Check out my painting blog: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...Boy-s-Painting
In my opinion it is a deliberate decision on the side of GW to produce and market larger centrepiece models. It is just that: giving you the option of fielding impressive models. Wether you like them or not is up to you - nobody is forcing you to take a Griffon or similar sized beast. But I don't see why one should blame GW for making monsters more monstrous.
I love the way that the maturity of a plastic figure's owner is apparently inversely proportional to the figure's size... :/
While I personally don't see any of the new large kits as things I would buy, I still think they're a great addition to the game and... well... I don't have to buy them
elves in the snow
a blog of Wood Elves and Warhammer
If GW were releasing undetailed "Monster Bodies" with smooth clip-on "Battle Armor" you might have a point, OP. As it stands, the big kits have the same level/scale of detailing as the smaller kits (that level being somewhere between "detailed" and "Oh-my-God-give-my-brush-a-break-already"). They fit into the setting and fit into their respective armies as well.
Now, if the next Giant model is just a plastic 3-up of a human model, you might have something that looks like an action figure from the 80's
Here is a better sample of "spawn" toys. I like them.
The large GW monsters are being to look like collectible dolls like Spawn TM collection.
Again, I do like the current GW monsters, but something is missing. I don't know what the X-factor is... but it is lacking and I feel GW is heading in the direction of the Spawn collection TM. I think it might be that GW is making their monsters too cartoony or "comic" book type, which when enlarge in size. .. . it becomes action figure or toys type.
Here is a dragon by McFarlane's
Or goto Spawn.com
I'm not sure if the Technology on the Toy making is getting so good that the details on them are just as good as models like GW or if GW is just catching up with the Toys making technology.
So what I'm trying to say is if Toys company can make stuff like that and the scale of the size are almost the same and comes painted.... GW have to do better than that. Again, I like GW stuff... but I'm just not convince that GW is trying hard enough to make the best model they can. Some X-factor is missing...and I wish I know what it is.
Well, McFarlane's products tend to be hyper-detailed collector-style pieces as opposed to the figures you give to kids to play with. They certainly aren't what I think of when someone says "toys" - frankly, the stuff at Spawn.com (outside of the animated versions) have been out-detailing GW (and several other miniature companies) for years, due in large part to having a bigger canvas to work with.
GW's big kits can aim to match that or surpass it, but they still have to take construction, sprue layout, and so forth into account. Also, as GW models are supposed to be painted as opposed to the already painted McFarlane stuff, there needs to be certain areas on the model to have some freedom with painting. Typically you're going to see some smooth areas or otherwise exposed areas where the painter can further personalize it that way.
Short version: if GW can make multipart kits in 28mm scale that look as good as a McFarlane figure, they're doing pretty well in model detailing.
i hope you never play tyranids and go to forge world....
GW kit should surpass that because it is in sprue and it is a "model" kit. When you put a bunch of little things together ... the detail level should be much higher than a cast mold like Spawn stuff. If Spawn can do it better, then GW might as well... just use the same technique and just sell it as chunk of detail stuff and unpainted and we just glue it and painted it. For get the sprue system.
Again, I keep saying that I like GW stuff.. but I think they can do more.
IF you know that McFarlane have been kicking GW ass because they have "larger canvas" to painted with..well. . . GW have the same canvas size now...because I'm talking about large monsters; yet, GW details are still less than McFarlane stuff.
So what is the problem here? This is why I'm saying GW is missing some Xfactor here. I'm not bashing GW here... I'm wondering why people are settling and being content for less?
McFarlane toys sizes are about the same as GW Monsters now, yet has more details and come painted and usually cost less.
As of now, I feel GW large model kit is like Heman or Starwars action toys in detail level. GW should be as good if not better than McFarlane toys and not Heman.
So I'm asking GW to put more effort on their larger model and make me a happier buyer.
Last edited by slaanghoul; 16-04-2012 at 20:18.
On the first page someone mentioned that the isle of blood sea guard are "smaller than the old spearmen". This is just false! All of the isle of blood models are much taller and thicker than their older counterparts. I don't agree about the cartoonyness, but certainly, aside from the new skeletons, goblins, and skaven, others must have noticed the scale getting "more heroic" for many of the new releases, the newer state troops sport heads almost 50% larger than their older perry counterparts. The monsters bother me the most though, the isle of blood gryphon got it just right, about twice the size of a tiger, not twice the size of a dragon or my neighbors flat...
"Revenge is a dish best served by Uma Thurman"
On the subject of detail, I'd like to bring up their general buying populace.
I for one appreciate a good level of detail, but am put off some manufacturers stuff, because I find it a little too bust for my meagre painting skills. I hate to say it, but I'm a very lazy half arsed perfectionist. If I don't think I can do the model my own peculiar brand of justice, I'm not likely to paint it. Case in point? Thundertusk/Stonehorn. With the basic kits and rider, that's just about the right level for me. I can apply my simplistic techniques, and get a good result. But start adding on the dooberies and whatsits, and I'm put off a bit!
Rackham are another good example. I greatly appreciate their sculpts, and they have produced some glorious models. BUT....they're what I consider artist models. They either have a staggering level of detail I would simply obliterate with my heavy handed strokes, or beautifully smooth areas for freehanding that I'd be hopeless with.
And that's just me! There are plainer ranges, there are more detailed ranges. GW I find 'just right' (no Goldilocks jokes thank you!) for my tastes. I think they have struck a fairly practical balance, especially with the stuff they're producing now!
About MacFarlane's dragons, plenty of people have used those in Warhammer for years now anyway... and often, they do so because of either cost or, wait for it... because they're bigger. Go wonder.
Since the BFSP set, my goblins are back to the sensible pre "5th ed plastic" scale, too, so not everything gets bigger.
Last edited by Urgat; 17-04-2012 at 06:35.
My printable cardboard terrain blog , and the store (latest product: Orc Idol)
Painting log, last pictures: March, 7th, 2013 -> Goblin BSB
Urgat's Armory v0.3 [Blood in the Badlands Siege options]
Indeed, it's the ones currently in use by the Tomb Kings that I am referring to.
those are horrible and it's the only reason I don't want to start that army