...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
Concept art, is to show a concept. In this case, it is intended to be clear that this is a Dyson Sphere.
What we do in game is guided by concept art, but not ruled by it.
85% of the STO population shares your frustration with the pre-release gripers. Hang in there, the rest of us appreciate the information.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010. STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
They can't and that's exactly my point! Not everyone can just appreciate concept art for concept art's sake. There are too many people out there who simply don't understand it, so we shouldn't get upset at them when they don't!
Instead of whining, ranting, and griping, they should ask questions. Whiners, ranters, and gripers do not deserve my patience.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010. STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
I think what you're describing is closer to the role of the public school system, and not Cryptic Studios.
Taken on it's own, sure, but you took the statement out of context. In whole it reads:
If PR uses what they can and what they can use is concept art, then you need to do a better job of explaining to people the purpose of concept art.
If Cryptic is going to be using concept art to advertise or hype or otherwise inform players about a future release, then they need to do a better job of informing people about the purpose of concept art. If they don't communicate better, then Taco really doesn't have cause to be upset with people who simply don't understand.
are you really that dumb to be poking a Cryptic dev in the chest over a point that you are clearly in the wrong bout at this point ?.
not too smart at all .....
Im not wrong. Im just thinking 4th dimensionally.
To help players understand that 3 maps are 3 different zones of the sphere, have a ground map briefing where the player sees what zones in the sphere he must visit and attack. Northern hemisphere, southern, eastern.
It's clearly not implicit or we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? And that's my point: Many gamers don't understand the purpose or intent of concept art and unless you communicate that purpose clearly, it seems silly to me to get huffy about people making the mistake.
I don't know what's not clear about the idea of "concept art". It's not like it's unique to gaming or that it's the first time Cryptic has ever shown us concept art. Concept art is regularly used for anything that has to do with design, including architecture and movies. Nobody should expect concept art to precisely match the finished product. It's purpose is to help define style and placement and to communicate ideas.
So I can well understand Taco's bewilderment over people who fail to understand what concept art is, seeing as how it is actually rather common.
I'll agree that we probably should not assume that everyone gets the idea behind concept art. But the idea that Cryptic should never share anything but a finished product? That's not realistic. How would they get feedback?
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I don't know what's not clear about the idea of "concept art". It's not like it's unique to gaming or that it's the first time Cryptic has ever shown us concept art. Concept art is regularly used for anything that has to do with design, including architecture and movies. Nobody should expect concept art to precisely match the finished product. It's purpose is to help define style and placement and to communicate ideas.
So I can well understand Taco's bewilderment over people who fail to understand what concept art is, seeing as how it is actually rather common.
I'll agree that we probably should not assume that everyone gets the idea behind concept art. But the idea that Cryptic should never share anything but a finished product? That's not realistic. How would they get feedback?
I'm confused, but perhaps I shouldn't be.
You start out with:
I don't know what's not clear about the idea of "concept art".
And then you say:
I'll agree that we probably should not assume that everyone gets the idea behind concept art.
My confusion is in whether or not you agree with my premise: The purpose of concept art is not implicit.
If you do agree with my premise, then perhaps you're expressing that you don't understand what part of "concept" is confusing to people? If that is indeed the case, then I would answer that it's likely because "concept" is not definitive (plenty of concept art perfectly represents the finished product it inspired).
If you don't agree with my premise, then I don't understand how you can then agree that we shouldn't assume that everyone gets the idea behind concept art. If the meaning of concept art is implicit, why are so many people confused by it?
EDIT: Also, while concept art may be ubiquitous in media, it's purpose is not as universally communicated. Only rarely have I seen concept art paired with a caveat. The most recent example to the contrary that I can remember was SimCity, which frequently prefaced all footage and images with "Does not represent final gameplay" superimposed over the image. So I guess my suggestion would be that if Taco wants to avoid having to explain this to every poster who comes to the forum to gripe, he might instruct Bran to superimpose a similar warning on their concept images.
