Ah, yeh , Jesse if you are talking about practical in an animation sense, armor fitting on different body, Of course! i agree with that^_^
Andrea and Muzz, Ill just say this and i wont reply to this thread anymore, i dont want to start anything since this is the internet and polycount after all ^^,
But Honestly what are you guys trying to prove, This is an art forum, People like big breast, small breast, big ass, small ass, Fuck anything, Real girl? what is not a real girl? Its art why cant i model things the way i want to? teenage hormonal bullshit ? jeez boy get off them high hourse you are so full of it ahahh
Andreas, for someone who post so much, you sure dont have much ART post .. Zing! ^_^ If you like them so called Real girls, Please do model them and show us what a non juvenile bullshit Art man is! Im honestly curious!
Im done ^_^ Feel free to PM if you want to reply, lets not destroy the internet.
It's not that i don't like hyper exaggerated girls. (fuck my internet history says everything but that), its simply that i prefer well thought out game worlds that have all the elements work in context.
Tits for the sake of tits are on the same level as seeing a boom mike fall onto the screen of a movie. It breaks the illusion that its a living breathing world for me, and i realize that it is a teenage boy's fever dream I'm playing in.
A perfect example of this is Chris Sanders. Perverted as fuck in his personal work, but toned down and tasteful when it is in context of his movie, lilo and stitch.
Tldr, Give me a good reason for there to be tits and I'm there with ya man.
Andreas, for someone who post so much, you sure dont have much ART post .. Zing! ^_^
Zing? ^_^ ?? Oh man I really hope youre still in your teens...
Many artists don't feel the need to post their work online much, or at all. That does not negate their right to post on polycount. 'You don't post art so STFU' is such a juvenile and lazy fallback.
Just to make it clear, i don't really care if people want to make sexist games, I think people should be able to make what ever the heck they want. If it's zombie girl rape simulator then so be it.
I just would love to see better story telling and world building in games, and making things cool or sexy for the heck of it disregarding world or story is not the way to do it. Making tomboys in games to please the feminists isn't fixing the problem either.
If the point of your art is simply 'tits & ass', it's tacky. It's one step up from Poser Art. Which is fucking tragic because of the hundreds of hours hard graft an artist puts in becoming an actual artist instead of learning how to use the boob/muscle slider in Poser.
How ridiculously immature.
It's a really bad direction to be heading in. Give me real women like those we see in Uncharted. Give me more games like Journey, Shadow of Collosus, The Last of Us! Leave this teenage hormonal bullshit behind.
I been lurking and staying away from GD like it was the plague, but Andreas your words lure me out of my filthy grotto just like a big round booty would.
People like you is why I dislike forums, so you can be happy and triumphant in your victory that you've effectively culled me off.
Though when you lurk for a while, you get to take in the scenery, see whats happening. Andreas, You're often the first on the scene to blow off your oppinion on anything that rubs you the wrong way ( You're not alone ). You defend it to the last possible second like a priest on some holy crusade against the evil tides of 'out of context tits and ass'.
Ive got some really awesome news for you though Andreas - this imaginary world you want to live in where all female characters in games look kinda like uncharted - well it actually already exists.... its called going outside on planet earth man. You should check it out, girls that look like real girls are out there and theres TONNNNNES of them!!!
Meanwhile tho, I'll still happily be a thorn in your ass making 'unrealistic' girls in MY STYLE with poppin booties and boobs however big i feel like making them - for whatever reason i damn well please. You can happily call them and me whatever you want, and continue to be disgruntled because its not to your liking. But your just going to have to accept that I wont stop. not ever. So we are like arch enemies in terms of what we believe should be 'out there'.
BTW Andreas, 4 years.... and coming up to 5000 posts of oppinions - great contribution to the art community of polycount there. Just what every forum needs - for me you are officially 'that guy'. Gratz.
B1ll however, early / original polycounter, nudging over 1200 posts over 9 years - a huge chunk of which is the most badass art and painting tuts you will ever see in your life - helping the art community in numerous ways that oppinions don't....
Let me just say, if there were 2 art forums started by you and b1ll and I had to choose between which place I would like to hang out, to discuss things of an arty nature - It's at b1lls place, because I want to know and talk with artists who have 'been there done that' as opposed to the oppinion of some random guy that likes to comment and talk on forums.
I know you'll read this and have something witty to say, - but I wont be reading it - I have art to make.
Finally, to the OP. Aesthetics will always trump function for me as an artist.
Does this look badass ? Yes.
Does this fit the game? Maybe not so much. Lets find a compromise.
Does this work with our Skeleton? No. - Okay lets find a compromise.
I would prefer this EVERY time over:
Does this look badass ? No.
Does this fit our game ? Yes.
Does this work with our skeleton ? Yes.
^^^^^^^ Thats a fail to me.
Why ? Because no matter what - I personally see it as my job to ensure that things look badass. Noone else is on this team to do that job. NOONE. Its my job.
However, there are always more people to help you shoehorn your design, your aesthetics into 'getting something working' Riggers, Animators, Audio, Concept and Designers. You dont have to ever settle for one or the other ie 'ehhhh sacrifice the way it looks for *insert any reason here*' to me is the equivalent of 'you failed at your part of the job'
In my experience the very application and final intended result will ALWAYS inject a level of 'functionality' or 'reality' or 'practicality' into every design simply by the process of pushing it through a pipeline.
So my ultimate point is I will at first explode with total artness before trimming it back. Hence, Aesthetics BEFORE Practicality, every, single, time.
P.S I would treat any art test in exactly the same fashion. MAKE IT LOOK COOL everything else is secondary.
Andreas, 4 years.... and coming up to 5000 posts of oppinions - great contribution to the art community of polycount there. Just what every forum needs - for me you are officially 'that guy'. Gratz.
2nded. Andreas, stop posting and start making shit. I slap my forehead every time I see people like you and other lurking wordmongers doing nothing at Polycount other than cluttering up General Discussion with your holier than thou opinions.
Don't be a bubble popper man, people do art for their own reasons. What you're doing is coming to someones party and complaining about the beer. It makes you look bad and waters down your opinions. If you feel so strongly about how art is used in games then why don't you change it instead of talking crap about other peoples work. try to stay classy.
I think Hazardous says it best when he uses the word 'compromise'.
Whatever your workflow is to getting to the final product, you should find a healthy balance of both.
In the past I managed to make characters with cloth simulation on PS2 hardware. I kept pushing tech with my designs and they kept pushing back, but in the end we managed to get our sim processing time down low enough that we were doing some really crazy stuff on PS2 hardware. Some of my compromises were 'ok, maybe his coat doesn't have to drag on the floor. I'll make it shorter.'
