Author Topic: Upcoming Releases Volume XIII: Unlucky Release Edition (Read 203125 times)

ColBosch · « **Reply #120 on:** 20 July 2018, 19:10:57 »

I've got a confession: I never liked Loose's Technical Readout art. I fully understand why it was done that way, and the constraints he was under, but I just don't dig the style. This carries over into the miniatures. The Atlas is supposed to be terrifying, but its sculpts have ranged from "diet ad before picture" to "diet ad after picture."

Fear Factory · « **Reply #121 on:** 20 July 2018, 19:15:48 »

Quote from: ColBosch on 20 July 2018, 19:10:57

I've got a confession: I never liked Loose's Technical Readout art. I fully understand why it was done that way, and the constraints he was under, but I just don't dig the style. This carries over into the miniatures. The Atlas is supposed to be terrifying, but its sculpts have ranged from "diet ad before picture" to "diet ad after picture."

It's one of the reasons why I like the reimagined art in the TRO:3050 update. It's fresh.

BairdEC · « **Reply #122 on:** 20 July 2018, 19:16:14 »

Meh... I like most of the older designs better than the MWO walking box stuff. If CGL thinks the old look is outdated, they should update the timeline and design new mechs instead of wasting money redesigning the old stuff. Otherwise it's like Ford saying "No, really, the Model T has always looked like this new design."

Empyrus · « **Reply #123 on:** 20 July 2018, 19:22:06 »

Quote from: Fear Factory on 20 July 2018, 19:15:48

It's one of the reasons why I like the reimagined art in the TRO:3050 update. It's fresh.

I always found TRO3050U art to be on weird side for most part. It is that damn shading, i think. Those weird checkerboard patterns and all that.
Brent Evans' art is much better in TRO3075.

Unfortunately TRO3050U IS art clashes with modernized classics (or the few others with modern art/miniature) just as much as TRO3039 does.

Quote from: BairdEC on 20 July 2018, 19:16:14

Meh... I like most of the older designs better than the MWO walking box stuff. If CGL thinks the old look is outdated, they should update the timeline and design new mechs instead of wasting money redesigning the old stuff. Otherwise it's like Ford saying "No, really, the Model T has always looked like this new design."

Unfortunately, it is really, really hard to get people to move on in the timeline. The Dark Age is kinda contentious, plus tech can't be quite thrown away either, supposedly being problematic for introductory games.
There's also that the old 'Mechs, especially classics and original Clan Omnis, are for BT fans are incredibly iconic, far more so than T-Fords are in real world.
(Also TRO:SW kinda implies a lot of old 'Mechs are in use even in 3250. So much for getting rid of them.)

You wouldn't believe the amount of people who asked if the Timber Wolf or Marauder would be in HBS BattleTech, despite them not being that familiar with BattleTech.

Liam's Ghost · « **Reply #124 on:** 20 July 2018, 19:41:34 »

Quote from: ColBosch on 20 July 2018, 19:10:57

I've got a confession: I never liked Loose's Technical Readout art. I fully understand why it was done that way, and the constraints he was under, but I just don't dig the style. This carries over into the miniatures. The Atlas is supposed to be terrifying, but its sculpts have ranged from "diet ad before picture" to "diet ad after picture."

The plastech atlas was positively cuddly.

ColBosch · « **Reply #125 on:** 20 July 2018, 19:56:31 »

Quote from: Liam's Ghost on 20 July 2018, 19:41:34

The plastech atlas was positively cuddly.

It's one of my favorites. ;D

Fear Factory · « **Reply #126 on:** 20 July 2018, 20:06:21 »

Quote from: Empyrus on 20 July 2018, 19:22:06

I always found TRO3050U art to be on weird side for most part. It is that damn shading, i think. Those weird checkerboard patterns and all that.
Brent Evans' art is much better in TRO3075.

The Cyclops looks good in a turtleneck.

Empyrus · « **Reply #127 on:** 20 July 2018, 20:11:09 »

Quote from: Fear Factory on 20 July 2018, 20:06:21

The Cyclops looks good in a turtleneck.

Can't unsee, damn you ;D

Fear Factory · « **Reply #128 on:** 20 July 2018, 20:20:45 »

All I'm saying is, with full bias, I would like a sculpt of an Assassin based on art by Shimmering Sword. My desktop has been his Assassin art for a while. I love it. The MechWarrior Online one looks cool, but I can't get over how stupid the legs look.

