And I’m an engineer. Different companies have different priorities I guess. Success speaks volumes though
You can have a car that doesn’t work. That can be measured in terms of functionality.
If we’re talking about how the car looks, then it is not something measured in terms of functionality, but of aesthetics. You can’t measure how bad a car looks on the basis of its engineering functionality, aesthetics are ultimately subjective. Even if you are basing your criticism on functionality, those are your personal subjective views on the matter using functionality as a basis for not liking ‘how it looks’.
If we’re talking about the 3D models, then nothing is functionally wrong with them. As I’ve explained, you can export these models into another engine such as Unreal, and they work perfectly fine. They are functional, the problem is that they are not well optimized for a ‘large scale’ RTS. Yet not being well optimized is not equivalent of ‘objectively bad’ either, it’s just not as polished as it could be. In terms of function they absolutely work.
Unless you are talking about the rendering engine, there isn’t actually anything functionally wrong with the 3D models themselves.
1 Like
I try to explain his point and make it sense:
suppose someone asks you to make 10 3D models for a game, you make the best badass models you ever made, can someone say they are good or bad? It’s totally subjective, probably 99% of people will say they are badass, so gj on that.
Now you put them in the game and you cannot recognize one unit from another for reason that are not related to how badass they are. From is engineering point of view your models are bad. He got a point.
It is exactly the same problem with the UI.
This is a game, not a movie. You can’t just get rid of functionality saying “they look good”.
As a 3D modeller you should understand it, if I tell you to do 10 warriors in plain shiny full plate and then I pretend one of them to be identified as a mage from the small color customizable detail under the helm that also takes almost the same polycount of the rest of the model or drains half the resources of the game is not your fault. It is my fault. And it is not about art, it is about engine/interface design. Fact is, what you say is that the model is not functional… and that is a matter of fact. The FPS is measurable. The time to recognize the unit is measurable. The fact that I pretend a swordsman to be a mage is not measurable… but is just stupid anyway.
That’s his point… as an engineer.
I am not arguing that aesthetic prettiness can be measured. I said in my previous post that I did not know a way to measure the magnitude of prettiness. As mentioned with visual clarity, there is more to art than “it’s pretty” though. Going with the car example, a bad art aesthetic for the looks of a car would have poor aerodynamics, sharp corners and spikes on the front to stab or cut people, or huge flanges that extend into other lanes.
Art and engineering are connected. That’s just how it is if you want something to be good depending on what it is.
1 Like
That’s not an engineering standpoint.
Visual acuity is still absolutely subjective. That you are trying to define this in terms of recognition simply means the design of the models are too muddled for the purpose of clear readability. However that standard is still and always will be, absolutely subjective.
We could swap all the models out into green cubes and blue cubes. That would be absolutely functional in terms of recognition; let’s maximize this as full team color readability. Now would you call this objectively good from an Engineer’s standpoint? I would like to think yes, because it is functional.
Now, what if someone is unable to visually count the cubes because they are all so indistinct. What if someone is faster at recognizing humanoids instead of cubes? What if someone has never seen a video game in their life and doesn’t even understand what they are looking at? How do these factor into dictating what is objectively good and bad? Let’s get this straight - We’re no longer talking about subjectivity and opinion, right? So how do you define objectivity through functionality if every individual has a different standard for what they consider easy to recognize?
You can’t. Because it’s ultimately subjective. Everyone has a different experience when interfacing with graphics, and the threshold of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ functionality is not standardized in any tangible way. At what point is too much/not enough team color a good or bad thing? These things can’t be measured by an Engineer’s standards. These are things that players have to train themselves to recognize over long periods of time.
I don’t think the Reforged models are all that great, and I myself have problems recognizing them in the thick of battle if I’m watching a video of Reforged. However I would not say that any of these graphics are objectively bad on the basis that competitive players find them hard to read because of too much micro-detail on the field; these are not objective standards by any means. These are design issues, yes, but they have to be considered as SUBJECTIVE problems, and a problem nonetheless.
1 Like
Every individual is different. That does not mean you cannot measure visual clarity. Humans are still humans. You should have design goals. “% of sample is able to recognize X within X time.” People can do so much just by adding specifications into design. I’m sorry but I don’t buy the “you can’t measure whether art is good or bad or not. IT’S ALL A ROLL OF THE DICE!” I’m an engineer though. Solving problems is what I do.
Also, some of ironing out the discrepancies you mentioned between individual visual clarity boils down to knowing your audience and your art’s purpose, which can be defined.
