I have plenty to speak on because the concept of the Tulnar is high fantasy; not low fantasy.
I don't understand why you would look at high fantasy mobs and think that the characters would be low fantasy. I already pointed out, first, that the Tulnar are a high fantasy concept.
Sounds like you are more interested in talking about the definition of high/low fantasy rather than addressing the obvious point I was making.
But to clarify what you say you didnt understand: NPC mobs and PC models are different things on screen you know so their design and apperance can have different characteristics/values to them. Mobs with "high fantasy aesthetics" (stylized or in other ways less realistic features) doesnt mean the player characters follow the same style as is obvious in AoC. As Steven have pointed out he doesnt like stylized characters that much which obviously is a big reason why we ended up with these bland PCs.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
The obvious points you are attempting to make are moot because Ashes is a high fantasy setting.
The Tulnar are not low fantasy character races - nor are they "bland".
The devs never said they would be creating low fantasy, bland characters.
You made shit up and now are disappointed that the devs are not sticking with your delusions.
The obvious points you are attempting to make are moot because Ashes is a high fantasy setting.
The Tulnar are not low fantasy character races - nor are they "bland".
The devs never said they would be creating low fantasy, bland characters.
You made shit up and now are disappointed that the devs are not sticking with your delusions.
Yeah sorry, your arguments are just weird at this point. None of them are on point or playing off of what my original comment meant. I will leave it at that.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I have plenty to speak on because the concept of the Tulnar is high fantasy; not low fantasy.
I don't understand why you would look at high fantasy mobs and think that the characters would be low fantasy. I already pointed out, first, that the Tulnar are a high fantasy concept.
Sounds like you are more interested in talking about the definition of high/low fantasy rather than addressing the obvious point I was making.
But to clarify what you say you didnt understand: NPC mobs and PC models are different things on screen you know so their design and apperance can have different characteristics/values to them. Mobs with "high fantasy aesthetics" (stylized or in other ways less realistic features) doesnt mean the player characters follow the same style as is obvious in AoC. As Steven have pointed out he doesnt like stylized characters that much which obviously is a big reason why we ended up with these bland PCs.
It sounds like your issue is with the fact the cosmetics look better then the default gear. One thing to keep in mind is the gear you are seeing is supposed to be for earlier levels ~1-20.
As for the comment about them pushing boundaries for sales. While this will obviously happen to some degree, one reason it isn't as necessary in ashes is the fact that each race has their own armor appearances. An orc wearing plate armor will look different then an elf in the same set. This gives room for cosmetics to provide appearances to races that they wouldn't normally have access to without breaking the game's aesthetic. I know there are some appearances that are a little spicy but there are plenty of cosmetics that do just this, provide a unique appearance that some races wouldn't be able to get otherwise.
Lastly, we do have some examples of none cash shop mounts that show there will be good looking, in-game items.
In-game:
Similar mount from Cosmetic shop:
Another example of an in-game mount that hasn't been made available on the store:
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Personally speaking, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we get character races that are low fantasy and bland/boring for X reason only to have the devs go against whatever led them to that design decision with their cash shop models.
I just assume a constant pushback against over-the-top cosmetics will be a requirement from the community as I have little faith the devs will self-police very well (based on what they've already put out there).
The obvious points you are attempting to make are moot because Ashes is a high fantasy setting.
The Tulnar are not low fantasy character races - nor are they "bland".
The devs never said they would be creating low fantasy, bland characters.
You made shit up and now are disappointed that the devs are not sticking with your delusions.
Yeah sorry, your arguments are just weird at this point. None of them are on point or playing off of what my original comment meant. I will leave it at that.
I am precisely following your points - your points are the weird ones.
You made a point about low fantasy and changing a design decision in regard to a game that has always been high fantasy.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
To clarify what you say you didnt understand: [/b] NPC mobs and PC models are different things on screen you know so their design and apperance can have different characteristics/values to them. Mobs with "high fantasy aesthetics" (stylized or in other ways less realistic features) doesnt mean the player characters follow the same style as is obvious in AoC. As Steven have pointed out he doesnt like stylized characters that much which obviously is a big reason why we ended up with these bland PCs.
STEVEN:"They're working hard to make sure that our aesthetic that we want to have in the game which is not one that is traditionally too cartoony. We think that for a Western publisher and a Western developer, as we are, that we can push the limits a little bit on the graphical fidelity... especially using Unreal Engine 4...I mean, that's one of its strengths. My desire was not to see very cartoony games. I'm not a big fan of highly stylized art."
You seem to be conflating cartoony with low fantasy.
You seem to have assumed that since the player character models do not reflect a cartoony art style - that Ashes won't have high fantasy character races (even though Orcs, Elves and Dwarves are high fantasy character races).
You seem to have assumed that having player character models that aren't cartoony means that we won't have cosmetic skins, like angels, fairies and other high fantasy races - even though angels and demons were included as skins in the Kickstarter.
And you seem to have assumed that having player character models that aren't cartoony means there won't be costumes and fashion accessories that reflect a high fantasy setting.
There hasn't been a change in design aesthetic, you just took a quote about cartoony art style out of context and made that a broad generalization that isn't accurate.
