A fun little diversion! So talking about how it's sexist to have "hot" female characters I can only laugh. This is a big problem with a lot of modern "AAA" games, they make the females in their games look like malformed creatures, amorphous and strange..almost completely interchangeable with males. Mentioning personality etc is extremely odd since videogame characters are not real people. At most an avatar may be controlled by a real person (at which point personality is based on the person behind the avatar). The character could be smoking hot and have a great "personality" by the way (at least as far as an NPC can have lol), especially in a fantasy game. I remember buying EverQuest because of the hot babe on the box when I was a teenager. I'm all for having options to make your character ugly, and to have ugly NPCs in the game. But to say something like, "it's sexist to have strong men and sexy women in a videogame" is ridiculous. Now you may be able to convince me that Korean MMOs take it too far with the outrageous proportions, jiggle physics, etc and could be considered "sexist" but even then..it's just a fantasy game. It's not as though these games are claiming to be the role model for females. At most you could say it's setting unrealistic expectations of the female form but even then I'd say you're jousting at windmills. Most young people are on social media and that's where far more damage is done in that regard.
Pantheon was originally going with a more realistic art style, I really liked it a lot. Females were looking a bit bland but that wasn't the end of the world for me as I am no longer a teenage boy. As for the new style none of the characters look good to me so far male or female. For all the talk of trying to reach new audiences I've got to say some of the commenters here forget that if you want younger players having sexy girls does help sell the game.
chenzeme said:
The objectification of women is just wrong. A bad argument is any where the topic is ignored and attacks are made against the individual. Plenty of that, little in the way of justification.
It is not sexist to point out a sexist view, nor is it extremist.
Hot does not equate to beauty. Not hot does not equate to ugly. You can have beautiful models that are not sexually overt. It is not extremist to point this out. It is obnoxious to claim a view that doesn't match your own is mad or insane.
There is no justification in saying its only a game and anything should be allowed. Anything promoting sexist views in any manner is not acceptable. It is not the fact that npcs are not people, it is the objectification itself which is wrong.
I want to play characters and interact with npcs that fit the Pantheon stories, not some pubescent chauvinistic fantasies of what women should be like. Beautiful can be achieved without resorting to stereotypical, outdated, sexist models.
RedGang said:
Over 80% of active MMORPG players are male and the majority of female avatars are still played by men. MMORPG's are made for men by men, in the same sense romance novels are made for women, by women. Furthermore, women generally want to look hot, not mediocre. Pick up nearly any women's magazine and you'll notice most of the pictures are of sexy women. So even if the majority of gamers were women, an intelligent artist should STILL make them hot. If you were to do a poll, do you think most women would rather look like a Lane Bryant model or a Victoria's Secret model? Lets live in the real world, not cater to a feminist minority.
chenzeme said: ENOUGH! This thread is about the quality of the graphics within Pantheon. I have said all I want to regarding this drivel and I invite VR to start to keep this thread on track, please. If you want to create another thread on the subject, then please, be my guest.
Sexism is a serious problem in the world today. But unfortunately, it's not an appropriate subject for Pantheon's forums.
Now that the OP has changed course back towards the original topic, everyone please follow.
.png)
Ok, this is more atmospheric.
Personal Likes: The slightly misty sunset/sunrise. Some trees casting shadows, others in shade themselves. The odd light lamp dotted around. The stone building to the top right is receding into the picture nicely. Love the way some of the rocks catch the sunlight and one or two areas are bathed in light too.
Personal Dislikes: The timber building are not shaded enough; they seem to shout out that they are there. The purple building on the bottom left, just doesnt sit right for me and the arch is a bit too angular (and imo, too purple!). The trees on ridge to the top left don't look as good as other trees in the scene.
All in all, yup, I could play in this scene. .png)
Same critique for this one too really.
Personal Likes: The atmospherics are hitting a right note. Loving the way the shadows from the ridges and trees fall across the cliff faces. From this distance the trees look nice (if a little smooth on the trunk bark).
Personal Dislikes: None of the trees have growth at the trunk bases making them look too stark. Some need bushes or plants at their bases to make it feel less like a model. The rock faces have a soft looking almost malleable quality that shouldn't be there, at this distance, they look a little bland on the faces and too crinkly - no striations. Bottom middle, repeating ground patterns breaks the scene's aesthetic. The lake, bottom right, doesnt look like water. Too little differences in the tree species on view - the ones on display have an ash-like look, maybe add a few that are holly-like and/or oak-like (just more variation in the tree population). .png)
Where do I begin that hasn't already been said?
I kinda like the glow of the skeleton, I just think there is too much and it becomes too bright. In this case, I think less is more. The monolith thing at the back looks like a prop from Scooby Doo. There are some ok mist effects going on.
Even in the dark, there should be more detail than there is. The scattered light would still pick out pebbles and tufts on the ground. The following photo (https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1183957) is a moody example of what I mean. There is still texture and detail seen on the bank, road and leaves. Also, the tree still casts a shadow, the rendered tree above, doesn't and as the moon is in view, it should cast something.
dorotea said:I care far more about how the world will look from a character's eyes. Which is what I will be seeing in-game 99% of the time. I will be seeing the world from much closer up than these pictures.
