Misinformation regarding the Reforged models. (MegaThread)

General Discussion
41

That’s probably because it seems like only people working in similar fields are participating to the discussion^^

Or, at least give the chance to scale it properly to accommodate a wider range of hardware indeed.

Once you have a scientific paper you have set a fixed point to start from. The readability problem is not something specific to the game or the streetlights. Color keys, gestalt, symbol readability, differentiation and so on are general concepts with rules and guidelines that people follow in order to achieve better or even acceptable results.

And that’s another problem also. You are completely right on that. People who had the habit if the highest standards of WC3, looks at Reforged and thinks wtf is that?
People who started with Reforged (also considering today’s mobile games and crappy casuals standards) may not even care to drop a line since they are probably moving to something else very soon.

1 Like
42

the models, as in the 3D mesh etc, are not the core problem. the problem is the color tuning in the game renderer and the texture work.

xhttps://i.imgur.com/xpOPQ31.jpg

the issue with reforged is that background and units blend into each other. background and units have terrible contrast colors, and the textures themselves are very low contrast. also colors are generally less saturated.

1 Like
43

Well, i think either i pointed out my statements a bit messy and incorrect or there was some form of misunderstanding here.

The models as a 3D mesh aren’t exactly what i’m pointing out as the core problem here, its more in-line with what you describe as the core problem.

The textures are way too messy, and this might be a very simple and general way to agree with your point if you think about it.

The textures hold the colors and contrast you are complaining about, the textures hold the cluttered details, dents, rusts and chips and splashes and the unrequired bits of details.

Heck the actual models of the game talk in real time alongside their portraits if you look very closely and it isn’t even noticable, why do such things need to be done ? and the portrait talking animations aren’t even as goofy and filled with character as the original ones were, very expressive even though their mouth motions didn’t make any sense.

Really, there is not enough simpllicity that is impactful and distinctly different, and more of “Insert Giant Load of Details Here that will fart on performance and your eyes collectively” Have Fun.exe

1 Like
44

The clarification was much needed, and I thank you for taking the time to explain your position more thoroughly. As I’ve said earlier, many of my issues stem from the assertion that this is an objective problem and that it is rooted in the Reforged Models, and I interpreted it this way due to the nature of the thread topic. The context of the ‘Graphics’ in general would have been supplementary in showcasing the problems with the models, but I understand that was not your original intention.

What I seem to understand now is that this should be taken within the context of multiplayer in general, but for the most part I still see this being an issue primarily for competitive melee. I am fully aware that it is still a problem for many custom maps and campaigns, but for the most part I don’t see this as being a problem across the board in any objective way; it’s all a case-by-case situation. Some maps look worse than others, and it depends on the use and design of the maps and how they choose to use the models.

If we are talking about the visuals not fitting the general concept of ‘Warcraft 3’, I will undoubtedly agree. The visuals established by WC3 are very specific and cater to a more cartoony, exaggerated look which is meant to be easy to read in large battles. Reforged’s designs have too much micro detail that gets in the way of the silhouettes and team colors, and this is problematic for Warcraft 3’s gameplay, specifically. I don’t simply think a ‘new coat of paint’ would fix these issues, it’s a fundamental design issue, and I agree with this.

However where my stance differs is that this should not be considered objectively bad for all multiplayer game modes. Sour milk is bad to drink, but it’s not bad if your intention is to make sourdough. We have to be careful of the context we frame these things. This is one thing I fully agree with DesignDragon on, that the design specifics for particular game modes should be discussed and criticized. I fully agree that the style doesn’t work for Melee/Competitive Melee. I disagree that it is objectively bad, simply because we have no data to really support this notion. We haven’t done scientific research, we haven’t heard the opinions of people who freshly adopted Reforged; we are only revelling in the echo chamber of veterans and enthusiasts who are raising issues on how the models/graphics simply don’t work well for Melee.