2nded. Andreas, stop posting and start making shit. I slap my forehead every time I see people like you and other lurking wordmongers doing nothing at Polycount other than cluttering up General Discussion with your holier than thou opinions.
Cluttering up General Discussion with General Discussion.
K.
This is a place where we come to discuss ideas, etc. That people have different opinions and different ideas to sell is the beauty of it, not the detriment. I 'make shit' day in, day out. I like to come here and converse because I like games and art, and discussing them.
Enjoy the forehead slapping.
Haz, I think your recent spate of walls and walls of text make up for my post count, easily.
You can happily call them and me whatever you want
Yeeeeeeah, I don't do this. And you never will see me have a go at an individual artist or their art on here or anywhere else. Unlike you, and I'm referring to your wall of text just there. Because I have some class. You've never once seen me make a comment on any of your pieces because I can keep my opinion to myself. That goes for all other artists I see who exhibit the same tendencies in their art that you do. I just keep my mouth shut. You'll rarely see me post in P&P and when you do it's mostly 'work on that silhouette' or 'nice colour scheme' or whatever.
I dont get as much time as I used to to trawl through P&P; wish I did.
The fact that you always turn up to these kind of threads eventually tells me and everyone, that you, me and everyone know you are 'that artist'.
Haz is known for making kick-ass girls.
It's true.
And yes, Andreas posts in GD a lot. Nothing wrong with that, he can do as he pleases.
Now back to the conversation.
I see all sides of the conversation. As a major type of media, we do have some sort of responsibility. Not to mention, people do view videogames, typically, as a young persons' thing, and a lower form of art than, say, cinema. That fact alone makes me want the industry to move up a notch, and really start having great stories, character development, etc. This has been coming up in leaps and bounds these past view years.
Oh yeah, I don't think that videogames should not perpetuate inequality, unless to teach some other lesson. Even if we may not want to use our medium to move the world forward, we ought not hold it back.
THOUGH, there is a market for all sorts of games. DOA Beach volleyball, for instance. Nothing wrong with that. It's all in context. Interesting rigging work. You know.
It's meant to be sexy, not sexist.
Anyway, I don't know where I'm going with this. And, oh. Aesthetics come first for me. Then practicality. But it is all about balance.
P.S I would treat any art test in exactly the same fashion. MAKE IT LOOK COOL everything else is secondary.
I get your point, but isn't it a little dangerous for coolness to form the sole basis of your design? I ask this because 'cool' is a very loose term and varies from person to person. For example lets compare the 'batmobile' from batman forever and 'the bat' from dark night rises. Batman is supposed to be a stealthy, creature of the night with advanced knowledge of engineering/technology. In the former case, its impossible to be stealthy with that much neon. That bat shaped wing does little for downforce/aerodynamics therefore it purely decorative. The bat rims only function is to announce 'batman!',again hows this stealthy? Obviously the designers priority was 'coolness' over the character of batman. In the latter case, less unnecessary lights thus good for stealth. The straight lines are very reminiscent of stealth fighters which require sophisticated software to fly, thus supporting the idea of batman as a tech savvy guy. Even though it would never fly in real life ,http://www.technewsdaily.com/6062-dark-knight-flying-bat.html, the design approach sells the idea
i wouldn't say that any of them is better than other.
new batman films went for that whole (pseudo) realism vibe, not only in design but in whole bunch of aspects.
on the other hand old movies focused on atmosphere and stylization.
It makes sense for vehicles in stylized movie to look stylized and vehicles in somewhat realistic movie to look practical.
The only problem with that batman forever car is that it's over the top to the point of being cheesy. it's not that they were wrong to try to make it look cool, the problem is with how they executed it. The car from first two movies is both stylized and cool as fuck.
on the other hand vehicles from nolan's movies may be practical but i'd never guess they belong to batman if i didn't know it already. they don't have much of a distinct style imo.
I agree with Hazardous' point about art tests; of course, make it look cool, that is your singular job. Someone has already decided on it's functionality, how tangible it is etc. It's not on you to do that, it's been done by someone else.
In an art test all that's left for you to do is reproduce it but also push it to even awesomer levels with material definition, etc. And to make it look like it's actually used for that purpose; leaking liquid stains, whatever.
And yeah brings up a good point; that was part of the beauty of Nolans films. For me, anyway. Everything feeling so real and tangible made the movies so much more exciting for me.
Again this isn't really a realism vs cartoony thing either; cartoony stylised things can be just as tangible.
The straight lines are very reminiscent of stealth fighters which require sophisticated software to fly, thus supporting the idea of batman as a tech savvy guy. Even though it would never fly in real life ,http://www.technewsdaily.com/6062-da...lying-bat.html, the design approach sells the idea
That flying vehicle is absolute nonsense. It's a mass of random plates, most of which serve no conceivable function aside from looking neat.
These designs are nothing but "cool" done in two different styles, prefering one over the other doesn't make it more inspired or practical.
Also whats with all the breast and ass issue on polycount. Man, you guys are gay, cant people do whatever they fucking like on their own art. Please bitches.
There are some members who are gay but to say everyone is is kind of stretching it. Or were you using 'gay' as some sort of insult?
That flying vehicle is absolute nonsense. It's a mass of random plates, most of which serve no conceivable function aside from looking neat.
These designs are nothing but "cool" done in two different styles, prefering one over the other doesn't make it more inspired or practical.
Of course from an engineering standpoint it is 'absolute nonesense'. Follow the link. Both of the designs are impractical. The point is which of the two does a better job of maintaining the illusion that it is a functional piece of equipment which would be used by someone like batman? If you were batman and your life depended on not being seen, which vehicle would you pick? The angular surfaces are visual cues that say 'stealth' probably because they are borrowed from real life stealthy things. However what says 'look at me' more than bright blue neon? *edit heres the link: http://www.technewsdaily.com/6062-dark-knight-flying-bat.html
There are some members who are gay but to say everyone is is kind of stretching it. Or were you using 'gay' as some sort of insult?
In the same way that we shouldn't quote bot posts Warren, please don't bump ignorant shit like that. Yes he was wrong to use 'gay' as a derogatory term (again Polycount? We're gonna have to have a little chat soon methinks...). Just let it die mate. :thumbup:
**
I agree that that flying 'bat's is ridiculous, personally; I didn't care for it much. Still get a nerd-boner over the Tumbler though. The chase sequence in Batman Begins is still to this day, completely amazing.
i wouldn't say that any of them is better than other.
new batman films went for that whole (pseudo) realism vibe, not only in design but in whole bunch of aspects.
on the other hand old movies focused on atmosphere and stylization.
It makes sense for vehicles in stylized movie to look stylized and vehicles in somewhat realistic movie to look practical.
