Thee Is Company

[Kalah]

The mad. The dead. The ugly.

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/show_b ... php?id=455

[Darkström]

I don't mind the ghoul, but wtf is going on with Inferno.

[hellegennes]

Ugh! They look nothing like Heroes. Revamping is one thing, but completely changing the feel is another. Why did they had to do this and still call it a Heroes game? Well, because of the franchise, all right...

maybe the thing that bothers me most is that in this screenshot the creatures look much like nothing in particular.

[LongDarkBlues]

These just don't read as significantly that different, aesthetically, from H3, (and certainly not H5) - do you really think the Inferno wouldn't have looked like this if they had more than a tiny square of pixels to work with? The Magog is covered in body and head spikes, the Horned Demon has spikes on his head the size of his torso, etc.

[GreatEmerald]

Wait, you mean this is actually a shot from H6?..

LongDarkBlues, no. They had a lot more to work with than a few tiny pixels - all of those models are 3D, just turned into sprites. So they could have made anything they wished. And that's what they did, apparently.

[LongDarkBlues]

Of course, but the renders had to be represented as small sprites - the Horned Demon is only 97 pixels tall!

[Calmisto]

They're LEGO Bionicles

[vicheron]

Looks like they're getting ready to go to an S&M party

[Minnakht]

The Inferno? Standard hellish stuff. Restraints, chains, burnt-off flesh, wounds, red-hot parts, whipping, deformities... Necros look cold and evil as usual, Inferno looks hot and evil as usual, suited to torturing and holding people in tar pits for eternity while looking otherworldly and terrifying to peasants and like abominations to paladins.



This isn't very different from H5's upgraded creatures - they also are red and have fire on them.

[ThunderTitan]

>>This isn't very different from H5's upgraded creatures - they also are red and have fire on them.<<

ad that's why we're comparing it to H3 instead...


@LongDarkBlues

Now you're just stretching it...

[LongDarkBlues]

I'm not saying game design aesthetics haven't changed over the last 12 years, just that this isn't some hugely-mind-boggling design update. And really, I'm thankful that we've moved past those terrible early 3D renderings from H3 - the Maniac/Demented is by far my least favorite looking creature from H6, but I'd still take it over most of H3's stodgy pre-renderings. The Ravenous Ghoul looks simply great, if you ask me - especially in motion on the Ubi page.

[LongDarkBlues]

Just for comparison's sake, let's view the H6 Inferno units as if they were H3 units, pixel-wise - while I will miss the Efreet Sultan, I think you'd have to be blinded by nostalgia to not see that the H6 designs are clearly superior:



http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/941/h6alah3.jpg

[hellegennes]

Lol, nobody said we would prefer creatures to be 2D sprites from 3D rendering. It's not the technology that one misses but the departure in style, taste and creativity.

[LongDarkBlues]

That's exactly what I'm saying, though - these have way more style, and creativity, certainly, than their H3 counterparts. Taste is a matter preference, but I'll take 'interesting' over 'plain' pretty much always.

[hellegennes]

Look, taste is subjective but stylistic aesthetics and creativity are not. And if we are to judge these, H3 was far better. More genuine, creative, definitive, stylish and consistent. Nothing overdone, nothing extreme, nothing too abstract, all forms clearly drawn and defined, more robust. These are artistic definitions, not some arguable matter of taste.

[Kalah]

Aesthetics are not subjective? There's a contradiction in terms; th philosophy of aesthetics deals with the nature of beauty, and beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

[LongDarkBlues]

hellegennes, as I'm sure you know, that is utter nonsense.

[hellegennes]

No, aesthetics is a term of fine arts and is OBJECTIVE. Everyone that has studied in such a course knows that. Everything else is a lame excuse to name aesthetically correct -or even art- literally anything. No, aesthetics are clearly defined. For example, placing a pastel-coloured manga-like kiddo statue opposite the statue of Liberty is aesthetically wrong. It's not a view that will change someday. The character of aesthetics may change in time and it does, but its definition doesn't.

[Kalah]

Taking aesthetics courses doesn't change the meaning of a word; dominating paradigms in the science does. Read some Kuhn, and then do what I did and look up the word "aesthetics" in a dictionary.

[ThunderTitan]

and beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Until it uses it as a laser to kill you... or give you status ailments.

That's exactly what I'm saying, though - these have way more style, and creativity, certainly, than their H3 counterparts.

Putting more crap on things does not make them automatically better...

As for creativity... don't make me take out my robe and wizard hat and look for where they got their inspiration from... that always ends in tears... mostly because of the mould breeding in the hat, but still...