Flintheart said:"We expect Pantheon to reach more audiences. We believe the style resonates with more gamers across more demographics bringing more people together into this growing community."
Here is my question, is the artwork the only thing that is changing? Many of us have come from EQ; so we want that slow dungeon crawl, let's camp at this spot for hours on end grind. Are others who don't want that, going to play Pantheon just for the artwork or are the gaming mechanics going to have to change as well?
It may not happen, but the question did pop into my head.
Content is still king and we still aim to develop based on the tenets.
I want to make something clear. While it is nice that this art style would have wider appeal (more people = good), this was not a factor in the decision to move forward with it. Performance and our team's ability to create were the deciding factors.
Savanja said:Flintheart said:"We expect Pantheon to reach more audiences. We believe the style resonates with more gamers across more demographics bringing more people together into this growing community."
Here is my question, is the artwork the only thing that is changing? Many of us have come from EQ; so we want that slow dungeon crawl, let's camp at this spot for hours on end grind. Are others who don't want that, going to play Pantheon just for the artwork or are the gaming mechanics going to have to change as well?
It may not happen, but the question did pop into my head.
Content is still king and we still aim to develop based on the tenets.
I want to make something clear. While it is nice that this art style would have wider appeal (more people = good), this was not a factor in the decision to move forward with it. Performance and our team's ability to create were the deciding factors.
This just can't be the case.
You could have always simplified the graphics while retaining a "realism" style.
This shift to a cartoony style is a fundamental imaging change thats designed to appeal to a "wider demographic".
The producers letter announcing this change stated so very clearly.
lotuss79 said:This just can't be the case.
You could have always simplified the graphics while retaining a "realism" style.
This shift to a cartoony style is a fundamental imaging change thats designed to appeal to a "wider demographic".
The producers letter announcing this change stated so very clearly.
For your reading enjoyment, a quote from the Producer's Letter stating the why:
We have opted to shift our in-game art direction to address several needs:
Performance – We have run into difficulty with the former art performing well on even the beefiest of machines. We have made progress on this front but ultimately determined we could get better gains by a shift in style.
Speed of Development – The shift speeds up the art pipeline substantially. What would sometimes take weeks now can take days, or in some cases, hours.
Sustainability – With the new art direction, we feel confident we can achieve our long-term goals with an indie-sized development team. It is not only faster, but more affordable.
Marketability – One of the top comments we routinely receive from the public is how the game looks old or unappealing. This is an opportunity to reach a broader, more contemporary audience.
It was not just a matter of turning down the realism. 3D art rendering is very intensive, time-consuming, and resource-hoarding. If we had tons of funding and a huge staff of 3D artists, then realism would have been the way to go. We don't.
Customer service people frequently put rather severe spins on things, getting almost to the point of outright lying. Sometimes more than almost
While I have no way to prove it I *believe* that Savanja is telling the truth here. I do not think they would have made so dramatic a switch so likely to upset many people if they didn't feel the alternative would have been quite bad. I think they did it because they had to do it, lest efforts to create the game entirely collapse. In other words they were running out of time and money - no news to many of us - but maybe they had a hard time accepting it. Now they have bitten the bullet and accepted it and done something about it.
I may be overly optimistic - the alternative that they are giving up the basic principles they started with in the hope of being a hit with a "contemporary" audience would tell me two things. One - we can all expect far worse things than degraded graphics. Two - they have totally lost it because that is not going to happen. I do not think either of these is true.
I do expect faster movement now and perhaps even a bit of transparancy as to anticipated timing. If neither happens - with a high degree of probability I am wrong.
Sorry, meant to quote this for my reply below
Savanja said:Flintheart said:"We expect Pantheon to reach more audiences. We believe the style resonates with more gamers across more demographics bringing more people together into this growing community."
Here is my question, is the artwork the only thing that is changing? Many of us have come from EQ; so we want that slow dungeon crawl, let's camp at this spot for hours on end grind. Are others who don't want that, going to play Pantheon just for the artwork or are the gaming mechanics going to have to change as well?
It may not happen, but the question did pop into my head.
Content is still king and we still aim to develop based on the tenets.
I want to make something clear. While it is nice that this art style would have wider appeal (more people = good), this was not a factor in the decision to move forward with it. Performance and our team's ability to create were the deciding factors.
I'm not sure this is a true statement. Start listening at 4:25 ... seems you are chasing a bigger audience. Not thinking about the current pledgers. Seems lieka it was a factor.
Link to video at 4:25:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnfycnyFpNc&t=265s&ab_channel=Pantheon%3ARiseoftheFallen
VR is "fully funded till release" and has had 9+ years to work on this.
