PDA

View Full Version : Pacific box-art



Keir
5th Sep 2008, 14:26
Hi!

Long time no speak. I am still alive (just).

We have a question for you. We're currently in the early stages of creating the Pacific box art and we'd dearly like some feedback to the two concepts below.

I haven't put this in the main forum because we really value your opinion and these concepts are still in their early stages - so they're not really ready for public consumption yet - and for that reason please do not distribute these anywhere else. Your cooperation is really appreciated.

Now, on to the fun stuff- what are your thoughts on these:


For reference:

http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/Stuffs/Pacific concept pack/Picture1.jpg


And the new ones:

1.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/Stuffs/Pacific concept pack/Picture2.png


2.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/Stuffs/Pacific concept pack/Picture4.png



Thoughts?

It3llig3nc3
7th Sep 2008, 16:12
Wow. I just accidentally checked this forum and here is a job to us :)

KEIR - you might want to advertise this in PMs to the "board" members so they know and come here to comment...

About the question:

Honestly I do not like either of them. Especially in comparison with the original BS:M boxart they look to me much less serious. I do understand that the concept arts are not as nicely rendered so here is what makes me say:

Option1 - what bothers me the most are the two faces in the middle. I'm not sure it's a good idea to personalize the box in this way. Perhaps if you would use real historic faces, but still...

Option2 - in this one the bothering thing is the right side - airplane and the painting. I really liked these girls in the teasers and on the poster but to put something like this up to the boxart... not for me.

Another comment is that both new concepts lacks the feeling of "action". They are more like "static fleet mass".
On the positive side: they do suggest that there will be a LOT of UNITs in this game... :D I don't know about it since the available materials does not talk a lot about how many units will be available on the maps...

I also really liked the idea of changing the entire "tone" of BS:P like it happened on the forum... (backgrounds and style) Perhaps it would be a good idea to carry it forward to the boxart...? If you retain the "LOGO" and title style it will make the connection back to the original...

Also the new version comes with promises about more land units and action related to fight not only on the seas but on the shore as well. Perhaps the cover could reflect on this by bringing in some "green" field... Like take a big BB show it next to the shore bombarding some artillery units while planes covering boats approaching the land...?

I don't know... I'm not too good with this but BS:P should be a bigger hit than BS:M and the boxart should reflect this...

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
7th Sep 2008, 19:53
not 1 of them!
both dont show any new units of the new game, both look completely harmless!
not enough action and news on both covers!
AKAGI

chip5541
8th Sep 2008, 05:23
Stoopid work computers. Didn't show any new posts. :mad2:

Box Art

1. The guys at the top I am a little iffy on. If you went with it I would consider something other than the 2 Admirals (??). You are also reducing the action. While the original had a open look and very lively this new one feels stagnant. One last thing is that it reminds me of the Pacific Storm box art but then again there ran the gambit with different covers for differnt areas.
http://www.pacificstorm.net/images/First/PSboxCDV.jpg

2. I do like this one. I like the fact it shows the island and gives a better impression of the game. I would however like to see the cover to somehow be a little more action-y. (Personal preference) Another thing that is missing is a PS3 logo ;)



Combined: both do not show all the modes. While the original showed all 3 modes with the new art the submarines are missing.

chip5541
8th Sep 2008, 05:42
Wow. I just accidentally checked this forum and here is a job to us :)

KEIR - you might want to advertise this in PMs to the "board" members so they know and come here to comment...


I just sent out a PM to everyone that posted something in the focus group. It is ashame though that many have only posted a few times and now are gone. Homefully they will respond to teh PM.

Keir
8th Sep 2008, 07:43
Yeah, sorry to spring it on you out of the blue.

I'm speaking to the brand manager, and hopefully we'll be able to put this out on the main forums later (perhaps when the concepts are a little more refined) but we shall see.

Anyway, thanks for the responses here, some really great and considered feedback, much appreciated :thumbsup:

I'll keep you posted on what decisions are made and hopefully we'll get first view of the final packshot as and when.


I just sent out a PM to everyone that posted something in the focus group. It is ashame though that many have only posted a few times and now are gone. Homefully they will respond to teh PM.

Cheers Chip http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/s/salute.gif

chip5541
8th Sep 2008, 13:10
Would there be any problem with any of the Focus Group posting there own idea?

It3llig3nc3
8th Sep 2008, 18:41
I think we can post our own ideas up till the point when the EIDOS creative team gets intimidated about our creativity :D :D :D

chip5541
9th Sep 2008, 03:31
or in my case gives them something to laugh at :D

Shamrock
10th Sep 2008, 15:16
Well I do kind of like number 1 (if you get past the early hand drawn look) Assuming it will be drawn sharply and cleaned up.