Empyrus · « **Reply #129 on:** 20 July 2018, 21:15:29 »

Catalyst made pretty good decision picking Shimmy as BT art director. Most of Shimmering Sword's versions of 'Mechs balance original design and style with modern looks well.
...
That Vulcan is weird though, kinda like a dwarf Vulcan. Then again, the Vulcan has been always perhaps a bit over-skinny and tall.

klarg1 · « **Reply #130 on:** 20 July 2018, 22:16:06 »

Quote from: Empyrus on 20 July 2018, 21:15:29

That Vulcan is weird though, kinda like a dwarf Vulcan. Then again, the Vulcan has been always perhaps a bit over-skinny and tall.

They don't call it the "scarecrow" mech for nothing. ;)

Mech Dingus · « **Reply #131 on:** 20 July 2018, 22:37:22 »

I guess I'm in the camp that prefers a somewhat more modern look over a bunch of the older stuff(not all of it). Even if that's what I fell in love with back in the day.

Fear Factory · « **Reply #132 on:** 20 July 2018, 22:49:59 »

You know, I was stumbling through some old FASA books I got a hold of today... Inner Sphere 1724 has some art by Plog with something that made me squee... Fear Factory fan? He had to have Self Bias Resistor blasting when he was drawing this up.

My point being, I miss this kind of stuff.

Valkerie · « **Reply #133 on:** 20 July 2018, 22:51:53 »

I like new art and the old. The new Awesome and Catapult are both gorgeous. Great modernization of their designs. Yet I still love the originals. And I will be very happy to have both in my collection. :thumbsup:

Crimson Dawn · « **Reply #134 on:** 21 July 2018, 00:53:45 »

To me some new stuff looks good and other new stuff not so much. I really like the MWO stalker (which looks a lot like a stalker 2 to me though that is not a bad thing) and I like the newer versions of the locust. That being said there are a bunch I do not like such as the MWO battlemaster and wolverine to me they are blocky and are harder to differentiate than they should be. I also do not like the newer Atlas in MWO give me the clasic Atlas any day.

As for updating some mechs some mechs like the jagermech have always been ugly to me and they still are even when I see new art of it with updates and in MWO. I am not sure you can make it cool to me and there are a few other mechs like that.

I do like many of the new classics though to be honest most of the ones I really like are often really similar to the original (especially the Macross related ones) which may be why I do not like many of I think they get reffered to as reseen. Many of those versions I find ugly and unappealing.

For some art I think they need a redesign less than just making a new bit of art that is staged better. Some of the poses they use on these drawings are just not great uses of the model.

captnmartin · « **Reply #135 on:** 21 July 2018, 01:27:14 »

Quote from: Empyrus on 20 July 2018, 18:16:51

As long as they're not MWO models or even too much much MWO-like. While animation gives them some life, as in HBS BattleTech, they still don't feel right to me, being too stiff, too much like walking tanks, not BattleTech at all.

BattleTech's roots are in Robotech and other such anime, as such humanoid robots are very much part of BT's identity, and that humanoid-part does include certain degree of freedom of movement walking tank depictions don't have.

I would disagree, Battletech started the whole 'walking tank' idea. It's a North American take on Japanese mecha. To me Battletech was always more about walking tanks then acrobatic cartwheel robotech/japanesetech.

Just an opinion, we all have our own headcanon of course. But what has always made battletech stand out to me is that it isn't japanese mecha by virtue of its machines being slower, and more attrition based warfare style then flashy sword swinging.

SteelRaven · « **Reply #136 on:** 21 July 2018, 01:40:42 »

Art style really comes down to taste, it's a endless discussion because there is no right answer. Just happy that we have enough mechs to please nearly everyone.

I really am a fan of the Classics like the new Battlemster and Griffin (hopping for a new Wammy though I got a nice proxy to hold me over) but I'm also looking forward to what comes next. The Lament looks amazing and the Jade Hawk with infernos is great nightmare fuel for friends and enemies alike.