Yes, I am aware Engineers solve problems.
However the issue I’m bringing up is that how do you know when something is a problem if there is no standard for when it will no longer be a problem?
We could make this completely readable by designing the game to be team colored cubes. That would be the extreme. Some people might end up getting used to this style of play, to the point where it is hard to go back to any non-Team colored cubes in the game. Which is the problem then?
As I’ve stated earlier, even Starcraft Remastered’s graphics are very well produced and visually similar to the original. The readability is all there, and it’s very functional. Yet some pros have conditioned themselves to recognizing pixels to the point where they are more comfortable with the old graphics instead of the new, and choose to use the old graphics. In essence, the new graphics are functionally problematic to them.
As an engineer, you solve problems. However this is a design problem, not an engineering problem. The problem isn’t the graphics themselves, it’s the players having conditioned themselves to be comfortable with ‘bad graphics’.
Now, would you consider the new graphics to be a problem, and would you consider them something that needs to be solved? Is Starcraft Remastered’s graphics objectively bad because they do not function for these particular pros who have conditioned themselves to recognizing the old pixel graphics?
These are not Engineer problems. These are Design problems.
The issue is not that the functionality of Reforged’s graphics are bad or wrong, it’s that the designers purposely chose to focus the direction of the new graphics to appeal to a wider audience that is not the typical competitive gamer. The game’s graphics works better for more non-standard settings of play. I agree that they are hard to read en masse, especially in competitive games where misclicking a unit can cost a game.
Yet the functionality of the models aren’t only relevant to the competitive scene. That is my point. They are functional in the campaign. They are functional in many custom games. They are functional for machinima. That is all objectively functional from an Engineer’s standpoint as well.
1 Like
Design problems are engineering problems… Especially if you’re a design engineer. I am not saying I have a perfect list of specifications that should have been used to solve warcraft 3 reforged’s problems. That is up to their engineering team or leader to figure out.
My point is visual clarity absolutely can be designed into a game’s art. I would think visual clarity would be an important design specification in an RTS game. But you are right: whether the art is bad or not does depend on the design specifications the art is held to. If visual clarity is one of those specifications (which I thought the reforged team had mentioned was a specification), the art is bad.
I also disagree that the art is good for campaigns and custom games. That depends on the gameplay and other things with those custom games. And if you are designing models for custom games, I would suggest having specifications for those models based on knowing how the models will be used in those games. I will say this: the more purposes your model can meet, the better it will be for general purpose custom games.
1 Like
I’m absolutely fine with us agreeing to consider that the art is bad, as long as it’s clear that we’re talking about it subjectively and to the standards which we as individuals value the game.
However even if they are visually unclear and bad for competitive play, I would never regard this as an ‘objectively bad’ standard. I need to make clear where I stand on this point.
Visual clarity is important for RTS design. I agree that Reforged’s graphics are much too noisy/muddled to differentiate between units clearly, as well as count them at a glance. However I will also say that I’d be biased myself, because I have not given the game enough time to get used to the graphics. I could play a Total War game and just be as confused by the graphics simply for not understanding the general aesthetic standards.
We can definitely talk about the visual design and the choices that were made for various games, and use definitions of good and bad. I have no problems with this. However, I will not stand idly for the misappropriation of this on a basis of ‘objectively good’ or ‘objectively bad’ graphics. There simply isn’t such a thing.
I also disagree that the art is good for campaigns and custom games
I did not say the art was good for campaign and custom games.
I think they should not be considered objectively bad or function bad if we consider their use in campaigns and certain custom maps.
1 Like
Do you know why the streetlight that tells you to stop is red and the one that lets you pass is green and not the other way round right?
There is a physical reason behind that then is shared by the whole humanity. Then, if one person says “I stop at green and pass with red” because that’s his habit it doesn’t make it a “subjective” problem.
A simple gaussian can help you understand that.
Engineers have standards and error margins to deal with (I’m not an engineer btw^^) and those are calculated with statistics, not with pure numbers. If 9 people out of 10 have problems recognizing the units it is an objective problem. Obviously, to support that, you have to provide numbers.
I can tell you that ALL Dota players have problems with reforged graphic. All. 100% of the people I have played with. None of them used Reforged even if they bought it. Even if they liked it. It has been simply considered not usable.
I don’t know in which field you work, but look at his example with cars.