One thing that I think needs to be conveyed on the box (right in the front) is the fact that this game is a RTS. Part of the problem with BSM is there is a huge amount of people that have no idea that this game's main focus is Real Time Strategy.


Unfortunately a lot of people who didn't play the BSM demo (and a lot who did) never were taught to or attempted to open the map and order units around. There is quite a big RTS fanbase out there for games like Company of Hero's, Command and Conquer, AOE series, etc... It's hard to tap into that potential market if you can't get them to try or read about the game because they think it's only about flying a plane around.

Perfect example is I posted about Pacific on IGN forums and you would be amazed on many people replied that they had no idea this was a RTS game and thought it was a game like Blazing Angles. You do not want people to misunderstand this game is such a major way.


I think it nees a quote somewhere on the box like "Bringing Naval War Strategy to a whole new level". Something like that.

It3llig3nc3
11th Sep 2008, 19:57
Shamrock touched on a point that spans beyond the boxart.

The biggest uncertainty with BS:M was it's classification as a game. Is it action/shooter or RTS? There have been plenty of effort put into discussing this on this forum - with no clear conclusion.

However I do believe that the RTS portion of the game should be highlighted much much more. I can only guess, but the problem with this at EDIOS is marketing: This game is originated from the XBOX 360 platform. PC is only a port and it carries all the pros and cons of that. On XBOX360 (or on any other console) real RTS virtually unknown... This genre is a PC "only" thing - mostly because of the complexities on consoles to manage an RTS game (without mouse or keyboard). This might change just like FPS games are making their ways to consoles but with the obvious weakness in control... ...but it will take years...

I would also assume that the revenue for EDIOS comes more from the XBOX line than from the PC line...

So how can you position a game where a big chunk of the target audience most probably do not even care what RTS is? This is evident with newbies coming into the game and just rushing with units and getting killed in 1 minute...

PC players like BSM since it's a "sort of" RTS, where nobody can complain about the stupid AI messing up the critical situation in the battle: you can take control. Regardless we do enjoy the BLEND. The major comments from BS:M PC players were around the issue of unit and map control - elements of the RTS portion. On XBOX360 it is much less of an issue given the "limited" abilities of the gamepads...

So would it be successful to position this game as an RTS? Would it really talk to XBOX360 owners? Would they really decide to buy this product if they knew it's RTS? I'm not quite sure...

For this game there is probably a need for a different market positioning for PC and XBOX360. What we do not know, if in BS:P the RTS "gene" is getting stronger in any meaningful way? I can not judge that now.

However I believe these are important elements to decide in order to deliver the right message to the buyers - either through boxart or other means...

Good luck EIDOS - because until we know more about this game it is only you who can decide on this...

----------------

PS: I'm so sad to see that out of the 20-30 board members only 3 of us are here to comment... where are the other great minds :D

chip5541
12th Sep 2008, 12:01
True to a certain extent however the box art is generally used to get the persons attention and give a hint as to the game type. The back is where most of the information is to be placed.

I showed my wife the boxes for her opinion since she does sales and marketing. On box 2 she said pretty much what everyone else has said. The characters are the biggest negative. Have you considered replacing the characters with flags? Maybe half/half or on crisscrossing poles.

The second one she liked better except for the nose art.. or as she called it the titty girl :whistle:

Shamrock
13th Sep 2008, 02:28
Personally I'd think it help a lot of the developers just released a gameplay video concentrating on mostly map orders (ie giving orders on map, switching to units carring out orders, switching back to map, changing orders,. You know the tactial stuff like having fighters escort bombers, intercepting fighters, bomb runs, setting up a formation, having BB's attack something, etc...


All the video's I see focus mainly on controlling the units which is fine and cool, but BSM developers need to get the fact out that this is a RTS game also, so people don't think this a Blazing Angles arcady plane flying game.

The RTS fanbase on 360 is big to. Games like Lord of the rings sold well over a million copies. Looks like Tom Clancy's Endwar is going to sell 1-2 million copies based of positive reactions from early gameplay video's. I'm telling you the fanbase is their for strategy lovers and the problem with this game is people who haven't played it are not understanding what this game is about.

Unfortunately I can't find the post I made on IGN because it was a while back, but you would be truly amazed how many people responded about how they didn't know this game had RTS elements and thought you just fly planes around or control ships. They need to stress the whole strategy/ordering units around part to and dedicate video's to solely that portion of the game instead of only 10 minute video's of plane fights and ship battles without opening the map in the video even once..

chip5541
18th Sep 2008, 09:29
I think you may be confusing something. Box art is limited. It is supposed to grab the shoppers attention. Most box cover art will give you an idea of teh theme but not the content. That is what the back of teh box is for and adverts both online and in magazines.