The only problem with that batman forever car is that it's over the top to the point of being cheesy. it's not that they were wrong to try to make it look cool, the problem is with how they executed it. The car from first two movies is both stylized and cool as fuck.
on the other hand vehicles from nolan's movies may be practical but i'd never guess they belong to batman if i didn't know it already. they don't have much of a distinct style imo.
I agree this car is seriously cool but my reason is that it suits the character of Batman, even though it is stylized. That turbine engine suggest access to advanced tech. More importantly its stealthy, see how well it blends into the background. It looks like it belongs in the dark. Ive got nothing against making something look cool, but if it is at the expense of the characters believability, the coolness does more harm than good.
I agree that that flying 'bat's is ridiculous, personally; I didn't care for it much. Still get a nerd-boner over the Tumbler though. The chase sequence in Batman Begins is still to this day, completely amazing.
"I'll get my car..."
"I brought mine!"
"...yours....?"
I specifically didn't use the tumbler as an example because it is an actual functioning vehicle, so much so that it was featured on Top Gear. It isn't hard to convince an audience that a functioning vehicle works. But for a ridiculous flying thing, that's another story. For me the illusion was enhanced by to things 1) conforms to the character of batman 2) visual cues inspired by real life stealthy vehicles, which is a case of 'practicality'(i use this loosely) influencing aesthetics. Same thing with dark night bat suit vs batman/robin bat suit. Both are impractical. One was inspired by actual protective clothing eg. for motorcyclists such that it looks functional. The other has reflective silver embellishments and nipples for which I can't think of any reason why batman would need them. However tastes vary, if you like over the top I recommendJoel Schumachers movies.
Well for me bat-nipples are as bad as the TDK suit tbh... Morgan Freeman may as well have winked at the screen when he said that this suit would make Bruce more susceptible to knives (Joker) and (gunfire) Two-Face.
"So a dog bit you, so we are gonna separate all your plating so people can shoot and stab you."
Whaaaaattt?
I know they kinda wrote themselves into a corner with the first suit but I still prefer it. Simpler, less noisy. Doesn't look like the schoolbags I used to have.
At least we can all agree bat-nipples are heinous.
Well for me bat-nipples are as bad as the TDK suit tbh... Morgan Freeman may as well have winked at the screen when he said that this suit would make Bruce more susceptible to knives (Joker) and (gunfire) Two-Face.
"So a dog bit you, so we are gonna separate all your plating so people can shoot and stab you."
Whaaaaattt?
I know they kinda wrote themselves into a corner with the first suit but I still prefer it. Simpler, less noisy. Doesn't look like the schoolbags I used to have.
At least we can all agree bat-nipples are heinous.
I too prefer the first suit but the design change was justifiable. His style is to use the element of surprise/stealth to take out enemies before they fire a shot anyway. I mean he's essentially a ninja. To have greater range of motion would enable him to do this more effectively (best defense is offense). So a bullet proof suit is the second line of defense just in case. Plus it did provide some level of protection remember he was shot by two face and survived. Separation of the plates leads to noisy design but justifiable when put into context. How would you justify those reflective silver pieces? Btw I think Robins mask is cool, I wish they used something similar for Green Lantern.
How would you justify those reflective silver pieces? Btw I think Robins mask is cool, I wish they used something similar for Green Lantern.
I doubt even Schumacer himself could justify anything in B&R at this point hah. Though I don't think Batman Forever was as awful as B&R. The neon kitchness kinda worked for that one.
If you guys are going to debate CLOTHING or ARMOR and ignore aesthetics then you're ignoring one of the major practical functions of armor: aesthetics.
Really, this whole thread is EXCESSIVELY deconstructionist. Breaking things down is fine, but trying to view any piece of concept art in absence of any aesthetic considerations is really damn silly and counterproductive.
Even in the most strictly practical, scientific, critical approach to concept design, you'd still need to value aesthetics a lot. Two major reasons:
1, in terms of VISUAL ART, your only means to communicate function is aesthetic.
2, in terms of ANYTHING MADE BY HUMANS, ie, any non-organic thing, that being costumes or outfits or weapons or tools or vehicles or what have you, the creator would in part be concerned with and aware of the aesthetics.
I mean NOTHING CONDESCENDING BY THIS AT ALL, but some of you here don't sound like you've ever really designed anything before. A lot of what you're discussing is pretty silly -- why is there silver on the batman suit?
Uh, probably because batman wanted silver on his costume (what do we learn from this detail? batman in the 90s was a DORK), the batsuit costume has ALWAYS been written as a symbolic, aesthetic thing. He wears it to become a symbol, it's unsurprising it will have some aesthetic frivolities. Not to mention how disorienting and scary the metal gleam would be if he jumped you in a shady warehouse.
It's very cool to break down designs, but it's not really that productive to break down other people's designs in reductionist ways. Why not make your own designs, and think these things out, and discuss them? It's FUN, and very productive, and leads to less silly speculation than trying to critique 15 yearold designs by master concept artists.
Here's an idea -- if you guys want to prompt discussion about practicality and functionality in designs, why not MAKE SOME DESIGNS to prompt discussion? How about a concept workshop, where you decide upon a subject (maybe something simple, like 'can opener', or something more advanced, like 'tactical bikini babe assault megatanks' and see how multiple different artists choose to communicate the function?
Oneeee last edit: The flimsy-ass jagged metal plates on the tumbler batcar are fucking ridiculous, if you want to talk realism -- whose radar is bruce wayne trying to fool? Is he planning to fly that thing into soviet airspace? It looks AWESOME, but it's definitely not a realistic design for a battle tank or IFV. It's scifi, silly aesthetics -- taking a design cue that resonates with people (jagged stealth fighter radar baffles) and putting it into a place it doesn't belong yet looks awesome in (a vehicle that's supposed to deflect bullets and RPGs.) I love the design, but if you think it's functional instead of aesthetic you're fooling yourself.
Really, this whole thread is EXCESSIVELY deconstructionist. Breaking things down is fine, but trying to view any piece of concept art in absence of any aesthetic considerations is really damn silly and counterproductive.
That said, I'm getting into it now, I'd never really taken a good critical look at this bad boy until today:
Seriously though that side window, it's like a carefully constructed funnel to direct bullets and explosions into the glass. This 'tank' is basically screaming "PLEASE bullets, GET INSIDE OF ME."
Also, I love the idea that in the batman nolanverse, nobody has ever considered that the tires might be a weak point. They are practically bigger than the goddamn car itself. I'm pretty sure my honda civic is better suited to withstand gunfire than this (gorgeous) piece of weird science engineering.
If you guys are going to debate CLOTHING or ARMOR and ignore aesthetics then you're ignoring one of the major practical functions of armor: aesthetics.
Really, this whole thread is EXCESSIVELY deconstructionist. Breaking things down is fine, but trying to view any piece of concept art in absence of any aesthetic considerations is really damn silly and counterproductive.
