Moderator: Community Team
Dukasaur wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.
Because there's nothing wrong with it?
Everything is clear and easy to see?
You're the one claiming that there's something wrong, so the onus is on you to provide some specific problem that you think should have been addressed. And saying "it's ugly" is an irrelevant subjective opinion. A specific problem would be something like "there's not enough contrast between the background and the font, so the legend is hard to read."
iAmCaffeine wrote:Dukasaur wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.
Because there's nothing wrong with it?
Everything is clear and easy to see?
You're the one claiming that there's something wrong, so the onus is on you to provide some specific problem that you think should have been addressed. And saying "it's ugly" is an irrelevant subjective opinion. A specific problem would be something like "there's not enough contrast between the background and the font, so the legend is hard to read."
Actually, a hell of a lot of people have agreed with me but they have chosen to do so privately. Again, no offence to you, but considering you're not a graphics professional I don't expect you to agree.
Metsfanmax wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:Dukasaur wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.
Because there's nothing wrong with it?
Everything is clear and easy to see?
You're the one claiming that there's something wrong, so the onus is on you to provide some specific problem that you think should have been addressed. And saying "it's ugly" is an irrelevant subjective opinion. A specific problem would be something like "there's not enough contrast between the background and the font, so the legend is hard to read."
Actually, a hell of a lot of people have agreed with me but they have chosen to do so privately. Again, no offence to you, but considering you're not a graphics professional I don't expect you to agree.
If the substance of your comment is "I'm a graphics professional and I can tell you this sucks, but I don't have time to explain why," then you're not contributing anything useful.
iAmCaffeine wrote: Again, no offence to you, but considering you're not a graphics professional I don't expect you to agree.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:Dukasaur wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.
Because there's nothing wrong with it?
Everything is clear and easy to see?
You're the one claiming that there's something wrong, so the onus is on you to provide some specific problem that you think should have been addressed. And saying "it's ugly" is an irrelevant subjective opinion. A specific problem would be something like "there's not enough contrast between the background and the font, so the legend is hard to read."
Actually, a hell of a lot of people have agreed with me but they have chosen to do so privately. Again, no offence to you, but considering you're not a graphics professional I don't expect you to agree.
If the substance of your comment is "I'm a graphics professional and I can tell you this sucks, but I don't have time to explain why," then you're not contributing anything useful.
Are you blind or just deliberately annoying? I have already explained twice that I didn't offer suggestions because the map was about to be quenched. If there was any chance of my feedback being taken on board I would have given it.
AndyDufresne wrote:It's definitely not a map that I find very appealing from a graphics point of view, but I've mostly retired from the Foundry so I know that if I am not active during the process, my right to complain after the fact is pretty limited.
--Andy
JBlombier wrote:What an awesome way to say the map is ugly, Andy.
I don't agree, btw. The graphics aren't so bad, it's the gameplay that's terrible. I'm sure there will be a thread for that soon, btw.
Disclaimer: I should've been in the Foundry to state this earlier, of course!
- Joeri
JBlombier wrote:I suspected the gameplay would suck, so I forced myself to play it and it turns out it really sucks. I'm one of the biggest fans of cairns, so this is a bit of a let frown.
Disclaimer: I should've been in the Foundry to state this earlier, of course!
- JBlombier
Butters1919 wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote: Again, no offence to you, but considering you're not a graphics professional I don't expect you to agree.
One does not have be a graphics professional to look at a graphic and say to oneself "I like that.". I look at the Mona Lisa and say "Meh". I'm sure astute artists would scoff at that, but that's OK! It's our opinion and we're entitled to it, as you are yours.
Metsfanmax wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:Dukasaur wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.
Because there's nothing wrong with it?
Everything is clear and easy to see?
You're the one claiming that there's something wrong, so the onus is on you to provide some specific problem that you think should have been addressed. And saying "it's ugly" is an irrelevant subjective opinion. A specific problem would be something like "there's not enough contrast between the background and the font, so the legend is hard to read."
Actually, a hell of a lot of people have agreed with me but they have chosen to do so privately. Again, no offence to you, but considering you're not a graphics professional I don't expect you to agree.
If the substance of your comment is "I'm a graphics professional and I can tell you this sucks, but I don't have time to explain why," then you're not contributing anything useful.
Are you blind or just deliberately annoying? I have already explained twice that I didn't offer suggestions because the map was about to be quenched. If there was any chance of my feedback being taken on board I would have given it.