As someone from the outside who doesn’t play melee, I don’t hear these same complaints coming from the custom map community. I DO hear complaints, but not of the same nature as the recognizability or the lacking team colors or the framerate issues that are impacting melee. This is where I disagree that it would be objectively bad, because the issues that affect Custom Multiplayer games may not be the same as the ones affecting competitive Melee, and the standards of what is considered good/bad are simply different. Again, Sour Milk is not objectively bad if we consider it being used to make Sourdough. But with the clarification made here, I can see that the topic isn’t even about Sour Milk, it’s something far greater and far more specific to the problems that exist in certain game modes and for the overall functionality of the game. Again, I fully agree the game has massive optimization and rendering issues that cause all sorts of problems like frame rate drops, and possibly even memory leaks.

As for the objective standards which you are standing by, I still do not agree with you that there is an objective standard for the models to be created to best serve the game on all aspects. I may agree if we are talking about specific aspects, but not something to broadly emcompass all. Functionality is specific, not all-purpose. There are varying degrees of function and if we’re applying it to custom games or custom maps (which should not be ignored if we’re talking about objective standards for all purpose) then we have to recognize where the graphics/models are not problematic as well, and why they function. The fact is, the graphics aren’t problematic in all game modes, and serve certain game modes better than others. And there is no standard that implies a Warcraft 3 visual style would actually ‘solve’ anything for the game modes that the graphics already work in. The discussion here is still absolutely subjective, because it’s based on belief that improvement for Melee (based on current discussion) could improve the graphics for all other modes as well. I would agree if we’re talking about optimization of graphics, such as the proper implementation of LOD models, but as I’ve stated there are MANY more problems with Melee than what we experience in Custom maps which shouldn’t also be lumped into the conversation as though these are ‘objective problems that affect all game modes’.

I think this discussion should be more focused in order to make sense out of it, otherwise it’s very true that I’m talking in circles; mainly because I believe you are touching on topics in areas which these problems simply don’t exist to the degree that you believe it does (particularly the importance of visual recognition of units).

Anecdotally, even if I dislike the Reforged graphics style, I have to admit the style works very well for our project. The decision to adapt Reforged’s style for Warcraft 2 was definitely a challenge, but I think it works. And many others agree.

Now if we’re talking technical issues, then yes Reforged has PLENTY. But if we’re talking about design not working across the board and being objectively bad because it’s hard to make out units, then I do not fully agree that it is objectively bad (do not mistake this as me saying it is good, I am saying it’s not objectively bad) because the style works for what we have created. Same can be said of InsaneMst’s project. And many in the community do not have issue with the models or the graphics as a whole when it comes to these projects; the brunt of the issues stem from competitive melee which I fully agree is problematic.

We should be specific about what we are talking about, and not apply these issues broadly across all spectrums as though they apply equally and are regarded universally as being problematic.

45

There are no scientific papers regarding the graphics in Reforged. You are talking about a general design issue with the readability of the models and graphics, but this should be specifically applied to Warcraft 3’s readability for melee for enthusiasts who have become accustomed to the Warcraft 3 visual style.

These are not universal issues. Try Chronicles of the Second War. You still make masses of units, and everything does get into a visual mess at times, but the context of the gameplay is much more ‘Starcraft’-like where units are expendable, and the readability is not so much a problem unless you are trying to play it specifically like WC3 where you have to micro more than macro. The graphics suit a particular design, and what Reforged’s models suit is a more generalized macro-style game. It’s really bad for Melee, but it’s not so bad for other custom modes.

This is why I am countering the idea that the graphical fidelity is scientifically bad, because it’s not. It’s specifically bad for recognition in a micro-intense setting like Warcraft 3’s melee gameplay is designed for, not so much in a macro-oriented gameplay mode.

Could the readability be improved? I completely agree, yes it could be designed better. Just because I don’t regard them as ‘objectively bad’ or ‘universally problematic’ does not mean I wish the graphics to stay the same, or that no improvements should be made. I am simply pointing out that these issues are not objectively problematic across all spectrums of gameplay.

