Page 1 of 2

WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 8th, 2020, 5:39 am
by Gizmo
Why is it that the Krome remastered artwork seems oddly [in fact prudishly] censored of harmless details? There is more work in omitting these than it should be worth, and the removal itself attracts attention to it because of the difference; oddly begs questioning of why do it?Image
(It damages the credibility & atmosphere of the subject; the original image.)

Case in point: The Wasteland Prostitute; strangely making it more kid friendly?—is that monster renamed BTW?
Image

Recall that this also happened with the addition of 'modesty moss' to the BT:Remastered UI:
Image
Busted a gut when I saw this the first time.

Was this a stipulation from InXile, or was it personal preference; uncomfortable with it? Was it marketing advice?
It became a curiosity when I saw this done more than once. It seems intentional.

*With BT:R, I wasn't sure if it was Krome's art, or Jennell Jaquays'... but Wasteland Remastered is a totally different project—isn't it?

**Also, there are no bracelets, and no [garish] makeup on her either; was this a deliberate choice? Strange omissions for an artist to make. I cannot imagine it being accidental.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 8th, 2020, 1:16 pm
by Drool
Gizmo wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 5:39 am
Case in point: The Wasteland Prostitute; strangely making it more kid friendly?—is that monster renamed BTW?
What? The nipples? That were only present on one version of the game in the first place (and weren't present in the uprezzed graphics in "The Original Classic")?
*With BT:R, I wasn't sure if it was Krome's art, or Jennell Jaquays'... but Wasteland Remastered is a totally different project—isn't it?
Why are you thinking Jennell had anything to do with BTT? And I'm pretty sure the moss was decorative, not to hide a 2 pixel bump that could possibly be considered a penis if you squint really hard.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 8th, 2020, 2:15 pm
by Gizmo
Drool wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 1:16 pm
...only present on one version of the game in the first place (and weren't present in the uprezzed graphics in "The Original Classic")?
Then I suppose that I have only ever seen the DOS version of it—anywhere, and for any screenshot of it. Different teams (coders & artists) were common back then; making platform specific versions of the code & art. You had to have played those platforms to know about it—or have seen screenshots of them, that are rare as hen's teeth.
*With BT:R, I wasn't sure if it was Krome's art, or Jennell Jaquays'... but Wasteland Remastered is a totally different project—isn't it?
Why are you thinking Jennell had anything to do with BTT?
Well gee, because of this:
Image
*As you should well know.

My first impression was that I wasn't sure (from memory) if it was not the same art—or artist who illustrated it.
(I am not privy to the Krome beta details)

Seen side by side (now—today) one can see, not just that they are different works, but that one seems to be a copy of the other. Mistaking the two is pretty easy without direct comparison.
And I'm pretty sure the moss was decorative, not to hide a 2 pixel bump that could possibly be considered a penis if you squint really hard.
I truly doubt that. The point here (in topic) was that it was done more than once, and at least twice in the same image; that seemed too peculiar a coincidence, if it was one.

Since you might know it for a fact, did the Apple (or C64, or other non-DOS WL) version of the portrait lack the make-up and bracelet as well? That could indeed suggest that the new image was not based on the DOS artwork, but even so, surely they had to of seen the DOS art during development...and made a conscious choice of it.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 8th, 2020, 4:17 pm
by Drool
Gizmo wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 2:15 pm
You had to have played those platforms to know about it—or have seen screenshots of them, that are rare as hen's teeth.
Of the prostitute, sure, but I wouldn't call C64 screenshots "rare as hen's teeth". But, I believe my party on my C64 version is actually about ready to head to Vegas anyway, so I'll see if I can't grab a picture for you.
Well gee, because of this
A picture of a version that isn't Krome's? I submit that your standard for proof is... curious.
(I am not privy to the Krome beta details)
Well... I don't think I'm sharing any major secrets here when I say that Krome is not Olde Skool and that the people who work for Olde Skool do not work for Krome.

