Game News Together in Battle now available on Early Access

[Lord of Riva]

The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting.

If you check one of the other threads on this (maybe the announcement one?), you'll see that Codexers helped him pick the portrait artist. Craig even spent extra money on this one, if I recall correctly (I don't see an issue with the portraits, for what it's worth).

So, who is guilty of this? They should be banned to the prosperium.

Consider the alternatives: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...le-on-early-access.131810/page-7#post-7220644

Hrm, guess it's hard to find a decent artist. Personally I would have just stayed with the first artist, Matt Pichette, it's not great but these badly done pseudo-realistic portraits just hit me straight in the uncanny valley.

Thanks for linking though, I mean it's the plight of the indie Dev to have to content with mediocre talent due to resource constraints. Since he is a dexer, I might support him by buying the game regardless of me not liking the style, i mean it's only the graphics *sgh*

 

[Egosphere]

The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting.

If you check one of the other threads on this (maybe the announcement one?), you'll see that Codexers helped him pick the portrait artist. Craig even spent extra money on this one, if I recall correctly (I don't see an issue with the portraits, for what it's worth).

I'm not criticizing the portraits themselves, but the dissonance between them and the art of the game 'board'. The characters could probably be more expressive, but even as they are now they're fine. It's when you put them over an environment that's reminiscent of late 00s flash games, you get this strange feeling of .. cheapness. As if it's a gamemaker game with assets pulled out of bundles and glued together. Either the characters have to be drawn in that whimsical style, or the game itself has to up its graphical fidelity to match.

 

[Egosphere]

The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting.

If you check one of the other threads on this (maybe the announcement one?), you'll see that Codexers helped him pick the portrait artist. Craig even spent extra money on this one, if I recall correctly (I don't see an issue with the portraits, for what it's worth).

So, who is guilty of this? They should be banned to the prosperium.

Consider the alternatives: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...le-on-early-access.131810/page-7#post-7220644

Hrm, guess it's hard to find a decent artist. Personally I would have just stayed with the first artist, Matt Pichette, it's not great but these badly done pseudo-realistic portraits just hit me straight in the uncanny valley.

Thanks for linking though, I mean it's the plight of the indie Dev to have to content with mediocre talent due to resource constraints. Since he is a dexer, I might support him by buying the game regardless of me not liking the style, i mean it's only the graphics *sgh*

Cleaning up midjourney/SD results in Krita would give much better results than shelling out for mediocre talent

 

[Norfleet]

If true you can never simulate an actual wargame, but perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. You can put all your tanks and men in the best position possible positions based on the enemy strength and their positioning and perhaps all the combined shots and maneuvers you make end up w/ you having a 78% chance of 'victory' in that battle...should the computer just convert that to 100% because you made all the 'correct' moves, and there are literally no more ways you can enhance your chance of victory? Or should it make you make a choice if attacking w/ a 78% chance of winning is worth it or not?

If you're not winning the battle with such a ridiculously overwhelming position, then it seems like the game is dominated by RNG and your input matters very little. If you've done literally everything possible, and yet the outcome is scarcely better than flipping a coin, it's pretty much entirely an RNG game.

I think there is a chance we may just be talking past each other with regards to time frames within a game also, not sure....

Maybe. I'm not talking about your odds of landing a specific shot or a specific unit-on-unit attack, whether you lose one tank or two tanks. I'm talking about the part where you win the battle, which is generally something on the order of a mission or a match.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

The thing about sone early access is the price. Figure out is 25% off now will be cheaper than if the game will get a huge discount later (like a year to five after release on a sale). Hell, it might never go on sale like that Mechajammer. Buy now, don't play until released and a few patches are slapped on if any.

That's how I look at early release.

 

[Galdred]

The thing about sone early access is the price. Figure out is 25% off now will be cheaper than if the game will get a huge discount later (like a year to five after release on a sale). Hell, it might never go on sale like that Mechajammer. Buy now, don't play until released and a few patches are slapped on if any.

That's how I look at early release.

That is a point of interest to me. Do you think EA games are not discounted enough? For my own game, I planned to set the EA price lower than the release one, but without discount (because Steam and IsthereanyDeal mark the highest discount %) until final release.

 

[Galdred]

If true you can never simulate an actual wargame, but perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. You can put all your tanks and men in the best position possible positions based on the enemy strength and their positioning and perhaps all the combined shots and maneuvers you make end up w/ you having a 78% chance of 'victory' in that battle...should the computer just convert that to 100% because you made all the 'correct' moves, and there are literally no more ways you can enhance your chance of victory? Or should it make you make a choice if attacking w/ a 78% chance of winning is worth it or not?

If you're not winning the battle with such a ridiculously overwhelming position, then it seems like the game is dominated by RNG and your input matters very little. If you've done literally everything possible, and yet the outcome is scarcely better than flipping a coin, it's pretty much entirely an RNG game.

Or the AI is competent and doesn't let you win by a landslide? IT is seldom the case, but that could be possible.

I think there is a chance we may just be talking past each other with regards to time frames within a game also, not sure....

Maybe. I'm not talking about your odds of landing a specific shot or a specific unit-on-unit attack, whether you lose one tank or two tanks. I'm talking about the part where you win the battle, which is generally something on the order of a mission or a match.

Blood Bowl is a good example. You will seldom lose against someone much weaker than yourself, but it may happen from time to time, forcing you to adopt a different style (playing even more conservatively).

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

I look at EA discount as a future investment. They're fine usually. Sometimes they are 10% and sometimes higher. You don't have to play the early release. If you know the game will have a full release (or hope) and possible DLC included then I gauge it and decide.

Some people hope for huge discounts years later. It happens for some games (well not copper dreams or w/e it is called mechajamner) and sometimes the discount is deep. I forget those sites that site the lowest price in time for each game and the sites that have coupon codes.

I don't use amazon services for gaming. My backlog is big enough as is.

 

[Jrpgfan]

The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting.

If you check one of the other threads on this (maybe the announcement one?), you'll see that Codexers helped him pick the portrait artist. Craig even spent extra money on this one, if I recall correctly (I don't see an issue with the portraits, for what it's worth).

So, who is guilty of this? They should be banned to the prosperium.

Consider the alternatives: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...le-on-early-access.131810/page-7#post-7220644

The dude he picked is obviously the better artist but I think others might have blend in better with the game's art.

That Zakaria dude would've probably been a better choice.

That's the problem with going with players opinions. If you check the thread, you'll see Mark Yohalem sharing the same opinion.

 

[almondblight]

That Zakaria dude would've probably been a better choice.

Yeah, I prefer the Zakaria portraits myself, though I have no idea if I'm in the minority on that. But keep in mind just the demo art quality isn't the only thing a developer has to take into consideration. For example, Craig said he had a great working relationship with Minkov right off the bat:

Damn, Minkov is such a professional. I raised the issue of his portraits not fully meshing with the backgrounds with him; he took the critique in stride, performed art tests, and got back to me with samples within a span of 12 hours! He's not just incredibly talented, he's someone I can see actually being a pleasure to work with--and when you're working on a project of this size and complexity, that counts for a hell of a lot.