Even in the most strictly practical, scientific, critical approach to concept design, you'd still need to value aesthetics a lot. Two major reasons:
1, in terms of VISUAL ART, your only means to communicate function is aesthetic.
2, in terms of ANYTHING MADE BY HUMANS, ie, any non-organic thing, that being costumes or outfits or weapons or tools or vehicles or what have you, the creator would in part be concerned with and aware of the aesthetics.
I mean NOTHING CONDESCENDING BY THIS AT ALL, but some of you here don't sound like you've ever really designed anything before. A lot of what you're discussing is pretty silly -- why is there silver on the batman suit?
Uh, probably because batman wanted silver on his costume (what do we learn from this detail? batman in the 90s was a DORK), the batsuit costume has ALWAYS been written as a symbolic, aesthetic thing. He wears it to become a symbol, it's unsurprising it will have some aesthetic frivolities. Not to mention how disorienting and scary the metal gleam would be if he jumped you in a shady warehouse.
It's very cool to break down designs, but it's not really that productive to break down other people's designs in reductionist ways. Why not make your own designs, and think these things out, and discuss them? It's FUN, and very productive, and leads to less silly speculation than trying to critique 15 yearold designs by master concept artists.
Here's an idea -- if you guys want to prompt discussion about practicality and functionality in designs, why not MAKE SOME DESIGNS to prompt discussion? How about a concept workshop, where you decide upon a subject (maybe something simple, like 'can opener', or something more advanced, like 'tactical bikini babe assault megatanks' and see how multiple different artists choose to communicate the function?
Oneeee last edit: The flimsy-ass jagged metal plates on the tumbler batcar are fucking ridiculous, if you want to talk realism -- whose radar is bruce wayne trying to fool? Is he planning to fly that thing into soviet airspace? It looks AWESOME, but it's definitely not a realistic design for a battle tank or IFV. It's scifi, silly aesthetics -- taking a design cue that resonates with people (jagged stealth fighter radar baffles) and putting it into a place it doesn't belong yet looks awesome in (a vehicle that's supposed to deflect bullets and RPGs.) I love the design, but if you think it's functional instead of aesthetic you're fooling yourself.
True I agree. My background is in architecture. Before we design anything we do case studies where we scrutinize similar existing designs, to establish what works and what doesn't. The point is to adopt what they did right, and to learn from their mistakes, masters are human anyway. If batman wanted silver in his suit that's fine by me. Comparing different styles is merely a way to establish ones own approach. The second step is critique, where your peers tear into your designs. I shall share some of my work soon, I hope you shall be just as brutally honest because I might have lost objectivity
That said, I'm getting into it now, I'd never really taken a good critical look at this bad boy until today:
Seriously though that side window, it's like a carefully constructed funnel to direct bullets and explosions into the glass. This 'tank' is basically screaming "PLEASE bullets, GET INSIDE OF ME."
Also, I love the idea that in the batman nolanverse, nobody has ever considered that the tires might be a weak point. They are practically bigger than the goddamn car itself. I'm pretty sure my honda civic is better suited to withstand gunfire than this (gorgeous) piece of weird science engineering.
Don't forget that the car gets destroyed in the second movie for those very reasons.
Speaking of Batman, I believe I remember that Gauss once toyed with the idea of making a handful of Batman designs from different eras, or something along those lines. My point being, as long as you've got a cape and a cowl with those pointy ears, anything will look like Batman and the rest doesn't really matter all that much.
I like to think that a good design needs one or two silly things to make it memorable. It's Link's funny hat, Samus's ball-shaped shoulders, Master Chief's bright green, the Spy's balaclava, and so on. Something becomes a bad design when you've either got nothing memorable, or so many elements vying for attention that it's just too much.
Speaking of Batman, I believe I remember that Gauss once toyed with the idea of making a handful of Batman designs from different eras, or something along those lines. My point being, as long as you've got a cape and a cowl with those pointy ears, anything will look like Batman and the rest doesn't really matter all that much.
I like to think that a good design needs one or two silly things to make it memorable. It's Link's funny hat, Samus's ball-shaped shoulders, Master Chief's bright green, the Spy's balaclava, and so on. Something becomes a bad design when you've either got nothing memorable, or so many elements vying for attention that it's just too much.
First of all whats with the ad hominem arguments from both sides. Insulting somebody's credibility isn't the way to have a productive argument. Attacking andreas here is a bit shitty; if the end goal is to get him drawing more, great, but you shouldn't only bring it up as a way to debase his arguments, you could have just as easily sent him a nice pm on the sides and stated your point.
I dunno, maybe this is just because i am an outsider of triple A studios and large scale games(i work on games as a sole artist, UI guy ect), but it kinda feels like there is so much specialty that people get defensive about their roles and the idea of doing over and above their job description is met with hostility.
Hazardous states that his entire job is to make things just look badass, and all the other considerations are up to the story and designers to fix on their end.
Maybe i read that wrong but what about supporting the story, and designing characters that connect with people on a much deeper level?
It kind of sounds like you go out of your way to make things that stick out of the world because everything is so cool; there is no subtlety in this approach.
In my world, story and game play are both super important, as what i do directly influences them. A hit animation when punching an enemy is believe it or not gameplay, it changes how things feel when they impact, and it changes how the player moves. In that same way story and world is directly linked to character design.
Also back just quickly on the sexualisation topic. Things wont ever change by censoring the people that want to do it, that's not how progress has ever worked. It has to change for the better, and that means only doing it where appropriate, and designing in mind of the entire project.
I keep harping on about context, because i feel that this is what this is all about. Both approaches people are suggesting work, there is no denying that. Why don't we discuss how to make better games as a whole instead of just making flashy art.
I see your point but any person involved in game development should be out to make the most badass thing possible. Whether it's trying to make a badass score, a badass environment, a badass gameplay experience, etc. The whole team should strive to do their part as badass as possible. At least that's the team I would want to work with.
Now, what makes people great employees and delights to work with are when they can all compromise and deliver not only the most badass work they can offer, but make it work within the confines of a game development pipeline and hardware specs.
There's a difference between going out there with no regard to what you're making and just making what you think is awesome, and making what you think is awesome for the end goal.
I seriously doubt Haz will make characters that don't fit int he world he's working on. It would be akin to him making super high res meshes and delivering them to his team making an iphone game. That's just not something he would do. But, what he will do is make the most badass iphone character he can make.
For me personally, making 'badass characters' or 'cool looking characters' is a very vague statement. A badass character can be very subtle, but at the same time it can also mean a character with a 'wow, look at me' factor.
Using me as an example, I rarely think about limits and all that when building characters. I just build characters as B1ll said. It all comes to me naturally. The posts I've made on here have been me trying to actually type down the process in my head.