I guess i just don't understand how other studios with similar sizes can do 3D rendering but VR can't.
Honestly OG EQ is only like a half step behind this and came out a quarter century ago. (and still maintains a 'realistic' bent to its style compared to this)
lotuss79 said:VR is "fully funded till release" and has had 9+ years to work on this.
I guess i just don't understand how other studios with similar sizes can do 3D rendering but VR can't.
Honestly OG EQ is only like a half step behind this and came out a quarter century ago. (and still maintains a 'realistic' bent to its style compared to this)
EQ2 looks better then this and its nearly 20 years old.
Sweety said:lotuss79 said:VR is "fully funded till release" and has had 9+ years to work on this.
I guess i just don't understand how other studios with similar sizes can do 3D rendering but VR can't.
Honestly OG EQ is only like a half step behind this and came out a quarter century ago. (and still maintains a 'realistic' bent to its style compared to this)
EQ2 looks better then this and its nearly 20 years old.
I would be Thrilled with EQ2 level graphics.
Its not too much to ask for in 2023.
And its still totally doable if the community makes its voice heard and insists this new art direction is a deal breaker.
Unfortunatly if 1/2 the community is just going to reflexively kiss up to the devs and congratulate them on every single action they take, they will conclude that its not that big of a deal and they won't loose too many of their original supporters while attracting all these great new customers.
This is, of course, delusional. But by then it will be too late.
Unfortunatly if 1/2 the community is just going to reflexively kiss up to the devs and congratulate them on every single action they take, they will conclude that its not that big of a deal and they won't loose too many of their original supporters while attracting all these great new customers.
Isn't it possible that half the commuinty is actually happy with this change?
Ranarius said:Unfortunatly if 1/2 the community is just going to reflexively kiss up to the devs and congratulate them on every single action they take, they will conclude that its not that big of a deal and they won't loose too many of their original supporters while attracting all these great new customers.Isn't it possible that half the commuinty is actually happy with this change?
Its possible that half the community has Stockholm Syndrome and can look at this travesty of an art style and say they like it.
Everyone wants to talk about how art is "subjective", well ok. Call this pornography then because its objectively awful.
Almost everyone on this forum has already purchased the game, sight unseen, based on what we were told and the information we had at the time we pledged. This means that people are highly motiviated to put a positive spin on things. It's not like you're getting your money back. Life is a lot more relaxing when you can be optimistic rather than negative. I think that there are genuinely people in the community that like the new style. I think there are also people in the community who are pot committed and trying to stay positive no matter what VR does.
I'm "pot committed" in that I will play the game regardless of art since I've already spent more than 3x anything I have ever spent on a game before. That said, because I am a pledger it is my privelege to critisize decisions that VR makes and have my voice heard. In that vein I want to make this request.
I am OK with hand painted; I just don't like the style here. Specifically I really don't like the human models and the armor. I shudder every time I see the armor. I want to see screenshot of a fighter with random midrange pieces from all over the world that don't make a set. I want to see what that looks like. Additionally; please for the love of god make the armor look like armor. Pull up the wallace collection's "Arms and Armour" display and get inspired by what real knights wore. Make it hand painted, but don't make it a charicature.
Additionally, hand painted doesn't have to mean that you are personifying the wildlife. That is what makes it cartoony. Make the animals look like animals. Animators give animals human features like big bushy eyebrows so that they can give the animals human facial expressions so that children can recognize the emotions. Why? Because in cartoons the animals are basically humans. Please don't do this. Giving animals human facial features makes it feel childish.
This topic has certainly caused more community interaction on these forums than I have seen for quite a while, so there's a positive, right? ;)
I echo disappointment in what was shown, though I certainly understand and respect the realistic need for the change. When it was first described as hand-painted, I kind of hoped for something reminiscent of GW2, which I think is described more as illustrated, with a bit of water-color flair in the concept art; however, the vibe I got from the video was a cross between WoW and Palia, which honestly made me cringe a little. It felt too cartoony and childish, as some have described, while I was hoping for something more mature.
Perhaps, in time, it will grow on me as we see more of it -- and I certainly recognize that playing the game can be a completely different visual experience than just seeing it, so I am endeavoring to remain open-minded to the change. I also recognize this is still pre-alpha. That being said, as a supporter of the tenets of this game, I also want to offer feedback that I think if this style can be shifted to look more "mature" and less cartoony, then that would be an improvement.
Regardless, I do not think this was some bait-and-switch. Truly, thank you to all the devs -- and you artists who might be feeling a lot of negativity right now -- for all the hard work that you do to help make this world come alive. As Sav noted, the principle of "content is king" still stands. I am hoping the visuals can be improved upon to find Pantheon's "truer" art style -- as if I can truly judge what that is -- but the right gameplay can make me look past some of my dislike of the visuals.
Ruinar said:True, i noticed that too - It feels very childish.
Additionally, hand painted doesn't have to mean that you are personifying the wildlife. That is what makes it cartoony. Make the animals look like animals. Animators give animals human features like big bushy eyebrows so that they can give the animals human facial expressions so that children can recognize the emotions. Why? Because in cartoons the animals are basically humans. Please don't do this. Giving animals human facial features makes it feel childish.
Prevenge said:
I think the reason they only showed us 5 minutes of concept art and minor changes to the game, is that they are fully ready and waiting to course correct, where necessary.
I don't think screaming how much you hate it, really helps them. Tell them what you like, tell them what you don't like, suggest changes. This is the way.
If VR has proven anything over the years, it's that they are listening to the community and willing to change course, when necessary.
They have certainly proven they are willing to change direction. Even at great expense to project timelines. But I can't think of a single consequential thing that we know has been altered due to community feedback.
Ranarius said:
Unfortunatly if 1/2 the community is just going to reflexively kiss up to the devs and congratulate them on every single action they take, they will conclude that its not that big of a deal and they won't loose too many of their original supporters while attracting all these great new customers.
Isn't it possible that half the commuinty is actually happy with this change?
Well, based purely on feedback there are a hell of a lot more people that dislike than like the new changes. I'm sure there are those that don't really care as long as the game plays well. (I've actually said this in the past....). But there's not a lot of defense of the art right now. There's also a awful lot of people who might once have given benefit of the doubt and given constructive criticism in hopes of guiding this thing away from Candyland/Shoots and Ladders art direction, but they checked out years ago.
We have to take VR's word that the driving factor is speed of creation and rendering for the simplification of the graphics models. All I can say is that on my non-beefy machine, I did not have significant issues with render rates when I got the chance to play.
Having said that, I believe that the art could be much less cartoony and still have a realistic bent to them and still provide a smooth experience. I was not expecting Avartar but I was also not expecting WOW. I was expecting Pantheon. I am sure your artists have worked hard on these models and I do not want them to feel that this is an attack on their talents, it is simply not what I am looking for from a successor to EQ.
Well, based purely on feedback there are a hell of a lot more people that dislike than like the new changes. I'm sure there are those that don't really care as long as the game plays well. (I've actually said this in the past....). But there's not a lot of defense of the art right now. There's also a awful lot of people who might once have given benefit of the doubt and given constructive criticism in hopes of guiding this thing away from Candyland/Shoots and Ladders art direction, but they checked out years ago.
I was only using "half" because that's what the person I was quoting said. Whatever the fraction is, my point is that the people who like it actually like it. They're not just pretending to like it to somehow suck up and get brownie points with VR (because we all know that doesn't even exist haha). I am one that didn't/doesn't really like it and I've been very surprised at the number of people who do like it and are happy with the change. I showed my wife in hopes that she'd be like "yup, you're right, this sucks!" lol, but I got the opposite. She said "Oh man, this is way better, and it will last!" I showed my 12 year old son next and he said "OOoooh, this game is starting to look GOOOD!" During the 5 minute video the comments seemed overwhelmingly positive (I didn't count, but I guess I could go back and count the comments, after all it's only 5 minutes it wouldn't take much time haha).
I showed my 12 year old son...
I think this is the main point. It has gone from "realistic" to child friendly. Not what a lot of us were looking for. Regardless of percentages here or there, a LOT of us do not like this direction and feel let down by it. It is personal taste. For a game that has a back to EQ ideology, I feel let down.
I like this thread. So yeah, I won't be supporting this game or company. This would not have been impressive if this was running on a PlayStation 2 some 20 years ago. Mobile F2P trash is what it looks like. I do like cartoon graphics in some games, but wow, this stuff is terrible.
Unfortunately, since I have a now ill-gotten pledge in this game, one where you folks will definitely not do the right thing by refunding, I have to stay invested. So, I guess I will hang around for two reasons, one being to be amused by the ridiculous sunshine pumpers. It will be funny watching them always moving goalposts, seeing them furiously struggle to justify the eventual lessening or removal/change of the tenets, the cash shop and the F2P future. The second being that I hope this game fails catastrophically as that would amuse me (and be karma).
Lastly, don't bother qouting me, I clearly don't care. Don't bother warning me either, because I clearly don't care. Ban me if you wan't, it won't stop my enjoyment (only VR achieving success will).