I dont think the clothe or uniform matters as how you illustrate it. I mean look at this.
In comparison to this. (I find this a much better job)
I dont think the clothe or uniform matters as how you illustrate it. I mean look at this.
Ha! You're probably right; I probably am not nice to you. Sometimes you say some goofy ass shit, like that one there about the ratings, and it makes me go like what. But I should be better.
Sure, but even in discussion, sometimes it's good to recap and address that a later point offered as a fresh argument now doesn't much sense in light of exploring an earlier one. These discussions tend contain lots of linked arguments.
I didnt say that it excused criticism, my argument was that their criticism tends to be garbage and not worth addressing.
I will say that most of the characters in fighting games are extremely designed. But well-designed? With just Sturgeon's law alone we know this isn't true, and that's before any need to break down the abject mess most character designs (male or female) are in video games (and fighting games tend to just illustrate the problem at its extreme, since they are laser focused on designing appealing characters).
I didnt say that all fighting games had great designs, and I understand that its all subjective (for example I dislike MK and most of Blazblu designs), however a lot of peoples criticism is rarely about the design as a whole, and always about superficial elements, basically nitpicking the shit out of everything, and If there is one type of criticism that I cannot fucking stand, it is motherfucking nitpicking.
You may not like it, but nitpicking is what separates good works from great works. Digging into the minutia, and how much is actually there, is what creates works that are truly capable of reshaping the industry, like Dark Souls, and what prevents other works from ever attaining cohesion. The illustrators and character designers may be great, but they themselves are never going to make more than a handful of really great works. Most of the work they put out there, will fail to hit the mark. And they keep working to hit the mark, knowing that it's probably not going to happen. That doesn't make the effort less worthy, and it doesn't discredit them because they failed. Additionally, what designs are successful is ultimately up to people to decide. An average design in one century may be a revelation to the next. There's no static target to hit, only an idea to work towards - and that's why being precise is so important, and why learning to accept, and implement, all those little nitpicks is so fundamental to design.
I didnt mean you in particular, I meant a lot of the people in that thread were making those kinds of assumptions, including the OP, and its annoying because it ends of spreading a meme that is hard to stop.
Isn't that what Hot Ryu's whole deal was?
I think this is fairly prescriptive, given the presumption that any artist leading a conversation knows what they're talking about regarding design. There are plenty of artists out there whose design goals and ideas are deeply flawed. I understand the sentiment though and as always, having artists input their ideas is critical to the growth of the discussion, whether it is more technical in nature or a mile-high viewpoint.
Sturgeon's law has been around for a long time, and as a mile-high viewpoint basically holds true across all media. 90% of everything is crap. It's more of an aside and was in response to HypedBeast, was not meaning to pull the conversation out of the inherent problems associated with objectifying characters, which make designs worse.
If you are talking about my discussion, then... kind of.
No. See my post above. Or click here https://www.resetera.com/posts/1117600/ for examples.
This is a weird question
Which admittedly is probably a different discussion for a different thread. ^^;
While it is always up for debate, there are most definitely objective aspects of characters design that are recognized by most artist and animators, whether its silhouette, color theory, simplicity, gesture, posing, appeal, exaggeration, etc.
Sturgeon's Law is a mile-high viewpoint. It's not meant to be indicative of highly specific things, but wider realities of industries and franchises. More specifically, it's meant to point out that if you take a wider view, you'll often see that the thing you love isn't a single thing, but the result of many failed experiments before something clicked. There's a sort of dangerous mythologizing that happens to works (such as games) in particular, where they become these untouchable products that are absolutist in their tendency to be overbearing on what "should be". Sturgeon's Law, with its extreme and wide claim, is meant to promote exploratory solutions to the problems inherent in any creative work. Because even a work that one might think is perfect, is still going to have flaws. Major flaws even; and the work in the creative process is about rooting those out in a manner that's meaningful to the creator (and hopefully, the creation).
Worth noting that most of these aren't specific to character design, but to art design more generally.
Any sexualized clothing MAY make an entire design bad. From a certain point of view.
I promise it's not poems.
I'd personally use repetitive or consistent. There is a consistent, repetitive way to draw a face, but whether that leads to good design has to do with choices related to distinctiveness and, in the case of the industry, memorability. I personally think most designs in the Street Fighter universe are about as cookie-cutter as you can get, even if I could also see why they would be popular (and many of the more sexist designs are particularly confounding).
