Model, or portrait?

[Kikki]

Hey guys...I hope I'm posting this topic in the most appropriate section but I'm not sure, since it doesn't apply to a specific bokumono game.

With news that there will be a bokumono game on Switch, I've been thinking a lot about art styles. In home console games, the character model is sometimes the only thing to look at, such as in AP...there were no portraits accompanying speech bubbles. Of course, in the handhelds, the models are so tiny that portraits became kind of necessary.

Even in games where the model and portrait look almost the same, there are almost always differences between the two. What I'm wondering is...to you, which is the 'real' appearance of the character? The model, or the portrait?

In the case of Ludeus (Ludus?) of Trio, the model and the portrait are reeeeally different. The model Ludeus is delightfully deep brown and his hair brilliant blue, whereas in his portrait, he's pale milky tan and his hair is, to my eye, more purple than blue.

So which do you think of as his 'real' appearance? While I prefer his model coloring, the portraits are where you can see details...its how they look 'close up', in my mind. So to me, I think of the portrait as what they really look like (which is disappointing in Ludeus' case. Why can't the portrait have the same colours as his model does?)

Is my way of seeing it the standard, or am I the odd one out on this? Which do you think of as a character's 'real' appearance?

[Soapylion]

Hmm I think I would generally see the portrait as a better reflection of what they look like than the model. Especially since in the 3DS games, the models aren't gonna be of the highest quality, so the portraits probably demonstrate more precision and like...thought through details. Also, I kind of assume that when they're designing characters, they start off with concept art and proposed portraits, then try to get their in-game models to look as much like them as possible.

But yeah, you're right - I looked up Ludus' portrait and model and wow they look so different?? It sucks so much that his skin colour is so much paler in the portrait. :/ Not cool. Looks like they did the same with Siluka/Iluka. So in that instance, yeah, I kind of want to believe the models are a more accurate portrayal of how they actually look...

(Btw this is totally the right forum section for topics like this! <3)

[Kikki]

I don't know WHY some models look so different from their portraits, but I find it irksome when it happens...especially when the model has some interesting features that didn't translate to the portrait.

I miss Sanjay. Sanjay was my favourite HM character ever. (Though I know a lot of others think he's boring, boo hoo.) They managed to make HIS model look like his portrait. Why is Ludeus so different? (The twins, too, of course...though I can't remember what their models look like, right now.)

Anyway, I also think that the portrait is supposed to be what they 'really' look like, since it's a close-up shot of their face and that's the only place you can see things like their jewellery/hair accessories/etc. But the colours being so off is distracting.

Thanks, Soapylion. Btw, nice name, reminded me of something familiar, but couldn't think of what for a while. Now I remember. It's the name of the company who made a lot of the stickers I had in childhood (okay, and adulthood, too)...Sandylion.

[PeachyKeen]

i'd say the portrait because it's actually meant to give you a closer and more detailed look of the character you're speaking too.

[white66]

I understand why people would like models, they give the character a wider range of expression, but personally I would prefer a portrait that would include some kind of change of position, mostly because the art is better.

[Nightlight]

I consider the portraits to be what the characters actually look like. The portrait art is what I think of when I'm imagining the characters, and if there is any difference between the model and the portrait I usually think of it as a mistake on the model's part.

[Guest]

Nothing beats portraits. Even if the models are expressive, portraits are just a part of the charm of the series. There's just something inquisitively Harvest Moon about portraits. It feels odd playing games without them. Portraits were introduced in 64, iirc, due to hardware limitations but I still feel they're needed. They're just cute and nice.

[Nurse Fin]

Neither, the character artwork is what I generally go by.

[Guest]

Oh, and on the model-portrait errors... I don't get that too. Aren't they designed by the same people? Maybe the model is made first then the portrait, but the model uses older aspects that they don't change in time for release?

[Soapylion]

Thanks, Soapylion. Btw, nice name, reminded me of something familiar, but couldn't think of what for a while. Now I remember. It's the name of the company who made a lot of the stickers I had in childhood (okay, and adulthood, too)...Sandylion.

Aww thank you!! <3 Omg I've never heard of Sandylion stickers, but !! I'm a fan of stickers so I'm totally on board with this.

Neither, the character artwork is what I generally go by.

You know I hadn't actually thought about this, but yeahhh? Like. In ToT and AP, I know it wouldn't make sense for there to be portraits because the character models are pretty detailed etc. But in cases like that, I kind of imagine them to *really* look like the artwork that's in the manual that comes with the game.
Aw, I wonder if we'll still get those little information booklets in the next game for the Switch? Since they're generally becoming less common. They work so well for games like HM/SoS though.

[Guest]

Quoting the first post: "In the case of Ludeus (Ludus?) of Trio, the model and the portrait are reeeeally different. The model Ludeus is delightfully deep brown and his hair brilliant blue, whereas in his portrait, he's pale milky tan and his hair is, to my eye, more purple than blue."

That feels like a really common issue in games. Some think it's whitewashing but I think it's just a colouring error. Take Pokemon. Shauna and Iris are both a lot lighter in their in-game appearances than in their official art. Iris especially. Iris' design in the anime is also A LOT lighter than in the games. They probably based it on the sprite,not the artwork.

Of course, I consider Iris' true skin colour in the games to be the darker official art version rather than the light brown sprite/anime one. Official art always contains president over the game design. Take Faris from Final Fantasy. Her game sprite looks like a vaguely androgynous, purple haired pirate. Her official art however has her as blonde and a lot more dapper. All cameos use that design because her official art is her true design, not her sprite (despite what 99% fanartists seem to believe).

I think tvtropes has a trope for this occurence. It appears often in games.

[Guest]

Adding to my above though, I forgot that Ludeus got it backwards. His official art is LIGHTER? Weird. It's usually the artwork that is darker than the model. I prefer his model design over the official art but I can't tell which is canon.

[Kikki]

To try to be clear on the Ludus issue (I can never decide if I should spell his name as I am used to...Ludeus...or as they seem to intend to localize it: Ludus.) here is a small shot of him, first his portrait, then his model (so tiny!) and then his official art:



The official art and the portrait are very close except he's darker in the official art, right? But that model is waaaaaay out of step with either. I'd have liked to have seen his portrait done with the model colouring, I think.

[Guest]

Maybe the in-game version is due to color brightness? Like how Gray was blond, instead of a redhead, in FOMT and MFOMT to make him clearer on the GBA.

[Shan O 123]

The portrait.