended into.
have you ever tried to actually go with form and function equally?
How can you just claim that for anything to be plausible it has to look like shit? same for the guy who made the claw hammer comment. It just comes off as ignorant.
Just explain to me by what authority you make this claim.
He makes the claim by authority of being a professional, respected artist who has spent many more years of his life developing his skill as an artist. Seriously what the hell is this bullshit, do you heckle people in OTHER professions for not doing things wrong?
The reason you get ignored and they get respect is because they do this successfully as professionals, you would get the same reaction if you started arguing with a doctor over medicine.
Have you considered that it might be your writing style? Even just a little?
And you say this happens to you a lot? So if you write a post and 10 people get annoyed at it, do you think it's them who are foolish, or could it be that you are presenting your opinions in a fashion that annoys more easily than most?
Seriously, how come we have thousands of regular posters (and lurkers, and first-timers) who happily make posts, recieve feedback, give critique, tell jokes, and everyone gets along fine... yet somehow whenever you make a post, lots and lots of people get pissed off?
Doesn't that make you suspect even the slightest bit that it might be you who is the cause of the problem, not everyone else?
He makes the claim by authority of being a professional, respected artist who has spent many more years of his life developing his skill as an artist. Seriously what the hell is this bullshit, do you heckle people in OTHER professions for not doing things wrong?
That's what I find strange, I didn't tell anyone they were doing anything wrong,
The reason you get ignored and they get respect is because they do this successfully as professionals, you would get the same reaction if you started arguing with a doctor over medicine.
But it's not the same, I think his model looked great and told him so in the first post. I was offering an alternative viewpoint, and he's still not indicated to me that it was unwanted or uncalled for.
Have you considered that it might be your writing style? Even just a little?
And you say this happens to you a lot? So if you write a post and 10 people get annoyed at it, do you think it's them who are foolish, or could it be that you are presenting your opinions in a fashion that annoys more easily than most?
Seriously, how come we have thousands of regular posters (and lurkers, and first-timers) who happily make posts, recieve feedback, give critique, tell jokes, and everyone gets along fine... yet somehow whenever you make a post, lots and lots of people get pissed off?
Doesn't that make you suspect even the slightest bit that it might be you who is the cause of the problem, not everyone else?
Of course I recognise that the way I think about things doesn't always sit well with people. But I don't think I do anything warranting the flame i get. I've never told anyone anything they did was wrong, I try to offer completely technical crits because aesthetics are very much subjective and what I think might "look cool" would be different to what someone else does, most likely.
Yes, that is understandable. I totally appreciate where you are coming from with your crits - I agree with them for the most part, to be honest.
However I have to point out that the way you present your critique is often by no means polite or well thought out. It often sounds more like a harsh beat-down than a constructive critique with improvement in mind.
I am not dropping the ban-hammer on anyone, I always keep that as a very last resort. I would just like to ask you to please be considerate when writing your posts. Read over them once or twice before you click the post button, try to take it easy on the swearing (since it usually makes stuff sound more aggressive than constructive even if you mean it with the best intent), and generally try a little harder to be polite.
Also, do not react vehemently to every single post. I'm sure you've had enough practice at this by now to realise when someone is not going to change their mind - it is often futile to just post a back-handed comment in argument against an opinion. Most of the time it is better to simply keep your mouth shut and hope that the critique you gave will be taken in good will.
its not thinking that gets you in trouble its expressing, you seam like a passionate guy, which is good as an artist, but you tend to "lay down the law" a bit in your posts, and then defend that quite aggresively.
I dont have a problem with any of Harrys posts, actually I sometimes post in the same "tone" as him as well, and see many others do the same. He never expected the guy to know all about tanks, he just threw in his opinion about the technical side of things, you can take it or leave it but I dont get why so many people get angry seeing it. Its not like he was personally attacking the artist.
I dont see that much swearing in his posts either.
That's absolutely not my intent. The reason I always fill my posts of that kind with disclaimers, is because people tend to instantly assume I'm being all high and mighty just because I'm talking about a technical issue. I don't expect anyone to know/care/listen to what I say, but I put it out there because I feel it's something I can add to the discussion, whether the artist applies it or not - It's still something to think about even if only for some mental stimulation.
The other advantage is that technicalities often get you thinking in different ways. It kind of kicks you out of your "comfort zone" when you're designing something and can sometimes heed interesting results.
These are the reasons I make these posts. I'm not intending to troll anyone.