You can still recognize a whole bunch of knights when you make a whole bunch of knights. It just takes a bit more for your brain to process and recognize because we’re all so used to Warcraft 3 melee’s standards when we play a Warcraft 3-based map. It’s part of unlearning what we’ve learned, and our visual acuity has been conditioned that when we drag-select from this pixel to that pixel, then we should know exactly where the hitbox is on the models we select because we’ve familiarized ourselves with their silhouette. Reforged seems alien because there is so much more detail in the silhouettes and textures that makes it more difficult to accomplish, but honestly that’s not going to be a problem for someone who’s never played WC3 and treated the game as a classic-style game with ‘modern’ graphics and is playing it as they would any other game. And frankly there have been people who spoke out on the visuals being fine as well.

I don’t regard this as being a universal or objective problem. I see this as being a problem that is specific to the readability of units for WC3 Melee, particularly for veteran players of the original.

46

And I guess there won’t be unless someone has to take Reforged as a specific bad example of Game Development. Anyway, you don’t write a paper “after” you make a product. Research is made from previous experience. Then, that experience is applied to new fields. Also, you don’t write a paper on Reforged, you write a paper on visual recognition, of which, Reforged may occupy a paragraph as a study case. Who made Reforged clearly lacks the knowledge behind the most basic rules of interface design (what you see on your monitor, including the representation of the unit is all part of the interface design). Blizzard once was “leading” the way, it means they were proposing new WORKING solution to problems in different fields. Now they fall back to the “others do that so we must do that too”, without even meeting the standards. It is a wider concept. It is like talking about shading algorithms and saying “yes but there is no paper about the button on Maya to launch the Rendering”. Shading algorithms are concepts above the program you may use. You cannot decide which algorithm to use for a shading unless A. you know it or B. someone told you to use it. And it is not that you press buttons randomly and then say “oh sorry that’s not what you expected”. You MUST know it in advance and what you know is not “how to press the button in that specific program”, but “how the value of the pixel is calculated according to the different values available in the scene”.
And all this, is objective.
The subjective part is if your Rendering is beautiful or not.
btw, it is not the fidelity that is scientifically bad, it is the full interface as a whole that is bad.
We can use the original WC3 just for saying: if I have a strategy game with orcs and humans, what is the best way to reproduce this concept? Oh look, Blizzard did it once and they did a pretty good job, let’s analyze why it is good. Then you compare it (engineeringly) with Reforged and say meh…
If you don’t consider the old one, you still say meh for the experience made by humanity as a whole during the years.
Consider a broader approach to the problem.

47

So is Reforged objectively bad in terms of the units functioning in being able to be recognized in play?

Can units be differentiated well? If you provided this game to a new player, would they be able to differentiate the units easily and distinguish between them. Is the functionality there?

If we’re just basing this on what is good and what is bad, then you have to acknowledge that even if you believe there is an objective standard to design and functionality, there isn’t really any standard that says Reforged’s models are actually objectively bad. This has been defined by and large by the enthusiasts here. You haven’t presented a scenario where Reforged’s models actually fail at being functional, at an interface level.

If we are talking about FPS drops, then I will agree that this is something that is objectively bad. Where my opinion differed was this being adapted to Models specifically, and this has since been clarified as a broader issue with graphics as a whole. I do not believe we have enough sufficient data to determine the root cause of these issues. We don’t know if it’s the models, the renderer or simply the engine. As for being objectively bad, I do not disagree if we are talking about graphics as a whole in terms of functionality. I would disagree if we were simply talking about the models, since we don’t have conclusive evidence that the models themselves are what is causing the problems with framerate.

And again, we’re talking about many different things, but if you are confounding issues of visual clarity to the design of the units, then you need to evaluate whether this is actually a problem that affects everyone or if it’s something that is more attributed to outside factors. The entire community is riding on a heavy bias against the new graphics for obvious reasons, and those who have relative no problems with the graphics do not have their voices heard in these matters. We’re talking in an echo chamber, and I don’t consider this standard as a universal means of judging Reforged’s visual clarity of units. I think you can absolutely get used to them given the time and practice.

Honestly I can watch a competitive melee tournament replayed in Reforged, and still be able to follow what is going on. It might not be as visually clear as say Warcraft 3, but it’s not to say that Reforged’s graphics are objectively bad or problematic simply because it is not as clear. Starcraft 2 pro players willing choose to play on the lowest settings which boosts performance/framerate and is less visually distracting, but this doesn’t mean the gameplay on highest settings is objectively bad because visual details like spec and normals get in the way of team colors (which they absolutely do).

