Forum:Biome screenshots (Rediscussion)

This has already been discussed previously, click here to view. The reason main reason isometric renders were removed from biome images is because of consistency, Some biomes had an isometric render, while most didn't. I've rendered isometric renders for all biomes (work still in progress at the time). Here is the zip file to view those renders (it doesn't have the isometric renders for ones that are still rendering and the ones which already had an isometric render in their previous uploads). We should reconsider if isometric renders should be used in biome images.

- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 14:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support in using isometric renders for biomes as it covers much more area than a generic screenshot and looks good overall. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 14:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose per reasoning in previous discussion. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The link is blocked.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with it... Wonder why that may be. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  15:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong Support I think that isometric renders look better than just a screenshot. If blocks, mobs and other entities are already in isometric renders, then what is the harm in doing that for the biomes? Last time the isometric renders were removed for inconsistency, because only a few biomes had it. This is not a reason to deny isometric renders for biomes. It is actually against the consistency as all other in-game things like the latter I mentioned are already in isometric renders. Plus, stating that this discussion has already taken place and thus cannot take place again is not justified. MCW:Be bold is the reason for it.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 15:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose — My opinion has not changed since the previous discussion. Also, note that most articles for “pure” items (as opposed to blocks or placeable entities) don't use isometric renders because a regular texture is more legible. — BabylonAS 17:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You should try and acknowledge the reason isometric screenshots were removed in the first place, otherwise no argument is being made here. Inconsistency was not the reason for removing render screenshots, it was a reason for choosing one option and making it the standard, no matter which option. The reason that regular screenshots were chosen over render screenshots was the fact that render screenshots are an unnatural point of view and that render screenshots are harder to make than regular screenshots. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
17:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I get that regular screenshots are easier, but isometric renders show much more of the biome. If we use them for all biomes, it will fix the issue of inconsistency. Regular screenshots might feel more "natural," but they often miss the bigger picture. The extra effort for isometric renders is worth it because they give a better view of the biome's full layout. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If File:Pale Garden.png was isometric, it would largely just show the biome's canopy, instead of effectively showing the biome's "inside" (the view a player will see when exploring it). If a regular screenshot is not great, it can be freely improved. If an isometric screenshot is not great, how can you really improve it without being able to change the view of the biome? - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
17:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

i find it very hard to believe that isometrics would somehow "show much more of the biome", because unlike normal screenshots, they don't get to take advantage of render distance or a well-positioned camera.

the biome photos were never about having an objective and consistent view of the biome, it was about capturing their intended feel and character, a lot of which is going to be lost since isometrics capture elevation poorly and totally exclude the skylight. i might as well drop my 👁 Image
 Oppose while we're at it.
mariberry-hearn! (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not think your original premise is correct. The previous discission, which ran from 31 July 2024 to 10 November 2024 (ending 85 days ago, or less than 3 months ago) was 100% in support of not using isometric screenshots, with 9 of 11 participants specifically stating that they think biome screenshots should not be isometric because of ease of use and/or aesthetics. There is no talk of "The main reason [...] is because of consistency". Given the unanimous nature of the recently held discussion and lack of addressing any existing concerns, this forum post is completely unnecessary, the decision will be the same. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 17:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

As the discussion goes forward, we will se whether the discussion ends in the same decision. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No new ideas or arguments have been presented to sway anyone from their original opinion. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 17:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Harristic.--Arina (she/her) 17:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose, isometric screenshots are impractical for most editors, and in most cases do a terrible job in showcasing the unique generation or features of a biome compared to a well framed screenshot.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 18:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose per Harristic. Outrowed (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose – no new point for us to rediscuss. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)