You have to remember the actual tile size isn't very big so a clean and clear design is essential. Assuming they are a simillar size to the GW edition then they will be about 34x34mm. The tile designs are very close to the GW counterparts but the style is quite different, not sure which I prefer yet as it's hard to judge until you can see the game in it's complete form.
Photoshop is just a tool, it can help speed up certain aspects of the design process but to produce work like this requires skill and artistic talent - too often it's assumed that photoshop does all the work.
My concern was that the tiles look like they've had some drop shadow and smoothing done to them, plus those pillars just look like reference points to plot any generic room. If I can see these photoshop (or whichever program) effects, then that's a bad design from my perspective. To me it looks like an image manipulation program was used as a crutch rather than a tool.
The other cards irk me too - I liked the shaped cards in the GW edition and the minimal text gave the images more impact. The new cards appear to be all the same size now with a full explanation that cramps out the picture. I didn't mind looking the cards up in the rulebook occasionally!
The second one has more impact and causes more dismay, and dismay is one of the core values of Dungeonquest (even if the dismay comes from having to look it up in the rulebook!)
I don't believe smoothing has been used - there would be no reason for this. As someone who uses graphics software a lot it looks hand drawn to me for the most part - undoubtedly hand drawn in graphics software but hand drawn none the less. The shadows also look to be done by hand for the most part - possibly not with the skull but it's hard to be sure, either way the shadows look good to me.
The pillars as reference isn't correct in my opinion, my guess is that the thinking behind the pillars is to make the doorways stand out more clearly. I'm sure though they will have created just a few base room images, why draw 100+ almost identical rooms. What I expect though is that they will have hopefully been creative with different floor decorations and other small unique touches for the majority of tiles.
I also really liked the shaped cards in the orignal but it wasn't all great - a lot of the actual card art is lacking imo, not terrible but could have been better. Not sure about the extra text on the new cards - it does save having to search through the rules though.
I only have one gripe so far from seeing the preview pics and that is the board - by the looks of it it hasn't been separated into a grid which is a mistake I think.
I really love the original Dungeonquest and would never get rid of my copy but I think this new edition is shaping up nicely. The look is certainly very different to the original (not necessarily better) which will make it a worthwhile purchase for me, if they had completely imitated the old style then I wouldn't bother buying it.
I'm just a stubborn old mule, really ... nothing they do could make me like the new version more than the old one. I'm sure they'll read this and say, 'Oh my goodness, Robin from Brockley doesn't like the new cards - cancel the game!' 'The Robin? Heavens above!' 'Yes, from Brockley, South East London.' 'We all know where he's from, damnit! All wings report in - cancel Dungeonquest, repeat - cancel Dungeonquest.' 'Too late!'
The other cards irk me too - I liked the shaped cards in the GW edition and the minimal text gave the images more impact. The new cards appear to be all the same size now with a full explanation that cramps out the picture. I didn't mind looking the cards up in the rulebook occasionally!
The real problem with this card is that the torch is clearly not going out.
They are definitely photoshopped to a high degree. There's a lot of mirroring of walls going on and those weapons don't look drawn at that scale (they are much more detailed than the walls for example.) Probably, the walls were drawn by hand, then lasso'ed and used as stamps to make the rooms. Which is a shame. A thing with the atleast the Swedish edition was that the tiles had little "narratives" which made them interesting to look at while other players took their turns.
Anyway, I was hoping for something more... grim. Maybe something like this:
...which totally is Photoshop, because I'm no artist.
Where exactly do you both see the wall mirroring? Not that I necesarily see it as a problem but I can tell you for a fact there is none. I've double checked in photoshop by overlaying a copy of the tile and rotating in 90 degree increments and also horizontally and vertically mirroring and the images only line up when in the original orientation.
As I expected componenents are reused between tiles and this can be easily proved by overlaying one tile on top of another and finding areas of wall that match but there is no mirroring within any of the individual tiles shown.
I think before judging so harshly you should wait to see more of the game, for all we know every tile could have different decorative elements as in the original which is what I'm hoping for and the production values are sure to be high. I think nostalgia is getting in the way a bit - you loved the original so don't want anything changed, that's fair enough.
Personally if I'd done the art I would have used black outlines similar to the original tiles as that's my drawing style and I think it makes things stand out well. I still however respect the skill used to create these and think they will look great as actual tiles, and by the looks of things they have a consistent style throughout which is always good.
The doubly-applied JPEG compression made my copy rather muddy, but you can just use the boxes for reference and look at the original instead. Each colour corresponds to a specific feature found on the other tiles and the similarites are far beyond coincidental. You don't get that kind of repetition unless you either try for it or use copy & paste. The tiles aren't going to be exactly the same because you have to do a little bit of touching-up to make the seams disappear as you join segments.
Now, I don't really care this much, but you did ask.
I did actually state in my post that elements were shared between tiles:
Quote:
As I expected componenents are reused between tiles and this can be easily proved by overlaying one tile on top of another and finding areas of wall that match but there is no mirroring within any of the individual tiles shown.
I was refering to areas you've highlughted and when overlayed they match exactly. As I said in an earlier post it's to be expected as why draw 100+ virtually identical room tiles - it makes more sense to use base room elements and then add some variety in the form of decoration.
I apologize if I misunderstood your first post but it read to me that you were seeing mirroring in each tile - eg. the walls on the left of a tile were flipped to be the walls on the right of the same tile which isn't true. Below is an image of what I thought you meant - tile on the left is the original and on the right I've used the same corner piece for all corners, even that doesn't look too bad really and most people probably wouldn't notice.
I think I'm just a grumpy old bugger, really - they really would have to reproduce GW's version right down to the floppy cards to receive my blessing! I think this is where nostalgia value makes me blind!
Ah, sorry, I missed that - we're on the same page.
Yes, I understand why it is done - I still regret that it is done. Like I said, I don't really mind that much, it's just that the originals did have individually painted tiles and it really did bring a lot of life to the game board. The cloning method that is possible thanks to digital graphics removes a lot of the natural variation. It's small things, like the rooms not being perfectly symmetrical, slight shifts in colour and the occasional deviation from given "standards." I'm not merely trying to be nostalgic and yell at the kids to get off my lawn drawbridge, I do feel these tiles lack character.
Now, we don't know whether this will be the case with FFG's edition... but history points to no. It's quite frankly not in FFG's philosophy to spend that much time on detail. You can, for example, compare Warhammer Quest's boards to Descent's, where Descent's simply appear sterile.
Anyway, it's not worth getting worked up about. Maybe I'll just make my own!
Edit: For reference, here's what I mean by variation:
I'm coming into this tile debate a bit late, but I think the new tiles will look good when they are on the board. Yes, they are very similar, but that means that the map they make will look more like a unified whole, not a collection of wildly varying tiles.
And if I remember correctly, the cards and other bits from the GW version felt pretty cheap, and were all kinds of sizes and thicknesses of cardboard. I'm very happy to see that all the various loot,rings(runes),combat cards etc etc have been made into standard sized cards.