48

These are exactly the questions they failed to address, if they even asked themselves…

We agree on this, it is a mix of factors, probably models would just perform fine if the renderer was better. This including a dynamic LoD reduction to improve performance for example, but anyway my point is that all this can be measured and has been already measured for many games and programs before. So, for example, having heavy frame drops after the game is released is just a shame.
Same applies for colors, readability and so on.

Surely at some “point” you will eventually get used to it. The distance of this point in time is part of the learning curve, that is statistically calculated on the aimed gaming population. Original WC3 was like 3 clicks and you are in battle. Here, after months, people still asks how to go back to the lobby chat from a whisper. The overall graphic clearliness is messy, this rises the learning curve. This bit, in addition to all the several other bits and bigger mistakes is what made the game as awful as it is now. These mistakes could have all been avoided in advance if the project was developed by skilled people or sometimes just with a minimal common sense. This is all the “objective” problem.
For the subjective part, I got no problem at on how the models look… if only I could have been able to use them…

49

These are exactly the questions they failed to address, if they even asked themselves…

The units are absolutely recognizeable on the battlefield. The community at large choosing not to use Reforged graphics tend stem from their performance hit and the lack of fidelity to Warcraft 3.

That you think Blizzard failed to address this if they asked it themselves is your own subjective opinion here. You’re not convincing me that this is a systemic problem that affects everyone equally/objectively.

This bit, in addition to all the several other bits and bigger mistakes is what made the game as awful as it is now. These mistakes could have all been avoided in advance if the project was developed by skilled people or sometimes just with a minimal common sense. This is all the “objective” problem.

You inserting a topic never originally addressed in any of the main topics. None of my statements regard the UI functionality on the main menus. I would appreciate if we stayed on topic and not start shifting goalposts to bridge in other areas that don’t function correctly as though they had anything to do with the models or the FPS drops. Those UI issues are a completely separate issue which I have not commented on, and to be frank, aren’t even relevant to the specific issues I’m contending as not being an objective problem.

I’m talking specifically about unit recognition, and we both seem to be on the same level in terms of not having problems with the actual models themselves. That you are unable to functionally use them is not what I consider an objective problem, but more a lack of your own will to ‘get used to it’.

For the record, we could apply these same standards to Warcraft 3 SD, and I Warcraft 3 itself would fail in many aspects of visual recognition. Some units have very clear team colors, some units do not. Some of the colors clash with the backgrounds. Some can be confused as creeps, some have no clear indicators that they are summons or spell effects. It all takes a trained and conditioned eye to differentiate them all, and there’s no singular standard that will define Warcraft 3 as ‘objectively good’ in terms of visual acuity. It’s all subjective.

We could show Warcraft 3 to new players today, and there will be just as many people who will be okay with it as there would be people who think the graphics are absolutely dated and hard to make out what things are actually supposed to be. This is absolutely a subjective topic.

Having been around the Starcraft 2 community for years, I’ve talked to and witnessed many people who hate the Warcraft 3 graphics and would consider them ‘objectionally bad’ compared to the visual clarity that Starcraft 2 offered. The same applies; those opinions are purely subjective.

1 Like
50

That’s because you are a 3D modeller, he is an engineer and I’m something else.

This is the topic…
Are the models good as taken by themselves? Like, open the model with any editor, does it have stray polys? Misplaced maps? Awkward anatomies? Or anything else? Doesn’t seem like. They are good.
Do the models fit the game?
No.
For artistic reasons? → Subjective
For technical reasons? → Objective

Readability falls into technical reasons and that’s not an opinion.

51

Readability falls into technical reasons and that’s not an opinion.

There is no way you can prove that they fail readability without using your opinion.

The fact that the game is playable with those graphics would prove you wrong then. The readability works.

The problems you are associating with readability come from requiring any high level of recognition for competitive play. There’s a massive difference here if we’re just talking about it working or not working at a technical level. A novice can have zero problems with unit recognition and play on the lowest settings just fine. The readability is only a big problem when it comes to fine-tune micromanagement, and those issues impact the game on higher skill levels.

