>the design on the right is better because it "commits to an angular shape language"
are they right?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>the design on the right is better because it "commits to an angular shape language"
Both suck for different reasons, get an actual character designer not some noname from twitter/deviant art
The one on the right is bad because of the horribly ugly face that had absolutely frick all reason to be added, but the rest is right in the sense that the one in the left seems a bit too overdesigned. There's way too much stuff going on.
Anyone have the original artists handle? I believe they did a newer version.
Might have been the left one in this
Original artist is Lukkubus, and the redesign was indeed the one on the left
why did he remove the tattoos, also bring the chunky skull back, the tail is now shit too
Because everyone in the animation industry wants things to be a simple as possible so they can be lazy.
I can’t tell if he’s making fun of bam animation or listening to their advice
>listen to youtube moron's advice
>art gets worse
many such cases
Left is better. Right has an ugly fricking face, the hate is bigger I guess to make up for the ugly face but it doesn't work. The clothing is missing all of it's special detail, there's no skull on her belt and no tattoos on her skin. Jesus it's an altogether completely fricked up redesign.
I think the idea is that right is better to actually get published as a cartoon character design. More defined sillhoute, simpler shapes, easier details, blockier colours, make it easier for korean animators to replicate over and over and over.
Left looks great for an illustration or something, but right is far more likely to get published.
Accurate or not that's dumb and super gay. Left's design is far cuter. You can take some fricking liberties with the costume and skin markings if it comes down to it but completely morphing the face into something ugly is completely baffling when she's cute as she is.
It doesn't matter how cute she is, left will NEVER get published, not even in a comic. Right side is better for that goal, which is why it is allegedly "Improved".
getting published isn't really an achievement considering what they shit out these days.
Right looks better but only because left looks so fricking generic
This is the same video where they 'improved' another design by just making her into "princess peach but a dog"
they even added a fricking ! block for some reason, just to emphasize "haha like popular game mario! Good character design!'
this, the principles they talk about in the video are very real things that can help you improve, but they themselves seem to be fricking morons.
I like both for different reasons. At least the right isn't purposefully hideous.
Don't people request for him to tip them?
From a cartoon perspective, the ones on the right are more realistic and efficiency.
The one on the right looks like shit, but is much more realistic as far as being an actual cartoon character goes. The one on the left would be too expensive and difficult to animate. I'd say a compromise between both versions would be ideal, the one on the left but with some of the overly complex design elements stripped out so the cartoon doesn't take an inordinate amount of time and money to animate.
The one on the left isn't realistic as a cartoon character. Who would actually expect all those details and special glitter/transparency effects to be animated? People who don't know how cartoons work should not try to design cartoons.
This is all based on assumption though, I don't know if these characters were intended for animation or as static comic panels.
What are your thought on the left one here
?
but why the fat gummy lips?
This the perfect example of the dunning kruger effect; just because you understand a concept doesn't mean you should use it badly.
Both designs are terrible coomer bait. The only reason left is considered better is because she's cute looking.
>Noooo women can't be a healthy weight with natural curves they must be ugly and obese aaaa
The patterns on the left distract from the overall shape of the character, and the colors clash a bit; look at the hair color vs the red hat.
Right has a better color palette, but the shape is all fricky where there's no gradation to the hips, calves, or any subtle change.
Angular shape language is one thing, but this is too much variance between characters to draw any meaningful distinction based solely on one attribute of the design.
Left looks like a Skullgirls character while right looks like that one artist that makes those moronic vacuum dick sucking faces.
the right looks like she could be a villain in some french cartoon like wakfu or something
A character design is good if it resonates with a certain audience. There is no inherent criteria for what makes something good or bad. This character is good design.
right feels soulless because it just reminds me of a bunch of characters ive seen before. Left is not great but at least it feels like it was drawn by someone who wasn't so obviously taking from influences
>but at least it feels like it was drawn by someone who wasn't so obviously taking from influences
Anon, she looks like a fricking Neopet.
Better than the undead troony on the right.
No one said otherwise, just that the left wasn't obviously influenced is a crock of horseshit.
I'm glad people are waking up and realize that art advice is usually bullshit; for example, the "silhouettes" thing. It's good in theory but in practice it's not as important as it's made out to be. Everyone knows and recognizes the "sonic" template, it's generic and leads to cookie cutter character design but it sells. There's a reason boom's design philosophy didn't stick, you don't need to make every character vary from the fricking kingpin to verne troyer or make them deformed.
frick I wanted to deepthroat Knuckle's big red wiener watching this
Furry
Your comparison is nonsense. Sonic Boom died solely because SEGA sabotaged it from the start, it never had much of a chance. The designs themselves ended up being much more fondly regarded after the initial shock of their reveal.
Hell, the Sonic Movies are literally aping elements from these designs.
>Hell, the Sonic Movies are literally aping elements from these designs.
Lets not go overboard.
Anon, one of the stock poses for the movie is the exact same from
. Movie Sonic is just Sonic Boom 2.0, a refined version of that style.
>Sega aren't the ones that came up with Boom's terrible designs and boring gameplay style
But they were the ones that approved it out of countless designs, and were the ones that totally fricked up development of the games every step of the way. The game most likely wouldn't have been nearly as boring if Sega themselves weren't their own worst enemy.
But Boom was also a moronic idea from the start. Sega aren't the ones that came up with Boom's terrible designs and boring gameplay style.
Like all character design elements you can do a bad job at utilizing them or be selective in applying them. Character silhouettes is still pretty important when it comes to making character designs. Also, the main problem with Sonic Boom's designs wasn't the change in body types but instead was wrapping them all in bandages. I actually like roid Knuckles.
The art on the left actually reminds me of Sly Coopers art style.
feels like the right is trying to mimic the sort of cartoony ugliness in psychonauts but failing miserably
What are they looking at
The Psychonauts 2 logo.
The Third Impact
Problem solved.
I agree with you. The only thing it needs is thicker lineart on the body now.
right looks like an alien bogdanoff
Left feels like a comic design, right feels like an animation design.
What the frick does this have to do with literally anything
I beg of you, think about something else for a single minute
False flag, xe is spamming anti-troony comics in random threads
>anon trying not to think of trannies for one thread (IMPOSSIBLE)
Who gives a little girl a barrel torso?
Her design really irritates me for some reason. Like there are no eyebrows and her face is just goofy as frick.
Left is forgettable coombait and right fell for the “ugly = memorable” meme
Those lips they gave the initial design really were such a bizarre choice. Removing them really does fix a good amount.
Both have too much going on that's for sure.
i prefer left by far.
I can hear the Dall-E gays saying that an AI can do it better.
looks like troony shit
I refuse to believe that clozapine is too expensive to give at cost to the taxpayer to people like you who desperately need it.
please think about anything else
I'm BEGGING you
This unironically makes some sense.
You can be a female that presents more masculine, mostly sexually attracted to men (and women somewhat in a "StraightGirlsPlaying" sort of way).
Don't know the difference between "sexually and romantically attracted to" catergories.
>You can be a female that presents more masculine, mostly sexually attracted to men (and women somewhat in a "StraightGirlsPlaying" sort of way).
That's called that a woman, you moron. The 'masculine presenting' part in unimportant and the heterosexual part is assumed since it is the case >90% of the time.
Right is a better technical drawing and has better shadow shapes. Left has more pleasant design cliches. Both have room for improvement and unique weaknesses, and it's pointless to say which is better because the context here (pinup illustration) is very limited.
I hate western art so fricking much
Lul that's classic animation industry thought, cartoons used to be full of jagged edges and points before Cal Arts brought round blob people.
It comes from 50s animation when Golden Age animators were very experienced and experimenting with new more stylish ways of drawing characters. But people looked at that work and just copied the style without learning the skill behind it.
The ugly piece of shit on the right looks exactly like the kind of trash John K would design, back when he still actually did things besides rock back and forth senilely.
western art schools really are just brainwashing artists into deleting all their soul so they can only draw calArts animation faster, isn't it?
yeah, they've made a slow transition from good principles and, you know, art, into being as marketable as possible and appealing to the sensibilities of execs.
Like, I'm an amateur artist and I've seen the video
a lot of what the guy says is important and correct, BUT THE GENERAL FRICKING TASTE IS SO GOD AWFUL.
Like all the "improved" designs the videomaker showed were all worse in some way despite being technically better or "more correct"
Fricking Homestuck art had better taste
just because you're correct doesn't mean you're good
We could go over why all day and night. But the long and short is television networks are hemorrhaging money now at a rate and for reasons close to cable subscribers. Cable's losing subscribers. Which means money. Which means networks are losing money. Which means any new shows they greenlight have to have a big return on investment to keep them going. Taking risks isn't wise for them at this point. They have to have shows that will cost little which in turn means an easier time turning a profit. So, they have to cut corners and make designs that can be easily and cheaply reproduced. All while cutting staff here in America to a skeleton crew. It makes sense, even if I don't agree with the end result or find it lacking in anything of interest.