A part of me is also a story teller, so that's why I try and understand what a character is on that level. Some people aren't like that, and that's ok as long as they take direction well.
Also back just quickly on the sexualisation topic. Things wont ever change by censoring the people that want to do it, that's not how progress has ever worked. It has to change for the better, and that means doing it where appropriate doing it, and designing in mind of the entire project.
Yeah definitely this x10000. I really hated to see the 'tropes vs women' thread derailed into 'modesty vs bikini babes', which is really a matter of taste. I'm gonna keep trying to make well designed, interesting women, whether they rock bikini or burqa.
Also, I agree with you that seeking 'badass' 100% of the time is going to water down and ruin your design, but this may just be a misunderstanding -- ive seen skankerzero and hazardous both produce plenty of subtle, understated, effective designs. I think we're using 'badass' to imply a specific style, whereas they're using it to mean 'awesome'.
Also I fucking love your art man, and it's awesome for you to throw your insight into a thread like this that's more about process and ideology than just technical tricks.
Speaking of Batman, I believe I remember that Gauss once toyed with the idea of making a handful of Batman designs from different eras, or something along those lines.
My point being, as long as you've got a cape and a cowl with those pointy ears, anything will look like Batman and the rest doesn't really matter all that much.
That's what I like about the Comicon comp. Love seeing peoples interpretations.
I had to report your post Gav, sorry. You'll notice in that thread that me and Mark (Vig) had a go at each other 4 FUCKING YEARS AGO. A few select sad cases (a lot of them being mods, unfortunately) have chosen to make sure this has haunted me for the preceeding 4 years. It was dumb as fuck and we both failed to come out of it smelling like roses but you'll find that myself and Mark actually have no problem with each other. The 4/5 people that do seem to still have a problem, Gav, Jesse, etc. Please do grow grow up and get over it. Thanks.
Yeah definitely this x10000. I really hated to see the 'tropes vs women' thread derailed into 'modesty vs bikini babes', which is really a matter of taste. I'm gonna keep trying to make well designed, interesting women, whether they rock bikini or burqa.
Also, I agree with you that seeking 'badass' 100% of the time is going to water down and ruin your design, but this may just be a misunderstanding -- ive seen skankerzero and hazardous both produce plenty of subtle, understated, effective designs. I think we're using 'badass' to imply a specific style, whereas they're using it to mean 'awesome'.
Also I fucking love your art man, and it's awesome for you to throw your insight into a thread like this that's more about process and ideology than just technical tricks.
Wow thanks man :O. I didn't know anyone thought that way about what i do, though really I'm lazy compared to most people around here.
But yeah i think we're are a pretty good consensus point in the thread, so I'll leave it here.
It also wasn't an attack on hazardous in any way towards his art. I just think it's an interesting subject deserving thought.
Oh, Andreas. I like you just as much as the next polycounter. I just wish you'd spend as much time working on game art as you do typing snarky responses to industry veterans.
what do you guys think about designs like the guy on the left:
while i like the style of this prothesis or whatever it is, i find it impossible to forget about issues that such asymmetrical design would cause. if i saw it in a game it would keep bugging and distracting me.
That's what I like about the Comicon comp. Love seeing peoples interpretations.
Unfortunately, he did little with it, but it's still quite interesting to see what he could get away with; he didn't even need to stick to the colour scheme or include the iconic belt, and it's still Batman.
I think that with character design, as with logo design, a five year old would need to be able to get the point across if he or she would draw it. It's easy for artists to get so into their work that they try to make every part memorable, or so into the technical aspects that design elements are considered justified simply by being well researched or well thought out; but it's one or two silly things that really stay in your memory.
what do you guys think about designs like the guy on the left:
It's pretty ridiculous, I thought the Bionic Commando remake pulled it off better - there was implied weight on his arm in the animations, sure it wasn't realistic but it was enough to sell the idea.
Blais: I absolutely love that concept. I have a bunch of that guy's stuff saved somewhere -- his world building is awesome. In under-developed african nations that have been swept up into conflict with western weaponry, there tends to be a perverse, macabre contrast between the soldiers and their equipment.
That concept strikes me as a beautiful (if kinda anime) and stylish take on it. Obviously in a super realistic wargame it would look out of place, but I could definitely see a soldier like that raising his mecha-arm to shield himself from sharpnel, or using it to climb to better firing positions, or knock out foxholes in damaged walls. He'd sell strongly as a militia-man with a powerful benefactor, or an oppressive government officer in a despotic, wealthy regime.
The arm can articulate, it sure as hell looks sturdy and bulletproof, and the construction says a lot about the kind of organization that manufactured it.
Ambershee: I doubt his mech has a magical anti-bullet shield. Also who says he's better armored? I doubt those smooth, low profile plates are as bulletproof as the golden slab of armor covering the defense trooper's torso. Again -- in world, with vehicles and weapons that suit the style, it would probably read very naturally. Animations would matter a lot, of course, and maybe the artist should have drawn him posed to communicate how he'd have to move to properly carry that weight, but that's more of a presentation issue than a design issue. Analyze, but don't nitpick for nitpicking's sake, it's counterproductive!
First, I'd like to say that I prefer the visual style of this arm, but the overall design of Bionic Commando - just to clarify I'm not fanboying or something...
IMO, the giant arm from Bionic Commando works better for a couple of reasons:
-it's more than just a sleeve. The forms flow past the shoulder to attach to the torso rather than supposedly being placed in the shoulder socket. It even follows musculature to a degree. While muscleflow isn't necessary in the lower arm because that's all mechanical, it does help to tie human and machine together in the upper arm and shoulder.
-it is more of a prototype-style design than a finished production model. This means that some design flaws can be forgiven more easily. Why would someone mass-produce a design that is 25% larger than usable? Why are there tiny unprotected cables? Weight might not be an issue if plastics etc are used, but it does 'look' too heavy.
-it had a much clearer, specific function - it's a long winch/grappler. It's used to swing across places normally unreachable. The portal-style arm has no clear usage. It's probably stronger than a regular arm, but is that worth the sacrifices?
And Joseph - just that someone has been doing it for long, is famous for it or gets paid well, doesn't mean that everything they do is golden. Rob Liefeld, for example, is criticized widely for his... original takes on human anatomy.
Nobody is allowed to dis Callum's work on my watch!!!!!
Haha, just remember you are looking at it out of context. To me gears of war doesn't work as a standalone design, but in context it works perfectly. Just how do they get those suits on haha
what do you guys think about designs like the guy on the left:
while i like the style of this prothesis or whatever it is, i find it impossible to forget about issues that such asymmetrical design would cause. if i saw it in a game it would keep bugging and distracting me.