I'm really not sure why you think she had anything to do with Krome's version outside of whatever work she did back in the day that may have been the basis for new assets. I'm pretty sure Krome didn't subsubcontract Heinmann's wife to create new art (that looks nothing like the art actually in the game) for the game.
I truly doubt that. The point here (in topic) was that it was done more than once, and at least twice in the same image; that seemed too peculiar a coincidence, if it was one.
There's moss all over the border. You're jumping at shadows and look foolish. Making sure the prostitute doesn't have her headlights on is one thing, but you're talking about two pixels on a gargoyle that's barely visible without zooming in. And the bloody moss covers almost the entire gargoyle except for the face and part of one leg.
Since you might know it for a fact, did the Apple (or C64, or other non-DOS WL) version of the portrait lack the make-up and bracelet as well?
I have no idea. I can't say I ever noticed, or cared, if she had bracelets.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 8th, 2020, 4:48 pm
by Gizmo
Drool wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Well gee, because of this
A picture of a version that isn't Krome's? I submit that your standard for proof is... curious.
It's not a standard of proof, it is —as the post stated— an unsure first impression; "I wasn't sure if it was Krome's art, or Jennell Jaquays'".
(I am not privy to the Krome beta details)
Well... I don't think I'm sharing any major secrets here when I say that Krome is not Olde Skool and that the people who work for Olde Skool do not work for Krome.

I'm really not sure why you think she had anything to do with Krome's version outside of whatever work she did back in the day that may have been the basis for new assets.
Krome began the project just before I left the beta-test team (by declining the NDA). I could not know of any arrangements made, nor if InXile had (or had acquired) the rights to any part of the Olde Sküül assets up to that point.
There's moss all over the border. You're jumping at shadows and look foolish.
There is too much moss; the BT:R frame looks like a derived copy of the earlier frame—that had far less. It's not jumping (at anything), and not foolish, it's a question; one to which you cannot give a definitive answer. ;)
...And the bloody moss covers almost the entire gargoyle except for the face and part of one leg.
This in itself adds to the plausibility of it. :twisted:

*The apt expression is, "strategically placed". (twice) :mrgreen:

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 8th, 2020, 8:16 pm
by Drool
Gizmo wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 4:48 pm
an unsure first impression; "I wasn't sure if it was Krome's art, or Jennell Jaquays'".
Which makes no sense.
Krome began the project just before I left the beta-test team (by declining the NDA). I could not know of any arrangements made, nor if InXile had (or had acquired) the rights to any part of the Olde Sküül assets up to that point.
Logic would dictate that the new studio would not be using assets created by the old studio. Any similarities are because they were using the same source material.
The apt expression is, "strategically placed". (twice)
Covering 80% of the body is not "strategic".

Strategic:
Image

Not Strategic:
Image

***

As for the prostitute, here's a screen grab from a few minutes ago from the C64 version:
Image

That might be a nipple on her right breast, but it could just be folds in the clothes. It's too low rez to tell (anecdotally, when I first played the DOS version, I was surprised as I had never thought the C64 showed anything). She maybe has bracelets, but two black lines isn't especially clear; regardless, whatever it is, it's certainly not "colorful". Finally, she doesn't appear to be wearing makeup. The Krome image looks like an amalgam of the two images.

Either way, Krome's version is much nicer than inXile's:

Image


But, even if Microsoft or inXile dictated neo-puritanism mandated that she turn off her headlights, I doubt they mandated the removal of bracelets. Further, I don't know how the removal of bracelets makes something more "kid friendly". And considering you can presumably still cut a bloody swath through the game, I don't think you can really call it "kid friendly" in any meaningful definition of the word. I'd say a better metric would be if you can slaughter the children of Highpool or not.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 8th, 2020, 9:14 pm
by Gizmo
Drool wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 8:16 pm
Gizmo wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 4:48 pm
an unsure first impression; "I wasn't sure if it was Krome's art, or Jennell Jaquays'".
Which makes no sense.
Of course it makes sense, I saw the new frame, and it looked just like the old one (from memory); it was enough to spur a doubt.
Krome began the project just before I left the beta-test team (by declining the NDA). I could not know of any arrangements made, nor if InXile had (or had acquired) the rights to any part of the Olde Sküül assets up to that point.
Logic would dictate that the new studio would not be using assets created by the old studio. Any similarities are because they were using the same source material.
Logic would dictate not reinventing the wheel if you had one. Possibly they didn't, but I didn't know. Are you still missing the point that it was obviously not the same art (or artist) once I'd compared them side by side?—and that this was before the post. What about the "At first I didn't know..." don't you get?
The apt expression is, "strategically placed". (twice)
Strategic:
...

