|
Post by thirdorbital on Jul 28, 2017 16:03:05 GMT
Cheers wishing, you got my original point perfectly.
To me it's like if Disney bought Privateer Press tomorrow and then decided that this whole game takes place in the Star Wars galaxy and introduced the Galactic Empire as a playable faction. You could then say "see, these storm troopers are SUPPOSED to be different because they just landed on the planet from their star destroyer! They power their warjacks with the Force!" It might be true, and it might be backed up by official canon... But I'd still think its a pretty stupid idea to have storm troopers in WarMachine. To me, Grymkin feel like they belong on the next table over playing a different game, and nothing you can say about the desires of the developers or what was written in the fluff changes my opinion of "out of place".
|
|
|
Post by AdeptusB on Jul 28, 2017 21:42:39 GMT
To me, Grymkin feel like they belong on the next table over playing a different game, and nothing you can say about the desires of the developers or what was written in the fluff changes my opinion of "out of place". Most Grymkin models seem only a bit off to me- which I find appropriate to their role as wholly-supernatural bogymen (dating back to the d20 Monsternomicon days). Unlike manga-inspired Retribution models or art deco-influenced Convergence models- those are the ones that look to me like they belong to a completely different game.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jul 28, 2017 21:52:38 GMT
Sure. And the poster you were replying to, to be honest, didn't say he thought they looked ugly. He said that he thought they looked out of place, and implied that he didn't love them for that reason. I guess what I am trying to discuss is the idea that not liking something aesthetically can be remedied by explanations about motivation. Like if I walk into a gallery and think "Oh my god, this art is terrible", and I want to leave, but then my friend grabs me and goes "Wait! Let me explain what the intention of the artist is. You are supposed to feel that the art is terrible, but that is because your feeling is actually part of the artwork. That the art is terrible makes it beautiful." Then should I go "OK, I get it now! Cool!"? Or should I go "Well, the art is still terrible, so since I don't enjoy looking at it, I'm going to leave". As I was trying to say, I fall more into the second category. Clearly, for the poster you replied to, "out of place" means "bad". You were replying that since it was intentional, it must mean "good". PP must have seen "out of place" as "good", otherwise they wouldn't intentionally have made them look out of place. I acknowledge that it is possible that thirdorbital will find this argument convincing, and go "Hmm... if PP thinks it's good since they did it intentionally, now I understand the motivation, I actually think they look awesome". But I don't think the argument is that convincing myself. If something just isn't appealing, having the reasons behind it explained to you can't automatically make it appealing. You should see more art by Duchamp. The thing is that your "feeling" that the models are out of place is true and intentional. If you don't like that, then that's your deal. It isn't a fault of pp or the model.
|
|
|
Post by dmorktry on Jul 28, 2017 22:15:55 GMT
Just because they're suppose to look out of place doesn't mean that they did a good job achieving that effect. There are plenty of creatures in media that are designed to look out of place, Apostles in Berserk Golden Age, enemies in Silent Hill, the Watchers in Drakenguard, plenty more even better examples out there, I bet, and plenty more that manage it better than Grymkin do in WM/H. There's any number of factors that can contribute to not liking Grymkin models, some more objective than others, but there are some preeeetty objective reasons out there and just sweeping it away as "Well jokes on you, PP wanted that all along, get trolled, son" isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by lordsizzlor on Jul 28, 2017 22:20:59 GMT
It's a funny kind of discussion, and you see it so often. "They look out of place" -> "They are supposed to look out of place!" "They look ugly" -> "They are supposed to look ugly!" To me this is entirely missing the point. If I don't like them, "supposed to" doesn't matter. I really doubt PP intended to make models that nobody wants to buy. So they can sit and go "Nobody is buying Grymkin because they think they look ugly and out of place. Yes! That means we succeeded in our goal of not selling any Grymkin!" *high fives all round* They look ugly. They look out of place, and that's exactly why I and so many others are buying them
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jul 28, 2017 22:21:02 GMT
Just because they're suppose to look out of place doesn't mean that they did a good job achieving that effect. There are plenty of creatures in media that are designed to look out of place, Apostles in Berserk Golden Age, enemies in Silent Hill, the Watchers in Drakenguard, plenty more even better examples out there, I bet, and plenty more that manage it better than Grymkin do in WM/H. There's any number of factors that can contribute to not liking Grymkin models, some more objective than others, but there are some preeeetty objective reasons out there and just sweeping it away as "Well jokes on you, PP wanted that all along, get trolled, son" isn't enough. Not liking the look of the models is seperate to them not looking appropriate for the setting. I think Skorne looks like ass, doesn't mean pp failed.
|
|
|
Post by dmorktry on Jul 28, 2017 22:23:30 GMT
You can not like models because they're not appropriate for the setting and intentionally not looking appropriate for a setting doesn't prevent it from not being done poorly
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 28, 2017 22:42:21 GMT
You can not like models because they're not appropriate for the setting and intentionally not looking appropriate for a setting doesn't prevent it from not being done poorly First, there's one "not" too many in that sentence. Second, yes, you can dislike models because you feel they're inappropriate for the setting. Third, yes, an intention is not a shield against failure. However fourth, none of that means an opinion is anything more than an opinion. You're entitled to it, and everyone else is entitled to theirs - which doesn't have to be the same.
|
|
|
Post by dmorktry on Jul 29, 2017 2:00:05 GMT
Not sure what "not" you're referring to. I'm glad we agree. I'm glad we agree again. I'm glad I didn't say opinions are anything more than that, just as I'm glad when people don't try to present their opinions as more than just that or speak on conjecture on the design team's intentions to support it.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jul 29, 2017 9:59:20 GMT
The thing is that your "feeling" that the models are out of place is true and intentional. If you don't like that, then that's your deal. It isn't a fault of pp or the model. Ahh, I get it now. The discussion is about whether it is PP's fault or the customer's fault when a customer doesn't like the product. That's why you are saying that you don't personally like Skorne, but you recognise that is your fault and not PP's fault, so therefore you don't think that PP releasing Skorne was a "fault" on PP's part. I'm not really sure I think you can distinguish between whether the dislike of a product is the company's fault or the customer's fault. I mean, does it really matter? I don't think any of this is objective.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jul 29, 2017 11:04:53 GMT
The thing is that your "feeling" that the models are out of place is true and intentional. If you don't like that, then that's your deal. It isn't a fault of pp or the model. Ahh, I get it now. The discussion is about whether it is PP's fault or the customer's fault when a customer doesn't like the product. That's why you are saying that you don't personally like Skorne, but you recognise that is your fault and not PP's fault, so therefore you don't think that PP releasing Skorne was a "fault" on PP's part. I'm not really sure I think you can distinguish between whether the dislike of a product is the company's fault or the customer's fault. I mean, does it really matter? I don't think any of this is objective. You saying that something "doesn't fit the world" is an objective statement in the fluff. We can assess whether that is true or not. Everything else is subjective opinion, imo. You are trying to assess an artistic creation, everything is opinion.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jul 29, 2017 16:49:49 GMT
Exactly. And trying to establish whether something technically fits in the fluff or not seems somewhat meaningless. Of course it does, PP are the ones writing the fluff so they will write the fluff so it fits. They could also write the fluff so that Stormtroopers fit, like thirdorbital says. That's not what anyone is discussing. People are discussing their personal aesthetic opinions on the faction in the context of the game world. Which cannot be dismissed as not technically correct.
|
|