Are miniatures getting "cartoonish"?

[Closet Skeleton]

I hate the word cartoonish because it might as well just mean 'bad' half the time and nobody ever actually points to specific 'saturday morning cartoons' for comparison.

 

I have a lot of problems with cluttered models but how is 'cluttered' somehow the same thing as 'cartoonish'? Detail is hard to animate so cartoons tend to have very simple designs.

 

New Khârn is cluttered but his chains are literally the same as on the old model and the extra detail on his helmet is directly inspired by 2nd ed art.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Closet Skeleton

[m0nolith]

1st and 2nd ed had cartoonish aesthetics.

3rd to 6th ed had less cartoonish and grittier aesthetics.

With 7th and now 8th, they are moving back to the 2nd ed cartoonish aesthetics.

I'm not a fan. This cartoonish aesthetic may be the main thing that keeps entrenching me further and further into 30k.

[Ishagu]

I really don't think that's the case though.

 

Primaris Marines are more real and less cartoonish looking than anything prior.

[Urriak Urruk]

Forgeworld's HH is definitely less cartoonish than the current 40k line. But part of that (especially for characters) is due to the painting styles chosen, and the basing.

 

Compare;

 

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/f/fb/Guilliman_Mini.jpg http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/9/99/GuillimanMiniNew1.jpg/704px-GuillimanMiniNew1.jpg

 

 

40k Guilliman is obviously way more cartoony, but if you give him a more subdued paint like FW, remove some details like the torches, and the effect is diminished somewhat.

 

The subdued look is IMO far better, and I really dislike the 40k Guilliman model. But largely, like the recent Death Guard, the cartoony effect is from painting.

[m0nolith]

I really don't think that's the case though.

 

Primaris Marines are more real and less cartoonish looking than anything prior.

"Than anything prior" is a bit of a jump.

They are more on the realistic spectrum than everything thats been released in tandem with them, but that only applies to the tactical equivalents. The Centurion and jump vehicles look very cartoony, not to mention the vehicles as well.

But even taking into account the basic Intercessors, that one minor exception does not dilute the statement that 40k now is going down a very, VERY cartoony path.

 

  

[Adeptus]

Can we try and use a different word than cartoony? It doesn't actually mean anything useful when it comes to artistic criticism.

[m0nolith]

Can we try and use a different word than cartoony? It doesn't actually mean anything useful when it comes to artistic criticism.

If you know of a better word, then please tell us.

[Adeptus]

Well, let's try to actually critique the models instead of trying to reduce our thoughts down to a single word. What is it specifically that we don't like? Why don't we like it?

[m0nolith]

Well, let's try to actually critique the models instead of trying to reduce our thoughts down to a single word. What is it specifically that we don't like? Why don't we like it?

Well the critique I have of it is that it looks....cartoonish. That one word does a great job of encapsulating my thoughts on the matter.

 

Im not trying to be argumentative, its just sometimes a complex critique can be reduced down to a single descriptive without having to create several needlessly over-complex caveats. It seems that the vast majority of people in this thread completely understand when somebody states that something is or isnt cartoonish when in reference to miniature models.

 

Thats a descriptive thats been used since the origin of modern miniature wargaming, and I see no reason to replace it now.

[Adeptus]

 

Well, let's try to actually critique the models instead of trying to reduce our thoughts down to a single word. What is it specifically that we don't like? Why don't we like it?

Well the critique I have of it is that it looks....cartoonish. That one word does a great job of encapsulating my thoughts on the matter.

 

Im not trying to be argumentative, its just sometimes a complex critique can be reduced down to a single descriptive without having to create several needlessly over-complex caveats. It seems that the vast majority of people in this thread completely understand when somebody states that something is or isnt cartoonish when in reference to miniature models.

 

Thats a descriptive thats been used since the origin of modern miniature wargaming, and I see no reason to replace it now.

 

 

Sure, sometimes a single word is perfect. But this isn't one of those times since I have no idea what you mean when you say 'cartoonish'.

 

So, explain it to me.

 

EDIT: To be more accurate, everyone has their own definition of what cartoonish means to them. It isn't a constant term that means the same thing to lots of different people so it's not particularly useful when we're trying to critique models.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Adeptus

[Marshal_Roujakis]

To be precise, I wouldn't use the word cartoonish... more like overtly exaggerated... or just 'exaggerated' if you'd just prefer one word for it...

 

take for example, the Dark Eldar slaves from 3rd ed... they were overly exaggerated...

the Orks from 2nd ed. on the Warbuggies that you can still purchase today... those were badly exaggerated...

 

And finally the current Guilliman, exaggerated in it's art style and more blown-up than it's more subdued FW counterpart...