And yeah if the swearing thing is a problem I can easilly alter that. I didnt realise it was an issue.
i totally agree, i really try to blend fantasy and reality to come up with new and interesting idea's and some times pulling a wild design back with a touch of real world helps things no-end, but you should present this as opinion, not as fact, because this is where the subjectivity lies. and if people disagree with you let them.
shepeiro hit the nail on the head there, i think - if people want to disagree, let them
and i think that brings this particular spin-off sub-thread ranting fest to an end, let's hear no more about it and hope everything proceeds smoothly from here!
anyone trying to flame this thread on this issue anymore will have their post deleted, so don't bother.
of course if you have a valid point for the "doing it wrong" thing, go for it, i think there's enough wrongdoing in here so far as it is
I think it'd be good to keep discussing the general idea of sci vs. fi or form vs. function and how they relate to one another, like, put all the conflict aside because i'm sure this could be a constructive and insightful discussion, I'm pretty sure thats what EQ was trying to set up.
I would like to encourage people to post in-depth descriptions of their work-flow, this could be any number of things. Various people will then tell you why what you're doing is terribly wrong, how they would do it, or tell you to never even think about doing it again.
I reckon Harry and all replies have nailed the thread.
I think it'd be good to keep discussing the general idea of sci vs. fi or form vs. function and how they relate to one another, like, put all the conflict aside because i'm sure this could be a constructive and insightful discussion, I'm pretty sure thats what EQ was trying to set up.
Yeah absolutely, after the name calling flares down i think you can get some pretty great information from virtually every argument on polycount, well aside from the ones in GD atleast.
Now along these lines, lets try a different direction with this.
Harry, would you mind outlining your throught process a bit when you start a model? I think it would be good just to document what sort of level of research you do, where you're finding your references, because i think in a lot of cases people just do not know where to look to find accurate information. You see it a lot with people modeling a gun from like, 1 view, when i'm sure there are over 9000 views of that gun somewhere on the internet.
Idk, it really depends on the subject matter. Sometimes it's cool for a project to be a valid documentation of some history or another, maybe because history is one of my obsessions, and because of this I'm a very sad case for not finishing stuff because there's uncertainty in how it actually looks etc...
With weapons which are specifically mechanical, and similar stuff, I'll always gather as much reference material as I can - I've even paid owners of weapons to photograph them for me - I also email collectors and museums and stuff if information is scarce, like when I made an F1.
(btw I've chucked up all the refs that I've had taken exclusively for me, as well as some items of soviet uniform I own which i took photos of myself, if anyone's interested. It's not much but you wont find them anywhere else online) For tanks and vehicles I usually look around for plastic model kits as they help you get a better idea of the prescence of the thing. I guess I take a traditional art standpoint that you should know as much as you can about what you're trying to depict. Maybe I read too much of Da Vinci's journals. With historic characters I'll usually download some Osprey books and look through them as they are quite reliable.
With "fantasy" type things, I'll always ground them in some reality and try to give them some thought. I guess you could say I do it for the lulz - a kind of tip of the hat to anyone who would notice something like that. For example I did zombie hitler for a game artist comp (which as usual i never submitted) and made quite sure I got the uniform correct etc...
So yeah, I wouldn't say im totally crazy on the technicalities, but, I feel like if you gain a fuller understanding of what you do, you're less likely to produce something that's derivative of existing game art or something. Like, If you have the building blocks and understand WHY something looked or worked or dressed the way it did, you can take these core concepts and construct something quite plausible. Take like, Lord of the Rings or something as an example (purely because everybody has some grip on the concept)
Things like diplomacy, cultures and their reactions to other cultures, military structure (ie nobility being mounted and all that jazz) is all lifted directly from reality, but with a fantasy spin. Tolkien took these stripped down concepts and built a world with them in mind, and it all adds layers to the thing and beefs it up and makes it more believable and gives it some depth.
In the same way, if youre designing, lets say, a soldier in some fantasy army. Things you could consider which would effect your design and give it some depth, would be imagining things like supply, ie, is there a sick supply train constantly fuelling this guy? if so, he wouldnt be carrying a whole lot on him in combat. Or is he a mountain troop partisan type guy, who would carry *everything* around with him? Is he part of a unit, does that unit need to be easilly identified in the field? does the unit have any traditions (for example red berets or we silly australians wearing akubras) The more you look into stuff and understand things, the more inspiration you have to draw on in creating something that is really "good," - and, I guess my definition of good art direction, is something that fits into its world perfectly, not only visually, but conceptually.