Sellsword · « **Reply #137 on:** 21 July 2018, 05:16:20 »

Art can be subjective but I think what people are missing is that societal expectations have changed. Take Boris Vallejo. His art is fantastic but does it feel current when compared to fantasy art that is being produced for games now? It would feel out of place as a D&D or Battletech novel cover. This is how I feel about the mech designs and TRO art work. And I mean almost all of it up to and including TRO 3150. It feels dated to me. I think the whole visual aesthetics of the game needs to change.

jimdigris · « **Reply #138 on:** 21 July 2018, 05:25:56 »

Quote from: Sellsword on 21 July 2018, 05:16:20

Art can be subjective but I think what people are missing is that societal expectations have changed. Take Boris Vallejo. His art is fantastic but does it feel current when compared to fantasy art that is being produced for games now? It would feel out of place as a D&D or Battletech novel cover. This is how I feel about the mech designs and TRO art work. And I mean almost all of it up to and including TRO 3150. It feels dated to me. I think the whole visual aesthetics of the game needs to change.

Boris's work was used for cover artwork for one of the novels. It was a very nice painting, but you wouldn't know that it was a BattleTech cover just by looking at the art.

Sellsword · « **Reply #139 on:** 21 July 2018, 05:43:35 »

Quote from: jimdigris on 21 July 2018, 05:25:56

Boris's work was used for cover artwork for one of the novels. It was a very nice painting, but you wouldn't know that it was a BattleTech cover just by looking at the art.

I know. And this brings up another point. Battletech doesn’t seem to have a consistent visual brand. You can take a picture of a pathfinder book stick it on its own and still recognize it as coming from the pathfinder game. This is true of smaller companies too. Megacon games such as Mercs 2.0 have a unique style that is easily recognizeable. Battletech has become a hodgepodge of different artist styles and I find it jarring.

Empyrus · « **Reply #140 on:** 21 July 2018, 09:47:30 »

Quote from: captnmartin on 21 July 2018, 01:27:14

I would disagree, Battletech started the whole 'walking tank' idea. It's a North American take on Japanese mecha. To me Battletech was always more about walking tanks then acrobatic cartwheel robotech/japanesetech.

If you look at TRO3025 'Mechs, they're most certainly drawn with similar aesthetics as the Wasp, Shadow Hawk, BattleMaster. That is, mostly humanoid, moving head, articulate arms, etc. Not exactly walking tanks. There are some older 'Mechs that are more tank-like (the Rifleman, JagerMech, Jenner, Locust), but they aren't common early on. And while 'Mechs don't cartwheel in combat, Tech Manual fiction parts make it pretty clear that 'Mechs can do crazy stuff like handstand.... in controlled circumstances.

I don't define walking tank by its use, but by its looks, in case that wasn't clear. BT does firmly use 'Mech as walking tanks, but that is irrelevant to me.

I'll note that Star Wars featured quite literal walking tanks a couple of years before BattleTech, in form of the AT-ST (and even before with the AT-ATs). Not sure how much it influenced mecha genre anywhere though.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #141 on:** 21 July 2018, 10:33:04 »

Flea . . . Shadow Cat . . .

On the flipside . . . we have how many manufacturers spread across the sphere, look at the variety of cars we had in the 20s, 30s and 50s when the brands proliferated with each set of designers creating their own look.

As I said earlier, I dislike the way the Cataphract art is currently . . . I really like the MWO art, I think it holds true to the form without having the cartoonish look of the BT art. But I also understand that its . . . a uncommon mech & its not iconic thus unlikely for new art for quite a while- in my mind, the 3050 production models look like MWO. I also think the MWO art looks a lot the same simply b/c of the medium- like I said earlier the skins that go on the object are going to share a lot of the 'detail' work since it will cut costs. The models are also going to be blockier and I think the legs are too long on a lot of the Clan birdwalkers.

Fear Factory · « **Reply #142 on:** 21 July 2018, 11:16:26 »

The old art itself is blocky with a hint of anime sleek. Which is fine because it honors the anime art roots of the game. I just don't like the bulky aesthetic that MWO/Dark Age has. I get it, walking tanks, but even modern tanks don't look excessively blocky and there are pretty good differences between their design. May it be panels, volume, thickness, etc.

I enjoy how Shimmering Sword reinvented the Classics. MWO did fine with some, but most of the 'mechs look like they struggle to move or are fattened up just to do it. The movement in the game does not feel right, opposed to how it worked in earlier sims like MechWarrior 2 and 3 (which looks way better, IMO). Side note, why does PGI hate necks?

This is a good example of bad. Not saying the art is bad, just can't stand the bulk. And this style stands with what Abou is talking about, you look at it long enough and they look more and more the same. It's way too bland even with all of the detail.