 

So looking for a word other than 'cartoonish'? (which highlights in red from my laptop so it means it's not even a proper word...)

Then try, exaggerated... sure it's longer, but it's far more accurate...

 

But tbh, yes, GW seems to be exagerrating their models more and more, the Primaris included in terms of design and concept... don't believe me? Look at the Reivers, sure they may look good, but when have we ever had fully extended grapples on our models? we get it, they have grappling guns... you don't need to showcase the full extend cables...

And the Nurgles too... we get it, you are going for a younger audience... you don't need to exaggerate the much more lighter tones to your models... we appreciate the grim-dark...

[D3L]

To be precise, I wouldn't use the word cartoonish... more like overtly exaggerated... or just 'exaggerated' if you'd just prefer one word for it...

 

take for example, the Dark Eldar slaves from 3rd ed... they were overly exaggerated...

the Orks from 2nd ed. on the Warbuggies that you can still purchase today... those were badly exaggerated...

 

And finally the current Guilliman, exaggerated in it's art style and more blown-up than it's more subdued FW counterpart...

 

So looking for a word other than 'cartoonish'? (which highlights in red from my laptop so it means it's not even a proper word...)

Then try, exaggerated... sure it's longer, but it's far more accurate...

 

But tbh, yes, GW seems to be exagerrating their models more and more, the Primaris included in terms of design and concept... don't believe me? Look at the Reivers, sure they may look good, but when have we ever had fully extended grapples on our models? we get it, they have grappling guns... you don't need to showcase the full extend cables...

And the Nurgles too... we get it, you are going for a younger audience... you don't need to exaggerate the much more lighter tones to your models... we appreciate the grim-dark...

I can get on board with some of this description, the new Guilliman is just embarrassing, I don't know whether it should go in my collection or the kids GI joe set

 

maybe both? :p

Edited September 7, 2017 by D3L

[Ishagu]

New Guilliman looks fantastic in person and has a good tabletop presence.

 

A lot of people in this topic are presenting their opinions as facts. Let's stop acting so childish.

[D3L]

New Guilliman looks fantastic in person and has a good tabletop presence.

 

A lot of people in this topic are presenting their opinions as facts. Let's stop acting so childish.

the irony is strong with this one

[Ishagu]

Don't think Im guilty of anything in this particular thread :-P

[Toomanyprojects]

I do think that there are aspects of models that are getting a little bit cartoonish in places. The giant nurgle icon on the back of the lord of contagion springs immediately to mind as being more than a little out of character for the guy. Here is a soldier who is meant to exemplify everything that is the death guard (i know that there may be other nurgle worshippers who also hold the rank, but I'll stick with DG for this explanation): stoic, unadorned, utilitarian and ruthlessly effective - so he walks around with this on his back:

 

https://flic.kr/p/YeArCS

 

Its a very nice bit of modelling, but it does seem to be a tad silly for a guy who's legion hated ostentation and marched to war in bare ceramite.

 

Now, that being said, I do think that one of the joys of this hobby is that you can remove things that you don't like. ergo, here is my Lord of Contagion sans icon, which I think looks better.

 

https://flic.kr/p/YuEeQ8

 

The paintjob may also have something to do with the idea of things being cartoonish. But as with everything in this regard, its a very subjective thing.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Toomanyprojects

[Cryptix]

I think the problem with removing the icon is the mini was designed so that the eyes would be attracted to it so now there's this negative space up too which feels wrong.

[Toomanyprojects]

it's horses for courses - I actually think that the model looks infiintely better without the icon (not just mine, I'm not that vain) but I can see that others would like it or think i've been an idiot to remove it 

 

This entire thing is subjective, one person's cartoonish is another's characterful. One person's gritty realism is another person's boring model. Its an individual thing

[Evil Eye]

As mentioned before, I feel the paintjobs are a large part of why some of the newer models look so "cartoony". They're technically very well done but the colour choices can make them seem a bit garish. Mortarion is a prime example- in his studio colours he looks kinda overdone, but give him slightly less lurid colours and I think he'd look superb.

 

As far as actual sculpts go, I'm not so sure. They're definitely quite busy nowadays, but then the art for 40K has always featured huge amounts of detail and "bling" that hasn't been possible on models before due to simple manufacturing limitations. I honestly think had GW had access to modern technology in the "glory days" of miniature design (whenever that was?) the results would be very similar to what we have today. Plus, for the most part, the actual sculpting and design work is pretty top-notch, and we aren't getting any objectively badly sculpted models. I'd like to see someone try and claim the older Bloodthirster was better than the new plastic one for example.

 

Plus, you know, they're models. They can be modified as we see fit, and are intended to be for that matter.

[Atia]

And the Nurgles too... we get it, you are going for a younger audience... you don't need to exaggerate the much more lighter tones to your models... we appreciate the grim-dark...

o.O

Not sure if we are looking at the same models ...

The Death Guard is totally fine, I wouldn't want to run into one of them at night ...

[Marshal_Roujakis]

And the Nurgles too... we get it, you are going for a younger audience... you don't need to exaggerate the much more lighter tones to your models... we appreciate the grim-dark...

o.O

Not sure if we are looking at the same models ...

The Death Guard is totally fine, I wouldn't want to run into one of them at night ...

Oh I didn't mean your style, yours is more of a ghastly color hue, using the lighter tones to showcase a more necrotic spectre-like scheme using the brighter lighting effects to emphasize the ghoulish nature of your Death Guard army...

GW's new stock colors on the other hand:

has too much in terms of contrasting color tones, not quite getting the proper thematic style to their much more older models:

http://www.milsims.com.au/sites/milsims.com.au/files/imagecache/product_full/prodimg/plaguemarinescfc.jpg

which uses a more darker tone to represent grim-dark and has a more risen dead scheme to their Nurgle Space Marines sure there is contrast in the older tones in terms of the un-helmeted Marine having a more deathly complexion as opposed to the darker green colors of their armor...

If anything, the reason why the new style of GW is seeming 'cartoonish' to people is that the paint style of the current painting team has changed drastically, and now sports a much more brighter color palette as opposed to the darker more subtle scheme they had a few years back...

As for the model design themselves, the quality of detail has improved, but unlike the older models, the new models have been modernized too much to the point where they are starting to look like toys instead of miniatures... ideal for gaming and attracting players, not so much for those who would prefer the hobby and modelling aspects...

[Closet Skeleton]

And the Nurgles too... we get it, you are going for a younger audience... you don't need to exaggerate the much more lighter tones to your models... we appreciate the grim-dark...

 

There's no logical argument that 'lighter tones' = 'aimed at children' especially not when those light colours are washed out pale greens. How many toys are washed out pale green? Do children like pea soup all of a sudden?

 

The idea that dark colours = mature is in itself nothing but immature. Do we really want 40k to turn out like those ugly looking try hard DC movies? Nurgle models are extra creepy because of the juxtaposition created by them also being kind of cute, that kind of nuance is more mature than just making everything look like a rainy morning in Manchester.

 

I mean look, they're called Chaos Space Marines. How 'gritty and mature' do you expect to be taken if you go around insisting on taking that concept too seriously. If the next Tau and Eldar releases look as silly you might have something to complain about but the time of a nurgle release is the wrong time.

 

40k is dark and serious the way Professional Wrestling is a sport. Its really important that it appears to be so but its all nonsense at heart. Most people know its a lie but its more fun if you let yourself buy into it.

 

has too much in terms of contrasting color tones, not quite getting the proper thematic style to their much more older models:

 

 

If any model release 'missed the proper thematic style' it was those boring metal and finecast plague marines.

 

Those are in less contrasting tones because they had to hide the models to make them look saleable. The new heavy metal scheme (which is basically barely different if you only look at the pallets) isn't afraid to show the models off.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Closet Skeleton

[Shockmaster]

This debate in my gaming club & online often on a basic level comes down to if you prefer the 3rd onwards change of style 40k went through or what to me seems like the return to the original concept of 40k that we have seen in model releases in recent years.

 

To use an example while I don't dislike the Plague Marine minis put out by GW in 3rd or maybe it was 4th edition shown in the post above, for me they lack the charm of the earlier Death Guard mini that preceded them, I feel the new releases have captured and modernised that look in a great way. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Shockmaster

[~Drakzilla~]

The recent studio paint-jobs for the Death Guard are definitely brighter, more saturated, and with more variety of color than in the past. Same goes for a lot of other current GW miniatures. I think that is most likely the biggest contributor to the perceived "cartoony" look. 

 

Why though? Well, GW wants to show off and sell their models. Speaking objectively here, having a brighter color scheme with lots of contrast and bold colors accentuates and shows off the details of the models themselves. A darker, more toned-down scheme might "fit better" for a lot of people, but it can often obscure details. Look at the difference between the old and new Plague Marines. On the new ones, every element and detail pops due to contrasting colors, while the old ones are dull but arguably more foreboding and thematic.

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Also consider that GW's paint line has expanded considerably since 3rd and the washes used have changed considerably (who remembers the ink washes that would stain your hand for days after). So now the studio has a bigger pallet to work with and more variety of colours for shading and bringing out the details etc.