Art: Cuttletrunk progression/variations

concept art =/= released creature :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I think it’s because it’s just a mock-up. The in game finished product should feel more natural and less like a 2-d overlay which this is.

1 Like

yea because we criticise the concept art and only the best solution makes it into the game.

@Havok40k It should and I hope/think it will look better. But we’re here to criticise the mock-up and not what could be in the future.

This is really cool,I love it!!
But if you don’t mind explaining what “Tintable Area” is? @claudiotolomei ?

Hmm, then yes, it sounds like you’re taking the wrong aproach here. We are indeed looking at what it could be in the future. That’s the entire point of concept art- to explore a concept.

1 Like

It basically just shows the areas that are able to change colour. Whiter areas will show the colour change more prominently, whereas grey areas will only show a little of the applied colour, and black areas will not show the colour at all.

If you reference the “Tintable Area” section with the “Elements” section, you can see that the main trunk remains the same in both the Ice and Fire variations - the blues and reds that are shown are the tintable areas.

4 Likes

I can explain this one! Creatures, much like items and blocks and props, can be tinted in code to create differently-coloured versions. The ‘ice’ and ‘fire’ variations of the Cuttletrunk that you can see below the Tintable Area mockup are the same models with the same textures, but different tints. This gives us the ability to create a lot of visual variation without too much work for the art team.

9 Likes

I don’t think so. I think it’s the wrong approach to judge something only you have in your head and then apply that judgement to what you have in front of you.
That doesn’t help anyone.
The point of concept art is to show concepts which can then be judged and altered, exactly because they are just concepts.

Spent 20 minutes coming up with a lengthy post. But I don’t want to turn this into another beacon persistence thread so I ctrl-a deleted it :frowning: . So I’ll just spam some emoticons and will encourage you to also not start a big argument.

:smirk::expressionless::ok_hand::poop::balloon::doug::shard:

:bacon:

I just want to add that this is what I think @Havok40k and I disagree with:

We’re not here to judge the mock-up or it’s art-style. We’re here to judge the creature depicted in the mock-up. It’s a subtle difference, but I think doing so leads to more useful information for the devs. However, they’ve said time and again that they welcome all feedback, which you’ve given. So yay everyone, :smiley:happy happy :smile: joy.

Yay hump day! :dromedary_camel:

So close, but I think you’re missing the… concept. :wink: Puns aside, I’ll agree to disagree and move on.

1 Like

Ok,that makes sense but why are these Cluttertunk different from the rest?

2 Likes

The part you cropped out says those are mesh swaps and size progressions. So that suggests that as they get larger, the model (mesh) varies slightly. This could indicate tougher versions or higher levels. Even just different species varients.

3 Likes

I don’t but I’ll let you believe what you want.
It’s also not in my interest to start a fight in this thread.

@Clexarews We’re judging the creature by judging the drawings. We’re kind of on the same page here I think. Let’s leave it at that.

For me - looking at concept art is all about looking at the ideas. Clearly when the concept is translated into the in-game representation there will be a visual translation - freehand sketches get converted into meshes with shaders and lighting and animation - but the idea should be constant and translated faithfully.

I will also add that I actually find it quite hard to separate the visual drawing style used in the concepts from the ideas represented in the concepts. Sometimes I look at concepts and think they look super cool, but then I realise that it’s the styling of the concept that looks great, but the ideas behind them are boring.

We’re lucky that @claudiotolomei has a really great concept style. Interestingly I think @Minyi has adapted her personal style to more closely match what we already had - to try and make our development more about ideas that style. (Although @claudiotolomei and @Minyi might say this is totally rubbish!) Whereas @jesshyland has another style again - seen here.

I really love this concept sheet because it captures how a single germ of an idea can be expanded into a diverse spectrum of variations and then ultimately gameplay!

11 Likes

Reminds me of Velkoz from league of legends, you could take some attack inspirations from her. Like using the tentacles on the back in an attack as well.


1 Like

Well,I got that…but why is the Mesh swap different from the other concepts? I would assume I’m missing something… :thinking:

1 Like

The mesh swap gives you different variations/sizes of a creature, whereas the mesh progression shows you the level of toughness of a creature (so levels 1-5).

Only the 1st Mesh is shown in the mesh progression, but there should (I would assume) be 5 meshes, which will each have 5 mesh progressions.

Another way to look at it…
The mesh swap could be considered the age of the creature - it grows bigger as it ages.
The mesh progression is the toughness, so after certain actions, it gets tougher.

1 Like

That aside, I’m loving the idea so far! It makes me wonder what the spitter and goat would look like at higher levels.

7 Likes

6 Likes

Awesome! Nice to see we’re starting to get some creatures getting more fleshed out. I’ll add the art to the collection :grinning:

1 Like