Updated 2/16/2014: The newest PoE webpage background image vs. the old (new) background image

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

ignarsoll wrote:

As a LED monitor user, I disagree..

I really like the new one. The artwork carries a begotten-esque touch, which I highly appreciate.

I want to believe that these teasers are for to get players excited for the new content, so what I can say is; well done GGG!

What is there to disagree to? I'm all for people liking the image (I wouldn't mind it either given some attention for improvement,) but there is no denying the evident flaws in the new background image shown in the OP. The OP is not about whether or not anyone likes what the background image depicts, it's about the rushed quality of it.

How can you be so accepting to such bad image quality? I don't get it. Are you even seeing what I'm seeing? Are you really going to sit there and say the harsh gray curved mark coming off the very left-hand side of the background image behind the female figure's head looks professional?

While talking about rushed quality and non-professional look, are we browsing the same forum which still contains



as a title?

There is always a room for improvement when it comes to artwork but the whole point of my post was the background is not as bad as you make it sound. Actually I don't even think it is bad.

"

More than not, the site's background is worse. On the very left of the background it's more crisp in detail, and on the very right there's a terrible blur effect. And if you're an LED back-lit monitor user, you can see where there is a bad transition / blend with the black around the female figure's head on the left-hand side of the background image.

The right-side has the same blur that left-side's background (wall behind the head). So I can't see the problem there. From the shallow focus used by the artist, I confidently understand that, the aim was to make visitors focus on the left figure, right-side is there for image to span whole page and additional content to be explored by more careful (interested) visitors.

As someone usally complains about recent artworks from GGG, I liked this particular one. That said, I agree on artwork being unnecessarily distorted is a bad thing which is the case for this one.

Edit: I see that you added more to your post;

"

Liking the art (or the idea) in an image is one thing; quality is another. When there is good art with a great idea behind it + quality, that's what makes a good background image.

I see the art in the new background image, but the quality is clearly not there, and I dare anyone to say otherwise (not just say it just to say it without good reason.) Tell me where the quality is...

After reading this part I more strongly believe that the distortion on the image is what you really dislike.

That was the thing I also said in my post that can be done better.



As can seen in the above image, I understand that how it can ruin for some to enjoy the artwork as it can be distractive when focused.

"

ignarsoll wrote:

While talking about rushed quality and non-professional look, are we browsing the same forum which still contains



as a title?

There is always a room for improvement when it comes to artwork but the whole point of my post was the background is not as bad as you make it sound. Actually I don't even think it is bad.

What are you trying to get at here... You think it doesn't look bad because you don't want to acknowledge what's wrong with the image, even though you agree there's something wrong in it.

It's a catch-22 with you.

It's either bad and there's something wrong with the image, or not bad and there's nothing wrong with the image. You can't give a straight reply.

"

ignarsoll wrote:

The right-side has the same blur that left-side's background (wall behind the head). So I can't see the problem there. From the shallow focus used by the artist, I confidently understand that, the aim was to make visitors focus on the left figure, right-side is there for image to span whole page and additional content to be explored by more careful (interested) visitors.

As someone usually complains about recent artworks from GGG, I liked this particular one. That said, I agree on artwork being unnecessarily distorted is a bad thing which is the case for this one.

Some of what you said in the above I already know, but most of it makes no sense. In addition to that, you still cannot dish out a straight reply.

The image is of bad quality, period, and I've provided more than enough evidence to support my claims in my OP more than you got to support yours other than, "Yeah, I don't think the image is bad at all, yet [somehow] I do acknowledge something's wrong with the image."

P.S. I think I understand what you're saying about the distortion beginning at the harsh gray areas of the background image. However, as said, I think those gray areas can be blended in with the black more, not look like a complete separation in color between black and gray.

Here is an example of what I think should happen between the gray and black areas:

Except blended in a little darker than this without being this bright. Now, imagine the below example image (darker version) yet distributed evenly throughout the whole background image starting from the top (black) to the bottom (more gray as it goes) where no obvious separation can be seen between gray and black in the image.

Or, just have it all be one color, a blackish gray or completely black.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

ignarsoll wrote:

While talking about rushed quality and non-professional look, are we browsing the same forum which still contains



as a title?

There is always a room for improvement when it comes to artwork but the whole point of my post was the background is not as bad as you make it sound. Actually I don't even think it is bad.

What are you trying to get at here... You think it doesn't look bad because you don't want to acknowledge what's wrong with the image, even though you say there's something wrong in it.

It's a catch-22 with you.

It's either bad and there's something wrong with the image, or not bad and there's nothing wrong with the image. You can't give a straight reply.

What? The artwork has some good stuff which I highly appreciate and some parts that I dislike. It would be pointless to name it bad only because I dislike a minor property of it. It's not either bad or good, I have broader spectrum while criticising something.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

ignarsoll wrote:

The right-side has the same blur that left-side's background (wall behind the head). So I can't see the problem there. From the shallow focus used by the artist, I confidently understand that, the aim was to make visitors focus on the left figure, right-side is there for image to span whole page and additional content to be explored by more careful (interested) visitors.

As someone usually complains about recent artworks from GGG, I liked this particular one. That said, I agree on artwork being unnecessarily distorted is a bad thing which is the case for this one.

Some of what you said in the above I already know, but most of it makes no sense. In addition to that, you still cannot dish out a straight reply.

The image is of bad quality, period, and I've provided more than enough evidence to support my claims in my OP more than you got to support yours other than, "Yeah, I don't think the image is bad at all, yet [somehow] I do acknowledge something's wrong with the image."

Bad paraphrasing: ""Yeah, I don't think the image is bad at all, yet [somehow] I do acknowledge something's wrong with the image.""
In my posts I clearly stated that which parts I like and which part had room for improvement. Please do not pull out words from nowhere.


-> "The image is of bad quality, period"
In this specific post (in contrast to others, which was why I responded in the first place), you really sound like someone who has zero tolerence of a discussion against your opinions. If your tone reflects you as a person irl, good luck in a world that only has blacks and whites.

This issue depicted below, as well as the previously mentioned distortion are the 2 biggest issues with it right now. A lesser issue is the DoF effect applied to the background scenery.




Wouldn't be so problematic if the light being emitted from the eye lit up the creature in the foreground (faintly Revealed the surface of the creature) and revealed a reason for the sudden shift from a red-black gradient to solid black instead of somehow retaining the silhouette, but whatever.

Erased (double post by accident)

"

ignarsoll wrote:

What? The artwork has some good stuff which I highly appreciate and some parts that I dislike. It would be pointless to name it bad only because I dislike a minor property of it. It's not either bad or good, I have broader spectrum while criticising something.

Pardon the late reply.

Nice way of editing your original post to make me look like the idiot here. You clearly said in the beginning, "In fact, I don't think there's anything wrong with the image at all."

You know I had you in a deadlock by my response, and so the only way to get out of it was to edit your original post to make it look like you didn't say what you really said.

"

ignarsoll wrote:

Bad paraphrasing: ""Yeah, I don't think the image is bad at all, yet [somehow] I do acknowledge something's wrong with the image.""
In my posts I clearly stated that which parts I like and which part had room for improvement. Please do not pull out words from nowhere.

I didn't pull anything out of nowhere; you changed your post since the words 'at all' doesn't come up anymore when I do a CTRL + F in my browser to find the two words. What you said is what you meant, and there's no going back on it.

Only now you are saying, "I clearly stated that which parts I like and which part I had room for improvement."

Where you say, "I had room for improvement." doesn't make any sense, but I guess you'll be changing that, too, so it does. Why should I even take you seriously as a seemingly self-acclaimed art critic (or so you say you're a critic) when you're not even thinking about what you're saying?

That being said, I understand what you meant, but that still doesn't defeat the fact that's not what you said originally. Otherwise, if it was, we wouldn't be exchanging words right now.

ignarsoll quotes HeavyMetalGear:
"The image is of bad quality, period."

"

ignarsoll wrote:

In this specific post (in contrast to others, which was why I responded in the first place), you really sound like someone who has zero tolerence of a discussion against your opinions. If your tone reflects you as a person irl, good luck in a world that only has blacks and whites.

My tone is a straightforward tone and nothing more. I reason and debate with logic, not nonsense. It's not people's opinions I have a low tolerance for; it's people's ignorance and contradictions I will point out and argue against.