If you want a more artistic related example, if I give you a commission for a painting and you make it on a canvass that is too big for my wall, for as much as your painting is good, you did a bad job. Now, blizzard answer is: wtf cares, just buy a bigger house or keep it unused in the middle of a room… or similar answers…
Except there is no green light red light standard for a game like Warcraft 3.
Take a screenshot of 12 footmen on the screen, scattered about.
How long would it take you to recognize the 12 footmen?
How long would it take a pro to recognize the 12 footmen?
How long would it take your mom or dad who have never played WC3 to recognize the 12 footmen?
The standards here are far more subjective and varied than red light green light. Red Light Green Light is not as dramatic as regonizing 12 footmen scattered about a screen, which is highly dependent on not only visual acuity, but mental conditioning as well.
There are factors involved which can not be measured on the basis of simple functionality, because the functionality itself is not standardized. The time it takes your mom or dad who have never played WC3 and the time it takes a pro who has dedicated their time and resources to perfecting the craft to recognize a screen full of footmen is simply incomparable.
It’s not red light green light.
If given 10 years of play, someone can get used to Reforged’s graphics to the point where they can tell how many knights are on screen immediately. Even as muddled as the graphics seem to us now, over years of play this can be conditioned to recognize the exact silhouettes, the exact nature of clumping, the exact spacing between groups etc.
That it’s not visually pleasing to the common player is because the common player is a Warcraft 3 player who expects a certain standard for recognition. It takes time to unlearn what we have learned. For someone who is absolutely new to Reforged, their experience would be very different from ours.
Now, this isn’t me defending Reforged’s graphics. These are the points I’m using against calling out these graphics as being visually noisy and cluttered on the outset. I agree that it’s cluttered, but I don’t agree that it should be considered a standardized statement.
Anecdotally, there was a time when I considered War3’s polygonal graphics to be absolutely unreadable and cluttered. This is compared to the fantastic and clear sprite work we had in Warcraft 2 and the easy-to-read rendered sprites of Starcraft. Yet over time we all got used to Warcraft 3’s graphics. It was definitely not as visually friendly as we might remember it to be. Even now, if I show my wife Warcraft 3, it’s very hard for her to pick out what she’s actually supposed to be looking at.
1 Like
I agree with your previous post but not with this one. An art’s visual clarity definitely depends on its application, purpose, and audience, but visual clarity is not so subjunctive that it cannot be measured or defined as a specification or tailored towards multiple audiences.
1 Like
Warcraft 3 can be criticized for those exact same criteria.
How easy is it for a newbie to pick up and play? And if it takes a long time, is it a problem of functionality of Warcraft 3 standard?
We can argue about this as well, but I would still say nothing about Warcraft 3’s graphics are objectively good or bad. The readability is something we have to get used to.
Functionally speaking, is a Violin an objectively bad instrument because it has no frets?
1 Like
I am not arguing about objectively bad or not anymore. I agree that whether the art is good or bad depends on the specifications it was designed around. I am saying that visual clarity is not subjective enough to be unable to design around and more effort should have been put into making sure the models were more visually clear.
I don’t know how warcraft 2 compares to warcraft 3. Warcraft 2 is a different game though. I almost think the mistake here is that the ladder is not split between reforged and classic. I have other concerns with splitting the community though.
And that’s exactly where you are wrong. It is plenty of papers you can use as reference to improve or “fix” the problems. the green and red is an extreme. The 12 footmen for a pro is another. Now there is a threshold, that also involves lots of other parameters. These parameters are well studied and applied. There are limits for differentiating colors, sizes and so on. So you try to produce your graphic inside these limits. These are numbers that come from statistics.
For example, you are a modeller and your job is to create a 5k poly model. You know that 10k would be better, 5M would be awesome, 100 polys would look sketchy but, you have to stick to those 5k and make the best out of it and since you don’t know the reasons you cannot argue. You can only suggest that maybe rising the cap would be better.
He is an engineer and he has to know that according to the engine related to the game, if there are 1000 units on screen you cannot ask for 5M poly units, but, according to the distance they are seen, you can go down to 5k. He cannot argue that they look beautiful or ugly, it’s not his job.
Then there is the game designer that says in my game a player can produce up to 1000 units. Can a player handle them? Is it funny to handle them? Should I consult someone that tells me if there are affordable computers that can handle them?