This right here is what so many people who are overly critical of the new art style fail to understand: Screenshots do not accurately convey the actual look of the game from the character's perspective. When is a character, or anything in the game, ever completely static? Something is always moving, something is always changing. It is the fluidity of all that which screenshots fail to capture. Do I love the art style? No. I do prefer more realistic visuals because the power of modern computers should not have issues dealing with it despite statements from VR to the contrary. Do I hate the art style? No, but I am disappointed that this is what we're getting.
Honestly, VR needs to do a better job showing off their game than they have in the past. To do that you need far more activity happening on screen, not just 1 character walking through a nearly completely empty zone, taking 45 seconds to kill a stupid bat. Show 3 or 4 groups doing stuff, using spells, moving around.
Vandraad said:
dorotea said:I care far more about how the world will look from a character's eyes. Which is what I will be seeing in-game 99% of the time. I will be seeing the world from much closer up than these pictures.
This right here is what so many people who are overly critical of the new art style fail to understand: Screenshots do not accurately convey the actual look of the game from the character's perspective. When is a character, or anything in the game, ever completely static? Something is always moving, something is always changing. It is the fluidity of all that which screenshots fail to capture. Do I love the art style? No. I do prefer more realistic visuals because the power of modern computers should not have issues dealing with it despite statements from VR to the contrary. Do I hate the art style? No, but I am disappointed that this is what we're getting.
Honestly, VR needs to do a better job showing off their game than they have in the past. To do that you need far more activity happening on screen, not just 1 character walking through a nearly completely empty zone, taking 45 seconds to kill a stupid bat. Show 3 or 4 groups doing stuff, using spells, moving around.
Brightness and contrast levels seem to be a bit off or muted in all the day time screenshots. I don't know if it's the lighting system, the screenshot feature, or if it actually looks the same in game, but very minor lighting adjustments in photoshop to brightness and contrast, lasso the top 3/4s of the image where the sun is hitting, brightness slightly up, contrast somewhat drastically up, add an unsharpen mask. I think it gives the world a giant breath of life.
This post was edited by Prevenge at November 7, 2023 10:07 AM PST
Vandraad said:
This right here is what so many people who are overly critical of the new art style fail to understand: Screenshots do not accurately convey the actual look of the game from the character's perspective. When is a character, or anything in the game, ever completely static? Something is always moving, something is always changing. It is the fluidity of all that which screenshots fail to capture. Do I love the art style? No. I do prefer more realistic visuals because the power of modern computers should not have issues dealing with it despite statements from VR to the contrary. Do I hate the art style? No, but I am disappointed that this is what we're getting.
Honestly, VR needs to do a better job showing off their game than they have in the past. To do that you need far more activity happening on screen, not just 1 character walking through a nearly completely empty zone, taking 45 seconds to kill a stupid bat. Show 3 or 4 groups doing stuff, using spells, moving around.
chenzeme said: VR have stated that they will use and Improve the models in game now, so let's try to make the best of them. I am not convinced that they will be as atmospheric and engaging as VR think, but even I am tired of the total non-engagement of some. It is what it is. Get behind it or don't, but give the "woh is me" a rest. Shess!! Try to be constructive not just stuff like: "this is pap..." It has all been said 100 times or more. This is about improving things. Constructive not dismissive. Why is it pap, how can it improve?
I dont know, I kind of think people have a right to say what they want in the way they want. If you dont like it dont read it. Telling them that you dont like something is infact constructive. It lets them know that part of their audience doesnt like what they are doing.
chenzeme said: VR have stated that they will use and Improve the models in game now, so let's try to make the best of them. I am not convinced that they will be as atmospheric and engaging as VR think, but even I am tired of the total non-engagement of some. It is what it is. Get behind it or don't, but give the "woh is me" a rest. Shess!! Try to be constructive not just stuff like: "this is pap..." It has all been said 100 times or more. This is about improving things. Constructive not dismissive. Why is it pap, how can it improve?
Community feedback isn't going to help. Creative people need a goal that they're trying to achieve and that's not going to be found in a committee setting. We can't tell what creative vision they have because we're not inside their heads, only thing we can do is weigh it against what came before. So people will be really great at telling them why X screenshot doesn't look as thrilling as early days of EverQuest... but this isn't EverQuest, this is Pantheon, what is the intent of Pantheon and how should it look? Only the creatives working on the project can possibly outline that goal and seek to meet it.
People didn't know they wanted a larger cellphone after years of having smaller ones, or that they would want a touch screen instead of physical keyboard until they got it in their hands in a way that was sufficient to their needs AND provided new capabilities they hadn't thought of.
We can't tell them what they're capable of, we can only tell them what we like or don't and that is going to be centered around other works that are not necessarily relevant. Even if we say as far as graphics X is wrong please do Y. We don't know if they can do Y.
Therefore, any critique will likely as they say "fall on deaf ears", because at the end of the day the company meaning well or not cannot possibly pivot every day, week, month etc... "If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable."