June 8, 2014 at 9:01 pm #2339
So here is a draft for v9 hexes.
1. background colors are flattened and have a universal texture.
2. tunnels have fuzzier edges and “stainglass” texture. I’m not frenzied on the stainglass-honey-comb but think its kind of cool.
3. I have like 15 different pretty realistic leaf outlines. If people don’t like the transparency i understand, but it is pretty important to be able to see the tunnels, and to get a leaf big enough to encapsulate all the text it ends up covering a lot.
4. We are talking about making some new icons. I know what i want to do for cards, but what do you want to do for food. People say the ant head is confusing… Do you just want a big roundish food blob (like we have now just with out the ant head)? Or, can anyone think of anything that better defines “food”.
ps. a lot of this texture may look pretty different in print so i think it might be worth wile to print the original, moth devil and these to get an idea of what it looks like. Generally speaking printed art tends to be darker and flatter than on the screen.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.June 8, 2014 at 11:31 pm #2341
I am pretty into these. The colors look great and the depth of the tunnels is good.
I think I prefer moth devil’s leaves with a little more texture and realism, but if yours had a little texture added I think they would be solid. For the big weirdo hexes I am wondering if we should just break leaf convention and have a text box (or try to encapsulate the text all in one segment of that tunnel.
I sent in the final quote request and I think we will either have space for 24 or 25 hexes. I think we should probably just stick with 24 and if we do have room print a blank hex that they can go nuts with. More backer created content the better.
Thanks for busting these out.
Yeah I am curious to see a food nub without the ant head (or maybe the chewed up leaf). I wonder if we could make the ant head more distinct and clear of what is happening?
I will print these and Moth devil hexes for our next jam.
The honeycombing looks cool but doesn’t feel exactly natural to me.June 9, 2014 at 12:16 am #2342
i’ll remove the honeycomb and just add more gritty texture like mothDevil had.
I don’t know how to make the head more distinct at small size. If you think the head is confusing now i think we should cut the head and just have the food, but i think the head does give context. maybe if we pulled out all the red (so the head is either all white or all black)- would that hurt or help this issue?
i’ll probably try to shrink the leaves so they can be fully opaque. I think adding veins or texture is going to compete with the text so i would like to leave them one color.June 9, 2014 at 1:14 am #2343
And looking at the food head more i think the white eye is why people think its a “6”. Here is what i’m gonna do and see if you like:
Make all the black parts red, make all the red parts white (highlights) and the eye balls black with a white highlight. I think that will be sexy rather than sixy.June 9, 2014 at 4:46 am #2344
Those look interesting overall. I definitely notice the richness/depth of the colors more. I like the concept of the honeycomb (i.e., giving the tunnel interiors more texture) but agree with you and Tim that maybe some particulate-gritiness is the way to go. I did like the “carved-out” look of the tunnels that Moth Devil’s first draft had — drop shadows etc.
The leaves I’m not as excited about. I think only the special hexes are problematic as far as size of leaf/amount of text. If you’re not into the poop/rock how about a piece of moldering wood, or a mushroom cap?
As for the ant food, perhaps it could be a plant seed? Like the shape of a sunflower seed, or a fennel seed, or…?June 9, 2014 at 12:34 pm #2347
Ok here is the hexes form before (before getting steve’s feedback) that has smaller- less transparent leaves, no honeycomb pattern and deeper drop shadows.
Also here is a food icon with red ant head instead of black. less sixee?
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.June 9, 2014 at 6:10 pm #2350
Also, I want to be clear, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that it was bad to be emotionally invested in the artwork. Just that I’m not. But if this was something I’d worked that hard on, like a script, there is no way I’d allow some random dude to edit/rewrite it. So you guys are already being way more generous/cool about this than I would be. I think that there’s tons of value in being emotionally invested, and in doing all the art from start to finish yourselves (if that’s important to you guys.) So if you two want to say, “hey, no thanks, but we might use a few of your cool techniques,” I’d totally dig it and support you guys. As a third party, though, I’m less involved.
I want to come back to Ben’s quote because I’ve realized I do feel weird giving MothDevil final edits. I appreciate the feedback and I like the suggestions but I don’t agree with all of it. I actually wouldn’t feel comfortable with his edits as the final product. I also think his initial tone on the forums was kind of troll-ish, so I take his feedback and opinion with a grain of salt.
We can talk about my visual issues when we jam Tuesday. Can we look at a print of the original, his second worked up one and the final one I shared with you this morning (on gdrive)?
My issues with MothDevils work are three fold:
1. I think the paint effect on the background is too heavy and will make it look muddy in print.
2. I think the leaves have too much detail and will look busy.
3. Because of the leaf detail the text now has really heavy drop shadows which are sort of a pet peeve of mine. relying on them to make text “readable” is pretty cheesy and a low-level Photoshop hack in my opinion.
Anyway, we’ll talk more Tuesday and I hope we can get some other opinions on the subject as well. I don’t want to spend an overdue period of time discussing this, but I did want to speak my mind. Also, the more time I spend comparing to MothDevil the less time I’m spending creating the other content we sold as stretch goals.June 9, 2014 at 10:07 pm #2353
Thanks for posting this final bit. I think it is really important to have ownership of the art and I also felt a little weird having Mothdevil do final edits. I think it is better to keep it in house. I think it has been pretty useful to get some ideas and see what another person would do with the hexes, but I agree that we should retain ultimate control and editing. Tricky balance is time and energy as we come to the finalization process and there is much to do. One thing I love about March of the Ants is that we have done pretty much everything in this project and so have a ton of ownership.
I have reached out to another graphic design person for help on the rulebook and some feedback on our design. I know there is a ton to do and don’t want to take up too much time revising but I think having someone who has worked on numerous boardgames take a look and offer feedback could be really useful in making the final product as awesome as possible. From here on out though I think the MO is to ask for feedback or an example of edits and then we will replicate and use or not as we wish.
I will let MothDevil know that we are going to the final edits and may use some of his ideas. If he wants to do a sample of changes to other components I may have him do that just to get some quick ideas, but will be very clear with him that they are just suggestions and we may use some, all or none of it.
Ben thanks for the awesome quote that Ryan opened with and yay for creative collaborations and communication.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.