Furthermore, it's not your opinion I went against; it's your ignorance and contradiction I went against in your original reply when you denied there was nothing wrong with the image at all, and yet at the same time you contradicted yourself by admitting there was something wrong with the image. No matter how small the flaw (not so small,) there was still something wrong with the background.

The underlined bit at all means what it means, and there's no denying that. At all does not define neutrality in a comment when it comes to placing your judgement on art.

P.S. Even the newest background image up now is not necessarily my cup of tea, but I'd rather it that and be clean than not be my taste and a complete mess at the same time (like the old background in my OP.)

Anyway, good luck getting out of this one. You can call me every name in the book or a tongue-twister all you want (I've heard it all before,) but I really don't appreciate someone manipulating the tables in their favor by editing their original quoted words. It's a cowardly last-stand move.

Yep the new background image is quite a bit better, thanks for listening to us :)

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

ignarsoll wrote:

What? The artwork has some good stuff which I highly appreciate and some parts that I dislike. It would be pointless to name it bad only because I dislike a minor property of it. It's not either bad or good, I have broader spectrum while criticising something.

Pardon the late reply.

Nice way of editing your original post to make me look like the idiot here. You clearly said in the beginning, "In fact, I don't think there's anything wrong with the image at all."

You know I had you in a deadlock by my response, and so the only way to get out of it was to edit your original post to make it look like you didn't say what you really said.

I can't believe what I'm reading, are you really accusing me for making changes about the part you paraphrased me. Excluding this post I have 3 posts in this thread. 2 of them I didn't even edited, only one that I edited is to add that image and happened 12 minutes after the post creation. Coincidentally it happened 1 minute after your post but seriously do you really believe that I read your post and edited my post accordingly in the same minute, just to make you look bad? Also with your logic I probably spammed f5 just to be able to read your post the moment just after you pressed submit, so that all things can happen in an instant. It doesn't fucking even makes sense.

Oh god, you should have a really pathetic life to blatantly lie for a post I made under a sub-forum that at most 30-40 people visit. I'm really speechless.

For anyone at GGG if you keep the older drafts of posts in the database please share the previous version of my post before the edit, to prove HMG is a liar.

"

Only now you are saying, "I clearly stated that which parts I like and which part I had room for improvement."

Where you say, "I had room for improvement." doesn't make any sense, but I guess you'll be changing that, too, so it does. Why should I even take you seriously as a seemingly self-acclaimed art critic (or so you say you're a critic) when you're not even thinking about what you're saying?

That was an honest mistake, English is my second language, it's apparent that I'm more prone to errors than most of the native speakers. Congratulations for being better than me and satisfying your ego while exploiting every word of it.

"

Anyway, good luck getting out of this one. You can call me every name in the book or a tongue-twister all you want (I've heard it all before,) but I really don't appreciate someone manipulating the tables in their favor by editing their original quoted words. It's a cowardly last-stand move.

Do you really think that I care your posts enough that I would feel the need to "get out" of them. This is a sub-forum that even god forgot, it's beyond me that why anybody would become as offensive as you for such a thing.

Finally, I never seen a more coward move than lying for the sake of trying to prove something where it doesn't even really matters.

ignarsoll quotes HeavyMetalGear:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Pardon the late reply.

Nice way of editing your original post to make me look like the idiot here. You clearly said in the beginning, "In fact, I don't think there's anything wrong with the image at all."

You know I had you in a deadlock by my response, and so the only way to get out of it was to edit your original post to make it look like you didn't say what you really said.

"

ignarsoll wrote:

I can't believe what I'm reading, are you really accusing me for making changes about the part you paraphrased me. Excluding this post I have 3 posts in this thread. 2 of them I didn't even edited, only one that I edited is to add that image and happened 12 minutes after the post creation. Coincidentally it happened 1 minute after your post but seriously do you really believe that I read your post and edited my post accordingly in the same minute, just to make you look bad? Also with your logic I probably spammed f5 just to be able to read your post the moment just after you pressed submit, so that all things can happen in an instant. It doesn't fucking even makes sense.

Oh god, you should have a really pathetic life to blatantly lie for a post I made under a sub-forum that at most 30-40 people visit. I'm really speechless.

