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.

 Cave_Dweller wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

kb305 wrote:

they're not bad. too busy though. a crate of those would only take you half a decade to paint if you hold yourself to any kind of standard.

This is a difficulty as well. When detail is as 'busy' as some of these models are, it's just more opportunity for a reasonable time spent painting to look like sloppy crap.

Ok, not a flame against you guys particularly, but if they went the opposite route and made middle of the road levels of detail, or even minimalistic models with large panels to paint, we'd have another thread with people complaining the models are too basic and boring. Right?

This is the internet, and this is Dakka. What are you expecting, peace, quiet and complete agreement/satisfaction? Perish the thought!

I buy a lot of Warmachine models. If you look at Warmachine figs, especially the bests/jacks, there's alot of expanses of relatively plain surface. I do not think this makes it look 'undetailed' or 'empty'. Rather, they're models that look really good with relatively straightforward paint schemes that don't take uptillion hours to complete. Wet-blending, drybrushing, and minor highlighting all 'works'.

Although I do think, for example, the Chaos Marines from the DV set look really good, they're going to require a very precise paintjob and little things like a bit of color from one 'raised' surface that spills over onto a 'low' one will make the fig look sloppy because you're not in the lines.

I'm going to play devils advocate and say that I like the new digital approach, I really love some of the models that have been designed in this manner, and I don't think that it is sucking the soul out of the hobby.

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
Ok, not a flame against you guys particularly, but if they went the opposite route and made middle of the road levels of detail, or even minimalistic models with large panels to paint, we'd have another thread with people complaining the models are too basic and boring. Right?

Not at all true. There's definitely a middle ground here, like this: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/The_Horus_Heresy/HORUS_HERESY_CHARACTER_SERIES/ABADDON_AND_LOKEN.html . Dynamic poses, plenty of detail (clearly any plain surfaces are plain because they're meant to be, not because the sculptor got lazy), etc. And yet the models aren't completely cluttered with random skulls.

Now compare that to the dark vengeance stuff posted earlier, where a lot of the detail looks like it was added for the sole purpose of avoiding plain surfaces. The models look really cluttered and there isn't a good focal point, your attention just wanders from detail bit to detail bit.

 Cave_Dweller wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

kb305 wrote:

they're not bad. too busy though. a crate of those would only take you half a decade to paint if you hold yourself to any kind of standard.

This is a difficulty as well. When detail is as 'busy' as some of these models are, it's just more opportunity for a reasonable time spent painting to look like sloppy crap.

Ok, not a flame against you guys particularly, but if they went the opposite route and made middle of the road levels of detail, or even minimalistic models with large panels to paint, we'd have another thread with people complaining the models are too basic and boring. Right?

It's amg how many people think Dakka is one singular person posting under a bunch of different names...

Dakka is thousands of people with their own opinions. The reason you'd see that thread pop up is because it's people with different opinions posting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
Ok, not a flame against you guys particularly, but if they went the opposite route and made middle of the road levels of detail, or even minimalistic models with large panels to paint, we'd have another thread with people complaining the models are too basic and boring. Right?

Not at all true. There's definitely a middle ground here, like this: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/The_Horus_Heresy/HORUS_HERESY_CHARACTER_SERIES/ABADDON_AND_LOKEN.html . Dynamic poses, plenty of detail (clearly any plain surfaces are plain because they're meant to be, not because the sculptor got lazy), etc. And yet the models aren't completely cluttered with random skulls.

Now compare that to the dark vengeance stuff posted earlier, where a lot of the detail looks like it was added for the sole purpose of avoiding plain surfaces. The models look really cluttered and there isn't a good focal point, your attention just wanders from detail bit to detail bit.

Too bad those are Forge World studio sculptors and not GW sculptors. :( I quite honestly preferred the overall "look", "feel", and atmosphere they gave to Abaddon, rather than the one GW produces.

 gorgon wrote:

Yeah, they've mostly stayed away from using the Epic names for anything other than Apoc. IIRC, the inimitable Moloch said he encouraged them to call the model in question an Exocrine, but it was a no go. It seems like there's some sort of directive to keep those lines separate? I could come up with possible reasons, but they'd just be wild guesses.

Could have something to do with the fact that there are a lot of Armorcast Ecocrines, Malafactors and Haruspexes out there...

T

Honestly I haven't really had much of a problem with GW's new releases, except for Sound Marines and such being relegated to upgrade sets and the general price hikes

The only model I can come up with off the top of my head that I really dislike (as in dislike so much I wouldn't buy, I'm a collector more than a gamer after all so rules don't really bother me) is the Stormraven gunship, and some of the Hobbit Miniatures, but I generally don't bother with Hobbit/LOTR anyway

Beyond that the only ones I can think of that I dislike (though for the sake of collection I probably would still buy) are the Warriors of Chaos models from January, namely the Forsaken and whatever that Ox-Gorilla that pulls the chariot is

While we're on the topic of the GW studio, does anyone here with knowledge of the studio know just how hard it is to get hired there as a sculptor?

