Fallacy, the argumen isn't JUST about 3d models but the new and in-depth character system which is undebatabley more popular.
- 7
-
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.
Probably because a lot of 3D characters in pdx games that have them can look "goofy"
- 3
- 1
- 1
Do goofy looking characters justify the absolute tantrums we’re seeing? Some people said they would no longer buy the game because of them. Who plays PDX games for the graphics lmao
- 19
- 5
- 2
Yes it's justified, mainly because people have different opinions and they can do what they want with their opinion
- 8
- 7
Covering over the 3D models with some kind of post rendering filter might go some way to making them more palatable, perhaps?
It does not have higher quality of anything - its just an effect of making image coherent - filter acts as a glue, common thing between all elements that otherwise look out of place (image made by PełPeł)
It does not have higher quality of anything - its just an effect of making image coherent - filter acts as a glue, common thing between all elements that otherwise look out of place (image made by PełPeł)
- 9
- 8
- 3
That looks good.
Its nice to see someone who doesn't like the art style give a useful suggestion, rather than just having a meltdown based on based on personal preferences.
- 13
- 1
- 1
Yes i was wondering wether this was possible
I think applying a rendering (what rendering being moddable) could be great to mix dna system and liberty of art style
We could even imagine different rendering based of different painting styles of the era/culture
- 2
- 1
- 1
Actually I'm really surprised how many people strongly dislike this big 3d art: current Tinto Talks has more than 5 times the number of [x] as any other TT to date, including maps. If You count it as % of number of votes it is even worse. I thought it was just me but apparently people do have strong opinion about this for many different reasons.
After some consideration I believe that for me the main problem is not 3d art per se but this big useless throne room render - it reminds me heavily of Civilization series and just feels out of place. I really hope it is just loading screen that we misinterpreted as in-game diplomacy window or something.
- 7
- 1
I'm not saying that everyone hates 3D portraits, but I want to say;
Dev diary 22 for Vic 3 where they announced the war system has considerably more likes than dislikes, so I don't think reactions to a dev diary is an absolute metric to go by.
Also, I hate 3D portraits, but I liked many of the mechanics in the dev diary, I wouldn't put a dislike down on the TT for that reason alone.
- 14
- 2
- 1
- 1
Personally also not a fan of the 3D characters. Actually, disclaimer, I am not a fan of the trend of every long lasting game that worked fine in 2D just "having" to transition to a far worse 3-dimensional style of graphics because that's more modern or something, so I am heavily biased in that regard.
I know that 3D models are more easier to vary once the initial groundwork is done, but from my own knowledge on researching graphics as a game dev student, I am pretty sure one could apply those same advantages to a drawn 2D model. Rigging, assembling, warping, etc. all can be done with 2D characters.
The work though seems already done, so I am not sure if it would be acceptable to just abandon the technology again from a games development perspective, but I certainly think that the suggestion of at least allowing the replacement of a 2D Model for modding purposes would be something that would be hugely beneficial.
Appreciate Sanke's response, btw. Love the transparency
I know that 3D models are more easier to vary once the initial groundwork is done, but from my own knowledge on researching graphics as a game dev student, I am pretty sure one could apply those same advantages to a drawn 2D model. Rigging, assembling, warping, etc. all can be done with 2D characters.
The work though seems already done, so I am not sure if it would be acceptable to just abandon the technology again from a games development perspective, but I certainly think that the suggestion of at least allowing the replacement of a 2D Model for modding purposes would be something that would be hugely beneficial.
Appreciate Sanke's response, btw. Love the transparency
- 6
- 3
- 1
- 1
im not a fan of 3d character, but it would matter less than 1% tbh... if i list the things i dislike of vic3, characters would be last.
this is something i realised some 6-9 months after vic3 released. vic3 could be 100% bugfree, with perfect performance and work exactly as intended i am pretty sure i still wouldnt enjoy it.
this is something i realised some 6-9 months after vic3 released. vic3 could be 100% bugfree, with perfect performance and work exactly as intended i am pretty sure i still wouldnt enjoy it.