Not Strategic:
...
Covering 80% of the body is not "strategic".
It is if it's intentional. Both blanket and fig leaf can be used by someone trying to cover up, and it's equally deliberate with either—but less obvious with the blanket. ;)
As for the prostitute, here's a screen grab from a few minutes ago from the C64 version:


That might be a nipple on her right breast, but it could just be folds in the clothes. It's too low rez to tell
No it is not, that is exactly what it is.

She maybe has bracelets, but two black lines isn't especially clear; regardless, whatever it is, it's certainly not "colorful".

Finally, she doesn't appear to be wearing makeup.
I have seen this one somewhere before. The skirt and her face are different; she has the bracelet.

The lack of color is a shared palette issue.
Limited palette pixel art is an entire art in itself. You just don't always have the colors you need (on the screen at the same time); you have to make due with what can display.
Image

When paired with severely low resolution, it is often amazing to be able to get a likeness with any element of character to it.
Krome's version is much nicer than inXile's:
We finally agree on something (this year).
Further, I don't know how the removal of bracelets makes something more "kid friendly".
Not surprising; you just invent this stuff on the fly. I never said (or implied) that bracelets meant anything. I mentioned them because they were missing.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 9th, 2020, 1:28 pm
by Drool
Gizmo wrote:
February 8th, 2020, 9:14 pm
Logic would dictate not reinventing the wheel if you had one.
Perhaps if copyright wasn't a thing.
What about the "At first I didn't know..." don't you get?
The thought process behind thinking Krome stole assets from another studio.
It is if it's intentional. Both blanket and fig leaf can be used by someone trying to cover up, and it's equally deliberate with either—but less obvious with the blanket.
Almost full coverage is not strategic. Words have meanings.
Limited palette pixel art is an entire art in itself. You just don't always have the colors you need (on the screen at the same time); you have to make due with what can display.
They had colors. They didn't use them on this picture.
Further, I don't know how the removal of bracelets makes something more "kid friendly".
Not surprising; you just invent this stuff on the fly. I never said (or implied) that bracelets meant anything. I mentioned them because they were missing.
I read the words you write and respond to them. You mention the bracelets and makeup in a post about "expurgation". It's not my fault you're unable to type what you mean.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 9th, 2020, 11:42 pm
by Gizmo
Drool wrote:
February 9th, 2020, 1:28 pm
  • Perhaps if copyright wasn't a thing.
  • The thought process behind thinking Krome stole assets from another studio.
  • Almost full coverage is not strategic. Words have meanings.
  • They had colors. They didn't use them on this picture.
  • I read the words you write and respond to them.
  • You mention the bracelets and makeup in a post about "expurgation". It's not my fault you're unable to type what you mean.
There is a mentality whereby the individual's perception of things is grossly colored by their expectations. You read everything through an identity filter, so it doesn't matter what I write, as you will interpret it in a light that suits your opinion of me personally; "Oh, it's this guy". :lol:

But for the sheer masochism of it, I will point out for the above bulleted points:
  • 'copyright' doesn't apply (of course), as "If they had it" assumes either legal rights to it, or abject stupidity for using it without the rights (which should not even be considered). If they didn't have it, they didn't have it.
  • Stole it... :lol: (seriously, see the above)
    This is example of said mentality.
  • Almost full coverage is not strategic. Words have meanings
    You gloss over the —sadly futile— (blanket & fig leaf) clarification ; oblivious of it. I am a commercial illustrator, and that moss treatment is EXACTLY how I'd handle it, if asked to cover them up; it would be strategically ensuring coverage, without looking blatantly obvious.
  • Colors: Who is to say?—not you, not unless you've read the source code, and know the platform particulars (including memory constraints); not me... because I haven't seen it in-game, don't know the C64 architecture, and haven't seen the source code.
  • You certainly do. ;) (see the above).
  • I type what I mean just fine; should be clear to all... But with you and the like, a paragraph attributed to three different authors could result in three different opinioned responses. :mrgreen:

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 10th, 2020, 2:44 pm
by Drool
Gizmo wrote:
February 9th, 2020, 11:42 pm
You read everything through an identity filter, so it doesn't matter what I write, as you will interpret it in a light that suits your opinion of me personally; "Oh, it's this guy".
You and Mole both sure seem to like psychoanalyzing me online. I believe your next step will be to imply I don't read.
'copyright' doesn't apply (of course), as "If they had it" assumes either legal rights to it, or abject stupidity for using it without the rights (which should not even be considered). If they didn't have it, they didn't have it.
A creative work doesn...

