Not ~exactly~ new

New members, post here to introduce yourself!
User avatar
Larkspurlane
Posts: 584
Joined: 08 Sep 2008 02:21 am

Re: Not ~exactly~ new

Post by Larkspurlane » 07 Jun 2010 01:02 pm

soupfaerie wrote:I kind of had mixed feelings at the conversion. On one hand it was nice to give some pets a much-needed refreshing. On the other hand it was difficult to change some of them around to fit within the new format. Believe me, I fought hard to keep the integrity of as many of them as much as I could. We ended up working a lot with the programmer in charge to get as much as we could to work/fit. But some things just couldn't be helped. I think overall it was for the better, because I think it was an important step for the site as a whole to keep up with the other rising websites that let you customize your cat/face/toilet/etc. But yeah it was sad to see some of the old art go.
Thanks so much for answering that question. :D I do understand why they wanted to keep up with the times and let people customize their cat/face/toilet, but was there a reason why they decided to not give the users an option about customizing? Some pets got the "convert?" option but so many didn't. I'm curious about why that decision was made. Maybe they felt that if they didn't convert a good percentage of pets, people would just stick with the old art over the ability to put a dress on their moehog or something?

Also curious about why some royalgirl/boy pairs were messed up - the royalgirl acara was autoconverted, the royalboy was not, for example. Now you can't have an unconverted pair. Were those intentional decisions? They feel like oversights because they just don't make sense...
Image
Thank you for the av and sig set!
Larkspurlane @ neo

User avatar
Madge
Posts: 1539
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 05:05 am
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Not ~exactly~ new

Post by Madge » 07 Jun 2010 03:20 pm

While we're complaining, what I don't get is why the customisation pose wasn't just an extra pose rather than a replacement. Of course, it makes sense from a workforce POV - you don't have to have the artists drawing clothes for all the species AND 8 poses for each pet, but it's still annoying. (I do so remember posting to this effect when the customization poses were released, and consequently eating my words)

But seriously, I think we've bitched and moaned as much about this as we can over the past few years; I don't want poor soupfaerie being scared of getting interrogated whenever she posts, haha :P

soupfaerie
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 10:16 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Not ~exactly~ new

Post by soupfaerie » 11 Jun 2010 07:22 pm

Those things you mentioned I'm pretty sure are yeah, as you said, efficiency issues. Making the new colors and clothes already takes a good deal of work, so having to do it for even one more pose multiplied by how many pets just really starts to add up. It may also be more complicated on the programming side, and I think overall it just looks cleaner for all of the pets to be the same version. Don't quote me on any of this, but these would be my guesses.

As to the example of the royal acaras, that does not sound like it was deliberate. There were a lot of bugs like that with the conversion. (hello naked baby pets)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest