It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Goodness gracious, great balls of fire!

Wizard of Legend, is coming soon, DRM-free to GOG.com.
The Chaos Trials cause all up-and-coming spellslingers flock to Lanova to participate. You wanna be the very best and for that, you must complete fast-paced challenges designed to push your spellcasting skills to the limit. Devastating combinations, arcane reflexes, and the powerful items you collect along the way will aid you and your co-op friends in becoming true Wizards of Legend. Or, you know, explode into amorphous, pixelated glop.
avatar
Breja: I really hate it when the "cover" art tries to sell me on something completely unlike the actual game. What's even the point? Hooray, you got me to click on it and then immediately close the tab. Good for you.
avatar
Fairfox: ;slfhnjwoaueihfnjs,xfn oljksdfgo paodisfgjk94r0e jkmgdpioarj5 mjkgmvfdip8n mgbpd908tytg mkj90b8ste ,kmb;dkb 9-eikesa jmgioupeokg 'plbt0r- mske4j5ijo0 jgbmgrelo5 jsedikojmb;sl mvhujriej asd,mloaijcv lvp[sdolkr
If you want me to even read your post you'll have to write like a normal person.
Post edited March 10, 2018 by Breja
avatar
Fairfox: ..' painted art, ... tech limitations.. nobody should take covers as some kind of depiction... i know youre all grrr pixels! ..buuut its startin' to bleed out into all-purpose nao :/
avatar
AlienMind: I think he's right. Nothing against different tastes, the pixel guys should eat their pixels. But I find the following kinda a lie: If low resolution was chosen because it's so great (what most makers say), not because of constraints, why won't they use that technique for the cover picture of their game, then?

The defense rests.
The number of games in general that use in-game screenshots/models for cover art, whether AAA, indie or in-between is in the minority. Games typically use either some separate render using assets different in quality/location/arrangement than what players will actually experience in-game (to varying degress), or a different style entirely. Such graphics are fundamentally there to get your attention and interest.

Especially with pixel art one of the obstacles to things like banner graphics is how vastly different the scalings will be for any given site/context. Depending on the resolution of the source graphic such blocky, zoomed in pixels can easily come out strangely anti-aliased or blurry as a banner scales up/down which is another thing to consider.

Contrast to a well-made, high resolution illustration which can easily be cropped, arranged and scaled for different contexts and it's easy to see why these are frequently used. Some are works are art in their own right, as we've seen for various games in previous eras (one of my favorites being the Japan Prince of Persia cover for the Famicom), and can be seen adorning a vast number of titles on GOG's own game page backgrounds.

Fwiw in the case of this game I'm not one that would actually like a game using the high-detail illustrative style of the banner as *far* too often games that use such renderings utilize shortcuts to reduce development complexity, such as animation marionetting (eg: the 'Flash-look'), or very stilted movement frames. It's due to this I usually expect such promotional graphics to be stylized and not representative (or hope so, usually).
Post edited March 10, 2018 by Coreda
avatar
Coreda: The number of games in general that use in-game screenshots/models for cover art, whether AAA, indie or in-between is in the minority. Games typically use either some separate render using assets different in quality/location/arrangement than what players will actually experience in-game (to varying degress), or a different style entirely. Such graphics are fundamentally there to get your attention and interest.
s due to this I usually expect such promotional graphics to be stylized and not representative (or hope so, usually).
Look at pretty much any game in "recent news", as far as those will go, and they all are represented by art far more true to the actual game, even if they use separate art for that purpose.

It's not even about pixels. Dead Cells is a pixelated game, and still the art it uses is a decent approximation of the game's visual style, pixels notwithstanding. Wizard of Legend on the other hand looks nothing like the art that promotes it.

Still, it's not a major issue, it doesn't influence the game itself in any way, it's just a pet peeve of mine.
deleted
avatar
Fairfox: ive had hard cider tho so imma kinda drunk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Only kind of?

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agog.com%2Fforum%2Fgeneral%2F+fairfox+drunk
deleted
avatar
Starmaker: Another pretty game I'm going to suck at!
Not sure about the 'pretty' part, but I was thinking a similar thought: I would really suck at this game. They kinda lost me at the mention of combos: it's a game mechanic that I have always failed to make work well. That's on me, not the games.

As far as the pixel stuff goes, it looks decent. Unlike many pixelated action games, I can actually tell what in the hell is going on.
avatar
HereForTheBeer: As far as the pixel stuff goes, it looks decent. Unlike many pixelated action games, I can actually tell what in the hell is going on.
Basically, my criteria are
1. I can see what's going on - check
2. No pseudopixel speshul effects - sadly, there are some, but at least pixel size doesn't change.
3. Enough colors - check
4. Procedurally generated levels should look no worse than generic dungeons in classic RPGs - check
5. Well-proportioned (no chibi, anime slendermen, or sworcery stilted cans) and visually distinct characters - check (that fire lady, awww)