These are not objective issues comparable to say a framerate drop, which is equal across the board for multiplayer situations.

Readability absolutely falls under a design problem for a specific range of play, but that doesn’t make it an objective problem either since people are able to compensate by becoming more familiar with the graphics, to the point where they will be able to pixel-count the hitboxes; just as pro players do when they are mastering a new fighting game. These are not objective, technical problems.

52

If you say so…

These represents something around the 3-sigma, that’s why you cannot see the objectiveness in it.

53

If you say so…

I do say so.

If it is objective, it can be proven as fact

Can you prove that the game’s models/units fail to be readable on a technical level?

Just as a note as well, you are the only one that I’m still arguing with who considers this to be objective. Are you sure you really are arguing this for your own sake, because I believe you originally wanted to ‘explain what others were trying to say’ and I’ve already reached a point where I clarified that those problems were not objective, and for the most part that was agreed upon with the others. I’m honestly not sure why you want to continue trying to prove it to be objective when we both know it isn’t.

The fact that the campaign can be played and enjoyed and have zero criticisms on readability issues shows that this is not an objective problem. An objective problem with readability equates to the game being unplayable because the units can not be discerned from each other. Functionality is binary, and when applying objective standards then we are talking about whether it functions or does not function. Do you really think Warcraft 3 Reforged’s graphics are universally unreadable?

54

In general I can tell you that, yes, you can prove that a game model or any other asset is readable on a technical level.
One of the requirements for submitting a skin in games like LoL or Dota 2 is that the model should be easily recognizable as a version of the original character.
There are studies behind that. It’s not that someone comes and says “oh, it’s good for me, your opinion is wrong, so it’s all subjective”.
What you see in Reforged is indeed a result of clueless decisions.
Readability is not a yes or not, it is a parameter derived by statistics. Now, besides Reforged, that’s a matter of fact and it is the same exact problem of the red and green lights. On a different scale, with different parameters. Problem is the same and is an objective one. That you may not believe me, I’m fine with that.^^

55

Yes, but apply this to Reforged.

Can a Reforged Archer be recognized as a Reforged Archer, distinct from other units. Does its graphics fail to convey its recognizeability as an Archer.

Is this functional or not functional.

Readability is not a yes or not, it is a parameter derived by statistics

And you have not applied whatever the standard is of those statistics to Reforged, you’ve simply provided anecdotal evidence that many people seem to find Reforged hard to read as a means to conclude your ‘objective’ truth.

Look above at my example. Can you tell an Archer apart from other units, and can you recognize an Archer in the game distinctly from other units. Would you consider the graphics an objective failure in terms of readability, based on the standards derived from your statistics?

You can stay that Reforged is indeed a result of clueless decisions, but that is purely your subjective opinion. You are not providing a fact here. Again, you are not making a case that this situation is actually objective, you’re just saying that objectivity can be defined through statistical standards but you haven’t actually provided any substantial data to prove that Reforged’s graphics actually fail to be readable.

Case in point - you provide an example of LoL or DOTA 2 skins.

Yet there is no objective standard defining the readability of the skins. Those parameters are defined by the artists and designers who choose them on the basis that they should be readable, and that is a subjective value. There is no objective value considering the art itself is picked on its aesthetics, and the functions of the art are meeting internal goals which are being defined by the teams that approve these skins. It is not an objective fact that a certain skin is unreadable, it will always be considered a subjective evaluation of the asset.

The same can be applied to asking whether there is too much or too little Team Color. You can not objectively evaluate this. There is no factual threshold, and no design-driven statistics that would ever define this threshold. It is absolutely subjective.

56

I seriously thought there were more screenshots around… it’s plenty of original wc3 ones compared to reforged, anyway this is something I have found:

Disclaimer: looks beautiful, not arguing about that, as a scene of a fight by itself it looks good.

This is an old one but just to make an example. Look at the archer in the middle blending with the background. This is a screenshot, so your brain has enough time to elaborate all the information included in the image. Now take the SD of the histogram, per channel, and tell me what you see. Is it functional to recognize what the unit is and what it is doing? What about the hands? Are they big enough to trigger some subconscious reaction? Are they detailed enough? Or are they too detailed to be supported properly? Where are the arrows? Is the other archer on the snow selected? What’s the vector difference between the average pixel of the area of a selected unit and its corresponding background?

