Scenery in Army Books and Signs & Portents

[timplanet]

Something I've noticed that really doesn't do Mongoose any favours (because I like pretty much every other aspect of the Starship Troopers) is this:

The scenery shown in photographs illustrating the miniatures is often below par. A quick comparison to scenery in White Dwarf magazine shows that in recent years they've really gone out of their way to make their scenery superior. For example: GW sprinkle sand or flock round the bases of their scenery pieces to make them blend into the board and the boards themselves aren’t flat colour.

A quick look in the issue 47 of Signs and Portents – the article about the Forth… One picture shows a pretty good hill on a very bland board with a clear division between the two and another shows a very bland pale desert. Neither look “real” and it’s a shame.

I only mention this because one of my little pleasures in collecting miniatures is in gazing at the photos in the books and in the magazines and thinking what to buy next, maybe getting a bit of suspension of disbelief going and imagining the bugs (or whatever) really scuttling along into battle.

I’ve got to say, I’m unable to get the scenery I make for myself up to that standard either. I do a pretty good job but I think the blandness of my battle mat and that pesky line where the scenery piece ends and the table begins let me down.

 

[JoseDominguez]

I've always felt that mongoose was by gamers for gamers, they've got a more 'lived in' look if you know what I mean
It's a refreshing change, makes the models more acceptable as 'playing pieces' I don't have to spend hours on.
But I know what you mean, some of the photos do give the GW fanboys lots of ammo.
(like the one with the flamberge missile in the MI book... with the flames added :shock: ).
Then again, look at Rackham..... I get a model, I look at it in cry havoc, I put the model away as I know I'll just dirty it

 

[Xorrandor]

I'd just as soon they stick to their core business, myself. Yes, better pictures might be nice, but not at the expense of time spent playtesting. GW does have just a few more people to throw at this, after all .

Perhaps they could outsource their terrain setups to GF9? That seems like a win/win, especially if the terrain costs come out of the advertising or periodicals budgets. If nothing else it reduces the problem to economics, rather than time management...

 

[darklord4]

I have to say I like seeing terrain that 90% of us probably use.

However, I would have used the grass/hill background for all the Forth pictures in the article. The green grass gives a better contrast to the red/white of those models.

 

[Galatea]

I always liked to Mongoose Terrain.
I have seen better, yes, but I like it because it looks like the terrain we usually play upon.

And don't forget YOU can do something here. If you have excellent terrain and nice minis just make pics of them and send them to the S&P team.
We will do so when we finished our Mars and Ice/Lava tables and terrain.