• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

[Feedback] The Oculus - Like or Dislike the model?

Do you like the model for the Oculus beast?

  • I like it. No changes needed.

    Votes: 36 37.9%
  • It's ok, but could be improved.

    Votes: 41 43.2%
  • I don't like it. Needs to be changed badly.

    Votes: 18 18.9%

  • Total voters
    95

Baelrog

Spirit
WFTO Backer
Jan 14, 2013
36
12
135
33
#1
In this thread I would like to discuss the model for the Oculus. I do really like the idea behind the creature. In an evil god game, an Evil Eye is way more fitting as a scout than something like a Fly or Rogue. However, I was a bit disappointed when I first saw the model:



To me it looks like a beholder (from the D&D franchise) with an extra eyeball stuffed into its mouth, just plane silly. In my opinion, Beholders should stay in D&D anyway and this resembles one way too much. It should be a bit more original/creative than that. Maybe some inspiration can be drawn from the DK1 Scavenger Room, or along these lines?:



So, what do you guys think about the model and the suggestions?
 
Jan 10, 2012
6
1
0
42
Atlanta
#2
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I disagree. The beholder, the evil eyes from sony online's everquest, it is a race of beings that was imagined up by the D&D group, maybe even before D&D but I didn't exactly research it. The race itself is the same as trolls and orcs and goblins.. everyone has their own take on how they should look within a certain amount from originals, but they are community accepted "monster" races. I actually like the small model in the test dungeon and think it fits right in just fine, especially for the proposed "job" of the race. They aren't exactly high on the usage rate, but if they plan on having random adventurers or thieves trying to delve in from the overworld I think these little guys might have a really important role and will require alot of mobility and vision. Voted keep them as they are because of that. I think they looked as I would have liked them to.
 

Baelrog

Spirit
WFTO Backer
Jan 14, 2013
36
12
135
33
#3
Hmmm, you may have a point about them being accepted as a more general monster race by now. I though they really were a D&D thing, so it felt a bit ripped to me. But I still think the model looks strange, with the two eyes. I think it would be a lot better if they put the bottom eye (that one looks cooler IMO) in place of the top one and just kept it at one eye.
 

kyton786

Ghoul
WFTO Backer
Dec 8, 2012
123
15
85
Washington,usa
#4
i voted its ok. if they dont change it ill be fine. but if they do im not going to cry either. it does look a little bland in my opinion but i think it doesnt look like a beholder and i like that.

(edit)beholders have a hug maw one big center eye and plenty of eye tentacles. but they were very large as in fat. this little occulus is skinny and doesnt have a mouth. they why it looks different to me. my suggestion is just take the second eye away
 

Evi

Witch Doctor
WFTO Backer
Nov 14, 2011
665
372
445
27
#5
Off topic: Ooh... HM&M Evil Eyes, what have they done to you? Why are you purple?!
Okay, I'll leave now. :3
 

Azrael

Bloodling
WFTO Backer
Jan 5, 2013
66
38
75
#6
I don't like the mouth-eye much, but other than that, i don't mind it. I think you're trying a bit to hard to be "original".
 

Baelrog

Spirit
WFTO Backer
Jan 14, 2013
36
12
135
33
#8
Interesting. I showed this game to some old friends of mine, who I used to play DK with. When we were discussing the creatures we all disliked this model. This motivated me to make this threat. But apparently the opinions over here (so far) are quite different.
 

LucidNonsense

Priestess
WFTO Founder
Dec 11, 2012
31
13
200
36
Texas, y'all
#10
Looks a bit goofy to me. One eye would be better for the model they've presented. I'd prefer to see something really new, though. If you're deadset on using an eyeball, make it unique. Maybe three eyeballs attached to a fleshy hub with visible optic nerves? Can't beat a 360 view. Maybe a flaming eyeball a la the Eye of Sauron? A shadowy cloud with eyeballs that come out and go back in? I'd offer graphical examples, but GIMP doesn't seem to work with Windows 8 (just like everything else >_<).

There are a lot of other things that could be considered for a scout as well. Perhaps a slime that can blend into the floor, for example. You can still keep your eyeballs with that one. Maybe a mole-like creature that burrows (further) underground and pops up at the indicated location. Or go the opposite direction and go with a screaming flying skull thing that sacrifices stealth for speed. (Why is it screaming? God only knows, but we wish it would shut up already.)

TL;DR: I like the oculus concept, but it needs a bit of work. More gross, less goofy.
 

Aelius

Bafu
WFTO Backer
Jan 18, 2013
170
87
255
34
A Dungeon in Belgium
#11
Sorry to say that I really don't like the look of it. It looks too goofy to me :eek:
I do like that purple blue one tho. One large eyeball is enough.

On that note, I really hope that the creatures don't get a cartoony or goofy look. I like more realistic and serious looking models but goofy and silly humor to go with it like dk2. Which made it work for me.
 

Sacred

Templar
WFTO Founder
Dec 17, 2012
162
61
225
33
Durham, UK
#12
I just hope the devs don't get too bogged down remaking and modelling everything to try and appease the community.Instead I would like to see them spending the time (and my hard earned cash) getting the game further into development in terms of the bare bones and the machanics that allow the game to function, right now I couldn't care if we had huge green squares floating round as long as heavy development is going towards making the mechanics work right.

Least we forget were going to get a map editor, assuming its akin to that shipped with say WCIII we will be able to create our own units from scratch or edit existing ones to what we would like.
 
Likes: Moreum

Kelphy

Warden
WFTO Backer
Jan 13, 2013
74
17
160
Australia
#14
I didn't like the look of it at all to be perfectly honest. I would much prefer a fly because they were like little children. They'd buzz into the enemy base and you'd be like "NO!!! NONE OF THAT! NO SUICIDE!" I'm more a fan of the fly, the eye thing is just weird...
 
#15
I think the blue / purple one in the OP would be the perfect replacement for the current Beholder look-alike. Seriously, what would be the point of having an extra eye in your mouth when you already have dozens of eyes floating around your head? That's why I like the blue / purple things in the OP so much: they actually make a lot more sense. The central eye could then be replaced with a 'core' or something: a place where all the information from the seperate eyes is gathered, thus allowing the creature to have a 360 degree field of view.
 
Jan 13, 2012
7
2
5
31
#16
Unlurking to note again that The Beholder is considered Product Identity by Wizards of the Coast and they fiercely defend it - even Blizzard took note and redesigned their early beta "Observer" into something less similar that resembles a cacodaemon more than a beholder. This one looks a lot like a Beholder regardless of the extra eye and different name that I worry it might cause problems.

I know this was already discussed here: https://subterraneangames.com/threads/was-that-a-beholder.1495/ and it's true that WotC might not have a very strong case because copyright law is a mess, but WotC has a lot of lawyers and a legal department with nothing better to do. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. It might be best to take precautions?
 

toffeejay

Crackpot
WFTO Founder
Dec 25, 2011
224
206
345
34
#17
I believe that the Beholder is one of a few D&D creatures who they consider as brand identity. Whether that just means name and design and a similar design would be open I'm not to sure but to be honest I don't see the point of not including DK creatures to just put in D&D ones.

He looks fine to me but could do with a slight reduction in size. The below eye looks better than the top so if one was to be dropped I'd get rid of the top one and it would still be unique to the Beholder as it's main eyes is held in place towards the bottom.
 
Jan 13, 2012
7
2
5
31
#18
Well it's easy to consider the Beholder a stock fantasy creature rather than a D&D creature, and I've always felt the whole point of Dungeon Keeper is to kind of poke fun at stock monsters by exaggeration, so I feel a Beholder would fit. It just comes with baggage, including identity baggage. I think many tabletop or RPG gamers will take one look at this thing and go "oh hey, beholder, powerful spellcaster archetype" and make the wrong assumption, then die horribly. Of course, I think that's funny.
 

sorudo

Warden
WFTO Backer
Jan 3, 2013
289
91
175
building my dungeon
#19
i personally think it should a bit of a mix between the kraken and the oculus, this is the kraken:

this is the classic D&D ocules:


now what if we use the whole body of the kraken, remove the normal kraken eyes and add eyes on is suckers and a big one on his head.
it simply makes the creature even more creepy then it already is, perfect match.
 
Top Bottom