What you call subjective judgement of artists is instead the judgement given by years of experience and objective studies.

please don’t fall into that…
otherwise the conclusion is just “art is subjective, whatever, gg”. That’s very blizzardish…
And by the way did you look into some literature before saying “there is no proof”?

57

Is it functional to recognize what the unit is and what it is doing? What about the hands? Are they big enough to trigger some subconscious reaction? Are they detailed enough? Or are they too detailed to be supported properly?

You are asking subjective opinion. These standards by which you are attributing as objective are absolutely based on subjectivity.

But yes, I do see the hands, yes I do see where they are pointed, no I don’t think they are big enough and I fully agree that the background makes the whole thing a mess. All of this is my subjective opinion, not a standard informed by objectivity.

What I’ve asked you for is statistic proof that the Reforged graphics are unreadable. What you have displayed here is a picture where I can clearly make out 3 archers and 3 huntresses. I don’t think you are making your point across that the graphics are unreadable if we are both making out the archers in the picture.

Again, you can either say it is functional, or it is not functional, but your standards of ‘what does functional actually mean to me’ would be subjective. I’m looking at this from the point that it must literally be unrecognizeable, unplayable. You’re looking at it from the point of view where you should be able to be informed of what you value as important to the gameplay, such as the direction of attack, the projectiles which they fire, and their distinct silhouettes. These are all subjective standards which we’re applying to the same screenshot.

As a custom game player, it absolutely does not matter to me where an Archer faces or what projectiles they use. They could be green squares that fire pink dots and I would still be able to functionally read the situation. Anecdotally speaking, I look at the UI and the green health bars more than I do the actual units, and I mainly play custom maps where micro is not highly important for me so long as I can tell that the Archers apart from other units. That is what I personally consider readability being functional. And if you disagree, it would be on a subjective basis, because you choose to use a different standard of readability.

So is my own personal views outside of your definition of statistics-driven design acuity? And have you factored in particular perspectives as mine as a part of your evaluation of Reforged being a failure in terms of readability?

My own opinions here should not reflect how I evaluate Reforged’s graphics. I still find it completely difficult to read in multiplayer if I am trying to micro. I think a lot of units and buildings of certain races are too muddled and lack clear distinctions. But I am also fully aware that opinions on the readability of the graphics is absolutely split in the community, and if there exists people who do not have problems with the readability then I don’t see this being fact just because the common majority here seem to speak out against it.

To me, it’s no different than different groups of people having different tolerances of spicy food. I don’t consider the level of spiciness to be an objective value of fact. You may be able to measure scoville levels of heat and make scientific points that certain foods should be spicy and others not, but when it comes down to a taste test it’s really all up to personal values of considering what is ‘spicy’ and what is not. No objective standard really applies.

What you call subjective judgement of artists is instead the judgement given by years of experience and objective studies.

And the result is still subjective.

A doctor can give an informed opinion based on years of medical experience, all statistically defined, but that doctors opinion is still absolutely subjective. That is why we can opt for a second opinion. That is why information from doctors is not emphatically objective, even if the knowledge and research they base it on may be.

And by the way did you look into some literature before saying “there is no proof”?

Burden of proof is on you. I’ve called you to provide and so far you have not. It’s not my job to prove the statement to be true if you are the one making the claim.

What you have provided here is anecdotal evidence. It is not objective in any way or form.

58

begin with this

the go to this
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=user+interface+design+principles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
read as many as you need,

then have a look at some even more technical approach of how a different “intelligence” could work it out.

…

The point of playing wc3 instead of risk is that maybe people want some more feedback from the game… but honestly I also prefer to turn off annoying features, but that is indeed a preference and indeed subjective. I clearly want to know what my units are doing and this leads to funny discoveries of the engine like “why single clicking on a distance point makes your unit go ‘faster’”^^.

do you ask the doctor to go through his 10 years of studies to justify his reply too?
Of course not and also the diagnosis is something derived from data, maybe an X-ray. Can you see a fracture on the x-ray? can you measure it? is it an objective fact that a bone is broken? yes. now take 10k doctors. If 99% of them see the same thing, it means that there is a correlation between the fact you cannot walk and the broken bone. That is not the subjective idea of a doctor, that is a scientifically proven objective fact.

The “99” is the key. Who decides what is the “right” percentage? That is a good question…

what I am arguing here is not that that particular unit of Reforged cannot be seen, but it is that there are objective ways to define the functionality of an asset.

About the archer, ok there is an archer there and above there is a huntress and next to it there is a ghoul sharing the same exact colors of its enemy…
It gives a nice overall blending of the scene.
Is it functional?
no.
Should it be improved?
yes.
How?
Define a minimal quantity of exposed area of team color a unit should always have.
Define a minimal difference between team colors and the rest of the palette.
Apply the rules.
Make it work.
Fact is, these rules are well defined in thousands of previous cases.

The non anecdotal evidence can be seen by selecting the average color of the arms of the ghoul and the average one of the body of the huntress. Check the difference.

59

Then that is a standard that needs to be proven that it applies to the widest demographic of players, not simply the most vocal.

About the archer, ok there is an archer there and above there is a huntress and next to it there is a ghoul sharing the same exact colors of its enemy…
It gives a nice overall blending of the scene.
Is it functional?
no.

Again, you are defining this with your own opinion. You find it difficult to read, therefore you justify that as not being functional. You are not defining it as readability in terms of whether the unit can be seen.

Therefore you’re not talking about technical readability and functionality, you’re talking about a more specific lack of visual clarity and distinction between units. The issue I have is you haven’t actually measured this to evaluate it as failing to function.

You have anecdotal evidence. You chose a screenshot which has background colors that match up very similarly to the units. What if the map was on Barrens setting, would these factors play out the same?

You are criticizing the unit colors for matching each other similar on different factions. Does this make the units unreadable though? Are you unable to pick out the Acolytes from the Archers? Perhaps at a glance it may get confusing at times, but for the most part we’re able to distinguish them enough to play the game. We have to be honest about considering what is functional on the basis of… one screenshot.

Again, I’ve watched dozens of gameplay let’s plays of people playing through our project. I don’t think anyone has issues reading what unit is what. It’s not been a problem in terms of functionality. It is definitely a problem in competitive multiplayer, and definitely somethingt o be improved.

The non anecdotal evidence can be seen by selecting the average color of the arms of the ghoul and the average one of the body of the huntress. Check the difference.

There are more means than simple color of arms by which we distinguish units. Shapes and patterns are also important to distinguishing units. Are we inferring that people have issues differentiating Ghouls from Huntresses? I’m unaware of this being a legitimate issue if true. I personally have no issues distinguishing the Huntress considering it is one the easier units to pick out and read compared to others such as the Ghouls and Skeletons which IMO lack sufficient team coloring.

I wouldn’t consider a Huntress and a Ghoul having similar palletes on specific areas of their body as being proof that there are objective problems of readability in the game if there is no actual issue differentiating the two.

If you are trying to bring up a point that the overall graphics are muddled in a way that makes it difficult to read, then I also agree. Having looked over some of what you provided, I am beginning to understand the context of your argument, though I still disagree that we’re talking about the same things.

It seems you are trying to define the objective failure of the functionality of the graphics based on what is generally accepted as ‘readable’ in terms of fulfilling the needs of the game. What I’m determining as objective failure of functionality on the basis of people who are actually playing Reforged and are considering this to be legitmately problematic in terms of reading and differentiating units. We are talking about two different things, and I don’t believe we will be able to reach the same conclusion because of this.

60

Choose? I’d gladly pick another example if I could find it… That’s the only thing that popped up as a scene of archers more or less in a fight…

Anyway, we agree on the fact that it could have been improved, we don’t agree on the fact that there are scientific methods to solve problems that should be taken into account before releasing a game. Fair enough.

Now a better question is: why isn’t there a customization for team colors so one can have the brightest colors for melee and smoother ones for campaigns?

Oh… I forgot, options are not part of this game^^