I think another side of this, that a few may have touched on is creating a concept that is so outlandishly impractical, that mearly seeing it in a realistic environment gives this great surreal sense, something that can be very cool in the right setting.
I think a great example of this would be spider tanks, i mean really, think about it. A tank with legs? Could you possibly design something that would be easier to immobilise? But there they are, shining becons of totally awesome visual design.
Here's some of dfacto's concepts to prove my point.
But, looking at the uppermost example, it SEEMS like he has a fairly solid understanding of modern armour (i can see subtle references to several vehicles in the design) and to me it looks considered. To be sure we'd have to find out what his process was when creating it.
(Having said that it actually looks like he's put thrusters all over it, maybe its just as much an aircraft as it is a ground fighting vehicle, its light armament also suggests it's some kind of recon vehicle, which also supports the idea that it might have some limited flight or "hopping" capability. I guess we gotta ask him)
Yes, I tend to put some thought into my designs, mostly because I get a big kick out of placing them into imaginary scenarios as I make sci-fi sounds with my mouth.
In the case of the spider-tank I envisioned it as an armed scout of some sort, as you guessed, tasked with recon on remote moons, asteroids, and low gravity environments. What you can't see is that the bottom of the design is actually a big hole for a thruster with smaller thruster holes ringing it, which makes the whole design sort of a sci-fi version of the lunar lander. I took lots of visual cues from existing military designs and tried to make it look hard tech because that's just a style I really enjoy. Throw in some ambiguous weaponry/optics and a crewman flipping off the sky and there you go.
And there' nothing wrong with the way I did it. Or the way boogotti did it, or the way anyone else does it, as long as they apply the proper touch to the design. In fact one of my favoite designer, Kow Yokoyama, has an incredibly consistent range of models that all occupy one world, and I love them even though most are brutishly ugly.
Really, the holy grail of design for me is not so much aesthetics as it is internal consistency. If we're talking about aesthetics then everything would be graceful curving lines and golden rations and that stuff, but what about cheesy Flash Gordon pop-sci, or valve-clusterfuck steampunk designs, or plain old ugly military gear? So much can be excused by simply creating a consistent world, or on a smaller scale a consistent design. This is best evidences by cartoon characters where the internal consistency makes the user forget that they're looking at a horribly deformed demon spawn.
Your approach is the more meticulous, and creates a world more in line with the real one. But other approaches don't seek to emulate the real world any further than to allow the user to understand what they're looking at through use of common visual cues. There's no right or wrong, only personal preference. Attempting to drag concepts with another design intent towards your own preferential method is pointless.
In the case of the spider-tank I envisioned it as an armed scout of some sort, as you guessed, tasked with recon on remote moons, asteroids, and low gravity environments.
Wow, I pulled a sick one.
I'll answer these out of sequence 'cause It makes more sense that way
Your approach is the more meticulous, and creates a world more in line with the real one. But other approaches don't seek to emulate the real world any further than to allow the user to understand what they're looking at through use of common visual cues. There's no right or wrong, only personal preference. Attempting to drag concepts with another design intent towards your own preferential method is pointless.
At the risk of stirring that argument up again, I'll just say once more I never said anything about right and wrong. Either I'm not conveying my intent properly, or people aren't reading what I actually write.
Really, the holy grail of design for me is not so much aesthetics as it is internal consistency. If we're talking about aesthetics then everything would be graceful curving lines and golden rations and that stuff, but what about cheesy Flash Gordon pop-sci, or valve-clusterfuck steampunk designs, or plain old ugly military gear? So much can be excused by simply creating a consistent world, or on a smaller scale a consistent design. This is best evidences by cartoon characters where the internal consistency makes the user forget that they're looking at a horribly deformed demon spawn.
See, I 100% agree with this, and It's in fact exactly what I meant when I mentioned "good" design/art direction.
The problem with a single asset is that there isn't really any context to see it in, and the author hadn't made hints as to what his intention really was, so I just threw an opinion into the mix. Again I stress, I wasn't suggesting anything was "right or wrong"
I think that i mimic your workflow when designing stuff too, but perhaps with less technical knowledge, i will look at current designs, and future design concepts to get a feel for how something works or doesnt in the realworld and apply that to a fanatasy concept, like flying walking tanks, but then comes that tricky part of marrying these together and balancing between coolness and real possibilities, choosing where to drop reality or use it to bolster the design can lead to drastically different outcomes. and sometimes your lucky when the fantasy and reality sit perfectly together, perhaps it isnt luck but good design....
... but id say good or optimal design still leads to fewer possibilities. while doing stuff for aesthetic pleasntries allows for huge variation,. im going to make a (bad) comparisson here, look at how the aiviation industry started out, loads of variation and cool designs, freaky outlandish ones and look at it now, where there is very little variation. while look at a purely aesthetic or subjective based industry like Painting or music making, huge variation and getting more and more. in fact every possibility is usually explored by someone.
one interesting thing to think about is who this is aimed at, Harry spotted things that i would say most wouldnt have noticed or cared about, im still not sure what you meant by one of your crits on the tank, cos i couldnt work out the issue, therefore the design totally stood upfor me in this area but not for you.
At the risk of stirring that argument up again, I'll just say once more I never said anything about right and wrong. Either I'm not conveying my intent properly, or people aren't reading what I actually write.
"Critique" is just a constructive way to tell someone they're doing it wrong.
The problem with a single asset is that there isn't really any context to see it in, and the author hadn't made hints as to what his intention really was, so I just threw an opinion into the mix. Again I stress, I wasn't suggesting anything was "right or wrong"
Style, detailing, feel; it's all cohesive and you "get" the concept in a single glance. In fact I'd say this is the great concept because you can use it to spin off a whole miniature world relating to it. Most of Keith Thompson's artwork is like that.
Boogatti's tank is a bit muddled at first glance on whether it's an amphibious tank, or a battle tank, or an APC, but in terms of detail and style it was crystal clear, at least to me: near future pseudo sci-fi military vehicle. Also known as: standard concepting fare.
Style, detailing, feel; it's all cohesive and you "get" the concept in a single glance. In fact I'd say this is the great concept because you can use it to spin off a whole miniature world relating to it. Most of Keith Thompson's artwork is like that.
While that's true, I couldn't really tell (and tbh still can't) if boogotti was going for something plausible by modern or near-future standards, or something completely in the realm of fantasy.
If i look at that mortar it's apparent straight away, likewise with your spider recon thing, you can see it, and say "okay, it's a tank with legs, so legged tanks are fair game, can assume that to be integral to the design, what crits can be made while still maintaining the context"
Whereas with boogotti's, I'd say it was a much harder call as to whether the upward sloping panel was a core feature of what he wanted to design, or an ill-placed reference to the BMP series or similar. Like, there was reasonable doubt as to whether he placed it intentionally, and whether he would be opposed to crits from a technical standpoint.
And I disagree about critique being another way to tell people they're doing it wrong. Like, disagree quite strongly. More than once, I've made input which you could call "critique" even when I didn't actually think it would look better or be better in any other way. I recognise that everyone looks for something different, so I offer comments when I feel it's a viewpoint that hasn't yet - and mightn't in the forseeable future - be presented.
That way, the artist has as much material as he can get to draw from or discard. I don't think boogotti "should" change anything about his design. I like to present anything I feel that I can contribute, any resource a peer could draw from, because I would expect the same of you, my peers.
Replies
I'll give you one guess, it sure as hell isn't ballistic properties.
So when creating character work, there is not one single aspect more important than anatomy.
Now, when you consider designing something mechanical for a video game, what are your first concerns?
1. Does it look awesome, and does it fit the style of my game?
2. Is this something we could expect to reasonably execute with our engine/tech.
3. Does it appear functional, and menacing(if required to)?
4. Will these be able to animate/work with any sort of interactive systems(opening doors etc).
5. Maybe somewhere around here you start to question weather this is realisticly feasble. Well down the line of priorities for most sane individuals.
[edit]Just off the top of my head btw. Here is another one, that would be placed well above 5.
Are the details of the concept placed in a position where the player will actually see them?
etc, i could go on and on
Look, there are many different approaches to design, and boogotti took a fairly realistic one. He mimics the feel of real world designs while adding in a design aesthetic that overpowers the functional aspects. That is a perfectly valid thing to do, because he wanted to make a cool tank, not a cool ultra realistic tank.
There are many aims in concepting, and making realistic things is only one of them. The key is mostly to find the blend between realistic and aesthetic in order to make a nice looking concept that doesn't read as complete bullshit.
