test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Star Trek Online General Discussion

Xindi Narcine & Unfortunate Ship Visual Design Trends

astroroblaastrorobla Member Posts: 144 Arc User
edited July 2014 in Star Trek Online General Discussion
The Xindi Aquatic ship was by far my favorite vessel in Season 3 of Enterprise, and I am delighted that it has been introduced to STO.

That said, while it is generally an attractive ship, I find it falls significantly short of the original IP version in a way that has plagued most of Cryptic's recent ship designs: lack of complex curves.

For the Narcine, specifically one of the most beautiful aspects of the vessel is the graceful swoop of the wings, suggestive of fins flowing through water. For instance:

http://www.ditl.org/Images/X/XindiAquaticShip2.jpg
http://www.ditl.org/Images/X/XindiAquaticShip1.jpg

In the lockbox ship, however, these lovely wings have been nearly flattened to a 2D structure:

http://images-cdn.perfectworld.com/arc/b7/fe/b7fe33aa16ece74c751473516e1306691405531904.png

While Cryptic seldom goes back to fix released ship geometry, I hope against hope they would revisit this to add in a little more swoop to these fins.

However, I do see this as a larger design issue I've found in many recent ships, where complex curvatures have been dropped in favor of sharp, featureless straight edges; recently the Avenger is probably the worst offender.

Since the Odyssey class, which was a lot of work to get into game, Fed ships in particular have suffered from having far too many straight edges, without the subtlety of curvature found in the IP in general. The Galaxy, Intrepid, Defiant, and Soverign are all noteworthy for the beautiful complexity of compound curves throughout the frames and nacelles.

With other sci-fi MMOs on the way investing tremendously in ship design, I would hope STO would invest time in giving us some of the most elegantly designed ships both on and off the original IP.
Now a top-rated spotlight mission!
STO-sig.jpg
Post edited by astrorobla on

Comments

  • rattler2rattler2 Member, Star Trek Online Moderator Posts: 58,577 Community Moderator
    edited July 2014
    Hm... from that angle it does look kinda flat. But can we get some other angles for comparison? Maybe try and match the angles of your stock pics?
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    Yang Xiao Long wrote:
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • daedalus304daedalus304 Member Posts: 1,049 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    I agree with this, the Narcine is sooo freaking flat.

    for once I'd like to see an Ent era ship style, just once.

    I doubt the Aquatics would have changed their ship styles over the last few hundred years, especially the way they come to conclusions. why would this one be so narrow?
  • gooddaytodie39gooddaytodie39 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    I love the look of this ship and totally noticed what you're pointing out the other night while admiring the ship from above. It does look flat and 2D and especially so at the wing tips. Someone needs to slap some depth on this bee-i-is-nitch.
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    Yup, the Narcine is definitely not as graceful as the TV one. Noticed about the wingtips from the first pics in the blogs (and later confirmed in game).

    As the ship in game is also smaller, I like to pretend it's not the previously seen class of ship. Just the basic shape being carried over on newer generations of vessels.
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • longasclongasc Member Posts: 490
    edited July 2014
    You are absolutely right. The Narcine is a bit too much a flounder and I agree to your general design observations as well.

    The Xindi Escort also isn't a particularly beautiful ship or close to the ENT original.
  • welcome2earfwelcome2earf Member Posts: 1,746 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    Yeah - for a re-use of the White Star wireframe it leaves much to be desired. At least the current version.
    T93uSC8.jpg
  • scififan78scififan78 Member Posts: 1,383 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    Here is something to consider as well. More depth and smoother angles mean the model used needs more geometry or higher poly count. The higher the poly count the model has, the more processing is needed to render the model. You get too many high poly ships on one map, and you can really bog down players' machines.
  • daedalus304daedalus304 Member Posts: 1,049 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    welcome2earf wrote: »
    Yeah - for a re-use of the White Star wireframe it leaves much to be desired. At least the current version.

    actually it was more heavily influenced by Seaquest DSV, least that's what Rademaker said in his notes about it.

    but yea the ship in game is considerably smaller, waaay too small to launch frigates.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member, Star Trek Online Moderator Posts: 58,577 Community Moderator
    edited July 2014
    The Aquatic ship was inspired by SeaQuest? I never knew that...
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    Yang Xiao Long wrote:
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • daedalus304daedalus304 Member Posts: 1,049 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    rattler2 wrote: »
    The Aquatic ship was inspired by SeaQuest? I never knew that...