Personally speaking, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we get character races that are low fantasy and bland/boring for X reason only to have the devs go against whatever led them to that design decision with their cash shop models.
I'd be quite interested in hearing what your definition of low fantasy is in this context.
As to the actual point you are making, I am working on the assumption that you are sayi g that you dont like the fact that the races themselves are somewhat boring and realistic, but the cosmetic options are not.
This is something I have no issues with. Player choice is a good thing, and appearance is a part of that. If someone wants to appear fantastical, that is their prerogative, but if someone doesn't want to, that's cool too.
From there, it is easier to take a boring base (character model) and make it fantastical than it is to take a fantastical model and make it boring.
As such, more boring/bland models is the way any good fame should go, allowing players to scale things up from there if they want to.
.
Personally speaking, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we get character races that are low fantasy and bland/boring for X reason only to have the devs go against whatever led them to that design decision with their cash shop models.
I'd be quite interested in hearing what your definition of low fantasy is in this context.
Personally speaking, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we get character races that are low fantasy and bland/boring for X reason only to have the devs go against whatever led them to that design decision with their cash shop models.
I'd be quite interested in hearing what your definition of low fantasy is in this context.
As to the actual point you are making, I am working on the assumption that you are sayi g that you dont like the fact that the races themselves are somewhat boring and realistic, but the cosmetic options are not.
Exactly, thats the dev design decision thats rubbing me the wrong way. But i see your point of view.
To answer.your question my reference to low fantasy player characters here is the fact that AoC humans, dwarfs and elves we have seen lean heavy into real life aesthetics and values with a very human look as their baseline reference that feel at home in our primary world rather than a secondary famtasy world.
The dwarfs look like midgets without deformities and the Elves just look like humans.
I hope Tulnar and orcs lean away from that but i make no assumptions or assertions until we have models for them in game. If the orcs end up like green humans and tulnar end up like furry humans my criticism here will stand. But i dearly want Tulnar to be fantastical so theres atleast one race i can enjoy. ^^
@Dygz If you read Nooanis post and my response here it captures the only real point of my original message and you will see why I think you latched on to the wrong stuff and became weirdly hostile.
Also, while high/low fantasy is primarily defined by setting the aesthetics and features are also a point of reference whether a work of fantasy leans into a secondary high fantasy world or primary world values/features so im not confused in the ways you describe. But since our communication fell apart i obviously couldve made my.point more clearly.
Personally speaking, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we get character races that are low fantasy and bland/boring for X reason only to have the devs go against whatever led them to that design decision with their cash shop models.
I'd be quite interested in hearing what your definition of low fantasy is in this context.
As to the actual point you are making, I am working on the assumption that you are sayi g that you dont like the fact that the races themselves are somewhat boring and realistic, but the cosmetic options are not.
Exactly, thats the dev design decision thats rubbing me the wrong way. But i see your point of view.
To answer.your question my reference to low fantasy player characters here is the fact that AoC humans, dwarfs and elves we have seen lean heavy into real life aesthetics and values with a very human look as their baseline reference.
The dwarfs look like midgets without deformities and the Elves just look like humans.
I hope Tulnar and orcs lean away from that but i make no assumptions or assertions until we have models for them in game. If the orcs end up like green humans and tulnar end up like furry humans my criticism here will stand. But i dearly want Tulnar to be fantastical so theres atleast one race i can enjoy. ^^
Cool, your definition of low fantasy is basically spot on. With that in mind, ignore Dygz as he is more interested in arguing semantics than actual points, yet is not smart enough to understand semantics.
One more point to add to my above observation as to boring base models but fantastical cosmetics for those that want them (which I should point out - is not me. I want the most utilitarian look I can find).
The races we have seen so far have been in Sanctus for actual eons. There is no magic in Sanctus. As such, it seems perfectly right, proper and fitting that these races should be as low fantasy (or - non fantastical) as possible.
If the races we have now (ie, non-Tulnar) had magical aspects intrinsic to them, I would have to question everything about the games lore, as our characters would not have seen magic in any form their entire life until they first saw the portal that leads to Verra.
If you do want that fantastical type of character, at least Intrepid is giving you the option to have it via cosmetics. While that may limit you to cash shop purchases at this point, that is unlikely to stay true once the game launches.
The bonus to this is that if you have your heart set on a death-based aesthetic, and you create that at character creation, you are basically stuck with it. On the other hand, if the bulk of the aesthetic of your character comes from cosmetics rather than from the character itself, then you can have that death-based look, but can change it up at any time to any other thing you want.
This is my I am a fan of Intrepid adding things like character animation packs, and spell visual effects packs. Allow characters to make their character look exactly how they want by taking that bland base and dragging it to what ever direction they wish.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If you read Nooanis post and my response here it captures the only real point of my original message and you will see why I think you latched on to the wrong stuff and became weirdly hostile.
Also, while high/low fantasy is primarily defined by setting the aesthetics and features are also a point of reference whether a work of fantasy leans into a secondary high fantasy world or primary world values/features so im not confused in the ways you describe. But since our communication fell apart i obviously couldve made my.point more clearly.
I didn't latch on to the wrong stuff.