My confusion is in whether or not you agree with my premise: The purpose of concept art is not implicit.
No reasonable person agrees with that premise.
However, by your own admission, no matter what we do, not everyone will understand the purpose of concept art.
Therefore, the question is, is uglifying the concept art worth it in order to help those scant few souls who might actually understand the difference if you slapped them in the face with it.
I say no.
EDIT: Also, while concept art may be ubiquitous in media, it's purpose is not as universally communicated.
Probably because it's assumed that any normal person understands the idea of concept art.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
However, by your own admission, no matter what we do, not everyone will understand the purpose of concept art.
Therefore, the question is, is uglifying the concept art worth it in order to help those scant few souls who might actually understand the difference if you slapped them in the face with it.
I say no.
Probably because it's assumed that any normal person understands the idea of concept art.
Yeah, the DEFINITION of concept art is that it's NOT the finished product.
However, by your own admission, no matter what we do, not everyone will understand the purpose of concept art.
Therefore, the question is, is uglifying the concept art worth it in order to help those scant few souls who might actually understand the difference if you slapped them in the face with it.
I say no.
Probably because it's assumed that any normal person understands the idea of concept art.
Answer this question, if you please: If the purpose of concept art is implicit, why are people still confused as evidenced by this thread and another recent one on the subject?
Your final comment sums up the problem with your viewpoint: You assume that any normal person will understand the idea of concept art. You don't regard people who are confused by concept art as normal. That considerably damages your position.
EDIT: I find this statement of yours incredibly ironic...
Lack of empathy is another good reason. Sociopathy.
EDIT: If you're worried about "uglifying" the images by superimposing warnings, then you must believe that the purpose of those images is not really to inform, but to inspire. That being the case, I refer back to my comments regarding the motives behind sharing concept art with the public in the first place.
Hey people, get off the concept art talk. I knew what it was for what it was, saw the direction they were indeed headed for as I implied at the beginning of the thread, and countered with an alternative direction to tell players they are fighting in a sphere with STOs limitation of not being able to roll your ship over to point the ships ventral section to the interior surface.
Discuss the merits of MY approach please. Not how I seemed to have misinterpreted concept art, which I didnt. It showed me what the environment artists were thinking.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Answer this question, if you please: If the purpose of concept art is implicit, why are people still confused as evidenced by this thread and another recent one on the subject?
Your final comment sums up the problem with your viewpoint: You assume that any normal person will understand the idea of concept art. You don't regard people who are confused by concept art as normal. That considerably damages your position.
EDIT: I find this statement of yours incredibly ironic...
EDIT: If you're worried about "uglifying" the images by superimposing images, then you must also believe that the purpose of those images is not really to inform, but inspire. That being the case, I refer back to my comments regarding the motives behind sharing concept art with the public in the first place.
It's simple. The people who get confused by concept art are the same people who don't know the definition of concept art.
Hey people, get off the concept art talk. I knew what it was for what it was, saw the direction they were indeed headed for as I implied at the beginning of the thread, and countered with an alternative direction to tell plays they are fighting in a sphere with STOs limitation of not bring able to roll your ship over to point the ships ventral section to the interior surface.
Discuss the merits of MY approach please. Not how I seemed to have misinterpreted concept art, which I didnt. It showed me what the environment artists were thinking.
Answer this question, if you please: If the purpose of concept art is implicit, why are people still confused as evidenced by this thread and another recent one on the subject?
Because some people are idiots. This is evidenced not only by this thread but by the world around us. Reasonable accommodation for these people has already been made, and by your own admission, more wouldn't eliminate the problem.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
EDIT: I find this statement of yours incredibly ironic...
If you think it's possible to empathize with ignorance, then it's not surprising that you used "ironic" incorrectly.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
How since I said you shouldnt show curvature in these faux ground space maps, how then to imply the space maps are in a sphere. Read my posts over the course of the thread how I described what their approach could be factoring in the game's limitations. If you dont want to pay close attention to what Ive said here, dont comment, because Im not misunderstanding the concept art as Taco implied.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Because some people are idiots. This is evidenced not only by this thread but by the world around us. Reasonable accommodation for these people has already been made, and by your own admission, more wouldn't eliminate the problem.
