I wonder, do they have their monitor set differently than many of the viewers? Or something like that.
Crusader Kings II :DLC Render Pictures Archive
- Thread starter LarsHahus
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I wonder, do they have their monitor set differently than many of the viewers? Or something like that.
Do people actually realise how flawed that kind logic is? Using the modern phenotype as a reference for how the same peoples should have looked like back then is, well, anachronistic.
As well as Slavic portraits, I would also like to see Finno-Ugric portraits. While they made sense in the past, now that we have Norse portraits, it makes no sense that the Finno-Ugrics look like Germanics.
EDIT: Also, if such portraits are added, the Ugric peoples (e.g. Samoyed, Komi) should look different than Baltic Finns (e.g. Finnish, Estonian).
EDIT: Also, if such portraits are added, the Ugric peoples (e.g. Samoyed, Komi) should look different than Baltic Finns (e.g. Finnish, Estonian).
Luckily, I was joking and you are apparently taking life to seriously.
That wouldn't affect the screenshot. The only thing I can think of is that the renders are using the original source files, which are of a much higher resolution, and that something must have gone wonky with the color settings when they saved the lower resolution files for distribution to us.
.png){kind=avatar}
It's not just that, however. You can notice the beta faces look a little different and fuller.
I agree too.
I have all DLCs EXCEPT the Mediterranean Facepack because I was disappointed with its colors and low definition. If the above is fixed, I will definitely buy it.
Great dlc, thanks, was waiting for Persian face pack, now the Middle East is a better place to play 
So, have we heard any confirmation that they are planning to fix the (Mediterranean, etc.) portrait packs to match the pictures shown here, or was this just done to taunt us?
Hey guys and gals!
Thanks for your valuable input!
Some of the images youre seeing in the OP might be slightly different from what you see in game.
This might have to do with last minute changes, Source content render settings or coloring done in game.
I'll discuss this with the team and see how they feel, but I can't guarantee any major changes being done at this point.
We always aim to please our fellow gamers and this is a great way to get a feel for how you recieve what we put out.
Thanks for your valuable input!
Some of the images youre seeing in the OP might be slightly different from what you see in game.
This might have to do with last minute changes, Source content render settings or coloring done in game.
I'll discuss this with the team and see how they feel, but I can't guarantee any major changes being done at this point.
We always aim to please our fellow gamers and this is a great way to get a feel for how you recieve what we put out.
Huh. I'm glad to hear it's being discussed, but I feel like, with the Mediterranean pictures looking like they do in the game, displaying them looking like this is running dangerously close to false advertising. I bought them (for the purposes of mod compatibility) knowing what I was paying for, but if I had been expecting to buy what is shown here on page 1, and had instead gotten what is found in the game, I would have been very annoyed at Paradox.
Seeing that a lot of people have quoted my summary:
I should perhaps correct that the "patriarch" councillor be tied to religion, but the others to culture.Me said:
I'm glad to know you noticed the problem. I really hope Mediterrean portraits and the Turkish portraits can be fixed so they look like their pre-release renders.
Ehh, the Byzantine patriarch model (currently only for Orthodox rulers)
is a thousand times more accurate for Apostolic Armenians than the Western European "monk" model.
vs.