Oh. I think I see what you're saying here, on the tenth re-read and after going through the entire thread again. You saw art you weren't familiar with, and instead of assuming that Krome created assets for the game they were creating, you assumed that inXile bought that particular asset from Olde Skool, presumably right after giving them their pink slip.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

Yes, it's certainly possible that it was Olde Slool/Jennell's art, but that's an odd starting point to go with and I really don't understand why "Krome used someone else's assets" was your starting point.
that moss treatment is EXACTLY how I'd handle it, if asked to cover them up; it would be strategically ensuring coverage, without looking blatantly obvious.
And if you were told, "throw some moss on there, it looks a little bland," how would you do it? Would you specifically avoid putting any on the gargoyles to make sure that nobody anywhere thought you were trying to hide them? Or would you just put it on the arch and include the gargoyles because it's a reasonable place for moss to grow?

Are you familiar with Argument from Incredulity?
Who is to say?—not you, not unless you've read the source code, and know the platform particulars (including memory constraints); not me... because I haven't seen it in-game, don't know the C64 architecture, and haven't seen the source code.
So we assume your stance that... what? Also, I'm not sure how seeing it "in game" would make a difference. There's no color changes during the five or so frames of animation. My assertion that they could use more colors is based on... the game using more colors. They have greens and yellows and reds in the game, in other cameos. If it was an "at the same time" limitation (which the C64 had ways to get around), it seems that the tan of her skirt would have been a better choice than black.

Regardless, I'm not sure why it matters. Honestly feels like a pointless line to continue down as the only way to know would be to ask the original artist. Who probably doesn't remember. Or care. And really, we're just kind of arguing to argue at this point.
I type what I mean just fine; should be clear to all...
It's very rarely clear, considering your excessive use of ellipses, oddly placed em-dashes, excessive BBCode, emoticons, and frequent footnotes. To say nothing of deciding to run bullet points. It's not pure word salad, but it's certainly not clear. It reads more like a script full of asides to the audience than a post attempting to succinctly convey information and opinions.
But with you and the like, a paragraph attributed to three different authors could result in three different opinioned responses.
Like this? What is this? What are you trying to say? What does anything we've been talking about have to do with "a paragraph attributed to three different authors"? And any paragraph by a single person could result in three different opinionated responses. This feels like an attempt to be deep or philosophical without actually saying anything.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 10th, 2020, 11:59 pm
by Gizmo
Drool wrote:
February 10th, 2020, 2:44 pm
You and Mole both sure seem to like psychoanalyzing me online. I believe your next step will be to imply I don't read.
I'd say that of a forum moderator? At the risk of a compliment, I have seen your videos, and you seem rather astute —and have a voice like the Postal Dude. As with noblesse_oblige, I rarely disagree with your posts, unless they are responses to me. :|
And this comes of your unfailing proclivity for casting a negative bias upon any statement that I make, rather than assuming that I have a point that you may have misunderstood. Not many people will spend significant time editing a response post if it's utter nonsense even to them. But you will read into my posts (in almost —but not quite— every thread) ludicrous stuff that I'd never consider suggesting... and then accuse me of it. Go read back your posts for an eleventh time to check this out. ;)
Oh. I think I see what you're saying here, on the tenth re-read and after going through the entire thread again. You saw art you weren't familiar with, and instead of assuming that Krome created assets for the game they were creating, you assumed that inXile bought that particular asset from Olde Skool...
I really don't understand why "Krome used someone else's assets" was your starting point.
I am glad that you get it; I explained this epiphany a few posts back. What you haven't caught yet, is that the first posts mention it all in past tense. By the time I had posted this topic, I had already determined that the art was not Old Sküül's asset.
And if you were told, "throw some moss on there, it looks a little bland," how would you do it? Would you specifically avoid putting any on the gargoyles to make sure that nobody anywhere thought you were trying to hide them? Or would you just put it on the arch and include the gargoyles because it's a reasonable place for moss to grow?
If you look, the Old Sküül version has moss on it, and also it has nothing to cover up.

