I don't really like any of the three. B is the most balanced, but you can't just indiscriminately saturate/desaturate the entire picture. Specific colors could probably be toned down to the level they're at in C, like the ground.Now that's a serious effort put into development. They took a screenshot, and made THREE saturation variants, where the over- and desaturated ones are plainly retarded.
I think it's just a bullshit, it's to create an impression for morons that they have an influence on something in development process. Unexisting problem that could be easily solved by three magickal sliders in the video settings.
JPEG's without the horrible MSPaint compression?
Whoa, hold on, man. I assure you, the HSV color manipulation *is* possible, for the entire image and for separate textures as well.you can't just indiscriminately saturate/desaturate the entire picture. Specific colors could probably be toned down to the level they're at in C, like the ground.
Whoa, hold on, man. I assure you, the HSV color manipulation *is* possible, for the entire image and for separate textures as well.you can't just indiscriminately saturate/desaturate the entire picture. Specific colors could probably be toned down to the level they're at in C, like the ground.
Now that's a serious effort put into development. They took a screenshot, and made THREE saturation variants, where the over- and desaturated ones are plainly retarded.
I think it's just a bullshit, it's to create an impression for morons that they have an influence on something in development process. Unexisting problem that could be easily solved by three magickal sliders in the video settings.
seems like Fargo wanted the "B"and just made two other retarded images to offer the illusion of choice
seems like Fargo wanted the "B"and just made two other retarded images to offer the illusion of choice
it's one of those graphic designer client handling tricks you see being mentioned every now and then
do what your client generally wants(within your conscience), then make a couple of alternate drafts with pretty horrendous modifications (like a neon lime and bruised purple color scheme), then present all of them as equally good choices
the client can then choose the one that isn't retarded and pat himself on the back for his decisive design leadership and great visual taste
It works. That's how I used to convince my peers that my design for the high school newspaper was best. Especially effective when your peers are clueless fucks who don't have the technical skill to even try to make their own suggestions, because they don't understand the full potential of Adobe software and just use it like MSWord when it's placed in their hands. I suppose the same would apply to most of the backers on that forum, after playing so many grimdark shooters and action games over the years that they've forgotten half the colors in the rainbow exist.it's one of those graphic designer client handling tricks you see being mentioned every now and then
I suppose the same would apply to most of the backers on that forum, after playing so many grimdark shooters and action games over the years that they've forgotten half the colors in the rainbow exist.
My comment was mostly aimed at the ones who wanted Option C, which is completely artificial "hurr yeah i want wasteland be barren." But I don't really like the colors either. Not the hues per se, so much as how unevenly distributed everything is. The new character models seem to have this shiny, painted porcelain look to them with as much contrast as the gas station, which both look nauseating against the dingy, cheese-colored rocks and terrain. The colors on the gas station building are also unusually deep looking for what's supposed to be a dried, parched desert area. Certain colors offend me more than others, but I'd be content with the rather simplistic compromise in Option B. What really annoys me is the variable detail - again, many of the models seem to clash with one another, with the rangers seeming particularly odd looking. I actually prefer the ones from the original, in spite of that one comically proportioned fat guy in the back. But they exist alongside these incredibly underdetailed cacti and incredibly detailed cars. The entire scene just seems...bland to me.You truly do not find the current palette to clash? Oh dear, I better go back re-read that color-theory half of the book.
My comment was mostly aimed at the ones who wanted Option C, which is completely artificial "hurr yeah i want wasteland be barren." But I don't really like the colors either. Not the hues per se, so much as how unevenly distributed everything is. The new character models seem to have this shiny, painted porcelain look to them with as much contrast as the gas station, which both look nauseating against the dingy, cheese-colored rocks and terrain. The colors on the gas station building are also unusually deep looking for what's supposed to be a dried, parched desert area. Certain colors offend me more than others, but I'd be content with the rather simplistic compromise in Option B. What really annoys me is the variable detail - again, many of the models seem to clash with one another, with the rangers seeming particularly odd looking. I actually prefer the ones from the original, in spite of that one comically proportioned fat guy in the back. But they exist alongside these incredibly underdetailed cacti and incredibly detailed cars. The entire scene just seems...bland to me.You truly do not find the current palette to clash? Oh dear, I better go back re-read that color-theory half of the book.
But I mean, don't mind me, because I still like my concept the best:
Now, when the colors of the picture are right (or let's pretend they are), would be nice if InXile solved also the problem of *what* is in the picture