Setting affects aesthetics and features. But, the "real life" aesthetics you describe as the features we've seen so far the Humans, Elves and Dwarves has nothing to do with whether a setting is low fantasy or high fantasy.
Low Fantasy or High Fantasy really has little effect on whether a visual aesthetic will be more cartoony or less cartoony.
Also, the "realistic" facial features of Humans, Elves and Dwarves tells us very little about how over-the-top fashion and cosmetics might be.
The cosmetics Ashes has shown us so far are not a design change and do not clash with the "realism" of the Human facial features. An example of a change in design aesthetic would be the inclusion of the overly-exaggerated shoulders we see in WoW.
So, yes, were confused, precisely as I have outlined.
The phrase "made shit up" is not hostile, it's just a more colorful way of saying "made stuff up".
"I thought the non-cartoony appearances of the Humans, Elves and Dwarves (which I think are low fantasy) meant that the devs would not be using the aesthetics that are currently available as cosmetics."
You made stuff up and are now disappointed that the devs are not adhering to the ideas you made up in your own head.
Yeah sorry, your arguments are just weird at this point. None of them are on point or playing off of what my original comment meant. I will leave it at that.
The obvious points you are attempting to make are moot because Ashes is a high fantasy setting.
While Verra may be a high fantasy setting, Sanctus isn't (in isolation, at least).
Our characters (the non-Tulnar) are from Sanctus, not Verra. As such, they are low fantasy - as in, they haven't been influenced or even seen magic their whole lives, or indeed in eons as a civilization. Now, an event that is magical in nature is shaping their world (the portal from Sanctus to Verra).
As such, while Verra absolutely is high fantasy, our player characters are from a stock standard low fantasy setting, and are designed based on that ideal.
So, not only did you latch on to the wrong part of the post (the point was about the character models being mostly bland), but you were factually incorrect anyway.
OK seems a lot of people have no idea what low and high fantasy are.
So here we go:
Definition of Low Fantasy
Low fantasy is defined as a subcategory of the fantasy genre that is identified by supernatural occurrences encroaching on the real (primary) world.
The phrase “low fantasy” is not indicative of the quality of the fantasy work. Rather, the word “low” is a relative term used to express the amount of traditional fantasy outlined in the story.
Primary World
In the definition of low fantasy, I alluded to the “primary world.”
For those that do not know, the primary world is the real world.
It is the world that we are familiar with. It is the world that we see on a day to day basis. A primary fictional setting is still rational at its core, upholding many of the fundamental rules that govern the universe.
Low fantasy always takes place in this primary, real world setting. Magical affairs interrupt this real world setting. The way low fantasy stories are structured, realism is at the forefront of the story.
The fantastical components are incorporated as undertones rather than centerpieces of the story.
Definition of High Fantasy
High fantasy is defined as a sub-genre of the broader category of fantasy that is characterized by extravagant characters and a massive fictional world that is extensively detailed.
High fantasy is also referred to as epic fantasy. Again, the word “high” does not label the quality of the fantasy work. It is merely a means to indicate the level of traditional fantasy implicated in the narrative.
Secondary World
I mentioned the phrase “secondary world” in the definition of high fantasy. What is the secondary world you may ask?
The secondary world is totally separate from the real world.
A secondary world is a fictional setting that is crafted from scratch. There may be realistic elements involved, but fantasy is the overarching component of secondary worlds. As opposed to low fantasy, the essence of the setting is far more grandiose and theatrical.
Supernatural elements virtually take over nearly every aspect of the novel in high fantasy. The entire framework of the world is altered as a result of magic. The plot, dialogue, setting, theme, characterization, imagery are all influenced.
SO. By definition VERRA AND SANCTUM ARE ALL HIGH FANTASY AS ARE THE PCs, MOBS, ETC
SO. By definition VERRA AND SANCTUM ARE ALL HIGH FANTASY AS ARE THE PCs, MOBS, ETC
No one is arguing this, the argument is in relation to the player characters.
Since Sanctus by itself would fit squarely in to the notion of a low fantasy setting, and since our characters are from Sanctus, it is appropriate to label the player characters as being from a low fantasy setting.
A lack if understanding of minutiae like this is what happens when you reply on wikipedia for your understanding.
SO. By definition VERRA AND SANCTUM ARE ALL HIGH FANTASY AS ARE THE PCs, MOBS, ETC
No one is arguing this, the argument is in relation to the player characters.
Since Sanctus by itself would fit squarely in to the notion of a low fantasy setting, and since our characters are from Sanctus, it is appropriate to label the player characters as being from a low fantasy setting.
A lack if understanding of minutiae like this is what happens when you reply on wikipedia for your understanding.
Sanctus, as far as we know, is not our real world (with Europe, NA, Asia etc). It is a secondary world, parallel somehow to Verra but by definition is still a high fantasy setting.
They left Verra, to another high fantasy world. Had a bunch of high fantasy shenanigans, built empires in locations that aren't in our irl world, and now return to Verra.
Sanctum, probably had as much high fantasy stuff in it as Verra. It just wasn't destroyed by the Old Ones.
This is all high fantasy!
