PSA - PA's Aesthetic

Gather 'round once more kids, Uncle Mike has more wisdom to share!

First, lets get some definitions out of the way. For those of you who don't know what 'Aesthetic' means, and how it's separate from Graphics, You should Watch this Extra Credits Episode Like right now, don't keep reading, don't play the video in the background, just watch it and come back.

Back? Okay, lets dig in then.

So by now we should all have seen the Planetary Annihilation Gameplay Visualization, if you have't click that link.

Uber has presented us with their carefully design Aesthetic in this visualization, it was developed with their budget in mind and Art assets are one of those things where the cost rises exponentially when you go up in details.

So lets move on to some terminology. If we wanted to break down the possible styles as broadly as possible it goes like this;

Realistic
Stylized

That's as broad as it goes, and while there are various levels within them(Gears of War for example I'd say was about 70% realistic while COD:MW1/2 and BF3 are closer to 100%) and of course there are MANY MANY MANY different stylized styles, to the point I won't even pretend to try and name them. so lets talk abouta few that come up in relation to PA.

Realistic
Realistic is basically about trying to recreate the world as we know as closely as possible. Good examples are Battelfield 3, Cod Modern Warefre 1/2 ect ect, don't really need to explain it more, just look out your window.

Cartoony/Toon
Bgolus said it very well so I'll just quote him;

Neither of these apply to PA, so then the question is what does? Well so far no one from Uber has said what they classify the style as(I think) so these are just my thoughts.

PA's style is Simplistic, with a strong foundation in realism. What do I mean by that? Well look at the M1 Abrams for example, if you were to take away all of the little doodads and nurnies and you're left with a bunch of simple/basic shapes that actually resemble PA units pretty well if you applied the PA style Textures, not perfect but pretty well.

It's a solid, easily readable style that allows for quick creation and strong bold silouettes without being crazy deformed and such.

I love it.

Mike

*Hand up*

Uncle Mike

What's a PSA?

*standing ovation*

Public Service Announcement.

Mike

Thanks

Applause here too.

PA style is awesommmmeeeee!

It will allow for great looking close up replay angles for people who care about that, and more importantly to me, excellent unit contrast with terrain and hopefully top down unit recognition too.

Plus it just looks clean and stylistically interesting.

You are definitely right. I do have a question about the toon shading. Would Warcraft 2 be considered toon shade? The reason I ask is because its a very old game (which means it might just try to stick to a realistic style but due to its limitations in the technology it wasn't possible) and people tend to infer its cartoony due to Warcraft 3 being cartoony.

Can we see a schedule of future PSA's? I might only come back on those days or only talk on issues after the relevant PSA.

Well it's not toon shaded as Bgolus laid out, but I would say it's a bright, cartoony style.....I think I might have to re word that section or add a bit to it when I get home, looking back it's not as clear...

No real schedule, I just type them up when I get frustrated enough by comments here xD I have been thinking about an Automation one, thought that hasn't been coming up as much, I had one more I was thinking of, but I forgot! xD

Mike

I agree with almost everything in OP's post. Except that I think the border between "toonish" and stylized can be a bit vague at times.

Something that looks cartoony and something that is toon-shaded is not the same. Making something look cartoony is a form of stylization. But the reverse is indeed not always true.

The units in the visualisation were not toon-shaded but one can argue that they do look somewhat cartoony. Not just the objects, but also how they move, the vibrant colors and the smoke effects.

Whether you call it stylized or cartoony can be both "correct", as in public culture these terms are interchangeable. Although not 100% accurate, people still know what you mean. I know you rather have everyone use the exact term, but I am afraid that is not going to happen. Just like the horrid term "DLC" which got a different additional meaning, that when you say "DLC" most people think you mean "buyable DLC" as free DLC still goes by the name "patch" or "update" as these terms already existed before "DLC" was widely used as a term.

Ah, so toon-shade is not the exact same as a cartoony style. I got them confused. Do they at least correalate?

What would be a good example of Toon-shade? Team Fortress 2? Warcraft 3? DOTA 2?

Yeah I'm gonna look at that section again later today.

Thought I still wouldn't call PA's style cartoony, nothing about the designs are exaggerated in that vein to me. The colors are more of a Gameplay thing and they aren't really "bright" almost any shade of yellow can stand out but the yellow used wasn't actually all that bright. but it still stood out well from the background elements, which is the point in the end.

No More Heroes and I think Killer 7 as well, developed by Suda51 are prime examples of Toon/Cell shading.

Mike

Ah okay, thanks I get it now. Its like a sorta comic book sorta style. I was confusing toon-shade with "cartoony". While Warcraft 3 and Team Fortress 2 would be a cartoony style of game.