Of course there's a chance of your feedback being taken on board -- obviously not for the map in question, but for future maps. So if you wanted to contribute, you would explain what went wrong here so that the Foundry could avoid making the same mistake again later. If you just want to bitch, that's fine too I guess.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Dukasaur wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.
Because there's nothing wrong with it?
Everything is clear and easy to see?
You're the one claiming that there's something wrong, so the onus is on you to provide some specific problem that you think should have been addressed. And saying "it's ugly" is an irrelevant subjective opinion. A specific problem would be something like "there's not enough contrast between the background and the font, so the legend is hard to read."
Actually, a hell of a lot of people have agreed with me but they have chosen to do so privately. Again, no offence to you, but considering you're not a graphics professional I don't expect you to agree.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Sorry Bogan, not taking the bait. Have a good weekend!
DiM wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:Now that this is becoming more relaxed I will be vocal in the map foundry.
excellent news. it's always great to have more people in the foundry, especially if they can offer detailed feedback.iAmCaffeine wrote:On this occasion, I thought it so bad that I had to at least say something.
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.
a map is started and gets feedback. if there's enough interest it gets moved forward and the gameplay and graphics are refined.
this refinement process is based on feedback from other users. if the map reaches a point where most of those users are pleased with how the map feels and looks then it is stamped and moved forward unless the map is really really ugly, in which case a cartography assistant intervenes and tries to help the map maker improve.
the biggest problem is that the foundry is a rather small community. not a lot of people go there and very few offer good feedback. so sometimes map of poorer quality may surface. the few people interested in them are content and the maps aren't so hideous as to force a CA to step in and take action.
i can't comment on this particular map as i haven't analysed it properly but this is generally how the foundry works.
EBConquer wrote:Caffeine, first time I saw the map I was thinking "cool, new map". I didn't even really think about the graphics until you pointed it out but honestly, I'm not sure I would care enough to bring it up other then it's just another map that captured somebody's heart. Sure, there are slight issues w/ the presentation (e.g. bevels, horizontal and vert text alignments, correct pixel aspect ratios, yada yada) but at the end of the day, the normal joe schmoe won't even notice as well as those in the biz who could give a rats ass. with all due respect or course. lol.
iAmCaffeine wrote:EBConquer wrote:Caffeine, first time I saw the map I was thinking "cool, new map". I didn't even really think about the graphics until you pointed it out but honestly, I'm not sure I would care enough to bring it up other then it's just another map that captured somebody's heart. Sure, there are slight issues w/ the presentation (e.g. bevels, horizontal and vert text alignments, correct pixel aspect ratios, yada yada) but at the end of the day, the normal joe schmoe won't even notice as well as those in the biz who could give a rats ass. with all due respect or course. lol.
I understand where you're coming from with that but considering the quality of maps being released now (conquer rome, temple of jinn etc.) this map sticks out terribly. I would have assumed CC would want higher quality.
@Bogan - Still not taking the bait, sorry. Have a good day!
BoganGod wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote:EBConquer wrote:Caffeine, first time I saw the map I was thinking "cool, new map". I didn't even really think about the graphics until you pointed it out but honestly, I'm not sure I would care enough to bring it up other then it's just another map that captured somebody's heart. Sure, there are slight issues w/ the presentation (e.g. bevels, horizontal and vert text alignments, correct pixel aspect ratios, yada yada) but at the end of the day, the normal joe schmoe won't even notice as well as those in the biz who could give a rats ass. with all due respect or course. lol.
I understand where you're coming from with that but considering the quality of maps being released now (conquer rome, temple of jinn etc.) this map sticks out terribly. I would have assumed CC would want higher quality.
@Bogan - Still not taking the bait, sorry. Have a good day!
Again mr negative, using your wealth of awesome graphical knowledge educate us, all the time your spending in here slagging off the map. You could be in the foundry preventing this ocular violation ever happening again. Want to by angel feathers? I'm selling them at a good price.
BoganGod wrote:Well now I can log off CC with a clear mind and happy. Never again, never again on coffeekids watch will sub par graphics ever make the grade. Thank me, jesus, or what ever sky fairy you believe in. Never again will coffeekid need to make a thread to moan and say stinky poo about graphics. He/she/it will be to busy in the foundry slaving away for the enjoyment of us poor visually impaired sub humans that question his self inflated skills.
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Thankyou, THANK YOU, Thank You, THANK You, Thank YOU
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users