Just because, as an example, the Elves don't look like Night Elves from WoW, doesn't make them low fantasy nor from a low fantasy world.
Just because these dwarves aren't as stocky as we are used to from LOTR or WoW, doesn't mean they are low fantasy or from a low fantasy world.
Orcs are orcs, so that's high fantasy as well.
And the Tulnar never left, so they don't count towards the Sanctum side of the argument.
People still had summoners, mages, and other wacky animal mounts they brought from Sanctum. It is high fantasy.
There is no minutiae here. The whole of AoC is high fantasy.
Now, do you want the characters to look a little more exaggerated in their looks? Valid opinion.
Do you want the cosmetics to be more toned down and realistic? Valid opinion.
Do you base opinions on your disputing the setting of the PC's origin as being low fantasy. Invalid reasoning with a valid outcome of opinion
SO. By definition VERRA AND SANCTUM ARE ALL HIGH FANTASY AS ARE THE PCs, MOBS, ETC
No one is arguing this, the argument is in relation to the player characters.
Since Sanctus by itself would fit squarely in to the notion of a low fantasy setting, and since our characters are from Sanctus, it is appropriate to label the player characters as being from a low fantasy setting.
A lack if understanding of minutiae like this is what happens when you reply on wikipedia for your understanding.
Sanctus, as far as we know, is not our real world (with Europe, NA, Asia etc). It is a secondary world, parallel somehow to Verra but by definition is still a high fantasy setting.
It is the only world our characters have ever known, and that has been the case for eons.
A high fantasy race (as opposed to a high fantasy setting) would be a race that is somewhat connected with magic. Our characters would not have believed in magic even existing until the portal to Sanctus opened up.
It may well be that the races in question were more high fantasy before leaving Verra for Sanctus (this is almost guaranteed). However, after actual eons, that is not an argument that still holds true.
When talking about a race - or indeed multiple races - you literally can't say they are high fantasy if no one from any of those races has seen magic in a hundred generations or more.
SO. By definition VERRA AND SANCTUM ARE ALL HIGH FANTASY AS ARE THE PCs, MOBS, ETC
No one is arguing this, the argument is in relation to the player characters.
Since Sanctus by itself would fit squarely in to the notion of a low fantasy setting, and since our characters are from Sanctus, it is appropriate to label the player characters as being from a low fantasy setting.
A lack if understanding of minutiae like this is what happens when you reply on wikipedia for your understanding.
Sanctus, as far as we know, is not our real world (with Europe, NA, Asia etc). It is a secondary world, parallel somehow to Verra but by definition is still a high fantasy setting.
It is the only world our characters have ever known, and that has been the case for eons.
A high fantasy race (as opposed to a high fantasy setting) would be a race that is somewhat connected with magic. Our characters would not have believed in magic even existing until the portal to Sanctus opened up.
It may well be that the races in question were more high fantasy before leaving Verra for Sanctus (this is almost guaranteed). However, after actual eons, that is not an argument that still holds true.
When talking about a race - or indeed multiple races - you literally can't say they are high fantasy if no one from any of those races has seen magic in a hundred generations or more.
There is no minutiae here. The whole of AoC is high fantasy.
As a setting, yes.
But again, that isn't the argument here.
I would say your mistake is linking High Fantasy with a inextricable link to magic.
You can have a high fantasy setting and races, without a necessary link to magic.
Examples of high fantasy books with no magic:
Riverside series by Ellen Kushner
Temeraire books by Naomi Novik
The Lion of Al-Rassa by Guy Gavriel Kay
Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay
Most KJ Parker books
Stuff that is middle of the way would be things like The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie.
Most Joe Abercrombie books have a secondary world and some semblance of magic but no high fantasy races. Just humans.
So in regards to Ashes, you can have no magic and still be a high fantasy setting if the world is not our IRL world. At best they'd be Middle-Fantasy.
So yes. Ashes and the player characters are all High Fantasy. Just because they possibly found magic only once back to Verra, it doesn't make Sanctum low fantasy.
I repeat. Low Fantasy has our IRL world as a setting, to which you've added a tablespoon of magic.
This is not up to interpretation or debate. It has been so since at least the 1910s.
To the point of the cosmetics. Seeing I have proven why Sanctum and Verra are both high fantasy, high fantasy cosmetics are OK.
Does that mean that you have to just sit there and take it?
No.
You can argue you want more realistic armors and cosmetics. But don't twist the reality of the game's setting to fit your own preferences.
Personally I'm no fan of all the angels and demons and all that nonsensical cosmetic stuff either.
Unless they are pieces or armor earned from content that fits those aesthetics.
But I do expect there to be high fantasy elements to the player characters and the possible cosmetics that come with their backstory as hailing from Sanctum.
While I am not familiar with all of the above, those I am familiar with fall very neatly in to historical fiction, not high fantasy.
The conclusion here is that your definition of high/low fantasy is off. I have no reason to care to attempt to change it - especially since that is not what this conversation is about.
The conversation, as you've argued it until this point, has been that, seeing as though the fantasy races are more human in their appearances (which you labeled as being more low fantasy), that there shouldn't be high fantasy cosmetics, or that they should be fewer (or pushed aside in favor of more realistic ones) as you feel it would clash with their aesthetics.