Your analogy with anatomy is inaccurate, because you're talking about the specific visual languages of two different subjects: humanoid characters and military vehicles. Just as an orc with proper anatomy has the right anatomical features drawn in, boogoti's tank has all the right vehicle features. He's got boxes, panels, plates, treads, and such, and the final product reads wonderfully as a tank of some sort. Criticizing design features in his tank would be akin to saying, "Well that "ork" is bullshit. Those teeth are clearly evolutionarily and functionally impractical, and it's impossible to have skin that bright green because of biochemical blah blah blah."
Are those valid crits? Absolutely, orks are total bullshit, but we can all dig a good drawing or model of one without complaining about it. And compared to orks boogotti's tank is a much more reasonable design.
In short you're right, but you're nitpicking where nitpicking is not due.
lol lol that made me laugh my nuts off:D!!
Entertaining thread.
Nice work boogotti. The only thing I'd like to see more work on would be those rectangles for treads. Everything else is very cool.
I offered something for him to consider, and the reason I offered it was because this is a place where people discuss things. I didn't attack anyone yet people felt a need to "retalliate" to what I said. Is it only cool to say things if theyre the same as what everyone else thinks, or something?
Sorry, couldn't decide on which one I preffered. I'm a sucker for cats.
C'mon you've gotta be at least a little bit of gear head/tank fan.
I wouldn't compare your crits to anatomy crits, it's more like saying the Orc's war hammer is too large to be a good weapon, an actual war hammer looks more like a claw hammer with a longer haft because they are design as puncturing weapons, not bludgeons (and they look really silly and non-threatening)
You don't need to say anything negative in order for people to rile people up. In this case we've got a pimpass concept, and the entire aim of his concepting and modelling flies right over your head and you go into technical minutia that is actually completely moot.
We draw cool shit. We model cool shit. We know it's not realistic, and we don't give a damn. Because it is cool shit.
Your attitude would render all of our cool shit conceptually crappy, and we're not so keen on that.:poly124: You know, it's just one of those sentiments that doesn't have much place in most model/concept threads; It just defeats the purpose of the entire endeavour.
have you ever tried to actually go with form and function equally?
How can you just claim that for anything to be plausible it has to look like shit? same for the guy who made the claw hammer comment. It just comes off as ignorant.
Just explain to me by what authority you make this claim.
Harry, you pull the "oh so anyone who has a different opinion is wrong" card and then continually insinuate people who disagree with you are stupid with your comments.
and honestly, your post history shows that your a mil-tech-nerd with a persecution complex anytime someone says "that's just nit-picking" you act like someone kicked down the door and threw a bag over your head.
[/I'm not trying to be an asshole]
see my tags, that means you can't get mad, neener neener
edit- make a thread, just curious
and you call me ignorant, lulz
aniceto, what was my attitude
What people did say is that in our line of work, aesthetics > functionality in most cases. Not everyone is making a 100% realism-based shooter, and there is actually more at stake than the purely functional a lot of the time.
Something worth bearing in mind is that, for example, if I make a spaceship I might put huge jet engines and air intakes on it, even though i know perfectly well they will be useless in space. It's a style and design decision made by the artist (note that I'm not calling anyone an industrial designer or anything else - art is what we do).
Partly why this is done is to give the audience a perception of what the device is actually meant to be, using simple visual cues that they can understand and make a connection with, even if they actually stopped and thought for a minute they'd realise it doesn't really make sense.
You'll notice a lot of professional sci-fi illustrators and designers routinely do this (look at Star Wars ships, for example - classic and great designs which actually don't make all that much sense if you stop and think about it), but the point of the design is to allow the audience to draw a parallel with something in the real world without the item in question actually being a carbon copy of the real world thing.
So sure, it's entirely possible to make stuff that looks cool and still "technically functional" (in fact I love to do that sort of thing, I do think if you pull it off right it can really add to the quality of the end result), but while I understand this, I routinely ignore it because it is faster, more fun, and often far more visually interesting to make something that has little to no practical function.
Do you get it yet?
If you wanna talk about what people never said, I never said everyone should think the way I do. I offered some advice to Boogotti (which he apparently appreciated) and I was attacked for it. I defended my viewpoint because I think it's just as valid as yours.
I'd also like to clarify that, if he'd said in the thread that he was only going for looks I wouldn't have touched it. Because of how his work presented (ie, featuring plenty of real world features) and the fact that he said he was open to all criticism, I gave my opinion.