For anyone at GGG if you keep the older drafts of posts in the database please share the previous version of my post before the edit, to prove HMG is a liar.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

It makes complete sense to me. Anything can happen at any time since it takes 20 seconds or less (within a minute or whatever it was) to edit a couple words in a line and update your post. The problem here is our posts are date stamped based on when we submitted them NOT when we update them. Therefore, while my post came 11 minutes after your post, you could have easily (at 3:00 AM or 3:10 AM) edited and updated your original post.

That being said, fair enough. Call me a liar (I expected it,) and disbelieve what you will through your own denial.

Even IF GGG did bring up records of your original post saying otherwise by miraculous chance, you still said… (on record as quoted in my previous comment)

"

ignarsoll wrote:

Actually I don't even think it is bad.

Follow by (the below) in a later post…

"

ignarsoll wrote:

It's not either bad or good, I have broader spectrum while criticising something.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

SO if you didn’t even think the background image to be bad, then that means you thought it was good, right?

Is the contradiction not yet clear to you, or do you still think me some senile fool / drunkard?

That's like putting what you said backwards, "Actually, I don't even think it is good."

No matter which way it's written whether the background image to you was not bad or not good, one or the other means what it means, per se, it's contradiction at its best.

What else are you going to deny next? It’s somehow amusing. I’m listening.

ignarsoll quotes HeavyMetalGear:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Where you say, "I had room for improvement." doesn't make any sense, but I guess you'll be changing that, too, so it does. Why should I even take you seriously as a seemingly self-acclaimed art critic (or so you say you're a critic) when you're not even thinking about what you're saying?

"

ignarsoll wrote:

That was an honest mistake, English is my second language, it's apparent that I'm more prone to errors than most of the native speakers. Congratulations for being better than me and satisfying your ego while exploiting every word of it.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that, but my major language happens to be English, and I know what I read from your original reply (unless a billionth of a 1% chance says otherwise I had mistaken you for another PoE user who just so happened to change their post with at all in it.)

The chances of that are zero, and the odds are stacked against you.

ignarsoll quotes HeavyMetalGear:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Anyway, good luck getting out of this one. You can call me every name in the book or a tongue-twister all you want (I've heard it all before,) but I really don't appreciate someone manipulating the tables in their favor by editing their original quoted words. It's a cowardly last-stand move.

"

ignarsoll wrote:

Do you really think that I care your posts enough that I would feel the need to "get out" of them. This is a sub-forum that even god forgot, it's beyond me that why anybody would become as offensive as you for such a thing.

Finally, I never seen a more coward move than lying for the sake of trying to prove something where it doesn't even really matters.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Do I think you care? Of course I know (not think) you care! You care(d) enough to respond in your own defense, right? You also care(d) enough to call upon GGG to prove I'm lying and you're not, right? OR are you going to deny that and contradict yourself again saying you don't care? Furthermore, when I said, "Anyway, good luck getting out of this one." I meant good luck lying your way out of this discussion.

Lo and behold, you're still trying to wiggle your way out of it through denial, excuses, and lies!

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

ignarsoll wrote:

Actually I don't even think it is bad.

Follow by (the below) in a later post…

"

ignarsoll wrote:

It's not either bad or good, I have broader spectrum while criticising something.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

SO if you didn’t even think the background image to be bad, then that means you thought it was good, right?

Is the contradiction not yet clear to you, or do you still think me some senile fool / drunkard?

That's like putting what you said backwards, "Actually, I don't even think it is good."

No matter which way it's written whether the background image to you was not bad or not good, one or the other means what it means, per se, it's contradiction at its best.

What else are you going to deny next? It’s somehow amusing. I’m listening.

I'm really suspicious that you didn't even understand what I tried to say; simply this was what I meant.

I think the work GGG put in the art was decent(say good if you want not the point), but I also acknowledge the fact that it can be improved even further compared to GGG's work standards, so yes it can be improved and made better.

also

"

ignarsoll wrote:

It's not either bad or good, I have broader spectrum while criticising something.

This was basically saying it is stupid to think "if a work is not bad this means it is good". Sadly, this is your mentality and with this somehow you manage to detect a contradiction in my words. I don't live in a world that things could only be black or white. Both can co-exist.

--------------------

I only cared because you were personally accusing me, and I responded accordingly, nothing more. I'll repeat myself and say that I didn't changed my post as you suggest.