Ditto

I think you have nailed it on the head OrangeKnight, it is a destinction I have seen lost time and again in discussions of game visuals and more than a few times since I joined these forums in relation to PA. I think Uber have hit a nice aesthetic design that is easy to read at multiple distances and is very easy on the eyes. On top of that the swirled coastlines and exagerated curvature of the planet makes it look very unique in a genre where most aesthetics are the same.

I have a question, for anyone who would know more about this than me (and I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination.)

How close to the visualisation do you think PA will be? both in terms of the detail (Graphics) and cleaniness of the aesthetic (I guess the graphics ability to support the proposed aesthetic?).

I remember them mentioning in the live stream that the explosions will be even cooler, but one thing that really stuck with me in the visualisation was how sharp and clean everything was - if they exceed that it would be fantastic of course but I would be happy with the visuals as they displayed.

Well it won't look as good over all, and there will be the the UI and such as well on the screen and what not, and of course it really would depend on how hard your comp can push the graphics.

Neutrino mentioned something about adjusting the Aesthetic a bit awhile back, I'm still crossing my fingers that it doesn't change too much, I've kinda gotten attached to the style after all! xD

Hi,

Thank you OrangeKnight for the great thread!

I think I know where the impression comes from, that some people think the graphic is "toonish".

The problem is, we never defined what toonish means. And I don't know enough about it. Just a few thoughts:

What style do cartoons often have?

Impression one (the look):
- bright or strong colours
- high contrast
- simple or simplified forms

Example:
->Coyote

Impression two (the animation):
- clumsy or cute
- exaggerated representation

Example:
->Roadrunner

Back to PA:

Which indicators we have?

The stones:
- extremly simplified forms (angular)
- high contrast
- simple and non-detailed textures (seems flat -> toonish)

The water:
- strong colours
- extremly simplified forms (angular and almost no details)
- high contrast
- simple and non-detailed textures (seems flat -> toonish)

The explosions:
- bright colours
- high contrast
- simplified forms (a bit)

The dust:
- simplified forms (a bit)

The fire of the drives:
- simple or simplified forms
- simplified animation

The robots:
- bright or strong colours
- high contrast
- simple or simplified forms
- clumsy or cute animations (sometimes)
- simple and non-detailed textures (seems flat -> toonish)

The controls:
- the mouse pointer is too large (exaggerated representation)
- the animation of the cross is also an exaggerated representation

In my opinion there are a few things in the trailer which can be interpreted as toonisch.
That doesn't make it toonish, because the animations are in by and large not toonish.

And one thing must also be clear: This trailer is just a presentation or a concept! And presentations need to be exaggerated to draw attention to it.

Sorry about my bad english. I do my best, but It's late and I have no time. I go to sleep now.


Greetings: Rorschach-Phoenix

P.S.: If someone want to read ->Visual Design of Virtual Pedagogical Agents: Naturalism
versus Stylization in Static Appearance

Is it a game or is it science?

Fingers crossed they can get as close to it as possible! I intend on making some upgrades to the rig before release

I dont mind the UI chrome taking up areas of the screen (so long as I can toggle it off for screenshot/videocapture goodness! ) although I would be interested to see concepts for the aesthetics of the UI.

My preference would be something clean with an appearance of a semi transparent holographic display - perhaps with adjustable transparency (much like the aspects of the UI shown in the trailer) rather than a solid faux dashboard aesthetic...google search for examples

this kind of aesthetic

rather than this kind of thing

Wow cool! I think I'm going to have to track down more of your threads, lots of good content!

While the aesthetic of the units in the video is nice and on the cartoony side of things, it doesn't feel like what the final result will also look like.

More likely the textures are left undetailed, aimed at quick prototyping with only basic colours and shading so they could focus on producing the concept video in good time.

I feel that the unit design, proportions etc. are nice but the textures could use more in-depth detailing.
Undoubtedly they'll have normal mapped details, specular maps and glow/self-illumination maps as well.

Instead of 'toonish' I think I would describe the aesthetic as 'Minimalistic Abstraction'

I thourouly enjoyed the vid explaining the difference between Graphics and Aesthetics. I already knew about half of the stuff at least but it was presented in a good fashion.

The more I watch the trailer, the more I like the graphics and the design.
It just needs a little more detailed textures for the units, the buildings and the grounds.
The water must be revised, because there will be naval units in the game.
And the rocks need to be optimized a bit.

Otherwise, I hope that the game looks as good as the trailer. The design offers a bit more than necessary. In other games, it is just the opposite. And the animations are already very good.
If we will have this thoughtful design and the minimalistic style in the game, it will be awesome to play.
I think liquid and smooth movements are one of the main points here.
I am very excited to see the game when it's playable.