I would assume that if we get a rejection based on this reasoning, that the person doing the rejection knows which asset it is similar too, would it be possible to include the name in the rejection notes? That way we can see which one we are too similar to, and perhaps make tweaks that differentiate it.
TRay has answered this question recently (a few days ago, I think). I believe his answer was something along the lines of, "no, because so many submissions come through each day that they don't have time to look up and reference material like that for everyone who submits something similar to something else already in the game." The best you can do is attempt to find it yourself. If you truly believe it is not similar to anything in the game, you can make a post on here about it (a respectful and reasonable one), but I can't guarantee that you will get an answer. They are very busy. EDIT: That wasn't an actual quote, it was more of a paraphrasing.
My speculation is that (if camos or something they have a lot of) they don't literally look through their entire library and see if it is similar but instead that they have a general idea what they have and if it is similar they may decline it. It would explain why they don't specifically say what it is similar to or why it would take extra time to specify.
I guess in my head, in order for you to know which one its similar to, you have to actually know which one its similar to. If you don't, aren't you really just guessing? "I think this is sort of reminiscently similar to a camo we already have in game." "Which one?" "You know, that one that looks kind of like this one." "Oh... which one is that?" "I don't know, I mean it sort of looks kind of like this one... I think." "Didn't you look at it to make sure?" "Nah man, I know exactly what every one looks like, but I can't remember all the names." It just seems to me that if you thought it looked like one that was already in game, you would compare them side by side and not commit from memory. That's just me though.
I'm pretty sure if you had the job of Art Director and you had tons of work to begin with, and you had to look at literally hundreds of (sorry folks) crappy camos in addition, you'd conduct your job the same as him. I don't see him having the time, nor is it even a good idea, for him to wade through every camo for a 'side by side' comparison. As more camos get in, it becomes an exponentially harder chore, which accomplishes nothing. He sees them all, and has a general sense of what's there, pretty sure nobody has a better handle on that than T-ray. I've had many of my submissions declined because of 'being too similar to something we have', I just move on without question. And I get more done that way.
I'm not sure I would do the job the same. I've never been a fan of "because I said so". I don't do anything in my life that way. In fact your defense of why he shouldn't, for me, just further justifies my reasoning. He sees literally hundreds of camo patterns, the large bulk of which are declined. Are you telling me he doesn't get any of those confused, that they don't start to blur together? I find that hard to believe. Which is why I'd think that a quick validation should be necessary. By your reasoning, if we tiled every camo pattern ever submitted you think he could go through them without cross referencing and circle with 100% accuracy what has already been accepted, in game, and declined? Personally, I don't think it would take that much additional effort, and perhaps more importantly, I think it would build better relationships with the artists. Concrete displays are easier to understand than vague reasoning.
Nothing vague about it. -Would he circle every camo that has been accepted correctly on a big 'proof sheet' of every one ever submitted?! Of course not, no one would. That is a silly proposition. -You seem to be putting way too much importance on a single camo weighed against what is already there, and (as I said before) T-ray's GENERAL SENSE of what is there. Nobody is going to have a better sense of what has been submitted and what is in-game than him, period. Thinking he is putting a desire to 'make 100% certain no possible camo pattern goes unused' is wrong. He's thinking, how we can balance time consumed against content created. Spending that much time to be '100%' is just crazy. -I like your stuff man, move on!
Without showing which camo it is similar to, its pretty much the exact definition of vague. That's exactly my point, how do you know you aren't kicking it back based on a similar camo that was declined? I'm trying to man! This one is bothering me more than most for some reason. lol. I guess maybe I thought these looked pretty BA, and was really hoping to wear one of my own patterns I was a little more proud of.
For all we know T-ray has in his mind 'conceptual slots' if you will. He's thinking I want something Blueish, or I want something Swirly. Then somebody makes something that fits that desire IN HIS MIND. So when he sees yours, it may look like TO HIM 'swirly' already got one. You're trying to demand that he spend time to find some concrete example that visually explains to YOU why HE made his decision. You're right THERE MAY BE NO CONCRETE EXAMPLE, it may just be something conceptual in T-ray's mind. get it?
There is a concrete example and it was already submitted, Snakepit, look it up in the submission forums. I never said "because I said so", I told you EXACTLY why its not going in. Its too similar to something we already have. I would love to explain to every one that submits anything to PS why it didn't make it in, but that is unrealistic. I'm here to make money for all of you so trust me when I tell you I can't use it or that its not visually compelling. You can dwell on one camo for days at a time OR you can make 5 more in that same amount of time.
Thank you sir, that's all I wanted. Much appreciated. The similarities in the double lined version would be hard to argue with. I still feel like the single lined version is significantly different, certainly as different as many of the basic woodland style camos already in game.
I'm really trying not to be a dick, but how can you not see the similarities? What is visually unique and distinctive about your camo pattern? Maybe if you look at both in grey-scale it would be clearer how alike they really are?
Funny you should mention that. Its been said a few times in the past about comparing gray scale to gray scale, so I was actually messing with it last night. I color matched the patterns so I could compare them side by side. The patterns heavy on the squiggles already looked pretty similar, and were remarkably similar when color matched. Its almost uncanny considering I had no influence from snakepit at all. But the single squiggle differs quite a bit still I think. Its considerably less busy. And perhaps the greatest question of all, despite the obvious similarities, does that mean we are going to see the same colors released? Will there ever be a black/gray/white snakepit? What are the odds that you'll ever see this color scheme for Snakepit? I'm going with never.
After hearing the holiday horns that are about to go live, I take back everything I implied about quality being an issue. Clearly that's not important. I thought SOE had final say to mess with the color anyway, so it would probably have been never regardless.
Sure thing, looking forward to the black and orange snake pit in the future. All snarky comments aside, thank you for taking the time to point out which camo it was similar to.