I argue, that since the world, both Verra and Sanctum, are by definition High Fantasy, so are their denizens.
Therefore high fantasy cosmetics wouldn't be out of place, whether someone would happen to like them or not.
Even if they decide to go with a more human-like appearance for their elves and dwarves (and entirely ignoring Orcs, or that elves in LOTR don't look different than men save for their ears and those are High Fantasy as well etc) those remain high fantasy races.
I don't entirely disagree with you that some of the high fantasy cosmetics would be a little jarring. I simply disagree with you on the premise of the why.
So far, you've only based your argument on your own understanding of what low and high fantasy is. Whereas I'm basing mine in what actually is considered so by writers, publishers and critics of the larger fantasy genre.
I invite everyone to double check my definitions from earlier if someone feels like they might have a disagreement with me on that point.
@Asgerr this is not the most interesting discussion at this point and feel free to disagree but this is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. People use high/low fantasy both as a quality and quantity which is the basis for why misunderstandings on this subject are so common. My literature teacher would always define high fantasy by a combination of both of these factors:
1.The stature/representation of its Characters, plots and themes
2. Its setting in a secondary world.
Both definitions have support by people who navigate that information professionally and referencing characters as high fantasy simply implies more fantastical/epic features and qualities to them and a clearer separation from our real world.
@Asgerr this is not the most interesting discussion at this point and feel free to disagree but this is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. People use high/low fantasy both as a quality and quantity which is the basis for why misunderstandings on this subject are so common. My literature teacher would always define high fantasy by a combination of both of these factors:
1.The stature/representation of its Characters, plots and themes
2. Its setting in a secondary world.
Both definitions have support by people who navigate that information professionally and referencing characters as high fantasy simply implies more fantastical/epic features and qualities to them and a clearer separation from our real world.
I would say your teacher is right in regards the larger Fantasy genre. And you indeed correct in that the high fantasy relates mostly to its setting by separation from our world. Which is exactly the case of both Verra and Sanctum.
Which is why I just disagree with the reasons one might ascribe a low fantasy aesthetic to our playable races, just because they aren't exaggerated versions of those.
The basic and central point of the thread was that the cosmetics were perhaps too many etc. It then veered towards whether they would ruin the immersion on account of the aesthetics that have been presented over the course of the livestreams.
I don't see them clashing with the rest of the world, as one should pretty much expect the world to similar to something like The Sword Coast in D&D.
Beyond that, you are all free to disagree with the inclusion of the cosmetic cash shop.
I am personally in favor of it, even if probably won't buy more than one skin in my lifetime with the game.
The conversation, as you've argued it until this point, has been that, seeing as though the fantasy races are more human in their appearances (which you labeled as being more low fantasy), that there shouldn't be high fantasy cosmetics, or that they should be fewer (or pushed aside in favor of more realistic ones) as you feel it would clash with their aesthetics.
Perhaps not surprisingly, your understanding of this discussion is as out of focus as your understanding of fiction genres.
My point (it is not an argument - I dare you to try and argue it though) is that a more boring character model (which can be defined as a low fantasy character, even if the setting is high fantasy - but this is not my argument) is a good thing for the game.
This allows the developers to create more fantastical appearances that can then be applied to the more bland base, but also allows people to retain more utilitarian look if that is what they prefer - something not possible with fantastical races.
It is blatantly clear you didnt read much of the previous 10 or so posts before you made an assumption as to what people were arguing, and decided to dive right in.
I can understand people being upset about the cash shop in WoW - they are paying to buy the game and expansions, paying a subscription, and now there is a cash shop as well.
I am of the opinon that a game should limit it's monetization to a total of two avenues, and WoW has three.
Ashes doesn't have a purchase cost, so you only have the subscription and cash shop.
I am fine with this.
As to the animal husbandry, if WoW is your main influence, you would look at mounts as being basically just cosmetic options of ways to move around the world at set speeds.
In Ashes, mounts will be more than that. Mounts will be fighting beside the player, and will even have their own equipment slots to equip barding and such. As such, a mount in Ashes is not just a cosmetic extension of your character, it is an extension of your characters combat ability.
Additionally, different mounts will have vastly different uses - some mounts may be good at faster travel, some may be better at fighting, and some may have a larger inventory for harvesting.
Cosmetics will not have an effect on any of that - animal husbandry will.
I hadn't encountered the "no more than 2 avenues of monetization" argument before - But it incapsulates my personal feelings on the matter as well. WoW is quite certainly over-monetized. And as much as I personally am not crazy about mount appearance changes, (I feel a mount appearance ought to be its appearance, otherwise it somehow cheapens it to me) I must also realize the extent to which that is just my opinion.
And hey, as idealistic as it sounds, if the cash shop offers good value to the in-game player and generates cash flow for development - Great, as everybody wins from more resources for development. That goes double given the level of ambition I've been reading about this title.
Comments
Sounds like you are more interested in talking about the definition of high/low fantasy rather than addressing the obvious point I was making.
