-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I just did this with some random app, the plastic looking 3d portraits can easily be turned into something much more immersive using a simple ai filter. And I'm sure it wouldn't be rocket science to have something like this put into a game.
- 18
- 2
- 1
Alas, recent DDs proved that 3d portraits bring only uglyness and Victoria 3-like hideousness.
- 11
- 4
- 4
Am I the only person who thinks the actual portrait looks pretty good, it's just that the layering of objects is done really poorly and nothing looks connected which ruins the overall look? The crown in particular is floaty and is also too big for his head, but I like the face itself. (Also the background is inherently silly.)Alas, recent DDs proved that 3d portraits bring only uglyness and Victoria 3-like hideousness.
Last edited:
- 18
- 5
- 2
- 1
Yeah, the face is fine, but the whole thing looks like a finger puppet made in Photoshop.
- 5
- 1
I agree, the portrait by itself, separate from everything else, looks more than fine. It's that it feels stitched together and out of proportion, I think partially it might also be lighting and textures of the other items. I'm also worried for what children might look like or generated portraits rather than those for historical characters.
- 3
- 1
I will say something slightly controversial:
Something about CK3 portraits that I like (aside from how they look) is the customisability. I actually think this really changes the entire user experience and is undervalued. Often with generated characters or even pre-made ones it's just inevitable something grating will eventually pop that messes with the experience, with for example the barbershop feature this could be hidden or improved with a simple change in hairstyle, dress, addition of a beard, hair colour or something else. It makes a BIG difference in the long run even if it's not perfect. I think if you're going so far as to put in portraits you might as well go all the way.
Something about CK3 portraits that I like (aside from how they look) is the customisability. I actually think this really changes the entire user experience and is undervalued. Often with generated characters or even pre-made ones it's just inevitable something grating will eventually pop that messes with the experience, with for example the barbershop feature this could be hidden or improved with a simple change in hairstyle, dress, addition of a beard, hair colour or something else. It makes a BIG difference in the long run even if it's not perfect. I think if you're going so far as to put in portraits you might as well go all the way.
- 4
- 1
- 1
Ah yes, can't wait for all my African rulers to look like Shaka Zulu
- 3
- 1
Still has a bit of dead eye doll syndrome to be honest.
Again, nothing a bit of stylisation can't fix.
- 8
- 1
For gran strategy games, 3d graphics are a waste of time and resources that can be used in developing interesting mechanics or features.
- 13
- 9
This makes no sense. The transition to 3D is because it's easier to make a lot more art with fewer people than 2D art
- 8
- 3
The pro argument for 3d models is a lot of variety without too much work, since features can be quite randomised and it will look "decent".
Though adding an AI filtering to it should tie it up nicely IMHO. It's not like it's denigrating someone's hard work since the 3d model is essentially already a random AI clay model.
Last edited:
- 7
- 2
- 1
3D graphics tend to have higher upfront to get them "set up" and then lower everything else when compared to 2d assets. Why do you think Pokemon switched from 2d Sprites in B/W, to 3D models in X/Y? For funsies? No, it's so they wouldn't have to create 700 something pieces of distinct art each game... for the Pokémon alone.
I wouldn't be surprised if PDX created one system when they developed CK3, and has just been iteratively modifying it in each game they've made since. From a development standpoint, that is absolutely more efficient at scale. This isn't me saying I like it or dislike it, it's me pointing out the incentive structures.
- 5
- 3
One old user feedback: I really do not care about fancy 3D's within GSG's (except of 20th century where I love to zoom in to the battleships where I require to see every single screw from every view direction ) even though I created 3D's in my job for other purpose. For the GSG I really care only about the map from graphics point of view. And with all the honest, Project Caesar has the GREATEST map from all Paradox, no, from the whole gaming universe. On the other hand, I do not care at all about events graphics. I do not care about characters (OK, within CK3 I spent few weeks having all country in adamite religion with some not specified mod ), but really this is not my CTQ and this is not reason for buying your games. I accept that I'm in minority and your market positioning is somewhere different and also you need to keep up with your competition... What I'd love to be allowed is to have settings where I can switch off all 3D stuff and having simple 2D representations instead of it. Reason is that it is disturbing on the map and adds additional load to both CPU and GPU. But I know, it requires more resources from the development team and most likely, will not increase your sales anyhow, so there is no financial justification for that. Accepted.
) even though I created 3D's in my job for other purpose. For the GSG I really care only about the map from graphics point of view. And with all the honest, Project Caesar has the GREATEST map from all Paradox, no, from the whole gaming universe. On the other hand, I do not care at all about events graphics. I do not care about characters (OK, within CK3 I spent few weeks having all country in adamite religion with some not specified mod ), but really this is not my CTQ and this is not reason for buying your games. I accept that I'm in minority and your market positioning is somewhere different and also you need to keep up with your competition... What I'd love to be allowed is to have settings where I can switch off all 3D stuff and having simple 2D representations instead of it. Reason is that it is disturbing on the map and adds additional load to both CPU and GPU. But I know, it requires more resources from the development team and most likely, will not increase your sales anyhow, so there is no financial justification for that. Accepted.
>The pro argument for 3d models is a lot of variety without too much work, since features can be quite randomised and it will look "decent".
- 11
What I fear is that they have spent enough resources on it (and are still pouring tons of resource into it) that it is getting put everywhere to justify the 'expense'. The Throne room and ruler part UI panel that was linked above isn't needed, doesn't provide any information towards the disaster.
- 5
- 2
- 1
The only two kind of 'full-size' 3D portraits I recall so far really look quite decent:
.jpg "ashanti (1).jpg")
.jpg "european (1).jpg")
But when they turn them into small icons, they become much more Vicky3-style:
.png "unnamed (1).png")
So I think those small icons should be 2D portrait-style images. They even fit there better.
And a decent HQ 3D portrait when you 'interact' with the character.
But when they turn them into small icons, they become much more Vicky3-style:
So I think those small icons should be 2D portrait-style images. They even fit there better.
And a decent HQ 3D portrait when you 'interact' with the character.
- 7
Why did you took one from the game where PDX 3D models are at their best?