The distribution of visual weight is thrown off even more because the pose itself is symmetrical, almost every other element has been mirrored to the other side. Since we are bilateral creatures, maybe the imbalance would be less apparent in a more dynamic pose? Maybe it would be better if it was more of a exoskeleton than prosthesis like these, so that we could see part or most of the left arm, in order to satisfy that innate urge for things to match up. Regarding the pilot, the flow of the pattern on the upper body/shin looks super cool with the b/w contrast, but as for the pants...
Replies
Andrea and Muzz, Ill just say this and i wont reply to this thread anymore, i dont want to start anything since this is the internet and polycount after all ^^,
But Honestly what are you guys trying to prove, This is an art forum, People like big breast, small breast, big ass, small ass, Fuck anything, Real girl? what is not a real girl? Its art why cant i model things the way i want to? teenage hormonal bullshit ? jeez boy get off them high hourse you are so full of it ahahh
Andreas, for someone who post so much, you sure dont have much ART post .. Zing! ^_^ If you like them so called Real girls, Please do model them and show us what a non juvenile bullshit Art man is! Im honestly curious!
Im done ^_^ Feel free to PM if you want to reply, lets not destroy the internet.
It's not that i don't like hyper exaggerated girls. (fuck my internet history says everything but that), its simply that i prefer well thought out game worlds that have all the elements work in context.
Tits for the sake of tits are on the same level as seeing a boom mike fall onto the screen of a movie. It breaks the illusion that its a living breathing world for me, and i realize that it is a teenage boy's fever dream I'm playing in.
A perfect example of this is Chris Sanders. Perverted as fuck in his personal work, but toned down and tasteful when it is in context of his movie, lilo and stitch.
Tldr, Give me a good reason for there to be tits and I'm there with ya man.
Zing? ^_^ ?? Oh man I really hope youre still in your teens...
Many artists don't feel the need to post their work online much, or at all. That does not negate their right to post on polycount. 'You don't post art so STFU' is such a juvenile and lazy fallback.
For your reference, some examples.
Nothing tacky there. These artists have integrity.
Attractive? Sure, I guess. But where's dem bubble buttz and dem big double dee's amirite??? :poly142:
Yep.
I just would love to see better story telling and world building in games, and making things cool or sexy for the heck of it disregarding world or story is not the way to do it. Making tomboys in games to please the feminists isn't fixing the problem either.
I been lurking and staying away from GD like it was the plague, but Andreas your words lure me out of my filthy grotto just like a big round booty would.
People like you is why I dislike forums, so you can be happy and triumphant in your victory that you've effectively culled me off.
Though when you lurk for a while, you get to take in the scenery, see whats happening. Andreas, You're often the first on the scene to blow off your oppinion on anything that rubs you the wrong way ( You're not alone ). You defend it to the last possible second like a priest on some holy crusade against the evil tides of 'out of context tits and ass'.
Ive got some really awesome news for you though Andreas - this imaginary world you want to live in where all female characters in games look kinda like uncharted - well it actually already exists.... its called going outside on planet earth man. You should check it out, girls that look like real girls are out there and theres TONNNNNES of them!!!
Meanwhile tho, I'll still happily be a thorn in your ass making 'unrealistic' girls in MY STYLE with poppin booties and boobs however big i feel like making them - for whatever reason i damn well please. You can happily call them and me whatever you want, and continue to be disgruntled because its not to your liking. But your just going to have to accept that I wont stop. not ever. So we are like arch enemies in terms of what we believe should be 'out there'.
BTW Andreas, 4 years.... and coming up to 5000 posts of oppinions - great contribution to the art community of polycount there. Just what every forum needs - for me you are officially 'that guy'. Gratz.
B1ll however, early / original polycounter, nudging over 1200 posts over 9 years - a huge chunk of which is the most badass art and painting tuts you will ever see in your life - helping the art community in numerous ways that oppinions don't....
Let me just say, if there were 2 art forums started by you and b1ll and I had to choose between which place I would like to hang out, to discuss things of an arty nature - It's at b1lls place, because I want to know and talk with artists who have 'been there done that' as opposed to the oppinion of some random guy that likes to comment and talk on forums.
I know you'll read this and have something witty to say, - but I wont be reading it - I have art to make.
Finally, to the OP. Aesthetics will always trump function for me as an artist.
Does this look badass ? Yes.
Does this fit the game? Maybe not so much. Lets find a compromise.
Does this work with our Skeleton? No. - Okay lets find a compromise.
I would prefer this EVERY time over:
Does this look badass ? No.
Does this fit our game ? Yes.
Does this work with our skeleton ? Yes.
^^^^^^^ Thats a fail to me.
Why ? Because no matter what - I personally see it as my job to ensure that things look badass. Noone else is on this team to do that job. NOONE. Its my job.
However, there are always more people to help you shoehorn your design, your aesthetics into 'getting something working' Riggers, Animators, Audio, Concept and Designers. You dont have to ever settle for one or the other ie 'ehhhh sacrifice the way it looks for *insert any reason here*' to me is the equivalent of 'you failed at your part of the job'
In my experience the very application and final intended result will ALWAYS inject a level of 'functionality' or 'reality' or 'practicality' into every design simply by the process of pushing it through a pipeline.
So my ultimate point is I will at first explode with total artness before trimming it back. Hence, Aesthetics BEFORE Practicality, every, single, time.
P.S I would treat any art test in exactly the same fashion. MAKE IT LOOK COOL everything else is secondary.
2nded. Andreas, stop posting and start making shit. I slap my forehead every time I see people like you and other lurking wordmongers doing nothing at Polycount other than cluttering up General Discussion with your holier than thou opinions.
Don't be a bubble popper man, people do art for their own reasons. What you're doing is coming to someones party and complaining about the beer. It makes you look bad and waters down your opinions. If you feel so strongly about how art is used in games then why don't you change it instead of talking crap about other peoples work. try to stay classy.
Whatever your workflow is to getting to the final product, you should find a healthy balance of both.
In the past I managed to make characters with cloth simulation on PS2 hardware. I kept pushing tech with my designs and they kept pushing back, but in the end we managed to get our sim processing time down low enough that we were doing some really crazy stuff on PS2 hardware. Some of my compromises were 'ok, maybe his coat doesn't have to drag on the floor. I'll make it shorter.'
Cluttering up General Discussion with General Discussion.
K.
This is a place where we come to discuss ideas, etc. That people have different opinions and different ideas to sell is the beauty of it, not the detriment. I 'make shit' day in, day out. I like to come here and converse because I like games and art, and discussing them.
Enjoy the forehead slapping.
Haz, I think your recent spate of walls and walls of text make up for my post count, easily.