But to clarify what you say you didnt understand: NPC mobs and PC models are different things on screen you know so their design and apperance can have different characteristics/values to them. Mobs with "high fantasy aesthetics" (stylized or in other ways less realistic features) doesnt mean the player characters follow the same style as is obvious in AoC. As Steven have pointed out he doesnt like stylized characters that much which obviously is a big reason why we ended up with these bland PCs.
The Tulnar are not low fantasy character races - nor are they "bland".
The devs never said they would be creating low fantasy, bland characters.
You made shit up and now are disappointed that the devs are not sticking with your delusions.
Yeah sorry, your arguments are just weird at this point. None of them are on point or playing off of what my original comment meant. I will leave it at that.
It sounds like your issue is with the fact the cosmetics look better then the default gear. One thing to keep in mind is the gear you are seeing is supposed to be for earlier levels ~1-20.
As for the comment about them pushing boundaries for sales. While this will obviously happen to some degree, one reason it isn't as necessary in ashes is the fact that each race has their own armor appearances. An orc wearing plate armor will look different then an elf in the same set. This gives room for cosmetics to provide appearances to races that they wouldn't normally have access to without breaking the game's aesthetic. I know there are some appearances that are a little spicy but there are plenty of cosmetics that do just this, provide a unique appearance that some races wouldn't be able to get otherwise.
Lastly, we do have some examples of none cash shop mounts that show there will be good looking, in-game items.
In-game:
Similar mount from Cosmetic shop:
Another example of an in-game mount that hasn't been made available on the store:
You made a point about low fantasy and changing a design decision in regard to a game that has always been high fantasy.
STEVEN: "They're working hard to make sure that our aesthetic that we want to have in the game which is not one that is traditionally too cartoony. We think that for a Western publisher and a Western developer, as we are, that we can push the limits a little bit on the graphical fidelity... especially using Unreal Engine 4...I mean, that's one of its strengths. My desire was not to see very cartoony games. I'm not a big fan of highly stylized art."
You seem to be conflating cartoony with low fantasy.
You seem to have assumed that since the player character models do not reflect a cartoony art style - that Ashes won't have high fantasy character races (even though Orcs, Elves and Dwarves are high fantasy character races).
You seem to have assumed that having player character models that aren't cartoony means that we won't have cosmetic skins, like angels, fairies and other high fantasy races - even though angels and demons were included as skins in the Kickstarter.
And you seem to have assumed that having player character models that aren't cartoony means there won't be costumes and fashion accessories that reflect a high fantasy setting.
There hasn't been a change in design aesthetic, you just took a quote about cartoony art style out of context and made that a broad generalization that isn't accurate.
I'd be quite interested in hearing what your definition of low fantasy is in this context.
As to the actual point you are making, I am working on the assumption that you are sayi g that you dont like the fact that the races themselves are somewhat boring and realistic, but the cosmetic options are not.
This is something I have no issues with. Player choice is a good thing, and appearance is a part of that. If someone wants to appear fantastical, that is their prerogative, but if someone doesn't want to, that's cool too.
From there, it is easier to take a boring base (character model) and make it fantastical than it is to take a fantastical model and make it boring.
As such, more boring/bland models is the way any good fame should go, allowing players to scale things up from there if they want to.
Uhh, I didn't write that.
Edit: Looks like you fixed it nvm
Exactly, thats the dev design decision thats rubbing me the wrong way. But i see your point of view.
To answer.your question my reference to low fantasy player characters here is the fact that AoC humans, dwarfs and elves we have seen lean heavy into real life aesthetics and values with a very human look as their baseline reference that feel at home in our primary world rather than a secondary famtasy world.
The dwarfs look like midgets without deformities and the Elves just look like humans.
I hope Tulnar and orcs lean away from that but i make no assumptions or assertions until we have models for them in game. If the orcs end up like green humans and tulnar end up like furry humans my criticism here will stand. But i dearly want Tulnar to be fantastical so theres atleast one race i can enjoy. ^^
@Dygz If you read Nooanis post and my response here it captures the only real point of my original message and you will see why I think you latched on to the wrong stuff and became weirdly hostile.
Also, while high/low fantasy is primarily defined by setting the aesthetics and features are also a point of reference whether a work of fantasy leans into a secondary high fantasy world or primary world values/features so im not confused in the ways you describe. But since our communication fell apart i obviously couldve made my.point more clearly.
Cool, your definition of low fantasy is basically spot on. With that in mind, ignore Dygz as he is more interested in arguing semantics than actual points, yet is not smart enough to understand semantics.
One more point to add to my above observation as to boring base models but fantastical cosmetics for those that want them (which I should point out - is not me. I want the most utilitarian look I can find).
The races we have seen so far have been in Sanctus for actual eons. There is no magic in Sanctus. As such, it seems perfectly right, proper and fitting that these races should be as low fantasy (or - non fantastical) as possible.
If the races we have now (ie, non-Tulnar) had magical aspects intrinsic to them, I would have to question everything about the games lore, as our characters would not have seen magic in any form their entire life until they first saw the portal that leads to Verra.
If you do want that fantastical type of character, at least Intrepid is giving you the option to have it via cosmetics. While that may limit you to cash shop purchases at this point, that is unlikely to stay true once the game launches.