I know Forge World and the Studio still hire traditional sculptors, I doubt they will go "all digital".

A friend of mine has applied there recently, but was wondering what his chances really were. He's a professional sculptor, I like his work.

After sending in his resume he was asked to send pics of "GW" related sculpts, but he didn't have any since he's been sculpting for other companies in order to pay the bills. So he's knocking out a few sculpts of GW models to send in.

I was wondering if that is normal? I'd think they would be able to tell if he's qualified just by looking at his current portfolio since sculptors pretty much sculpt whatever concept art is put in front of them.

I wouldn't think the skill to sculpt a Space Marine or Dark Eldar is any different than sculpting a Menoth Bastion or a Skorn Titan.

Or is it just "standard procedure"?

 prplehippo wrote:
While we're on the topic of the GW studio, does anyone here with knowledge of the studio know just how hard it is to get hired there as a sculptor?

I know Forge World and the Studio still hire traditional sculptors, I doubt they will go "all digital".

A friend of mine has applied there recently, but was wondering what his chances really were. He's a professional sculptor, I like his work.

After sending in his resume he was asked to send pics of "GW" related sculpts, but he didn't have any since he's been sculpting for other companies in order to pay the bills. So he's knocking out a few sculpts of GW models to send in.

I was wondering if that is normal? I'd think they would be able to tell if he's qualified just by looking at his current portfolio since sculptors pretty much sculpt whatever concept art is put in front of them.

I wouldn't think the skill to sculpt a Space Marine or Dark Eldar is any different than sculpting a Menoth Bastion or a Skorn Titan.

Or is it just "standard procedure"?

I don't know if it's "standard procedure" or not, but I know that GW, and Forge World in particular, thrive on their "grimdark" fashion statement and want to ensure that sculptors can keep with the theme and style that 40k and fantasy use. For example, look at what happened with the PP Warmahordes Blitzer and Mauler compared to the now "Classics" - they became more cartoony. It's a difference in styles, for example, I'm decent with sketching landscapes and "realistic" looking scenes, but I'm no good at sketching anime or manga. As someone who was going into art before, companies do look at your style to see if it matches theirs.

 Enigwolf wrote:

I don't know if it's "standard procedure" or not, but I know that GW, and Forge World in particular, thrive on their "grimdark" fashion statement and want to ensure that sculptors can keep with the theme and style that 40k and fantasy use. For example, look at what happened with the PP Warmahordes Blitzer and Mauler compared to the now "Classics" - they became more cartoony. It's a difference in styles, for example, I'm decent with sketching landscapes and "realistic" looking scenes, but I'm no good at sketching anime or manga. As someone who was going into art before, companies do look at your style to see if it matches theirs.

I was always under the impression that a sculptor just sculpts what's on the concept art.

If a sculptor is given concept art for a SM Chaplain that's what they sculpt, if it's a Cygnar Long Gunner they sculpt that.

From what I've been told Aaragorn Marks and Edgar Ramos were both PP sculptors before they left to work for GW, so I thought that "style" didn't really come into play since you have to sculpt what they give you to sculpt not what you want to sculpt.

I was told by Ron Kruzie at L&L last year that they are extremely picky about their sculpts matching the concept art, if a sculptor adds a rivet, panel line, armor plate or if they leave something minor off like a gem they have it corrected. There is no room for the sculptor to interpret the design beyond making the concept work with the pose.

Maybe GW is a bit more "open" and gives the sculptor more room for interpretation?

 prplehippo wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

I don't know if it's "standard procedure" or not, but I know that GW, and Forge World in particular, thrive on their "grimdark" fashion statement and want to ensure that sculptors can keep with the theme and style that 40k and fantasy use. For example, look at what happened with the PP Warmahordes Blitzer and Mauler compared to the now "Classics" - they became more cartoony. It's a difference in styles, for example, I'm decent with sketching landscapes and "realistic" looking scenes, but I'm no good at sketching anime or manga. As someone who was going into art before, companies do look at your style to see if it matches theirs.

I was always under the impression that a sculptor just sculpts what's on the concept art.

If a sculptor is given concept art for a SM Chaplain that's what they sculpt, if it's a Cygnar Long Gunner they sculpt that.

From what I've been told Aaragorn Marks and Edgar Ramos were both PP sculptors before they left to work for GW, so I thought that "style" didn't really come into play since you have to sculpt what they give you to sculpt not what you want to sculpt.