Yeeeeeeah, I don't do this. And you never will see me have a go at an individual artist or their art on here or anywhere else. Unlike you, and I'm referring to your wall of text just there. Because I have some class. You've never once seen me make a comment on any of your pieces because I can keep my opinion to myself. That goes for all other artists I see who exhibit the same tendencies in their art that you do. I just keep my mouth shut. You'll rarely see me post in P&P and when you do it's mostly 'work on that silhouette' or 'nice colour scheme' or whatever.
I dont get as much time as I used to to trawl through P&P; wish I did.
The fact that you always turn up to these kind of threads eventually tells me and everyone, that you, me and everyone know you are 'that artist'.
It's true.
And yes, Andreas posts in GD a lot. Nothing wrong with that, he can do as he pleases.
Now back to the conversation.
I see all sides of the conversation. As a major type of media, we do have some sort of responsibility. Not to mention, people do view videogames, typically, as a young persons' thing, and a lower form of art than, say, cinema. That fact alone makes me want the industry to move up a notch, and really start having great stories, character development, etc. This has been coming up in leaps and bounds these past view years.
Oh yeah, I don't think that videogames should not perpetuate inequality, unless to teach some other lesson. Even if we may not want to use our medium to move the world forward, we ought not hold it back.
THOUGH, there is a market for all sorts of games. DOA Beach volleyball, for instance. Nothing wrong with that. It's all in context. Interesting rigging work. You know.
It's meant to be sexy, not sexist.
Anyway, I don't know where I'm going with this. And, oh. Aesthetics come first for me. Then practicality. But it is all about balance.
new batman films went for that whole (pseudo) realism vibe, not only in design but in whole bunch of aspects.
on the other hand old movies focused on atmosphere and stylization.
It makes sense for vehicles in stylized movie to look stylized and vehicles in somewhat realistic movie to look practical.
The only problem with that batman forever car is that it's over the top to the point of being cheesy. it's not that they were wrong to try to make it look cool, the problem is with how they executed it. The car from first two movies is both stylized and cool as fuck.
on the other hand vehicles from nolan's movies may be practical but i'd never guess they belong to batman if i didn't know it already. they don't have much of a distinct style imo.
In an art test all that's left for you to do is reproduce it but also push it to even awesomer levels with material definition, etc. And to make it look like it's actually used for that purpose; leaking liquid stains, whatever.
And yeah brings up a good point; that was part of the beauty of Nolans films. For me, anyway. Everything feeling so real and tangible made the movies so much more exciting for me.
Again this isn't really a realism vs cartoony thing either; cartoony stylised things can be just as tangible.
These designs are nothing but "cool" done in two different styles, prefering one over the other doesn't make it more inspired or practical.
In the same way that we shouldn't quote bot posts Warren, please don't bump ignorant shit like that. Yes he was wrong to use 'gay' as a derogatory term (again Polycount? We're gonna have to have a little chat soon methinks...). Just let it die mate.
**
I agree that that flying 'bat's is ridiculous, personally; I didn't care for it much. Still get a nerd-boner over the Tumbler though. The chase sequence in Batman Begins is still to this day, completely amazing.
"I'll get my car..."
"I brought mine!"
"...yours....?"
"So a dog bit you, so we are gonna separate all your plating so people can shoot and stab you."
Whaaaaattt?
I know they kinda wrote themselves into a corner with the first suit but I still prefer it. Simpler, less noisy. Doesn't look like the schoolbags I used to have.
At least we can all agree bat-nipples are heinous.
ugh. saying things like this is silly - it implies that artists that are given a different art direction lack integrity.
also, lulz at people arguing with B1ll. B1ll is never wrong. Rule #11of polycount.
I doubt even Schumacer himself could justify anything in B&R at this point hah. Though I don't think Batman Forever was as awful as B&R. The neon kitchness kinda worked for that one.
Really, this whole thread is EXCESSIVELY deconstructionist. Breaking things down is fine, but trying to view any piece of concept art in absence of any aesthetic considerations is really damn silly and counterproductive.
Even in the most strictly practical, scientific, critical approach to concept design, you'd still need to value aesthetics a lot. Two major reasons:
1, in terms of VISUAL ART, your only means to communicate function is aesthetic.
2, in terms of ANYTHING MADE BY HUMANS, ie, any non-organic thing, that being costumes or outfits or weapons or tools or vehicles or what have you, the creator would in part be concerned with and aware of the aesthetics.
I mean NOTHING CONDESCENDING BY THIS AT ALL, but some of you here don't sound like you've ever really designed anything before. A lot of what you're discussing is pretty silly -- why is there silver on the batman suit?
Uh, probably because batman wanted silver on his costume (what do we learn from this detail? batman in the 90s was a DORK), the batsuit costume has ALWAYS been written as a symbolic, aesthetic thing. He wears it to become a symbol, it's unsurprising it will have some aesthetic frivolities. Not to mention how disorienting and scary the metal gleam would be if he jumped you in a shady warehouse.
It's very cool to break down designs, but it's not really that productive to break down other people's designs in reductionist ways. Why not make your own designs, and think these things out, and discuss them? It's FUN, and very productive, and leads to less silly speculation than trying to critique 15 yearold designs by master concept artists.
Here's an idea -- if you guys want to prompt discussion about practicality and functionality in designs, why not MAKE SOME DESIGNS to prompt discussion? How about a concept workshop, where you decide upon a subject (maybe something simple, like 'can opener', or something more advanced, like 'tactical bikini babe assault megatanks' and see how multiple different artists choose to communicate the function?
Oneeee last edit: The flimsy-ass jagged metal plates on the tumbler batcar are fucking ridiculous, if you want to talk realism -- whose radar is bruce wayne trying to fool? Is he planning to fly that thing into soviet airspace? It looks AWESOME, but it's definitely not a realistic design for a battle tank or IFV. It's scifi, silly aesthetics -- taking a design cue that resonates with people (jagged stealth fighter radar baffles) and putting it into a place it doesn't belong yet looks awesome in (a vehicle that's supposed to deflect bullets and RPGs.) I love the design, but if you think it's functional instead of aesthetic you're fooling yourself.
Agreed.
Seriously though that side window, it's like a carefully constructed funnel to direct bullets and explosions into the glass. This 'tank' is basically screaming "PLEASE bullets, GET INSIDE OF ME."
Also, I love the idea that in the batman nolanverse, nobody has ever considered that the tires might be a weak point. They are practically bigger than the goddamn car itself. I'm pretty sure my honda civic is better suited to withstand gunfire than this (gorgeous) piece of weird science engineering.
Don't forget that the car gets destroyed in the second movie for those very reasons.
They didn't ignore anything you pointed out.
I like to think that a good design needs one or two silly things to make it memorable. It's Link's funny hat, Samus's ball-shaped shoulders, Master Chief's bright green, the Spy's balaclava, and so on. Something becomes a bad design when you've either got nothing memorable, or so many elements vying for attention that it's just too much.