You start with ideas, then go to numbers, then go to art. In Reforged, that didn’t happen. It started with greed, went down to ignorance and then it has been eventually outsourced to companies that have no fault of what happened. The problem is they did an objectively bad job, for as beautiful as the models may be…
(apply the same example on colors, animations, UI, severs, features and so on…)
Why is reforged a personal insult to you? I am just curious, but I definitely see (not only from this thread) that you really hate it from the depth of your heart. I mean, it’s just a game and I don’t think any game should generate this kind of hartred.
1 Like
I think your post is wrong and completely misses the point.
Simply having papers about how to fix the problem does not mean the problem itself is standardized or measurable. And I’m not exactly sure if you’re talking about papers regarding red/green lights or for Reforged specifically.
I will agree that visual clarity is something that should definitely be considered in design, and that Reforged’s art completely missed the ball here. What I am talking about is that the level of variance in the graphics between someone able to recognize and someone not being able to recognize is not standardized
As for the rest of the problems you’ve talked about, I fully agree and have always agreed. I acknowledge that there are problems in the game. What my original point is that none of these can be called objectively bad. All of the problems are still based on subjectivity, because what we consider functional or not functional is based on our own experiences as Warcraft 3 gamers. Someone who has never played War3 and plays Reforged and has fun with it with no problems is ultimately not going to evaluate the same issues we have with the game. These are subjective issues.
What I will say is that this game is very difficult to read, but thus far we are only evaluating this from the perspective of a Warcraft 3 veteran player. How many people have spoken out against the graphics who have never played Warcraft 3 and had no problems with Reforged? How many have chosen to stick to Reforged to play competitively?
This is a problem for we enthusiasts who have built our expectations of how the game should look and play. These biases may not exist on the same level for new players who may be learning the game from scratch, and mentally conditioning themselves to the new graphics. I think it’s too presumptuous thus far to judge it simply as visually problematic across the board; we don’t exactly have a wide range of opinions from the community. It’s the same 10 people in the forums saying the exact same things over and over again generally. Do we have any input from a fresh new player who hasn’t had problems with the visuals? Not really.
So far, I think the pool of Reforged players is so low that it’s highly unlikely that anyone who starts with Reforged will end up going pro with the Reforged graphics to show that it could be done. I’d really wish the graphics were done in the style of Heroes of the Storm, or something simply more recognizeable as Warcraft 3.
I am saying that visual clarity is not subjective enough to be unable to design around and more effort should have been put into making sure the models were more visually clear.
I’ve always felt this way as well, and I haven’t said anything contrary to this point.
Everything I’ve said was in the context of dismissing the idea that the problems of the art could be considered as objectively bad, or non-functional, on the basis that they could easily become standardized as the norm given enough time.
If it’s a matter of talking about improvements, I’m all for that.
Well i went to sleep last night, i kinda expected the conversation to go into madness but to be fair, it turned out okayish ?
I read everything everyone said so far. i’ll simply point out a few clarifications from my side and be done with it.
Also Triceon how did you double post 
isn’t that feature blocked ? anyway
So, Triceon you should re-read some of my stuff because i made it fairly self evident that LemonSky isn’t exactly at fault here.
I Also need to clarify that Melee Players, Competitive melee players, and multiplayer custom game players togather make up the majority of the playerbase for the game. i don’t see how can this point be refuted but i am sorry that i implied its exclusively competitive players at first.
I fought back against many people who claimed that singleplayer campaigns and whatnot have no real audience, i mean if you check at the download numbers of great CC’s at Hiveworkshop the numbers speak for themselves quite frankly, so its nothing to be cast aside, but i still know that generally the multiplayer side is consistently more active and popular.
The fact that you point out that Reforged was marketed mainly to China and WoW players which is something i agree with makes me question what the F am i doing here then, they don’t seem to want anything to do with their pre existing hardcore audience that never left the game so we mightaswell leave right now.
When we’re talking about the visuals of Reforged, i do think the main problem stems from the “Models” not being fit for the game they are made for considering they intentionally decided not to change the engine and actively preached about how they were going to take care of their older audience and make sure there is a comfortable transition, for the love of Uthers pants there isn’t even an option for the players to download a version of Reforged that excludes the HD assets for a lighter version of the game. “caring level over 9000”
I don’t think i displayed my subjective analysis of the situation, atleast in my original post, look, i don’t care what subjective form do the visuals of the models come out, as i said before, bigshoulders, small shoulders, no shoulders or naked as a bulletpoint that i literally do not care about this subjective topic because no one has the upper hand here, i only pointed out how whatever was made, was done in a way that did more harm to the game then good, and its the core of the models, its not 1 animation fix here and there, its not shadows displaying improperly on cliff edges, its the actual models, the way their textures are used and the way it relies so heavily on the newly written lightning engine to weigh in.
