I've read Bingjack post at GC2 for a couple of years (more?). He can get feisty, but on the net-rudeness meter, he's way, way low ranking. Hortz, on the other hand, is a new persona to me, and most everything it has had to say about Elemental has been at best unconstructively feisty and often quite rude. Bingjack's only real failure from my POV is that in another thread he used "fail" as a noun. Ick-poo.

Well I am not a fan of the art style choice so far, but it has also been brought to my attention that the graphics are not finished in a way that might change my mind later (I already knew they weren't finished). I think there is something perfectly valid about not choosing a game because its visually unappealing to you. I mean you are talking about a something you are going to be staring at for hours. My standards aren't that high though. I play Paradox games and someone over there seems to have an obsession with browns and yellows and tans and fairly ugly character profiles. I still bought those games.

As for Blingjack, I said he was being rude, not that he was the worst out of the barrel, and that I have never seen worse because I certainly have. It just seems to me there is this loyal fanbase following Elemental and any sort of detraction from this is the best game I have ever seen in my life is met with a pretty strong, you don't belong her attitude. If you don't like it, take a hike ultimatum.

That is not what I said.  But if you have your issue asked and answered many times over, and yet you still try to keep hijacking every thread for your agenda of the game looking like a game that costs *millions* more to make than Elemental will...at some point, you just have to move on.  That is not going to change.  Elemental is not going to overnight triple its production budget, and Stardock, while making increasingly visually appealing games, always focuses on gameplay first.

As far as the art "style", completely separate from any *technical* graphical issues, thats a completely subjective issue.  Hate on that all you want, as long you do it in a fashion that reflects you realize the people making this game actually read these boards and a care about their customers (unlike what you may be used to from other game companies), and have feelings about the work that they do.  Hortz has failed to do that on these boards, and continues to compound the issue with his agenda.

Truth be told, *I'm* not in love with the art style, or more precisely, am indifferent to it.  If it were up to me, it would be all gritty and gothic, with everything oozing blood and ichor.  I could also care a less if it isnt.

 Im fairly sure if the game looked like "My Little Pony" I would still buy it.  Why?  Because not buying a game for graphical stylistic differences is a luxury for people who are fans of the type of game the market is saturated with.  RTS fans.  Or people that weren't really interested in the game to begin with.

This game is *rare*. I don't have the option  of saying, "Hey, I dont like the way somebody modeled that horse...Im going to buy the other, deep,  quality, visually appealing and usable Grand 4X Fantasy Strategy game releasing this month where I can design and name my own units, instead.  Because virtually nobody makes them anymore.

And guess what? On top of all that other stuff, Stardock is working really hard to make the game highly moddable, so if I dont like something, I can add to it, or alter it.

So having opinions is fine.   Even having persistent opinions that shape your ongoing input to Stardock through the beta process is fine.  But having an agenda about an issue that is not going to change, and has already been addressed by the devs, and continuing to beat that horse, which happens to be a wildly unpopular opinion, is not going to win you any supporters.  If you've decided that the game will be a failure, if it doesnt look like a game that cost millions more to make, Im doing you a favor by saying maybe you should move on, as this game will not cater to your priorities.

You get paired with Hortz, because you accused me of being rude to him (without really knowing who you were defending).  So neccesarily I must defend myself now by justifying my position on his position.  Im sorry that you think that my paraphrasing the problem with his position means I think the same about yours.  If you'll read back in my last post, youll see I separated the issue of expensive high end graphics and cinematics from art style, and admitted to *some* common ground on the issue with you, while admitting that in the larger picture, I could care a less.

Theres no need for martyrdom here...no one has attacked you.  If I gave you that impression, I was not clear enough, I'm sorry.

I don't care what you think about the art style...youre entitled to your opinion, as long as you utter it with tact and respect to the people that make this game and that read the boards.  Hortz has failed to do that, and is suffering backlash for it, and for his continued agenda.

What trailer?

I dont know.  I just assumed there was one.  According to the OP wildly succesful 4x strategy games must have multi million dollar trailers that appeal to 13 year olds.

