What are we looking for?

[Burzmali]

Apologies if this has already been covered but ...

I\'m confused - This website is called \"cool mini or not?\" and yet all the voting seems to be centred around \"well painted mini or not\". Surely we, the voters should be looking for a mini that is \'cool\' - has that something that makes some minis better than others. Instead of just rewarding someone who can shade and highlight well - not that you shouldn\'t reward good painters, just don\'t treat the paint job as the be-all and end-all.

The scales posted else where in the forums (1=very poor, 2-3=not very good etc...) don\'t seem to take into account the \'coolness\' of a mini; not the amount of character it has.

The reason I post now is that I have just seen a few models that were really well converted and demonstrated a lot of flair and imagination, as well as skill; but recieved very low scores because they were not painted to GD standard. Is this right?

Commander Abdel-Quissy Burzmali

 

[Errex]

Yes.

\'Nuff said.

 

[kahoolin]

i completely agree with you about the fact most of the points scoring goes on the basis of the quality of the paint job, but you still have the choice to give higher scores to a figure you really think has that \'coolness\' you describe.
I often look at the miniatures and the first thing that hits me is the painting quality, but you need to spend some time looking at all aspects of the mini.
LETS ALL LOOK A BIT LONGER

 

[Thri-Keen Priest]

Various Facets of Coolness

I agree that good sculpting, as well as conversions, are crucial to a cool mini. I think this is often, though not always, being reflected in the scores. Seems that models are judged first for paintjob, with bonus points added for especially cool models. I like to add a little something extra for clever conversions or scratch-builds. And I can\'t help but add an extra point if a model just strikes upon my particular tastes, such as a well-detailed book/scroll, or a good familiar.
But painting prowess comes first, as it should be. After all, in most cases, the person submitting the work had *nothing* to do with the sculpt itself. In the case of conversions and scratch-builds, let\'s give some serious consideration to the added coolness of these works.

TKP

 

[Burzmali]

I agree fully with what has been said here - but what defines good painting. Is it enough to be able merely to shade perfectly and attain perfect \'realism\'?
Or is more - how can I say it - impressionist style painting also appropriate. Where the painter has really gotten into the feel of the mini - working and re-working - as opposed to almost mechanical painting by numbers as it were.

I don\'t know - any thoughts?

 

[Chrispy]

I do believe some painters should try converting and such, but also I don\'t think you shouls read into the name much. es, the paint jobs are mainly what we\'re here for. Get over it. If someone can make a crappy sculpt look good, the deserve the recognition.. along those lines, if a person wants to do their own style and it the shading comes out well, but the mini is in flouescent colors, people will judge by there tastes.. There\'s alot of crap you have to put up with here, believe me.. you just got to try and say\"well, I like MY style, and if it doesn\'t please anyone else, so be it..\"

 

[Jericho]

First off, I completely agree with putting the paint job first for ratings. Just about anyone can do a head or arm swap and drybrush the model to a playable level, but it takes years of practise to be able to shade, hilight, and blend to a high standard. Paint jobs tend to be the basis for the score, and any \"Ooh\"s and \"Aah\"s from the conversion falls into the bonus points category.

As for style influencing scores, it\'s hard to say really. The problem with a lot of the more radical or extravagent painting styles is that they don\'t appeal to all tastes. There are a couple minis on this site that get 9.5 for an average rating, and because of the style I find it hard to imagine anyone giving it over an 8.

At the same time, there are a lot of relatively low rated models that I feel deserve a lot higher an average. When judging for style, it all comes down to personal taste.

A well blended and shaded model has a relatively universal appeal, and you can predict the scores a bit better. While on the other hand, if you get into the NMM and other advanced styles you can alientate part of the audience while blowing away others.

I guess the thing to remember is that no matter how great a model you submit, there will always be people who disagree with parts of it.

 

[avellaird_vex]

Rating a mini

This is how I personally rate a mini;
1: initial appearance - does the mini scream \'TAKE A LOOK AT ME\'
2: style/mood - anyone can paint an ork to look mean, but how about impassioned or enraged?
3: color scheme - it\'s hard to explain, but do the colors enhance or detract from the mini
4: originality - remember your repressed 1st grade art teacher telling you to stay within the lines? >BTTHHHP<
5: Posing/Posture - the placement of the mini can enhance or completely screw a mini [basing falls into this area]
6: technical difficulty - maybe this should be higher

 

[Jana Wang]

Well, the miniatures come unpainted, and there\'s not much point in deciding if the raw sculpt is cool or not. 90% of what you can do to the mini is paint it, and that\'s what makes or breaks how it appears.