I think differently here, i don’t have any real issues with more models being available as cosmatics for the melee game but many of the problems i pointed out in my original post stem from the models, many of the features that the community grew to be attached to, Blizzard step their boots on them. no consideration. they weren’t even aiming the game for us.
LemonSky making the models is of no concern of my because Blizzard directed and approved them, that’s my concern. and that’s how i draw my blame.
A very fine point, also as a side note i do think the visuals would generally serve the game had it looked more in fashion of Hots or WoW “FUNCTIONALLY” not artistically, i mean it could look like those artistically but i won’t comment on that.
Exquisite lack of care that whoever approved this work never really cared that the melee death knight was different from the campaign ones, and maybe they should have tried to make Illidan and a regular demonhunter also different.
Responding to this and the bits in reply to Leviathan, in my opinion this just goes deep into pointing out that there is objectivity to how the models created for a game would go to best serve the game on all aspects, and the context is especially what objectifies the situation, in the context of Warcraft 3’s overhauling project the models made for them hardly stand on any reasonable grounds to justify a beneficial outcome.
I think you fail to understand his point, well i guess i did understand his point atleast, but he did miss out on pointing out the proper context, in the context of the Warcraft III game being an RTS and all the ins and outs of the long standing community and how the visuals and the models of the game were adapted an used, the Reforged overhauling project was nothing but a blank check slap to their face and a forced “accept it or go away” mace that was bashed against the face of its core audience.
For being a professional model designer and refusing to accept there is objectivity when it comes to making models in specific contexts you seem either not as knowledgeable as you claim or extremely enshrined in your bias.
There is objectivity in whether or not a series of visual assets fit an RTS game, my original post went to explain how not only it doesn’t fit an RTS game but it also harms many things that the core dedicated audience were driving benefits from.
Aesthetics are meant to fit inside their respective contexts like puzzles, the contexts are bound by objective rules, when i claim the Reforged models are objectively bad for the game they are made for, do i say the models are objectively bad ? or do i say they are bad because they caused more harm then benefit the game ? i hope you realize the difference here.
Optimization has nothing to do with the problems that lies with the core of the Reforged models, i stated this in my original post:
If you are forced to take out the Reforged models outside of the game they are meant to be in, and put it on an abstract pedistal to justify there is no problem with them and what exists is just a matter of subjectivity you are willfully blind to the situation.
The subjectivity only comes in when we want to compare things to another, whether or not someone likes the visuals of a game like Dawn of War 2 or Warcraft 3 or Age of Empires is a matter of subjective opinion, and no one can claim that either is superior to the next, but how the models of A game fit inside that same game and how it benefits or harms the game has clear and cut bounderies that are objective.
For an RTS game the models should be beneficial for the framerates to keep up, i mean i largely agree with your points here, which is why i dislike the Reforged models, most of this games visual work from models to engine was already set in stone in 2018-2019, and in my opinion should be viable to be run by Graphics cards that are 4 or more years older then the released date, what we have instead is a series of bloatware models that are struggling to keep up 60 FPS in an RTS game using modern graphics cards. that is the extend of the failure of these models. and its also how the rest of this game functions, constructed so poorly that it hangs in the hopes that general hardware advancements in the industry will help it to stay afloat.
Well, i didn’t state as such but you did manage to guess how i feel about it personally, i got nothing to say if i’m honest, i mean i’m not really pissed on you for this reply or anything, my response is that i am perhaps far too passionate for the original features and ideas of Warcraft III to have been transitioned, realized, respected, and given a spotlight to shine, and Reforgeds failure just stabs in the worst possible way.
I did think about simply leaving many times but there is no other game like Warcraft III. and that is as true of a statement as it can get. no other game can even come close to replicating the sum total magic of this game.
@Triceon, anyway bro, i think you’re just running in circles shouting subjectivity at everything while mainly claiming the actual problems of the visuals of the game is simply minor tweaks. i think if there is anything me and you can agree on is that one way or the other, the visual overhaul of this game did not have a clear goal, a clear audience and a clear destination, and that’s ultimately why so many groups of people were mashed into arguing with eachother. because Blizzard tried to cater to everyone at the end, and pissed off everyone equally.
1 Like