    I think he even said it was an Homage to SeaQuest.
  • astroroblaastrorobla Member Posts: 144 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    scififan78 wrote: »
    Here is something to consider as well. More depth and smoother angles mean the model used needs more geometry or higher poly count. The higher the poly count the model has, the more processing is needed to render the model. You get too many high poly ships on one map, and you can really bog down players' machines.

    They are clearly capable of modeling complex curvatures: look at the Odyssey, even the Galaxy, and Nicor (for a recent example). Likewise the Romulan IP ships have lovely complex curves that were mostly abandoned in the original designs of the Dhelan and even Ar'Kif: look at how terribly plain the rear view is on this one:

    http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/sto.gamepedia.com/d/db/Arkala.jpg

    So clearly the geometry is not the limiting factor in ships. These are design choices. Sadly in the case of this ship drawn directly from the IP they left out one of the most elegant design elements!

    Perhaps they could add that back in as a geometry choice in a future update (yes, I'm dreaming, but it's good to have dreams!)?
    Now a top-rated spotlight mission!
    STO-sig.jpg
  • astroroblaastrorobla Member Posts: 144 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Hm... from that angle it does look kinda flat. But can we get some other angles for comparison? Maybe try and match the angles of your stock pics?

    It is small, but this one from Cryptic really shows how terribly flat the design is:

    Flat Narcine Image
    Now a top-rated spotlight mission!
    STO-sig.jpg
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    I hate to say it, but this is typical of Cryptic's art department.

    I mean, look at the ships they've built over the years. Galaxy, Sovereign, Intrepid and a few others look terrible. The trend continues with Nova-class ships, scaled down Jemmy dreads, etc. Neghvar looks terrible, and Voth ships look bloated.

    I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's highly unlikely the ship will be corrected to look like its onscreen counterpart.
    stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
    Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
    My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
  • policestate76policestate76 Member Posts: 1,424 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    I must say that i find the Narcine really ugly. But only because as others said, its too flat. It doesnt look "right". I dont even know how the pets can fit inside... besides, it is not as big as other carriers.

    I didnt remember the Aquatic ship from the show, but yep.. it looks far better on the show :(
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited July 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • vivenneanthonyvivenneanthony Member Posts: 1,278 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    Whenever I see the ship, I feel like yelling. "Welcome to Seaquest DSV Online".

    Or the Undine ship, "That's a enemy ship. Crew let's blow up the enemy!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIeQRlovYSA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wivplBVrxeM
  • kishodarkishodar Member Posts: 89 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    The ship model really does look rather poor when compared to the original from the series, and they slapped on a recolored Dyson texture? Sad.
  • sennahcheribsennahcherib Member Posts: 2,823 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    this is what i wrote in an other thread
    however the problem is not the engine, but the work done by the texturers/3D modellers; a good example is the Xindi ships, they haven't their place in a modern game. The models are not very good, and the textures are really poor (i don't even know if they use normal mapping).
  • crypticquackcrypticquack Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    longasc wrote: »
    You are absolutely right. The Narcine is a bit too much a flounder and I agree to your general design observations as well.

    The Xindi Escort also isn't a particularly beautiful ship or close to the ENT original.

    If you are willing to take the time, I would gladly accept a critique of how the Reptillian ship is not close to the ENT original.
    Nick "Crypticquack" Quackenbush
    33.33% of the STO Ship Art team.
    100% of the new guys on the STO Ship Art team.
  • aelfwin1aelfwin1 Member Posts: 2,896 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    The Xindi Narcine is a modded Fed Timeship (look at the deflector on both ships) , with the flatness of the Timeship left over in certain parts of the model , and erased from others so it does not look like a copy / paste job .
    So yeah , a bit more "beef" in the correct places would be nice to shake that anorectic feeling .
    crypticquack wrote: »
    If you are willing to take the time, I would gladly accept a critique of how the Reptillian ship is not close to the ENT original.

    I actually found the Reptilian ship to be more like it's show counterpart .
    What are your thoughts about the feedback on the Xindi Narcine model ?
  • sennahcheribsennahcherib Member Posts: 2,823 Arc User
    edited July 2014
    cryptic team is able to create awesome stuff, but these 2 ships are meh; maybe a fast job for the release of the lock box; well i don't understand. :eek:
Sign In or Register to comment.