In Krome's case (whether intentional or not) it looks intentional; I suspect that it is. This is why I posted the topic.
So we assume your stance that... what? Also, I'm not sure how seeing it "in game" would make a difference. There's no color changes during the five or so frames of animation. My assertion that they could use more colors is based on... the game using more colors.
So it's animated too? Some of these old games would animate by XORing changes to the current frame to generate the next frame. When you say, "greens and yellows and reds in the game", were they onscreen elsewhere at the same time? For all we —can speculate, they might have a limit to the number of colors per image, or the (data) size of the animated picture. What I notice (of the few C64 screenshots I have found) is that screens with monster portraits appear to use only five colors; three plus the black & white of the user interface; red, blue, and grey, in the ones shown here, and the prostitute.
Image

*Now the C64 hardware sprite are described as having at most three colors, so perhaps that's the reason. If the portraits are hardware sprites, then this would mean that you could not add a fourth color for a tan shirt or skirt.
It's very rarely clear, considering your excessive use of ellipses, oddly placed em-dashes, excessive BBCode, emoticons, and frequent footnotes. To say nothing of deciding to run bullet points. It's not pure word salad, but it's certainly not clear. It reads more like a script full of asides to the audience than a post attempting to succinctly convey information and opinions.
Guilty as charged. :lol:
But I don't see that it affects readability, or makes it difficult to understand.

*Technically I use ellipsis for omissions and to indicate a stronger pause than a comma.
What does anything we've been talking about have to do with "a paragraph attributed to three different authors"?
As before, I mentioned the answer in a previous post. In this case it posits that you seem to associate the author with the meaning; the exact wording could be identical from each, but the interpretation of meaning changes when you think the author is a dumb-ass.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 11th, 2020, 2:24 pm
by Drool
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to grammartalk.
Gizmo wrote:
February 10th, 2020, 11:59 pm
Not many people will spend significant time editing a response post if it's utter nonsense even to them. But you will read into my posts (in almost —but not quite— every thread) ludicrous stuff that I'd never consider suggesting... and then accuse me of it. Go read back your posts for an eleventh time to check this out.
I have a fair amount of free time when I check this forum, and I'm willing to spend it bashing my head against a wall. I also have a proclivity for arguing, which probably factors in heavily. But, let's use this thread as a test case.

The thread title uses a specific, charged, word in "expurgated". This word has pretty strong connotations of purification and purging. While the dictionary doesn't mention it, it has almost religious or puritanical implications. So we're starting with very strong wording, stronger than even a charged word like "censored" would have.

You then went into your primary thesis and, at the end, two(!) footnotes; one on Jennell and one about bracelets and "[garish] makeup". While the Jennell footnote is indeed in past tense, you add in a present tense question, making it look like you're implying that Jennell was possible responsible for the art. But my primary point here is on your second footnote.

Footnotes are usually used for random inconsequential asides or to further expand on an earlier point. Since this footnote started with "Also" and because it was about something (the Prostitute's art) you mentioned in the main body, it read as an expansion, not an aside. Read in this manner, it looks like you're claiming that the removal of bracelets and makeup were part of the expurgation. Which, as explained above, is a rather charged word.

Now, this entire thought process isn't necessarily conscious, but that's what's going on in the background. Quite a bit wordier than the actual process, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. It's not a matter of "Gizmo wrote something so let me read it in the worst way possible".
But I don't see that it affects readability, or makes it difficult to understand.
All that superfluous stuff makes comprehension difficult by the very nature of it existing. Instead of just reading, you have to break everything down and re-read to figure out what's trying to be said. All of it obfuscates your meaning in a flood of excessive grammatical detritus. For instance: "For all we —can speculate, they might have a limit to the number of colors per image, or the (data) size of the animated picture." What on Earth is that em-dash doing in there? Em-dashes are used to set aside subordinate clauses, and since there's no closure, that means the primary clause is "For all we," which is very clearly not a primary clause. And, just to be extra pedantic, there's no reason to make "data" a parenthetical.

As for footnotes, one would expect them to be excessive rare in forum posts, or for random unimportant asides. And not in nearly every post...
*Technically I use ellipsis for omissions and to indicate a stronger pause than a comma.
...and certainly not to contain actual explanations that should be in the main body.
In this case it posits that you seem to associate the author with the meaning; the exact wording could be identical from each, but the interpretation of meaning changes when you think the author is a dumb-ass.
Considering I subscribe to The Author is Dead, I disagree with this point. I never hesitate to point out where I agree with someone, even someone I vociferously disagree with. My interpretation isn't entirely dependent on the author. At most, it leads to a less charitable interpretation. Which, of course, would cease to be an issue if the writing was clear; then there would be minimal room for interpretation.