The bonus to this is that if you have your heart set on a death-based aesthetic, and you create that at character creation, you are basically stuck with it. On the other hand, if the bulk of the aesthetic of your character comes from cosmetics rather than from the character itself, then you can have that death-based look, but can change it up at any time to any other thing you want.
This is my I am a fan of Intrepid adding things like character animation packs, and spell visual effects packs. Allow characters to make their character look exactly how they want by taking that bland base and dragging it to what ever direction they wish.
Setting affects aesthetics and features. But, the "real life" aesthetics you describe as the features we've seen so far the Humans, Elves and Dwarves has nothing to do with whether a setting is low fantasy or high fantasy.
Low Fantasy or High Fantasy really has little effect on whether a visual aesthetic will be more cartoony or less cartoony.
Also, the "realistic" facial features of Humans, Elves and Dwarves tells us very little about how over-the-top fashion and cosmetics might be.
The cosmetics Ashes has shown us so far are not a design change and do not clash with the "realism" of the Human facial features. An example of a change in design aesthetic would be the inclusion of the overly-exaggerated shoulders we see in WoW.
So, yes, were confused, precisely as I have outlined.
The phrase "made shit up" is not hostile, it's just a more colorful way of saying "made stuff up".
"I thought the non-cartoony appearances of the Humans, Elves and Dwarves (which I think are low fantasy) meant that the devs would not be using the aesthetics that are currently available as cosmetics."
You made stuff up and are now disappointed that the devs are not adhering to the ideas you made up in your own head.
You can thank me later...
Our characters (the non-Tulnar) are from Sanctus, not Verra. As such, they are low fantasy - as in, they haven't been influenced or even seen magic their whole lives, or indeed in eons as a civilization. Now, an event that is magical in nature is shaping their world (the portal from Sanctus to Verra).
As such, while Verra absolutely is high fantasy, our player characters are from a stock standard low fantasy setting, and are designed based on that ideal.
So, not only did you latch on to the wrong part of the post (the point was about the character models being mostly bland), but you were factually incorrect anyway.
So here we go:
The phrase “low fantasy” is not indicative of the quality of the fantasy work. Rather, the word “low” is a relative term used to express the amount of traditional fantasy outlined in the story.
Primary World
In the definition of low fantasy, I alluded to the “primary world.”
For those that do not know, the primary world is the real world.
It is the world that we are familiar with. It is the world that we see on a day to day basis. A primary fictional setting is still rational at its core, upholding many of the fundamental rules that govern the universe.
Low fantasy always takes place in this primary, real world setting. Magical affairs interrupt this real world setting. The way low fantasy stories are structured, realism is at the forefront of the story.
The fantastical components are incorporated as undertones rather than centerpieces of the story.
High fantasy is also referred to as epic fantasy. Again, the word “high” does not label the quality of the fantasy work. It is merely a means to indicate the level of traditional fantasy implicated in the narrative.
Secondary World
I mentioned the phrase “secondary world” in the definition of high fantasy. What is the secondary world you may ask?
The secondary world is totally separate from the real world.
A secondary world is a fictional setting that is crafted from scratch. There may be realistic elements involved, but fantasy is the overarching component of secondary worlds. As opposed to low fantasy, the essence of the setting is far more grandiose and theatrical.
Supernatural elements virtually take over nearly every aspect of the novel in high fantasy. The entire framework of the world is altered as a result of magic. The plot, dialogue, setting, theme, characterization, imagery are all influenced.
SO. By definition VERRA AND SANCTUM ARE ALL HIGH FANTASY AS ARE THE PCs, MOBS, ETC
Since Sanctus by itself would fit squarely in to the notion of a low fantasy setting, and since our characters are from Sanctus, it is appropriate to label the player characters as being from a low fantasy setting.
A lack if understanding of minutiae like this is what happens when you reply on wikipedia for your understanding.
Sanctus, as far as we know, is not our real world (with Europe, NA, Asia etc). It is a secondary world, parallel somehow to Verra but by definition is still a high fantasy setting.
They left Verra, to another high fantasy world. Had a bunch of high fantasy shenanigans, built empires in locations that aren't in our irl world, and now return to Verra.
Sanctum, probably had as much high fantasy stuff in it as Verra. It just wasn't destroyed by the Old Ones.
This is all high fantasy!
Just because, as an example, the Elves don't look like Night Elves from WoW, doesn't make them low fantasy nor from a low fantasy world.
Just because these dwarves aren't as stocky as we are used to from LOTR or WoW, doesn't mean they are low fantasy or from a low fantasy world.
Orcs are orcs, so that's high fantasy as well.
And the Tulnar never left, so they don't count towards the Sanctum side of the argument.
People still had summoners, mages, and other wacky animal mounts they brought from Sanctum. It is high fantasy.
There is no minutiae here. The whole of AoC is high fantasy.
Now, do you want the characters to look a little more exaggerated in their looks? Valid opinion.
Do you want the cosmetics to be more toned down and realistic? Valid opinion.
Do you base opinions on your disputing the setting of the PC's origin as being low fantasy. Invalid reasoning with a valid outcome of opinion
A high fantasy race (as opposed to a high fantasy setting) would be a race that is somewhat connected with magic. Our characters would not have believed in magic even existing until the portal to Sanctus opened up.