First of all whats with the ad hominem arguments from both sides. Insulting somebody's credibility isn't the way to have a productive argument. Attacking andreas here is a bit shitty; if the end goal is to get him drawing more, great, but you shouldn't only bring it up as a way to debase his arguments, you could have just as easily sent him a nice pm on the sides and stated your point.
I dunno, maybe this is just because i am an outsider of triple A studios and large scale games(i work on games as a sole artist, UI guy ect), but it kinda feels like there is so much specialty that people get defensive about their roles and the idea of doing over and above their job description is met with hostility.
Hazardous states that his entire job is to make things just look badass, and all the other considerations are up to the story and designers to fix on their end.
Maybe i read that wrong but what about supporting the story, and designing characters that connect with people on a much deeper level?
It kind of sounds like you go out of your way to make things that stick out of the world because everything is so cool; there is no subtlety in this approach.
In my world, story and game play are both super important, as what i do directly influences them. A hit animation when punching an enemy is believe it or not gameplay, it changes how things feel when they impact, and it changes how the player moves. In that same way story and world is directly linked to character design.
Also back just quickly on the sexualisation topic. Things wont ever change by censoring the people that want to do it, that's not how progress has ever worked. It has to change for the better, and that means only doing it where appropriate, and designing in mind of the entire project.
I keep harping on about context, because i feel that this is what this is all about. Both approaches people are suggesting work, there is no denying that. Why don't we discuss how to make better games as a whole instead of just making flashy art.
I see your point but any person involved in game development should be out to make the most badass thing possible. Whether it's trying to make a badass score, a badass environment, a badass gameplay experience, etc. The whole team should strive to do their part as badass as possible. At least that's the team I would want to work with.
Now, what makes people great employees and delights to work with are when they can all compromise and deliver not only the most badass work they can offer, but make it work within the confines of a game development pipeline and hardware specs.
There's a difference between going out there with no regard to what you're making and just making what you think is awesome, and making what you think is awesome for the end goal.
I seriously doubt Haz will make characters that don't fit int he world he's working on. It would be akin to him making super high res meshes and delivering them to his team making an iphone game. That's just not something he would do. But, what he will do is make the most badass iphone character he can make.
For me personally, making 'badass characters' or 'cool looking characters' is a very vague statement. A badass character can be very subtle, but at the same time it can also mean a character with a 'wow, look at me' factor.
Using me as an example, I rarely think about limits and all that when building characters. I just build characters as B1ll said. It all comes to me naturally. The posts I've made on here have been me trying to actually type down the process in my head.
A part of me is also a story teller, so that's why I try and understand what a character is on that level. Some people aren't like that, and that's ok as long as they take direction well.
Also,
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61559
Yeah definitely this x10000. I really hated to see the 'tropes vs women' thread derailed into 'modesty vs bikini babes', which is really a matter of taste. I'm gonna keep trying to make well designed, interesting women, whether they rock bikini or burqa.
Also, I agree with you that seeking 'badass' 100% of the time is going to water down and ruin your design, but this may just be a misunderstanding -- ive seen skankerzero and hazardous both produce plenty of subtle, understated, effective designs. I think we're using 'badass' to imply a specific style, whereas they're using it to mean 'awesome'.
Also I fucking love your art man, and it's awesome for you to throw your insight into a thread like this that's more about process and ideology than just technical tricks.
Did Gauss ever do anything with that?
That's what I like about the Comicon comp. Love seeing peoples interpretations.
Wow thanks man :O. I didn't know anyone thought that way about what i do, though really I'm lazy compared to most people around here.
But yeah i think we're are a pretty good consensus point in the thread, so I'll leave it here.
It also wasn't an attack on hazardous in any way towards his art. I just think it's an interesting subject deserving thought.
while i like the style of this prothesis or whatever it is, i find it impossible to forget about issues that such asymmetrical design would cause. if i saw it in a game it would keep bugging and distracting me.
I think that with character design, as with logo design, a five year old would need to be able to get the point across if he or she would draw it. It's easy for artists to get so into their work that they try to make every part memorable, or so into the technical aspects that design elements are considered justified simply by being well researched or well thought out; but it's one or two silly things that really stay in your memory.
It's pretty ridiculous, I thought the Bionic Commando remake pulled it off better - there was implied weight on his arm in the animations, sure it wasn't realistic but it was enough to sell the idea.
That concept strikes me as a beautiful (if kinda anime) and stylish take on it. Obviously in a super realistic wargame it would look out of place, but I could definitely see a soldier like that raising his mecha-arm to shield himself from sharpnel, or using it to climb to better firing positions, or knock out foxholes in damaged walls. He'd sell strongly as a militia-man with a powerful benefactor, or an oppressive government officer in a despotic, wealthy regime.
The arm can articulate, it sure as hell looks sturdy and bulletproof, and the construction says a lot about the kind of organization that manufactured it.
Ambershee: I doubt his mech has a magical anti-bullet shield. Also who says he's better armored? I doubt those smooth, low profile plates are as bulletproof as the golden slab of armor covering the defense trooper's torso. Again -- in world, with vehicles and weapons that suit the style, it would probably read very naturally. Animations would matter a lot, of course, and maybe the artist should have drawn him posed to communicate how he'd have to move to properly carry that weight, but that's more of a presentation issue than a design issue. Analyze, but don't nitpick for nitpicking's sake, it's counterproductive!
IMO, the giant arm from Bionic Commando works better for a couple of reasons:
-it's more than just a sleeve. The forms flow past the shoulder to attach to the torso rather than supposedly being placed in the shoulder socket. It even follows musculature to a degree. While muscleflow isn't necessary in the lower arm because that's all mechanical, it does help to tie human and machine together in the upper arm and shoulder.
-it is more of a prototype-style design than a finished production model. This means that some design flaws can be forgiven more easily. Why would someone mass-produce a design that is 25% larger than usable? Why are there tiny unprotected cables? Weight might not be an issue if plastics etc are used, but it does 'look' too heavy.
-it had a much clearer, specific function - it's a long winch/grappler. It's used to swing across places normally unreachable. The portal-style arm has no clear usage. It's probably stronger than a regular arm, but is that worth the sacrifices?
And Joseph - just that someone has been doing it for long, is famous for it or gets paid well, doesn't mean that everything they do is golden. Rob Liefeld, for example, is criticized widely for his... original takes on human anatomy.
Haha, just remember you are looking at it out of context. To me gears of war doesn't work as a standalone design, but in context it works perfectly. Just how do they get those suits on haha
that arm, those pants, that torso. They don't really fit together in any kind of theme.
I like the other two though.
http://salaryman.cghub.com/images/page:1/
i invite you to be a little bit less cynical and closed minded and look at the stylistic decisions he makes more in context.