Again, your tone doesn't really help your position. It's abrasive and unhelpful.
I don't think I said that, in fact I've been trying to say the opposite. I believe that if they made more of an effort to communicate that concept art does not necessarily represent the finished product (since we've established the definition is not implicit to all people), then they could probably avoid the frustration of more threads like these.
How since I said you shouldnt show curvature in these faux ground space maps, how then to imply the space maps are in a sphere. Read my posts over the course of the thread how I described what their approach could be factoring in the game's limitations. If you dont want to pay close attention to what Ive said here, dont comment, because Im not misunderstanding the concept art as Taco implied.
How about you post a summary? I personally find your claim of understanding the art to be suspect.
...I said you shouldnt show curvature in these faux ground space maps, how then to imply the space maps are in a sphere..... Im not misunderstanding the concept art as Taco implied.
indeed you are sir.
you just said it here even in this latest post that they are "faux ground space maps"...which are in fact.....
....wait for it .....
" concept art "
(cue angelic song)
....not maps at all.
.
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
It's clearly not implicit or we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? And that's my point: Many gamers don't understand the purpose or intent of concept art and unless you communicate that purpose clearly, it seems silly to me to get huffy about people making the mistake.
It clearly is implicit as that is what the word "Concept" means! Its not the Dev or Marketing teams purpose to teach people basic English.
con?cept
ˈk?nˌsept
noun
1.
an abstract idea; a general notion.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction
It clearly is implicit as that is what the word "Concept" means! Its not the Dev or Marketing teams purpose to teach people basic English.
con?cept
ˈk?nˌsept
noun
1.
an abstract idea; a general notion.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction
Again...
If it was implicit, no one would have a problem understanding the term. "Implicit" connotes that prior knowledge of the word isn't necessary for understanding, as it conveys exactly what it means. Clearly that's not the case since there are plenty of people who do know what "concept" means, but are confused by the notion of "concept art."
Comments
85% of the STO population shares your frustration with the pre-release gripers. Hang in there, the rest of us appreciate the information.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
Instead of whining, ranting, and griping, they should ask questions. Whiners, ranters, and gripers do not deserve my patience.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
Taken on it's own, sure, but you took the statement out of context. In whole it reads:
If Cryptic is going to be using concept art to advertise or hype or otherwise inform players about a future release, then they need to do a better job of informing people about the purpose of concept art. If they don't communicate better, then Taco really doesn't have cause to be upset with people who simply don't understand.
Im not wrong. Im just thinking 4th dimensionally.
To help players understand that 3 maps are 3 different zones of the sphere, have a ground map briefing where the player sees what zones in the sphere he must visit and attack. Northern hemisphere, southern, eastern.
http://twitter.com/AGNT009/status/371023092635959296/photo/1
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
It's a good thing they're not here to conform to your patience then.
I don't know what's not clear about the idea of "concept art". It's not like it's unique to gaming or that it's the first time Cryptic has ever shown us concept art. Concept art is regularly used for anything that has to do with design, including architecture and movies. Nobody should expect concept art to precisely match the finished product. It's purpose is to help define style and placement and to communicate ideas.
So I can well understand Taco's bewilderment over people who fail to understand what concept art is, seeing as how it is actually rather common.
I'll agree that we probably should not assume that everyone gets the idea behind concept art. But the idea that Cryptic should never share anything but a finished product? That's not realistic. How would they get feedback?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I'm confused, but perhaps I shouldn't be.
You start out with:
And then you say:
My confusion is in whether or not you agree with my premise: The purpose of concept art is not implicit.
If you do agree with my premise, then perhaps you're expressing that you don't understand what part of "concept" is confusing to people? If that is indeed the case, then I would answer that it's likely because "concept" is not definitive (plenty of concept art perfectly represents the finished product it inspired).