It may well be that the races in question were more high fantasy before leaving Verra for Sanctus (this is almost guaranteed). However, after actual eons, that is not an argument that still holds true.
When talking about a race - or indeed multiple races - you literally can't say they are high fantasy if no one from any of those races has seen magic in a hundred generations or more.
As a setting, yes.
But again, that isn't the argument here.
simple brain orc over here reading discussions about high and low fantasy not acknowledging either one.
I get to play an orc. In real life I am a human. This is fantasy to me haha.
I mean, you're not wrong.
I would say your mistake is linking High Fantasy with a inextricable link to magic.
You can have a high fantasy setting and races, without a necessary link to magic.
Examples of high fantasy books with no magic:
Stuff that is middle of the way would be things like The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie.
Most Joe Abercrombie books have a secondary world and some semblance of magic but no high fantasy races. Just humans.
So in regards to Ashes, you can have no magic and still be a high fantasy setting if the world is not our IRL world. At best they'd be Middle-Fantasy.
So yes. Ashes and the player characters are all High Fantasy. Just because they possibly found magic only once back to Verra, it doesn't make Sanctum low fantasy.
I repeat. Low Fantasy has our IRL world as a setting, to which you've added a tablespoon of magic.
This is not up to interpretation or debate. It has been so since at least the 1910s.
To the point of the cosmetics. Seeing I have proven why Sanctum and Verra are both high fantasy, high fantasy cosmetics are OK.
Does that mean that you have to just sit there and take it?
No.
You can argue you want more realistic armors and cosmetics. But don't twist the reality of the game's setting to fit your own preferences.
Personally I'm no fan of all the angels and demons and all that nonsensical cosmetic stuff either.
Unless they are pieces or armor earned from content that fits those aesthetics.
But I do expect there to be high fantasy elements to the player characters and the possible cosmetics that come with their backstory as hailing from Sanctum.
While I am not familiar with all of the above, those I am familiar with fall very neatly in to historical fiction, not high fantasy.
The conclusion here is that your definition of high/low fantasy is off. I have no reason to care to attempt to change it - especially since that is not what this conversation is about.
That is all.
I argue, that since the world, both Verra and Sanctum, are by definition High Fantasy, so are their denizens.
Therefore high fantasy cosmetics wouldn't be out of place, whether someone would happen to like them or not.
Even if they decide to go with a more human-like appearance for their elves and dwarves (and entirely ignoring Orcs, or that elves in LOTR don't look different than men save for their ears and those are High Fantasy as well etc) those remain high fantasy races.
I don't entirely disagree with you that some of the high fantasy cosmetics would be a little jarring. I simply disagree with you on the premise of the why.
So far, you've only based your argument on your own understanding of what low and high fantasy is. Whereas I'm basing mine in what actually is considered so by writers, publishers and critics of the larger fantasy genre.
I invite everyone to double check my definitions from earlier if someone feels like they might have a disagreement with me on that point.
1.The stature/representation of its Characters, plots and themes
2. Its setting in a secondary world.
Both definitions have support by people who navigate that information professionally and referencing characters as high fantasy simply implies more fantastical/epic features and qualities to them and a clearer separation from our real world.
I would say your teacher is right in regards the larger Fantasy genre. And you indeed correct in that the high fantasy relates mostly to its setting by separation from our world. Which is exactly the case of both Verra and Sanctum.
Which is why I just disagree with the reasons one might ascribe a low fantasy aesthetic to our playable races, just because they aren't exaggerated versions of those.
The basic and central point of the thread was that the cosmetics were perhaps too many etc. It then veered towards whether they would ruin the immersion on account of the aesthetics that have been presented over the course of the livestreams.
I don't see them clashing with the rest of the world, as one should pretty much expect the world to similar to something like The Sword Coast in D&D.
Beyond that, you are all free to disagree with the inclusion of the cosmetic cash shop.
I am personally in favor of it, even if probably won't buy more than one skin in my lifetime with the game.
Perhaps not surprisingly, your understanding of this discussion is as out of focus as your understanding of fiction genres.
My point (it is not an argument - I dare you to try and argue it though) is that a more boring character model (which can be defined as a low fantasy character, even if the setting is high fantasy - but this is not my argument) is a good thing for the game.
This allows the developers to create more fantastical appearances that can then be applied to the more bland base, but also allows people to retain more utilitarian look if that is what they prefer - something not possible with fantastical races.
It is blatantly clear you didnt read much of the previous 10 or so posts before you made an assumption as to what people were arguing, and decided to dive right in.
I hadn't encountered the "no more than 2 avenues of monetization" argument before - But it incapsulates my personal feelings on the matter as well. WoW is quite certainly over-monetized. And as much as I personally am not crazy about mount appearance changes, (I feel a mount appearance ought to be its appearance, otherwise it somehow cheapens it to me) I must also realize the extent to which that is just my opinion.
And hey, as idealistic as it sounds, if the cash shop offers good value to the in-game player and generates cash flow for development - Great, as everybody wins from more resources for development. That goes double given the level of ambition I've been reading about this title.