|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 22, 2015 7:15:25 GMT -9
What paper miniature style do most of you prefer? A more realistic/painterly look or a more comic book-like style?
s1294.photobucket.com/user/tooncraft3doncraft3d/library/?sort=9&page=1
These are my first miniature tries. The first two are painted and the last few that have backsides are linework and solid colored artwork. Im curious to what people like the most.
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 22, 2015 7:25:12 GMT -9
I personally prefer the comic book style. Simpler patterns and slightly stronger lines stand out well on the table in miniature form. I fear that some things when shrunk down and printed on the average person's printer will look muddy. That's my 2ยข. I love those last three minis you posted. They look great!
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 22, 2015 7:33:24 GMT -9
I like the Beholder and the Grell especially. High contrast and brighter colors work best on my gaming table. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 22, 2015 7:41:57 GMT -9
Thanks guys, I value yous two opinions greatly
|
|
|
Post by 8rad on Feb 22, 2015 7:53:45 GMT -9
+1 on the comic style for me, and +1 that beholder looks superb.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 22, 2015 9:08:14 GMT -9
I also like the comic style, though I feel the beholder might be over-simplified. Don't worry about it, you will NEVER please everyone.
|
|
|
Post by berneart76 on Feb 22, 2015 9:38:11 GMT -9
I like the comic style a little more, but would use both simultaneously on my gaming table...
|
|
|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 22, 2015 9:46:25 GMT -9
Thanks for all the input.
Im also thinking of a hybrid style. Paint in a very bold colorful style like a Warcraft character would look. Ill try and do something soon and see what you all think of that.
|
|
|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 22, 2015 10:58:08 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 22, 2015 11:05:25 GMT -9
He's cute, but I think I still prefer the other style.
|
|
|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 22, 2015 12:11:12 GMT -9
He's cute, but I think I still prefer the other style. Im surprised everyone likes the comicbook style one the most since all the paper terrain Ive seen is very realistically textured. Most minis just don't match the terrain.
Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 22, 2015 13:03:28 GMT -9
Actually, at "game table" distance I don't think you would see a big difference between the comic and "hybrid" style. Especially since my figures don't glow like the computer screen does. I think the high contrast is appealing because at the scale we print things at, subtle shading just tends to turn things muddy.
|
|
|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 22, 2015 13:17:35 GMT -9
Actually, at "game table" distance I don't think you would see a big difference between the comic and "hybrid" style. Especially since my figures don't glow like the computer screen does. I think the high contrast is appealing because at the scale we print things at, subtle shading just tends to turn things muddy. Yes, minis are a huge difference when printed in ink as well as seeing the true size on the table. Which brings me to a hard thing for me anyway.... is when am I putting in too much unneeded detail that will never be seen or noticed.
I need to find a happy medium or range of detail where Im not wasting time and getting more art done. If I could find that happy range I could technically crank out a full mini set every day if I wanted (not including backs...which is another subject that Im unsure of atm).
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 22, 2015 13:30:01 GMT -9
Backs are the one thing I can usually do reasonably well. (Usually, reasonably, can you tell I'm Canadian?) Anyway, I think I did at least on tutorial on it. If I don't get back to you, check out my member page for some tips. Edit: There isn't a tutorial on my members page, but I gave some tips in this thread: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/thread/3134/designing-minis-back
|
|
|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 22, 2015 13:48:33 GMT -9
Backs are the one thing I can usually do reasonably well. (Usually, reasonably, can you tell I'm Canadian?) Anyway, I think I did at least on tutorial on it. If I don't get back to you, check out my member page for some tips. Edit: There isn't a tutorial on my members page, but I gave some tips in this thread: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/thread/3134/designing-minis-backExcellent thanks for the .
