Right now it feels like a low poly model, made with lots of polygons. I find that what really sets a good high poly apart from a retail is the overall shape of the model. It can't just be the original silhouette with bits and pieces tacked on to increase the poly count. It has to be fundamentally more complex.
For instance, long sharp edges and points. Those are almost exclusively found in low poly models. In the your case, the Alastor has four very flat, unshaped panels meeting up with its reflection on the bottom. In the low poly model, this was because each panel was essentially one polygon. In your version yours doesn't have to stay with that simple shape. In fact it's vital that you alter shape. You need to prove to the audience that it is no longer a low poly model, and it has taken a big step away from simple shapes and a big step towards realism.
The little tidbits stuck on like cherries on a cake can be made with a normal map.
I'm sorry, but this post was way too critical and negative considering the quality of work here. If I were a new modeller, I'd probably just give up at this point. On a more subjective note, I find your criticism baseless when comparing to the retail mesh. (See below)
This is a simple gun platform for one thing. The suggestion that it must "
prove that it is no longer a low poly model" has easily been met. Also, all the little tidbits
can be done with a normal map... but with a lot less realism. I tend to see these things up close all the time for one reason or another. The modelled details are a nice touch. Normal maps for that kind of detail usually don't sell as well at super close range (and at low angles).
Furthermore.. "
In the your case, the Alastor has four very flat, unshaped panels meeting up with its reflection on the bottom" I've tried multiple times to find the geometry on the new mesh that you are trying to critique here...
Also, I found this post to be generally condescending with a lot of generic "here's how to model" advice as if your philosophy is best. I would like to encourage more specific suggestions for improving the mesh in question and less "
I find that what really sets a good high poly apart from a retail is the overall shape of the model" and "
It has to be fundamentally more complex" stuff. The sentence "
In fact it's vital that you alter shape" is straight up untrue and up to the modeller. In fact, major changes to the shape start to affect mission balance which is something we consider in FSU. It does it less so with smaller models, but exponentially more with the larger ones.
Finally, I am more and more adamant that we need to see a higher quality of posts in these critique threads.
I've pointed out a few example posts in the past that did it well. A simple guideline: If
everything about your critique is negative, then you are probably doing it wrong.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