If you don't agree with my premise, then I don't understand how you can then agree that we shouldn't assume that everyone gets the idea behind concept art. If the meaning of concept art is implicit, why are so many people confused by it?
EDIT: Also, while concept art may be ubiquitous in media, it's purpose is not as universally communicated. Only rarely have I seen concept art paired with a caveat. The most recent example to the contrary that I can remember was SimCity, which frequently prefaced all footage and images with "Does not represent final gameplay" superimposed over the image. So I guess my suggestion would be that if Taco wants to avoid having to explain this to every poster who comes to the forum to gripe, he might instruct Bran to superimpose a similar warning on their concept images.
You probably shouldn't be
No reasonable person agrees with that premise.
However, by your own admission, no matter what we do, not everyone will understand the purpose of concept art.
Therefore, the question is, is uglifying the concept art worth it in order to help those scant few souls who might actually understand the difference if you slapped them in the face with it.
I say no.
Probably because it's assumed that any normal person understands the idea of concept art.
Don't worry about it Taco. It's just the inevitable person who hates something for no good reson...
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
Answer this question, if you please: If the purpose of concept art is implicit, why are people still confused as evidenced by this thread and another recent one on the subject?
Your final comment sums up the problem with your viewpoint: You assume that any normal person will understand the idea of concept art. You don't regard people who are confused by concept art as normal. That considerably damages your position.
EDIT: I find this statement of yours incredibly ironic...
EDIT: If you're worried about "uglifying" the images by superimposing warnings, then you must believe that the purpose of those images is not really to inform, but to inspire. That being the case, I refer back to my comments regarding the motives behind sharing concept art with the public in the first place.
Discuss the merits of MY approach please. Not how I seemed to have misinterpreted concept art, which I didnt. It showed me what the environment artists were thinking.
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
My character Tsin'xing
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
Then "concept art" does not authoritatively imply its definition (re: it's not implicit).
My character Tsin'xing
That's really all I'm trying to say, I think. It's confusing (to some people), so Taco shouldn't let players' confusion bend him out of shape.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
Because some people are idiots. This is evidenced not only by this thread but by the world around us. Reasonable accommodation for these people has already been made, and by your own admission, more wouldn't eliminate the problem.
If you think it's possible to empathize with ignorance, then it's not surprising that you used "ironic" incorrectly.
How since I said you shouldnt show curvature in these faux ground space maps, how then to imply the space maps are in a sphere. Read my posts over the course of the thread how I described what their approach could be factoring in the game's limitations. If you dont want to pay close attention to what Ive said here, dont comment, because Im not misunderstanding the concept art as Taco implied.
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Again, your tone doesn't really help your position. It's abrasive and unhelpful.
I don't think I said that, in fact I've been trying to say the opposite. I believe that if they made more of an effort to communicate that concept art does not necessarily represent the finished product (since we've established the definition is not implicit to all people), then they could probably avoid the frustration of more threads like these.
My character Tsin'xing
indeed you are sir.
you just said it here even in this latest post that they are "faux ground space maps"...which are in fact.....
....wait for it .....
" concept art "
(cue angelic song)
....not maps at all.
.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
No shapes have been bent. I'm not annoyed, just confused by the conclusions people jump to.
I feel like we are walking in a straight line, on the sidewalk, and people keep jumping out and yelling at us to not run into traffic.
"Uh. . . we weren't. . . ???"
It clearly is implicit as that is what the word "Concept" means! Its not the Dev or Marketing teams purpose to teach people basic English.
con?cept
ˈk?nˌsept
noun
1.
an abstract idea; a general notion.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction
Heh. Great image.
Again...
If it was implicit, no one would have a problem understanding the term. "Implicit" connotes that prior knowledge of the word isn't necessary for understanding, as it conveys exactly what it means. Clearly that's not the case since there are plenty of people who do know what "concept" means, but are confused by the notion of "concept art."