What I meant mostly is, it is twice the work...so is it worth doing from a business stand point? Would the majority of customers have still purchased your mini packs if there was not backsides to them (just a mirror image of the front)? That's what I struggle with in deciding.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 22, 2015 13:54:24 GMT -9
Oh, One more because it is on the clipboard anyway: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/thread/4623/batman-company-cops-robbers?page=1Majority opinion here (at least the last time we discussed it a few years back) is that all figures need backs. I think this site is representative of the people who like paper figs the most, but I don't know if "we" represent a sizeable portion of the people who buy paper figures.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 22, 2015 19:52:28 GMT -9
I've been thinking about the realistic scenery/comic figure dichotomy and I think it is a matter of scale. Buildings are best appreciated from a certain distance so their important details can be seen even when they are shrunk either by distance or an artist. On the other hand, what we find interesting about people (facial expression, fashion and maybe equipment) can't be read from the kind of distance the gaming table simulates so the figures need to be heightened to give our minds what they are looking for from small or medium animals (like people.)
|
|
|
Post by berneart76 on Feb 22, 2015 20:00:47 GMT -9
I agree with cowboyleland. This ahs been going on for quite sometime in the modelling hobby overall, if you want to look into it, look at how realistic building for model train layouts get, and then compare that to how simple the people are depicted ( while their proportions are closer to human actual than in the gaming hobby, the painting/coloring tend to be very simplistic)
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Roe on Feb 22, 2015 20:34:51 GMT -9
The "cartoon miniatures on top of realistic terrain" effect doesn't bother me. I mean, I've never painted a photorealistic plastic or metal figure in my life, and my paint jobs tend to be pretty simple and minimalist, so the visual effect is similar. Plus, when I shop around for paper figures, I find myself gravitating to the comic book or Jim Hartman style out of preference/habit.
|
|
|
Post by 8rad on Feb 22, 2015 22:49:29 GMT -9
Backs are the one thing I can usually do reasonably well. (Usually, reasonably, can you tell I'm Canadian?) Anyway, I think I did at least on tutorial on it. If I don't get back to you, check out my member page for some tips. Edit: There isn't a tutorial on my members page, but I gave some tips in this thread: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/thread/3134/designing-minis-backExcellent thanks for the .
What I meant mostly is, it is twice the work...so is it worth doing from a business stand point? Would the majority of customers have still purchased your mini packs if there was not backsides to them (just a mirror image of the front)? That's what I struggle with in deciding.
I had the same questions with backs or to just mirror the front with 10mm minis. One of the answers I got back from Wyvrn was very good "Only thing I would say is that mini facing, and identifying it, can be quite important, so backs for your minis might be something worth considering. This does depend on what rules you're using though.". Something worth considering and for me after adding the backs turned out a more satisfying/complete mini. Also for a business point of view the market expects backs =). 8r
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Feb 23, 2015 2:33:59 GMT -9
pavaro ran a poll on this here a couple of months back which came down strongly in favour of realistically human proportioned minis, though the number of responses wasn't great, and as noted already above, the folks on CWF may not be very representative of the paper mini buying public more generally. As far as your own style goes Tooncraft3D, I liked the monocular blemye warrior and the beholder especially of your samples. I don't recall seeing anything quite like the blemye before as a paper mini, and I at least could find a use for more of this particular tribe! The Grell would be a nightmare to hand-cut as a mini though - too many tiny gaps between the tentacles - so for me, that doesn't really work right now, though with a little tweaking to close up the gaps, or fill more of the spaces with heavy black outlining so they don't have to be removed, it would be better. Since I use paper minis for gaming, wargaming (so table-top units, not just individual figurines) and model-making, so long as the appearance of a group or set appeals and fits together well enough, I'm happy to work with whatever style of minis are available. As a long-time scale modeller though, I still find the more realistically-proportioned minis often have the edge where a comparison's possible. And as you may guess, I'm strongly in the "all paper minis need backs" group of buyers/modellers!
|
|
|
Post by Tooncraft3D on Feb 23, 2015 4:10:08 GMT -9
Thanks again for all the replies. This feedback is fantastic. Sorry if Im having you all reiterate what was already discussed.
|
|