I was told by Ron Kruzie at L&L last year that they are extremely picky about their sculpts matching the concept art, if a sculptor adds a rivet, panel line, armor plate or if they leave something minor off like a gem they have it corrected. There is no room for the sculptor to interpret the design beyond making the concept work with the pose.

Maybe GW is a bit more "open" and gives the sculptor more room for interpretation?

From my understanding based off of the various interviews with sculptors that have surfaced every once in a blue moon (such as the Forge World promo videos that talk about the releases), GW is indeed more "open" - in fact many of their sculptors are the ones who draw the concept art too. This could be why they need a more stringent screening process. A good sculptor isn't one who can turn concept art into a three-dimensional model; anyone can do that with enough practice. A good sculptor is one who has the imagination to go beyond that and do the creative process. Besides, concept art can only cover so much, and often perspective betrays you and parts won't line up, even though it looks as if they should. This is all very similar to when 3D animation first took off, so many people jumped on-board the bandwagon only to find themselves permanently stuck at the bottom of the food chain as a line animator, creating 3D models and textures of boring-yet-necessary things like boxes and planks of wood.

I can't believe i just read people complaining that models are too detailed. The models get more and more beautiful every edition. why is this something to complain about?

You need to add the qualifier 'in my opinion'.

In other folks opinions the models keep looking worse and worse. Why not complain?

Too much detail =/= 'beautiful'. Simplicity can be it's own beauty. (I like Mark Copplestone's work better than most of the current GW crop.)

I, for one, think that the Dark Vengeance models are cluttered and overly baroque.

*SHRUG* Tastes differ.

The Auld Grump.

 artofwaaagh wrote:
I can't believe i just read people complaining that models are too Grimdark. The models get more and more skulls every edition. why is this something to BABY CARRIER GRAY KNIGHT?

There you go.

There's a very big difference between 'details' and 'clutter'.

Look at the new Chaos Forsaken for WHFB. Those are 'detailed'. But they're also cluttered, ugly, and stupid. Look at the new Dark Angels landspeeder with a church on top and a guy who apparently has no legs operating an assault cannon. It's cluttered and with poor design elements.

The tech allows some excellent detail. They just fall completely short on the artistic end. I highly suspect market analytics is driving much of their large scale design choices, probably through very select A/B testing.

Personally, I am not really a fan of the new stuff GW is coming out with. Granted there is some good stuff that they are, but they are either too cluttered to make it seem more grimdark or silly looking (Dreadknight and that High-elf dragon...whatever that thing is?).

But meh, I guess this might be a matter of personal taste.

the daemonettes I can agree with but as for models from the empire who's architecture is based off that of french and Italian gothic era. There is nothing simple about that time. It was very ornate and gaudy "in my opinion" the models finally match the fluff.

 artofwaaagh wrote:
I can't believe i just read people complaining that models are too detailed. The models get more and more beautiful every edition. why is this something to complain about?

Detail does not equal beauty. A Space Marine has a very distinctive silhouette that is simple and recognizable. The more crap you pile onto him, the less recognizable he is, the more cluttered he is, and the less practical he looks. People aren't clamoring that GW return to the oversimplified monopose plastics from 2nd edition, but some of the models are insanely overdetailed. Let's look at an example:

Nobody will argue that this is a well-sculpted model. The face is expressive and the details are sharp. However, there is a hell of a lot going on with this dude, from the banding on the gauntlets to the completely nonfunctional shrine, statues, and wings on the back of the bike. Take a step back and squint at the model and try to define the silhouette. What does it look like? It looks like a misshapen pile. I actually don't dislike the model, but I've got a squad of Ravenwing Knights that I know are going to be a pain and a half to paint up.

Let's compare this to the Blood Angels Death Company models.

These models are also crammed with extra detail and bling. There's blood vials, blood drops, and scrolls flopping around every which way, but the silhouette of the model is relatively unchanged, and they can still be recognized as Marines from afar. I considered these guys a bit on the overdetailed side when they came out three years ago, and roughly two and a half years before Dark Vengeance and the current Dark Angels came out. My question is what models will look like in a further three years, and if they'll even be recognizable at that point, or just look like a Marine took a roll around in a jewelry box before building a church on his back. I can deal with the current level of detail, I'm just concerned about the future.

Look at the Eldar range by comparison. Every Aspect has a distinctive silhouette, they're well-sculpted and sharply detailed models, and they aren't overladen with bling. In fact, they're actually wearing decidedly little extraneous detail. They're some of the most beautiful miniatures GW has ever produced, and they've aged incredibly well.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 artofwaaagh wrote:
I can't believe i just read people complaining that models are too detailed. The models get more and more beautiful every edition. why is this something to complain about?