* * *
So it's animated too?
Every cameo was animated, much like my avatar (which is from the DOS version). For most cameos, the C64 looks like a more primitive version of the DOS version.
When you say, "greens and yellows and reds in the game", were they onscreen elsewhere at the same time?
Well, there's this. We have red and gray for the brick; red and brown for the floor; purple and gray for the bed; orangish for the table; blue, cyan, black, and white for the door; green, brown, and white for the Ranger; purple, yellow, and white for the clerk. So, red, gray, brown, purple, orangish, blue, cyan, white, yellow, green simultaneously. While I'm certainly not a master of Commodore Assembly, I've watched numerous videos by the 8-Bit Guy, and there were a lot of tricks to get around hardware limitations. And considering some of the bonkers stuff Interplay did to make Wasteland work, I wouldn't be surprised at them doing some chicanery for the graphics.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 11th, 2020, 6:02 pm
by Gizmo
This is the best reply that you have ever given to me. I am genuinely grateful for it. 8-)
Drool wrote:
February 11th, 2020, 2:24 pm
The thread title uses a specific, charged, word in "expurgated". This word has pretty strong connotations of purification and purging. While the dictionary doesn't mention it, it has almost religious or puritanical implications.
But the topic suggests they are covering up naughty bits, so it does fit, doesn't it? :mrgreen:
You then went into your primary thesis and, at the end, two(!) footnotes; one on Jennell and one about bracelets and "[garish] makeup".
... Since this footnote started with "Also" and because it was about something (the Prostitute's art) you mentioned in the main body, it read as an expansion, not an aside. Read in this manner, it looks like you're claiming that the removal of bracelets and makeup were part of the expurgation. Which, as explained above, is a rather charged word.
The make-up comment was actually meant as just an aside, because I had just then noticed it. But I can see your point.
Now, this entire thought process isn't necessarily conscious, but that's what's going on in the background. Quite a bit wordier than the actual process, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. It's not a matter of "Gizmo wrote something so let me read it in the worst way possible".
I do, but this is how it often appeared to me. I would write something, and seemingly get a response out of left field with an assumption wholly unexpected, and difficult to fathom how that came from reading my post.
All that superfluous stuff makes comprehension difficult by the very nature of it existing. Instead of just reading, you have to break everything down and re-read to figure out what's trying to be said. All of it obfuscates your meaning in a flood of excessive grammatical detritus.
But I don't see that it adversely affects readability, or makes it difficult to understand.

I just ran my OP through a readability test, and the result was 8th grade reading difficulty; only Gunning Fog flagged it difficult. I'm sure none of these tests know what BT:R meant.
Image
  • Flesch Reading Ease score: 63 (text scale)
    Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: standard / average.
  • Gunning Fog: 10.5 (text scale)
    Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.
  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 7.7
    Grade level: Eighth Grade.
  • The Coleman-Liau Index: 10
    Grade level: Tenth Grade
  • The SMOG Index: 8.5
    Grade level: Ninth Grade
  • Automated Readability Index: 7
    Grade level: 11-13 yrs. old (Sixth and Seventh graders)
  • Linsear Write Formula : 7.5
    Grade level: Eighth Grade.
As for footnotes, one would expect them to be excessive rare in forum posts, or for random unimportant asides. And not in nearly every post...
:D I can't argue that one. I developed that habit on Bethsoft; I needed it there too.
My interpretation isn't entirely dependent on the author. At most, it leads to a less charitable interpretation. Which, of course, would cease to be an issue if the writing was clear; then there would be minimal room for interpretation.
Your word on it is good enough for me; I apologize.
When you say, "greens and yellows and reds in the game", were they onscreen elsewhere at the same time?
Well, there's this. We have red and gray for the brick; red and brown for the floor; purple and gray for the bed; orangish for the table; blue, cyan, black, and white for the door; green, brown, and white for the Ranger; purple, yellow, and white for the clerk. So, red, gray, brown, purple, orangish, blue, cyan, white, yellow, green simultaneously. While I'm certainly not a master of Commodore Assembly, I've watched numerous videos by the 8-Bit Guy, and there were a lot of tricks to get around hardware limitations. And considering some of the bonkers stuff Interplay did to make Wasteland work, I wouldn't be surprised at them doing some chicanery for the graphics.
This image does use twelve colors, but it is not a screen with an animated monster. Have you seen any of those that use more than three colors for the character portrait? I am not stating that they can only have three, but what I have read says that C64 hardware sprites are limited to three, and the portraits might be hardware sprites.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm
by Woolfe
Gizmo wrote:
February 11th, 2020, 6:02 pm
Now, this entire thought process isn't necessarily conscious, but that's what's going on in the background. Quite a bit wordier than the actual process, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. It's not a matter of "Gizmo wrote something so let me read it in the worst way possible".
I do, but this is how it often appeared to me. I would write something, and seemingly get a response out of left field with an assumption wholly unexpected, and difficult to fathom how that came from reading my post.
All that superfluous stuff makes comprehension difficult by the very nature of it existing. Instead of just reading, you have to break everything down and re-read to figure out what's trying to be said. All of it obfuscates your meaning in a flood of excessive grammatical detritus.
But I don't see that it adversely affects readability, or makes it difficult to understand.
Just to butt in and add my 2c, I absolutely get what Drool is saying. And I often come to similar assumptions that he does from your writing. Even at times when I ultimately agree with you, I find your actual language to be... Unnecesarily complex... Which in and of itself is not a great issue, but when you are trying to get a complex point accross, it makes trying to find the actual meat of the discussion ... harder to discern ...