- 6
I honestly think that placeholder portraits used for victoria3 are great (you can still find them under game/gfx/portraits/placeholder). Too bad they were never used
- 8
- 5
- 2
I agree with you (surprising, isn't it?). The mechanics seem to be done well, and are honestly exactly the level of depth I would have liked to see for EUV. Not too much; not too little. And the 3D would hardly diminish my enjoyment of the game, since at the end of the day it truly has no mechanical effect. Unless these portraits take up half the screen and obscure actually useful information, I can (and probably will) ignore them and go on my merry way.
- 6
I don't think that's because people like the 3D characters, I think that's because vic 3 has bigger problems than the weird looking characters.
- 7
- 1
Ah yes, the tactic of making multiple threads to express displeasure with a design direction, that's always gone over well on the forums in the past.
- 2
- 2
- 2
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.967
- 255.750
One day I want to make a fantasy game where you can design your own chimaeara species!
- 36
- 10
- 10
Am I going crazy or did people live a completely different timeline than I did? I vividly remember the CK2 portraits being called ugly back in their day and being criticised, with players even recommending each other not to buy some of the CK2 portrait DLCs like the Byzantine Portrait Pack.
Obviously, 2D portraits nowadays need not to look like they did back in the day but it's crazy to think that somehow the change to 3D in CK3 was a downgrade and was disliked by the community. Victoria 3 portraits do indeed look ugly but for me the issue in that game is hardly limited to just that.
The 3D portraits we saw in the thread also looked really well-made. Sure, some improvements could occur but they were fine overall, and 3D does add some benefits over to it. I don't understand the reason or logic behind this panic. This seems to me to be a very vocal minority complaining about the change. I hardly doubt the vast majority of EU4/PDX fans actually care about this.
Obviously, 2D portraits nowadays need not to look like they did back in the day but it's crazy to think that somehow the change to 3D in CK3 was a downgrade and was disliked by the community. Victoria 3 portraits do indeed look ugly but for me the issue in that game is hardly limited to just that.
The 3D portraits we saw in the thread also looked really well-made. Sure, some improvements could occur but they were fine overall, and 3D does add some benefits over to it. I don't understand the reason or logic behind this panic. This seems to me to be a very vocal minority complaining about the change. I hardly doubt the vast majority of EU4/PDX fans actually care about this.
- 15
- 3
- 2
- 1
As someone who is rather dissatisfied and disappointed with both Vicky 3 and CK3, (though I love Imperator and CK3 is much better than Vicky 3), and also is usually against 3D portraits (mainly championing my modder friends), this thread is unhinged.
First, character models in CK3 are awesome and loved by almost everyone. I like designing characters, it fits the game, the DNA system is robust. I would like the game if they added strategy instead of Gacha-game looking trinkets, but despite the goofy poses CK3 is not bad due to 3D models.
Second, both Victoria 3 and Imperator had much bigger issues than that. Victoria 3 did a terrible job with 3D models, admittedly, but is also the oldest application of the system and not really relevant to the discussion anymore. Imperator doesn't even really have 3D models, it looks much closer to CK2 to be honest.
Third, the artists of Project Caesar definitely do not deserve such vitriol, because the character models look quite nice. I am still worried about clothing assets not being enough in number and modding, but even the European model is CK3 level good, and the African one is like legitimately good.
Also, no, as much as I love EU4, I do not want a remaster of it, and I doubt anyone does. Addition of new mechanics has been universally approved by the community, as well as the ditching of several EU4 concepts and mechanics. Barely anybody would agree with that last statement of yours.
Victoria 3 is definitely kind of a failure, its reviews took a lot of time to heal and fanbase was outraged. I myself still haven't switched from Vicky 2. CK3, not at all a failure. But it kind of appealed to a larger audience, and lost some of the core audience along the way.
Many minors I assume, I started playing as a teenager and so did every other player I know. 15 year old boys are a core audience of these games.
- 13
- 4
- 1
- 1