Take a look at Lord of teh Rings for example.

http://www.gamershell.com/static/boxart/large/11727.jpg

Really, what helped it was name recognition. Notice how prominent the name is in the box art. That is what grabbed the average shoppers attention. battlestations does not have that type of recognition so the art needs to grab there attention. Something that stands out.

How about #2 only in 3D? I don't know how much more it would add to teh cost but it really would grab your attention.

Cpt.sharp
18th Sep 2008, 17:18
I did type out a lot longer ver but then my pc crashed so this is what i remember :p more later.


What i would like to see is the box art show that both sides are now playable somthing that is not bias towards Yanks attacking japs.

I think this is what number 1 is trying to show but to me it seems a bit... well i cant place that picture with what i have seen ingame (playing midway) (by that i dont mean that the sketch is putting me off its the corny feel of it. i might even feel ashamed to pick it and and buy it ("is this for your son sir?)

I do like the look of number 2 but i feel it is showing the wrong message (as above).

What i think would be nice is some how show both sides in good standing maybe some sort of tactical planning???

maybe a map of the Pacific with fleets either side being pushed across the table??

Ill sleep on it.

Dremora Warlord
18th Sep 2008, 18:09
Hmm, neither image really is giving me a feeling of awe... They both kinda seem to non-action-packed. Perhaps if the Admirals (??) in the first image were like staring each other down, it would feel more intense.

Just curious, any reason why neither has a submarine? When I first started to play the demo, almost everybody wanted to be a submarine. I think that's something that should be on the cover.

If I had to chose one, I'd probably chose number two. It has a good deal of stuff going on in the image that could catch some body's attention.

Sith Darthfoxx
21st Sep 2008, 14:28
I like the 2nd one of the two choices. But as in the original box an underwater shot showing Subs should be included to show there's 3 levels of Combat (Underwater/Surface/Air).

"Titty Girls" are Fine by Me :D You'd see it out of the corner of your eye to grab your attention then notice all the ships and planes in combat and go cool. Plus "Titty Girl's" were a staple on US Bombers during WWII so it's not like it's just there to grab your attention...

Personally, I think somewhere on the Bomber's Nose there should be a "Sith Darthfoxx"...;)

Dremora Warlord
22nd Sep 2008, 03:47
Personally, I think somewhere on the Bomber's Nose there should be a "Sith Darthfoxx"...;)

That sounds like something Snork would say! :eek: Have you been playing Bad Company with him recently? :p

Nah, but I totally agree about the submarine issue.

chip5541
22nd Sep 2008, 05:32
How about one of those holographic plates that change depending on teh angle? You could have 3 different scene's on one plate.

or

you could do the box art like what is done with some magazines or like World of Warcraft. Have differnt box art cover. (WoW = Human, Orc, etc. so B:P = air, surface, submerged)

Dremora Warlord
22nd Sep 2008, 12:01
How about one of those holographic plates that change depending on teh angle? You could have 3 different scene's on one plate.

or

you could do the box art like what is done with some magazines or like World of Warcraft. Have differnt box art cover. (WoW = Human, Orc, etc. so B:P = air, surface, submerged)

hmmm, i herd you liek holohrapics. :p I like that idea! But still, that would most likely be for a limited edition.

chip5541
16th Oct 2008, 09:48
I had a thread up for a LE version (wish list)

Dremora Warlord
16th Oct 2008, 21:51
I had a thread up for a LE version (wish list)

Yes, I saw that. I would like a lot of the things listed. However, I do not believe that we will get most of it. :(

CrisGer
1st Nov 2008, 01:58
no. 2 is good, much better than 1.

the units are well done and displayed and the skewed angle is a good eye catcher. hype the color a bit tho

good work

chip5541
12th Nov 2008, 14:30
The selection I guess has been made since they are showing up at the facebook page.

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v369/192/90/34435761938/n34435761938_1108853_9181.jpg

I was just noticing that there is a submarine in teh picture.

mycoldman
12th Nov 2008, 18:45
The selection I guess has been made since they are showing up at the facebook page.

Well spotted Chip, ye are indeed correct. That be the boxarrrrt!

chip5541
19th Nov 2008, 06:15
Thanks.

BTW. I really like the design.

Dremora Warlord
20th Nov 2008, 08:36
Thanks.

BTW. I really like the design.

I agree, it is pretty nice. :)