Haha, okay well I have to agree that the last thing these types games need is a hollywood style action trailer.

I just can't remember what got me into games like these in the first place. I am pretty sure it was the original CIV shareware maybe and after that, I look at all sorts of strategy games. I am not afraid of them as some people are. The learning curve on some of these games is, HUGE.  And while i adore a lot of mainstream games, Sims, Mario games, some RTS and a few FPS, I think it would be a real shame if people missed out because of lack of awareness. A trailer could help with that, but it would have to be an honest one that highlights actual features of the game or you'll get people buying a game they hate.

Well there's two sides to this coind nOObonian. The opening cinematic/trailers can be AMAZING but the game could end up sucking (it won't happen because it's Stardock, but it does happen). It's sorta like how the trailers for the Star Wars PT were always better than the actual movie

Nesrie, I'd like to apologize if I gave the impression I was hassling you for not being a fan-entity. I used to teach US civics and have been a regular poster at GC2 for years. Disagreements are essential for both democratic government and an interesting game forum. I expect I'll be as irrationally fond of Elemental as I am of GC2. But over there I've typed more than a few criticisms while still playing that game for longer than I've played any other TBS.

/attempts to get back 'on topic'/ I still generally agree with Bingjack's position about the relative budget importance of a trailer for Elemental. Without the resources of a conglomerate, I believe keeping things simple is probably better. But that's in no small part because I *don't* think that a growing customer base is a good thing in its own right. This is a niche genre, and IMO, growth needs to maintain the integrity of the niche, not lead the title down the primrose path to mass-market mediocrity. After all, growth for growth's sake is just another way of describing cancer.

I don't think an expensive trailer is needed for this game, as said before in this thread, Stardock depends partially on word of mouth the get a buzz going for their games. I'm pretty sure we'll get to see a decent trailer when the time to release is getting closer.

But I must also admit that high quality trailers can help to get me interested in games, for instance most (all?) trailers for Blizzards games are beautifully made, and are worth watching more then once. Also the trailer for Star Wars: The Old Republic made me take notice of that game, and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna try it out when it's released... Depending also on some reviews off course.

So, a high quality trailer can certainly help, but I don't think it's worth putting too much money in. In the end, the gameplay is what's most important.

I could go with an in-game footage type trailer myself. I mean, really the idea is awareness and to make up for the fact that Stardock doesn't want to do demo's ahead of launches. and the Demi-god demo took for ever (which could be unusual though since its troubled release). Just something that can be used to catch the attention of people who would be interested in this game but isn't following its development and hasn't heard of Stardock, especially people who aren't familiar with this typeof game. I know there are some objections to comparing the game to King's Bounty, and Elven Legacy, HOMM, but judging from what I've seen, it's in that same ballpark so it seems fair to compare them, to some extent. 

I was a huge fan of Majesty, and have been following Majesty 2. They've released an official trailer and the looked mostly like game footage with a sound track (not talking about the teaser trailer with the rat and treasure chest). And they're going to have a demo out two weeks before release. I know these aren't the same companies or types of games but Majesty was hardly mainstream either. And the newest issues, since its so close to release, for that community is actually concerns about GOO.

And thank you GW Swicord, I just want to feel comfortable to be able to criticize parts of a game, usually very specific parts of a game, without feeling like I have to take the whole package or be asked to leave or move on, or have some derogatory remark about going to go play WoW. Hey, I respect Blizzard for what they've been able to do, WoW is a case where graphics turned me off though... don't like the style at all but more importantly, there are a lot of alternatives to WoW so that was an easy decison to make. I certainly intend to criticize fairly if I feel the need to do so at all.  I still feel there is a lot of the game left to do so I am still in the waiting, sort of nodding my head, shaking my head phase rather than that oh no, what are they doing mindset.

I think the idea of some kind of a trailer is a good idea. I don't think that that trailer needs to be geared for 13 year old boys which would not only leave out appealing to women at all (again) but pretty much anyone else not interested in gratuitous violence which this game is certainly not about, by any stretch of the imagination.

I just wanna say: