Are photos now accurate respresentations of figures?

[AlphaStrike]

I ask this as the photos of the second wave models - i.e. the MEA technicals, the PLA APC, the Fedayeen and a few others - still look very good.

Do these represent what the models we will buy will look like - or will there be a drop in quality as seen with the original models? :?:

 

[AlphaStrike]

I guess the fact that these pictures have just been pulled answers my question...

 

[DaWarbossMI]

I actually got a chance to see many of the minis for Battlefield Evolution in person last night. They are excellent! I had pre-ordered the Challenger about a month ago and cannot say for a second that I'm regretting the $25.00 purchase. The infantry models are high quality as well. I mean, they're not competition grade painting, but I certainly don't think anyone expected them to be such. These are good solid pre-painted minis that surpass the quality I've seen in many other pre-painted systems. That my 2.5 cents (or pence for you British chaps)!

DaWarboss

 

[nezeray]

How do they compare to the "new pictures" ?

James

 

[DaWarbossMI]

I'd say they're dead on! The only area of possible concern is the eyes of the minis; they all look a tad bit suprised! This is minimal though and and be corrected (for those of us obsessive compulsive personalities) with 30 seconds of work and a little black and white paint!

Personally, I'd say I'm pleased.

Jay

 

[Paladin]

Are you familiar with HeroClix, D&D Minis or Mage Knight?

On a 1 to 100 scale how would you rank each of those prepaints and what would you give the BF:Evo minis.

 

[erion]

Comparing BF:EVO to Clix or D&D/Star Wars is not the issue, as far as I'm concerned.

Mongoose promised exceedingly high quality on these paintjobs. I'd like to see some pictures that aren't provided by the company of miniatures from the field, but I understand those are probably at least a few weeks away.

 

[DaWarbossMI]

Hey Paladin!

I am familiar with those systems/ minis. I don't play them since collectible games REALLY burn me (that's one of the draws for BE)!

Here's my views on the minis out there (for whatever that's worth [not much really])...

Mage Knight: 50-60/100
Hero Clicks: 70/100 (pretty simple paint schemes though)
D&D Minis: 60-70/100 (they've got some variable quality if you ask me)
Star Wars Minis: 65-75/100
Axis & Allies Minis: 75/100 (but this is a smaller scale)
Rackham's new AT-??: don't know, haven't seen em (but their systems are overblown and tend to be complex)
Battelfield Evolution: 75-85/100 (the MEA aren't as good, but still better than most available).

Hope it helps,

Jay

 

[Col_stone]

That sounds good at least
I'm reeaally hoping the chinese look much better IRL
i can buy any of the sets since i don't mind painting, but my opponent in all things new don't like at all and he says he wants chinese :wink:

 

[Poko]

with all respect, what does

Rackham's new AT-??: don't know, haven't seen em (but their systems are overblown and tend to be complex)

have to do with the quality of the minis? frankly, judging from the pics alone, the Rack's ones are at least two notches better.
the usual answer to that is "but the pics don't do them justice".i'v found it true in MG's case quite often, but then, if you know that the pics don't do them justice, then HIRE A GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER!.it should help if that's realy the case :roll:

 

[Court Jester]

Right...

I'm gonna try and play complete Devils Advocate here in terms of quality between BF:EVO and its direct competitor AT:43. This is just an infantry comparison from images I could find.

That is how the two compare... Although admittedly using one of the poorer BF:EVO paint jobs in this set.

So if we try and look at one of the figures that is better painted...

Here we see a better BF:EVO paintjob and a poorer AT:43 model.

The styles both are using are similar at least. Base colours folowed by inks/washes. The Rackham figures are certainly neatly painted. But there is not much detail painted onto the figure. The percieved detail comes from the wash over the sculpted details. This is most obvious on the faces. The Rackham colour have also been very carefully selected to make the pre-paint process much easier.

The BF:EVO figures are trying for too much detail in the painting which is sadly lost when mass production starts.

Looking at them like this I would say that when at the better end of their respective quality spectrums, the main thing that seperates these production figures is the quality of the sculpt and basing, not completely the quality of the painting.

[EDIT] Fixed Typos...

[SECOND EDIT]Looking at the images a bit longer the other thing that struck me was that the AT:43 models are not highlighted. Only shaded, where as the BF:EVO figures have been drybrushed and given vague highlights in areas.

[THIRD EDIT] It also looks like the AT:43 figures are painted in parts and assembled afterwards. Althopugh that is pure speculation on my part as I have not seen any of these figures in the flesh. The way all the figures are holding their rifles is what makes me think this... clutched to the chest or held out in front of the body.

[FINAL EDIT] ... :roll: ... I would also like to stress that I am using images I can find for these comparison shots. There may well be better production models out there for each game system.

 

[Poko]

they have ,as you said, neater paintjob, which, to me, counts very high.i can live with simple paintjob,as long as it's neat.

 

[Rob_A]

And theyre expensive for what they are.
Some interest sprung up at my local club between some of the less adept painters. They then looked at the price tag and the initial releases. Tital ripoff.
I agree with this too, I am going to be repainting them, and Matt even said they would cost no more painted than if they were unpainted.

Sorry guys, Im trying to support you and stuff, but its very difficult. I have told everyone the next releases will be better and the quality should be improved in on these intial releases.