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 12th, 2020, 10:14 pm
by Gizmo
Woolfe wrote:
February 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm
I absolutely get what Drool is saying.
So do I, but it's like an accent that I can't shake; I will have to work on it.
*But I suspect that changing it will make posting less fun. :mrgreen:
(This does not mean that my posts are intentionally cryptic; they are as clear plate glass, to me.)
And I often come to similar assumptions that he does from your writing.
This is more disconcerting, because it does suggest that the cause lay within the post. :(
(But I am not yet convinced that it isn't a commonality of interpretation, rather than the text itself.)

If you'll both permit me a grand (stretched) aside: I wonder if it's not akin to people being taught different methods for basic math, or handwriting, or telling the time. Perhaps certain conceptual aspects are taken for granted, assumed and not explicitly included; like an analog clock with a blank face, and only the hour & minute hand to represent the time.

*This was not meant to be cryptic, but I have to concede (looking back on it) that it certainly reads like it was.
___________

I am slightly disappointed that our Krome developer hasn't weighed in on the topic, but he hasn't been here since August of last year. He could certainly give the definitive answer, and the end of discussion.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 13th, 2020, 1:40 am
by Woolfe
Oh and as to the premise of whether nipples and dicks were removed on purpose... Ehh... Could be on purpose... Might just be an interpretation.

Would I prefer a bit of nipple in their... probably... is it a show stopper.. nope... Basically we have been conditioned so much that the lack of nipple isn't particularly noteworthy except for the fact it was there previously...

Maybe if we ask nicely they'll provide a "Nipple included" version for the forum... :-P

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 13th, 2020, 6:39 am
by Gizmo
Woolfe wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 1:40 am
...except for the fact it was there previously...
That's the only issue for me. This was a sprucing up of the original, or was expected to be; not a re-imagining.

That rarely turns out well.
Image

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 13th, 2020, 12:06 pm
by Drool
Gizmo wrote:
February 11th, 2020, 6:02 pm
The make-up comment was actually meant as just an aside, because I had just then noticed it. But I can see your point.
Also, completely as an aside, remember that this is based on a second or two of highly compressed video footage with overlay effects.
I just ran my OP through a readability test, and the result was 8th grade reading difficulty; only Gunning Fog flagged it difficult.
Online "difficulty" checkers really have little in common with reality. They check things like vocabulary and sentence length. For instance, the opening of Ulysses ("Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him on the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:") was graded at 8.1 by Flesch. An excerpt from the Illuminatus! Trilogy scored 8.2. I wouldn't consider either of those books an easy read (Illuminatus!, for instance, will frequently change tense from sentence to sentence). Meanwhile, the Major-General's Song (you know, "I am the very model of the modern major-general...") from the Pirates of Penzance clocks in at a whopping 22.9.

When your yardstick rates Ulysses as 8th grade material and a Gilbert and Sullivan song as doctorate level, you probably shouldn't give it too much weight.

Further, like I said, those tests check very basic things: primarily word length and sentence length. The readability of your posts has nothing to do with your vocabulary (I'm far more likely to use... ahem... sesquipedalian... words) or for long sentences. It's the grammar and structure of your posts, which these tests ignore. Imagine a text where no word has more than a single syllable and no sentence is longer than 10 or 15 words. But, every eight words or so, there's a superscript number that leads to a footnote. And each footnote is half a dozen sentences long. And each footnote has a superscript directing you to an endnote. And each of those endnotes is another half dozen sentences long. But each word is a single syllable and each sentence is only a dozen or so words long. An automated system would rate it as very easy to read, but no human would. An extreme example, yes, but I hope it illustrates my point.

For another example, just browse any forum. You'll find someone who doesn't use paragraph breaks, so they just drop a massive wall of text in their post. The simple act of added paragraph breaks (without changing a single word) makes the post massively more readable. Consider it... typographical readability as opposed to contextual readability.
I'm sure none of these tests know what BT:R meant.
They would view it as an acronym and likely ignore it.
This image does use twelve colors, but it is not a screen with an animated monster. Have you seen any of those that use more than three colors for the character portrait?
Well...

Image

So Scorpy here is using 4 colors, but also does the newsprint cheat to get extra colors: by using specially spaced dots of red on a white background, they've made pink.

Likewise:
Image

This monk looking guy has made gray with black and white. As well as light blue (blue+white) and dark blue (blue+black).

So we're sort of both right (I didn't have time to check every enemy, but...). There does appear to be a limited palette, but they were more than willing and able to be very creative with tricking the eye into seeing more colors.

***
That's the only issue for me. This was a sprucing up of the original, or was expected to be; not a re-imagining.
If the removal of poking nipples completely ruins the game for you, I submit that the problem is on your end and note Krome's.

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 13th, 2020, 2:13 pm
by Gizmo
Drool wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 12:06 pm
Also, completely as an aside, remember that this is based on a second or two of highly compressed video footage with overlay effects.
I was about to say that I mentioned this above, but when I actually tried to confirm that, I could not find it anywhere. I most certainly know it; that prostitute image in the OP was taken from the Krome video, and put next to the original sprite for comparison.

I must have mentioned this in a previous version of the post, and lost it to edits.
Online "difficulty" checkers really have little in common with reality. They check things like vocabulary and sentence length. For instance, the opening of Ulysses ("Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him on the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:") was graded at 8.1 by Flesch.
Yeah, but the paragraph only has three words that I'd consider no longer quotidian; dressinggown doesn't count, as anyone can figure it out by its components.
(you know, "I am the very model of the modern major-general...").
I do know it, and that puts me a step ahead of many others (trying to read it).
When your yardstick rates Ulysses as 8th grade material and a Gilbert and Sullivan song as doctorate level, you probably shouldn't give it too much weight.
The song has a hefty word list; all of it strung together in verse, which makes for odd speech structure. I can certainly see why the song rates much higher.
So Scorpy here is using 4 colors, but also does the newsprint cheat to get extra colors: by using specially spaced dots of red on a white background, they've made pink.
This monk looking guy has made gray with black and white. As well as light blue (blue+white) and dark blue (blue+black).
Dithering works; it's still just the limited pixel colors.
That's the only issue for me. This was a sprucing up of the original, or was expected to be; not a re-imagining.
If the removal of poking nipples completely ruins the game for you, I submit that the problem is on your end and note Krome's.
I don't see it that way. The objection is the assumed mentality behind it. Which is not so different IMO, from censoring old Warner Brothers cartoons. I don't mean the war adverts, or the blatant racism in some of them. I mean this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhy45-pjQuA

Re: WL:Remastered art seems to be expurgated

Posted: February 14th, 2020, 3:12 pm
by Drool
Gizmo wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 2:13 pm
The song has a hefty word list; all of it strung together in verse, which makes for odd speech structure. I can certainly see why the song rates much higher.
Yes. Which is why you using it as a defense for your readability is deeply suspect. Unless you honestly think that one of the most widely known showtunes in the world can only be understood by people with doctorates. Further, verse is generally used for rote memorization because retention and comprehension is easier. That's why pre-literate societies used verse to memorize their epics, history, and tales.

Again, just because the robot doesn't see too many letters next to each other, and not too many words between full stops doesn't mean it's easily understandable. I could probably string together absolute gibberish and get an "easy" score.
I don't see it that way. The objection is the assumed mentality behind it.
You mean the mentality you are assuming they have? I kind of object to your presumptions too, but I'm glad to see you finally admitting it.

I mean, you were willing to give companies carte blanche to lock you out of your own property in the name of warranties, but I guess editing out nipples is a bridge too far...