I was also going to ask him to do this. I would just be curious to see what his stuff looks like, from this post of his.
Makes me curious to see what conceptual 3D looks like with equal regard for form and function.
Looking at your post history, you come off as quite a troll. Having one post of valid (if badly worded) critique in a hundred posts of flaming, swearing vitriol is indicating to me that if you keep this up you will be looking at a temporary ban until you calm down.
Understood?
I feel the same way about "the other side" of this argument, which makes me think there's some kind of miscommunication going on.
I don't care about the banning shit. I'd prefer to work this out but if youre prepared to mention it this early on then I don't know how much point there is. This happens almost every time, I'll make a crit, everyone but the actual person it was intended for will tell me how wrong I am, I'll defend myself like anybody would, and I'm labelled a troll.
and I'm pretty sure i did acknowledge your points. Boogotti still hasn't indicated to me that my input was un wanted. In fact quite the opposite was conveyed to me via PM when i apologised to him for the state his thread descended into.
He makes the claim by authority of being a professional, respected artist who has spent many more years of his life developing his skill as an artist. Seriously what the hell is this bullshit, do you heckle people in OTHER professions for not doing things wrong?
The reason you get ignored and they get respect is because they do this successfully as professionals, you would get the same reaction if you started arguing with a doctor over medicine.
And you say this happens to you a lot? So if you write a post and 10 people get annoyed at it, do you think it's them who are foolish, or could it be that you are presenting your opinions in a fashion that annoys more easily than most?
Seriously, how come we have thousands of regular posters (and lurkers, and first-timers) who happily make posts, recieve feedback, give critique, tell jokes, and everyone gets along fine... yet somehow whenever you make a post, lots and lots of people get pissed off?
Doesn't that make you suspect even the slightest bit that it might be you who is the cause of the problem, not everyone else?
That's what I find strange, I didn't tell anyone they were doing anything wrong,
But it's not the same, I think his model looked great and told him so in the first post. I was offering an alternative viewpoint, and he's still not indicated to me that it was unwanted or uncalled for.
Of course I recognise that the way I think about things doesn't always sit well with people. But I don't think I do anything warranting the flame i get. I've never told anyone anything they did was wrong, I try to offer completely technical crits because aesthetics are very much subjective and what I think might "look cool" would be different to what someone else does, most likely.
However I have to point out that the way you present your critique is often by no means polite or well thought out. It often sounds more like a harsh beat-down than a constructive critique with improvement in mind.
I am not dropping the ban-hammer on anyone, I always keep that as a very last resort. I would just like to ask you to please be considerate when writing your posts. Read over them once or twice before you click the post button, try to take it easy on the swearing (since it usually makes stuff sound more aggressive than constructive even if you mean it with the best intent), and generally try a little harder to be polite.
Also, do not react vehemently to every single post. I'm sure you've had enough practice at this by now to realise when someone is not going to change their mind - it is often futile to just post a back-handed comment in argument against an opinion. Most of the time it is better to simply keep your mouth shut and hope that the critique you gave will be taken in good will.
Does that sound like something you can manage?
Edit: EraserHead posted a perfect example of a post containing valid critique without sounding aggressive or arrogant.
People generally have to demonstrate a lot of art skill before anyone tolerates b1ll/per douchery in posting style.
I dont see that much swearing in his posts either.
That's absolutely not my intent. The reason I always fill my posts of that kind with disclaimers, is because people tend to instantly assume I'm being all high and mighty just because I'm talking about a technical issue. I don't expect anyone to know/care/listen to what I say, but I put it out there because I feel it's something I can add to the discussion, whether the artist applies it or not - It's still something to think about even if only for some mental stimulation.
The other advantage is that technicalities often get you thinking in different ways. It kind of kicks you out of your "comfort zone" when you're designing something and can sometimes heed interesting results.
These are the reasons I make these posts. I'm not intending to troll anyone.
And yeah if the swearing thing is a problem I can easilly alter that. I didnt realise it was an issue.
and i think that brings this particular spin-off sub-thread ranting fest to an end, let's hear no more about it and hope everything proceeds smoothly from here!
anyone trying to flame this thread on this issue anymore will have their post deleted, so don't bother.
of course if you have a valid point for the "doing it wrong" thing, go for it, i think there's enough wrongdoing in here so far as it is
I reckon Harry and all replies have nailed the thread.