It is not just the schools. It is the whole industry feeding into bad habits. You used to have to learn the basics of life drawing. Now kids cry because that is to hard and they just want to draw cartoons. So the schools started to let them be lazy and not learn because if they pushed back to hard they would lose easy money. The industry doesn't mind because it is cheap to make. However, now all these kids that know nothing about art have taken over the industry so everything is dipping in quality. They also never learned any kind of work ethic so even though shit is simpler it takes longer to get any of them to finish what they have to do. So that keeps animation expensive. The answer to that was to have less staff since work is easier but now they all b***h about being over worked. That also left fewer positions to fill and they all hire their lazy friends from school now.
you're wrong
you're right
You are free to think that but I have seen it first hand. Kids in my art classes in university always b***hed about having to learn to draw correctly before they could move onto "figuring out their style." I have also sat through talks from professionals at different levels in the industry and outside of Disney most of them shows off how lazy they were with character design or joked about having to rush a show pitch the night before their meeting with executives.
Yes
Insane response + projecting the senile part, people associated with the industry have their brains pureed over time regardless of how young they are
design on right i better because it has PHAT LIPS
I would never dream of taking aesthetic advice from a guy who thinks that haircut is passable.
He looks like he's in his early 20s and 40s at the same time
They confer literally entirely different vibes.
>character design
My brother she's wearing like 2 pieces of clothing that aren't an accessory, who is this made for?
The right is honestly better outside the mouth and possibly the face, just strictly for appeal purposes aswell as what it's trying to deliver. Giving this eel fish lady puffy lips and like a more "mature" face makes her look more like femme fatale humanoid, but honestly it also makes her feel a bit more generic. the left isn't much better in my opinion, but they could have worked with the masked motiff and given her some kind of face covering and a monster mouth.
>tail coming out of the back of the knee
>Hair-tentacles turned into one thin tentacle, making it hard to tell that she's supposed to be an octopusgirl and not just a blue lady
>psudo-rune/tribal tats erased and loincloth thing turned to a dress, making it hard to tell that she's supposed to be from some kind of atlantis culture (I assume)
>The drawn eyebrows, angular face, and fancy gown say "fancy aristocrat" but the hat and buckles say "grimy pirate", which is contradictory (not saying that's an unworkable concept, but it's confusing in a vacuum)
Just shit in general.
Right's body with left's face would be good
>not having dislikes enabled
moron.
The hands and feet are drawn so shittily, what happened?
the left is a main character
the right is a very forgettable boss fight
just looking at the left with her primitive islander clothing and tribal tattoos under her pirate getup gives backstory and mystery to her character
is she are hero
is she someone for are hero to save
is she the villain waiting for her moment to strike
she could be any and all of those things
the right is in no way a more focused character design it's a flanderized character design
right is a villain and cant be anything but a villain making her not a villain kills any and all augment the video ever had about character design in the first place stone dead
and even on a technical level of silhouettes left is still miles better if not for the comparison between them you could easily miss that right is meant to be some kind of fish lady and not just blue for some reason
with left her hair curled up with the octopus suckers visible and the tail leads all the way to her hips as part of her body
meanwhile right looks like the artist forgot to put them in and someone else had to put them back
>Mar 5, 2020
Get a fricking life, dude.
2020 was literally yesterrday dude, stop pretending you're so above everything
you're posting on fricking Cinemaphile, I mean jesus christ get over yourself.
The body shape is better but not for that stupid reason. It's because it has an actual silhouette instead of being some nondescript blob mass for a silhouette like the one on the left. The one on the right has a pig disgusting face though. Just give Left the face from Right and it's perfect.
I'll never understand why the artist for the right chose to draw the face looking directly at the viewer rather than looking off to the side so that we could clearly see the snout. I get that the idea was to make her more monstrous on top of simplifying the lines and costume details but the angle chosen just doesn't work for a image introducing us to the character.
I'm guessing that right would be easier to animate
This was my take on it
Simple and lovely, nice.
The body on the right is fine, its the fricking face thats making me cringe.
Left is WAY more frickable