Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think comparing Infinity and GW miniature styles is comparing apples and oranges. On a mini-per-mini level I really enjoy looking at the stuff on Corvus Belli's site more than the images on GW's - but really CB are selling every model as an individual piece. GW's style is pretty much achievable if you put in the time and effort - and have to paint large masses of models. Personally, as someone who enjoys looking at pretty models I'd prefer something less assembly-line looking and would like to see the studio members develop their individual styles, but I from a business POV can see the upside of enforcing a certain house-style that's not astronomically above what a skilled hobbyist can do.

As for GW's style actually getting worse - I don't really think so. During all the years I've been reading WD the painting level on the rank and file miniatures has actually slightly improved. I'd say that most of the modern examples given by keezus above are superior to 1st-4th edition era rank and file paint jobs. Those Witch Elves and Dark Eldar might have been painted using shortcuts, but not more so than, say the average Necromunda ganger or Blood Bowl blitzer in the 90's - rather the opposite.
The Eldrad comparison on the other hand is interesting - the old paintjob by Mike McVey was about the best that could be achieved in the GW studio during the mid-90's, whereas the new one is about on the level of today's rank an file models. I would say that the 2nd edition one was painted as a centrepiece model, whereas the modern one is painted so as to better integrate with the models around it. A valid move when trying to sell armies, I think.
(Obviously, the GW painters can paint on a 'higher' level if they're doing display/centrepiece models - skill-wise I'd say Joe Tomaszewski's Marneus Calgar or the NMM Sanguinor are pretty much top-level stuff).

I would have thought, previous to it happening, that GWS "dumbing down" the studio paint jobs was a good idea. I mean, more achievable paint jobs would mean more happy (average) painters, right?

Turns out, no, I was wrong, it sucks. I now realize as others have said that the best possible is ideal because it inspires you.

I like them to be as good as possible. I've never bought this idea that if they look too good, then people are put off trying to paint their stuff. The Golden Demon winners are better than the studio, but I don't complain I'll never be as good as them so there's no point in trying. I see this a fair bit on unpainted army debates, where someone says they don't want to paint because they're not very good at it, as though the expectation is that a high painting standard should come naturally and quickly.

I don't much like the Infinity painting just because I don't care for the style often used. GW were better and some of their more recent armies seem more basic painting, maybe it's because armies are so big now.

I think the 'Eavy Metal paint jobs are as good as you can possibly get a team to paint miniatures to show off miniatures.

There are, of course, individuals out there that paint better, especially if they are trying to show off their paint skills.

But A), I don't think that kind of masturbative painting of always picking the toughest technique - just because you can - is well suited to a company trying to show of the miniatures, rather than your lewt skills. And B) you don't wanna be at the mercy of one individual and his whims.

Giraldez is amazing, but if he ever stops painting or is poached by another company, Corvus Belli's gonna be in for a surprise.

Not to mention that while all Infinity Miniatures are amazing, they also all look kinda the same. Hell, saw Giraldez put up a Medieval Knight time-thing to promote Vallejo paints, and it took me a minute to figure out it wasn't an Infinity miniature. Not to mention that I can't tell most of the Infinity factions apart for the life of me.

The 'Eavy Metal team is a company department that produces what it needs to produce, without relying on any one individual, whether or not single members working within 'Eavy Metal might also produce Golden Demon-style stuff if they put their mind to it.

I'd prefer if they were the best paint jobs though. I dont care for their new style. Almost feels like they lost a lot of talent and decided to toss bob in accounting or steve in legal on the painting team to fill slots.

Guess what bob, you just got promoted, your on the painting squad. But I can't paint sir. This is great news!

It get irritated with GW the most mainly because they keep screaming "where the bestest" but they don't act like. Most stuff feels like their coasting along with minimal effort. All the while jumping up and done shouting "look at me look at me" like an annoying child. It gets tiresome.

Zweischneid wrote:I think the 'Eavy Metal paint jobs are as good as you can possibly get a team to paint miniatures to show off miniatures.

wowsmash wrote: Almost feels like they lost a lot of talent and decided to toss bob in accounting or steve in legal on the painting team to fill slots.

I disagree with both these points. I think the technical execution of the "GW style" is excellent. The paintjobs are highly consistent and the techniques are executed neatly. To me, they look like the efforts of talented individuals told to paint in specific techniques, and given limited time to do so. Look at the acres of glossy black on the new Tyranid MC's carapaces, for example. The striations and highlighting on the edges is very well-executed - certainly better than I could do - but the majority of the carapace is a sea of black with no blending or gradient or anything else that might have made appealing use of that space. When I eventually see the same mini on Dakka or CMON, with something interesting done with that space, I will feel more drawn to the sculpt and thus the purchase. So I don't think GW is really doing themselves any favours here.


That being said, I've really enjoyed reading the responses to this thread. I'm sort of surprised at the popularity of Reaper's approach. It leads me to wonder if other manufacturers wouldn't also benefit from just getting as many pics of their minis out there as possible (posting a link to a gallery of fan-submitted models right on their catalog page or whatever) instead of limiting themselves to one style.

@DFo: I suspect the "time" element is factoring heavily into the painting direction taken by the studio. Time is money, and GW seems to be trimming expenditures wherever it thinks it can get away with it.

I find the Eldrad example interesting because it is the same model, unchanged from 2nd Edition. Stylistically, the palettes have changed for the better - as 2nd Edition was known to be very cartoony, colorful and did not always placate the color wheel gods. Here's another good example of changes in painting - using the same models: IMHO, McVey is a wizard, even on rank and file troops. It is telling that GW is using his painted models on the box art of the current warp spiders, many years after his departure.

McVey's 2nd Edition Warp Spiders - http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1251694_99110104096_Warpspidersmain_873x627.jpg
Modern Warp Spider Exarch - https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gws360/2013/06+-+June/Warp+Spider+Exarch/01.jpg

kb305 wrote:
except you probably should be a chef if you are going to claim that the food is simple, that anyone could cook like that and that you yourself could do equal or better in half the amount of time.

saying you dont like it is one thing but taking it that far is just idiocy and arrogance unless you can actually back it up.

I'm still waiting for you to ante up. You took a dump all over my painting skills (presumably from gallery uploads), despite the fact that I made no specific claims that I am a superior painter to the studio artists - but only commented on difficulty and time-consuming aspects of technique based on my own experience. To make such a sweeping judgement, by your own logic, you should be commenting from a position of superior skill. Otherwise, you are just the pot calling the kettle black.

So a couple of pics just showed up in my facebook feed and I feels the need to share this one here:


That's quite a close up but it still looks good. GW's close ups on their site* look something like this:


One of those is clearly unable to stand up to any sort of scrutiny.



*The infinity one is just from their painter's facebook, I haven't seen those sorts of close ups on their official stuff, so while it won't put anyone off for being too good the GW one is on their site and will put people off for being crap.

One thing I've certainly noticed lately is the woeful quality of metallics in the WFB range. Those are simply not up to par, and the studio has taken to slapping them on all of WFB models, from Chaos, through Dwarves, to Dark Elves, usually as a combination of gold/copper and silver/steel. The way they execute the metallics not only makes the models unappealing scheme-wise (dull metals against flat, bright colors) and the armies blend with each other too much, it also makes each individual model get lost in the sea of metal when in a unit.

The only reason for this I can divine is that it's cheap and easy, which tells plenty about how much faith GW puts in WFB - have the studio rush the dwarves so that they can spend more time painting space marines and imperial knights.