Yeah absolutely, after the name calling flares down i think you can get some pretty great information from virtually every argument on polycount, well aside from the ones in GD atleast.
Now along these lines, lets try a different direction with this.
Harry, would you mind outlining your throught process a bit when you start a model? I think it would be good just to document what sort of level of research you do, where you're finding your references, because i think in a lot of cases people just do not know where to look to find accurate information. You see it a lot with people modeling a gun from like, 1 view, when i'm sure there are over 9000 views of that gun somewhere on the internet.
With weapons which are specifically mechanical, and similar stuff, I'll always gather as much reference material as I can - I've even paid owners of weapons to photograph them for me - I also email collectors and museums and stuff if information is scarce, like when I made an F1.
(btw I've chucked up all the refs that I've had taken exclusively for me, as well as some items of soviet uniform I own which i took photos of myself, if anyone's interested. It's not much but you wont find them anywhere else online) For tanks and vehicles I usually look around for plastic model kits as they help you get a better idea of the prescence of the thing. I guess I take a traditional art standpoint that you should know as much as you can about what you're trying to depict. Maybe I read too much of Da Vinci's journals. With historic characters I'll usually download some Osprey books and look through them as they are quite reliable.
With "fantasy" type things, I'll always ground them in some reality and try to give them some thought. I guess you could say I do it for the lulz - a kind of tip of the hat to anyone who would notice something like that. For example I did zombie hitler for a game artist comp (which as usual i never submitted) and made quite sure I got the uniform correct etc...
So yeah, I wouldn't say im totally crazy on the technicalities, but, I feel like if you gain a fuller understanding of what you do, you're less likely to produce something that's derivative of existing game art or something. Like, If you have the building blocks and understand WHY something looked or worked or dressed the way it did, you can take these core concepts and construct something quite plausible. Take like, Lord of the Rings or something as an example (purely because everybody has some grip on the concept)
Things like diplomacy, cultures and their reactions to other cultures, military structure (ie nobility being mounted and all that jazz) is all lifted directly from reality, but with a fantasy spin. Tolkien took these stripped down concepts and built a world with them in mind, and it all adds layers to the thing and beefs it up and makes it more believable and gives it some depth.
In the same way, if youre designing, lets say, a soldier in some fantasy army. Things you could consider which would effect your design and give it some depth, would be imagining things like supply, ie, is there a sick supply train constantly fuelling this guy? if so, he wouldnt be carrying a whole lot on him in combat. Or is he a mountain troop partisan type guy, who would carry *everything* around with him? Is he part of a unit, does that unit need to be easilly identified in the field? does the unit have any traditions (for example red berets or we silly australians wearing akubras) The more you look into stuff and understand things, the more inspiration you have to draw on in creating something that is really "good," - and, I guess my definition of good art direction, is something that fits into its world perfectly, not only visually, but conceptually.
/rant
I think a great example of this would be spider tanks, i mean really, think about it. A tank with legs? Could you possibly design something that would be easier to immobilise? But there they are, shining becons of totally awesome visual design.
Here's some of dfacto's concepts to prove my point.
But, looking at the uppermost example, it SEEMS like he has a fairly solid understanding of modern armour (i can see subtle references to several vehicles in the design) and to me it looks considered. To be sure we'd have to find out what his process was when creating it.
(Having said that it actually looks like he's put thrusters all over it, maybe its just as much an aircraft as it is a ground fighting vehicle, its light armament also suggests it's some kind of recon vehicle, which also supports the idea that it might have some limited flight or "hopping" capability. I guess we gotta ask him)
In the case of the spider-tank I envisioned it as an armed scout of some sort, as you guessed, tasked with recon on remote moons, asteroids, and low gravity environments. What you can't see is that the bottom of the design is actually a big hole for a thruster with smaller thruster holes ringing it, which makes the whole design sort of a sci-fi version of the lunar lander. I took lots of visual cues from existing military designs and tried to make it look hard tech because that's just a style I really enjoy. Throw in some ambiguous weaponry/optics and a crewman flipping off the sky and there you go.
And there' nothing wrong with the way I did it. Or the way boogotti did it, or the way anyone else does it, as long as they apply the proper touch to the design. In fact one of my favoite designer, Kow Yokoyama, has an incredibly consistent range of models that all occupy one world, and I love them even though most are brutishly ugly.