Detail does not equal beauty. A Space Marine has a very distinctive silhouette that is simple and recognizable. The more crap you pile onto him, the less recognizable he is, the more cluttered he is, and the less practical he looks. People aren't clamoring that GW return to the oversimplified monopose plastics from 2nd edition, but some of the models are insanely overdetailed. Let's look at an example:

Nobody will argue that this is a well-sculpted model. The face is expressive and the details are sharp. However, there is a hell of a lot going on with this dude, from the banding on the gauntlets to the completely nonfunctional shrine, statues, and wings on the back of the bike. Take a step back and squint at the model and try to define the silhouette. What does it look like? It looks like a misshapen pile. I actually don't dislike the model, but I've got a squad of Ravenwing Knights that I know are going to be a pain and a half to paint up.

Let's compare this to the Blood Angels Death Company models.

These models are also crammed with extra detail and bling. There's blood vials, blood drops, and scrolls flopping around every which way, but the silhouette of the model is relatively unchanged, and they can still be recognized as Marines from afar. I considered these guys a bit on the overdetailed side when they came out three years ago, and roughly two and a half years before Dark Vengeance and the current Dark Angels came out. My question is what models will look like in a further three years, and if they'll even be recognizable at that point, or just look like a Marine took a roll around in a jewelry box before building a church on his back. I can deal with the current level of detail, I'm just concerned about the future.

Look at the Eldar range by comparison. Every Aspect has a distinctive silhouette, they're well-sculpted and sharply detailed models, and they aren't overladen with bling. In fact, they're actually wearing decidedly little extraneous detail. They're some of the most beautiful miniatures GW has ever produced, and they've aged incredibly well.

100% spot on. the death company get a pass, although just barely.

holy fark at that biker. 4 wings, statues, iron halo, wrist crap, icons everywhere, they even fit on a robe. yikes would that ever be a B to paint

Or let's even look at a new release:



Nice dynamic pose, plenty of detail, but not so much pointless detail that it looks like the artist suffers from a crippling fear of plain surfaces.

Tau and Eldar designs have been relatively sleek, elegant, and plain to an extent. It's only the Imperial and Chaos releases that really get me all upset-like because they justify Gothic architecture and Chaos-ness to cram every single surface with as much detail as possible. "Empty space? PURITY SEAL!"

 Peregrine wrote:
Nice dynamic pose, plenty of detail, but not so much pointless detail that it looks like the artist suffers from a crippling fear of plain surfaces.

There's actually a term for that: horror vacui.

This is also noticeable from GW's new terrain pieces: sometimes I find it too busy for my taste, and all for the sake of busyness. I'm familiar with Gothic architecture and yes, I know that it's supposed to be filled with detail. My problem is GW crosses the realm of too much detail from time to time. Sometimes it can still look good, but other times it just looks ridiculous (especially when it is covered with skulls). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I get that it's supposed to be over-the-top (which can be cool), but sometimes it's over-the-over-the-top (which could've been cool but ruined it).

I have a Garden of Morr box set and up until now I don't have the heart to finish the wall pieces because the abundance of skulls (and why only skulls? Where are the other bones? Is there a race of humanoids that died together and they only have skulls?). I love the set, but it would be 100% better without the skulls (or just a few skulls here and there). Compare it with this graveyard terrain piece: http://www.tabletop-world.com/Graveyard.php : it's filled with detail and yet it remains classy. It pains me that I could love most GW terrain pieces, especially the newer ones, like the Skullvane Manse, but the skulls keep ruining it for me.

All of this is my personal taste talking, and by no means am I pushing my taste on others.

Yikes. That DA bike looks like someone saw the old Warzone Death Angel and thought, "What a cool idea!"

No. No it's not.

Don't know what it is but there certainly has been a general downward slope in terms of miniature design over the past few years. It often seems like the desinger is just trying to do too much with the model and it looks silly in the end. I also really don't like this new trend of supersized minis in standard games. The wraithknight and riptide just look rediculous to me when they are put on the board. Leave that sort of sized miniature for apocolypse where they can go up agaisnt titans.

I like the fact that there's models with expanses of flat space and some that are "over-detailed." I'm not awesome at painting and sometimes struggle with having a large flat armor plate looking well, on the flip-side, I'm not always in control to get a lot of extra detail done that looks good too. (Yeah, I guess I'm just a crappy painter.) Either way, I paint stuff I like, and I pick out models that'll stretch my skills. In the end, I would probably lean toward, give me the bits to let me put the detail on it though. Either way, I've yet to see any of the pics on this thread where I think, that model is junk. It's more like, dangit, wish I could paint that like that!