Sartris · « **Reply #143 on:** 21 July 2018, 11:22:45 »

I’m in the same boat. Let Mr. Scroggins do his job as the art director. If his classic redesigns and the new box set minis are the new direction of mech aesthetics, that’s fine with me.

GreekFire · « **Reply #144 on:** 21 July 2018, 12:00:08 »

Been away. It's been a few years, can't be exact, dunno how long.

What's new? Apologies if it's been discussed recently, have not read far back into this topic.

Empyrus · « **Reply #145 on:** 21 July 2018, 12:10:27 »

Quote from: GreekFire on 21 July 2018, 12:00:08

Been away. It's been a few years, can't be exact, dunno how long.

What's new? Apologies if it's been discussed recently, have not read far back into this topic.

Few years? No shit.

What's new? Nothing, quite literally, in that there has been no new releases for about a year. Total Warfare and the like are getting reprints with new covers.
New box set coming this year, as is first part of IlClan titled Shattered Fortress.
There was a lawsuit about the new Classics but it went away.

Sartris · « **Reply #146 on:** 21 July 2018, 12:17:44 »

Quote from: Empyrus on 21 July 2018, 12:10:27

Few years? No shit.

What's new? Nothing, quite literally, in that there has been no new releases for about a year. Total Warfare and the like are getting reprints with new covers.
New box set coming this year, as is first part of IlClan titled Shattered Fortress.
There was a lawsuit about the new Classics but it went away.

Depending on how ‘a couple years’ falls, the and First and Second Succession War books might be included as well

Cubby · « **Reply #147 on:** 21 July 2018, 13:34:49 »

Quote from: Gaiiten on 20 July 2018, 13:27:40

What about publishing sourcebooks as to the Historicals, Era Reports or Hot Spots just as text (without stylish design and no illustrations)?
<snip>
You could offer these variants for a lower price than the *full* publications and so increase the audience.

I get where you're going, but spitting out a bunch of plain-text documents would not increase the audience. We're competing for market share with larger, more-capitalized companies that can do books in full color. Producing books that don't even have layout--something like a Rifts book, but without even the re-canned art of those--would not appeal to a modern customer.

Quote from: abou on 20 July 2018, 18:32:55

How do you proceed with this?

For starters, by remembering that CGL's license does not include miniature production. Only in certain circumstances, such as intro boxes or apparently lance packs. How far do the limits of what the company is allowed to produce extend? I don't know, only upper management or someone with access to the license agreement and probably a law degree does. But while I'm willing to let this discussion play out (for now), I'm going to keep reminding everyone here that CGL producing a few resculpted minis does not make them IWM.

Quote

One at a time

No, see above.

Quote

in batches?

Probably, in the form of supplemental boxes/packs.

Quote

All at once?

Is bank robbery still illegal, or just frowned upon?

Quote

Which designs?

Whichever sell the fastest. No points for completionism or fan service. The goal is to turn plastic into cash as fast as possible.

Quote from: Sellsword on 21 July 2018, 05:43:35

Battletech doesn’t seem to have a consistent visual brand.

Because it's been around for 35 years. Whereas

Quote

the pathfinder game.

has been around for nine, and

Quote

Mercs 2.0

has been around for two.

Quote from: Fear Factory on 20 July 2018, 11:19:53

Side note: ANY chance TRO Sucession Wars will get a reprint with the rest of the classics added in?

Any response I could give here would be total speculation. I don't think the idea is lost on management. I do think it's not even going to be a passing thought in anyone's mind until after con season. The conclusion of the lawsuit came less than a month ago, and after a very uncertain process, and in the middle of con season, and in the middle of production of two or three priority projects.

ColBosch · « **Reply #148 on:** 21 July 2018, 14:28:23 »

Well then, here's a stupid thought: how about IWM gets into the plastic business? No, I'm not expecting them to invest in million-dollar injection machines. But they could have them manufactured in China and brand them as IWM, or come up with another brand name. Then the customers get the pieces they want and nobody has to go rejiggering contracts.

Kitsune413 · « **Reply #149 on:** 21 July 2018, 14:28:47 »

Quote from: GreekFire on 21 July 2018, 12:00:08

Been away. It's been a few years, can't be exact, dunno how long.

What's new? Apologies if it's been discussed recently, have not read far back into this topic.

A prodigal Sea Fox returns to us. ;D