Really, the holy grail of design for me is not so much aesthetics as it is internal consistency. If we're talking about aesthetics then everything would be graceful curving lines and golden rations and that stuff, but what about cheesy Flash Gordon pop-sci, or valve-clusterfuck steampunk designs, or plain old ugly military gear? So much can be excused by simply creating a consistent world, or on a smaller scale a consistent design. This is best evidences by cartoon characters where the internal consistency makes the user forget that they're looking at a horribly deformed demon spawn.
Your approach is the more meticulous, and creates a world more in line with the real one. But other approaches don't seek to emulate the real world any further than to allow the user to understand what they're looking at through use of common visual cues. There's no right or wrong, only personal preference. Attempting to drag concepts with another design intent towards your own preferential method is pointless.
Wow, I pulled a sick one.
I'll answer these out of sequence 'cause It makes more sense that way
At the risk of stirring that argument up again, I'll just say once more I never said anything about right and wrong. Either I'm not conveying my intent properly, or people aren't reading what I actually write.
See, I 100% agree with this, and It's in fact exactly what I meant when I mentioned "good" design/art direction.
The problem with a single asset is that there isn't really any context to see it in, and the author hadn't made hints as to what his intention really was, so I just threw an opinion into the mix. Again I stress, I wasn't suggesting anything was "right or wrong"
I think that i mimic your workflow when designing stuff too, but perhaps with less technical knowledge, i will look at current designs, and future design concepts to get a feel for how something works or doesnt in the realworld and apply that to a fanatasy concept, like flying walking tanks, but then comes that tricky part of marrying these together and balancing between coolness and real possibilities, choosing where to drop reality or use it to bolster the design can lead to drastically different outcomes. and sometimes your lucky when the fantasy and reality sit perfectly together, perhaps it isnt luck but good design....
... but id say good or optimal design still leads to fewer possibilities. while doing stuff for aesthetic pleasntries allows for huge variation,. im going to make a (bad) comparisson here, look at how the aiviation industry started out, loads of variation and cool designs, freaky outlandish ones and look at it now, where there is very little variation. while look at a purely aesthetic or subjective based industry like Painting or music making, huge variation and getting more and more. in fact every possibility is usually explored by someone.
one interesting thing to think about is who this is aimed at, Harry spotted things that i would say most wouldnt have noticed or cared about, im still not sure what you meant by one of your crits on the tank, cos i couldnt work out the issue, therefore the design totally stood upfor me in this area but not for you.
"Critique" is just a constructive way to tell someone they're doing it wrong.
I'd say you're way off on that. A single asset can be all the context it needs. Look at something like this:http://www.keiththompsonart.com/pages/mortar.html
Style, detailing, feel; it's all cohesive and you "get" the concept in a single glance. In fact I'd say this is the great concept because you can use it to spin off a whole miniature world relating to it. Most of Keith Thompson's artwork is like that.
Boogatti's tank is a bit muddled at first glance on whether it's an amphibious tank, or a battle tank, or an APC, but in terms of detail and style it was crystal clear, at least to me: near future pseudo sci-fi military vehicle. Also known as: standard concepting fare.
Or biologists and zoologists argue about super huge creatures in star wars.
Historians must really hate things like Bioshock... or Wild Wild West. Wild... wild.... west... sigh.
Really, we artists just muck things up. We should really just stop.
While that's true, I couldn't really tell (and tbh still can't) if boogotti was going for something plausible by modern or near-future standards, or something completely in the realm of fantasy.
If i look at that mortar it's apparent straight away, likewise with your spider recon thing, you can see it, and say "okay, it's a tank with legs, so legged tanks are fair game, can assume that to be integral to the design, what crits can be made while still maintaining the context"
Whereas with boogotti's, I'd say it was a much harder call as to whether the upward sloping panel was a core feature of what he wanted to design, or an ill-placed reference to the BMP series or similar. Like, there was reasonable doubt as to whether he placed it intentionally, and whether he would be opposed to crits from a technical standpoint.
And I disagree about critique being another way to tell people they're doing it wrong. Like, disagree quite strongly. More than once, I've made input which you could call "critique" even when I didn't actually think it would look better or be better in any other way. I recognise that everyone looks for something different, so I offer comments when I feel it's a viewpoint that hasn't yet - and mightn't in the forseeable future - be presented.
That way, the artist has as much material as he can get to draw from or discard. I don't think boogotti "should" change anything about his design. I like to present anything I feel that I can contribute, any resource a peer could draw from, because I would expect the same of you, my peers.
I really like this discussion, actually.