I think proportions/anatomy don't quite match up with the concept and the stylization falls short in areas in terms of boldness (hard-surface parts) and definition/sharpness (folds). I recommend breaking down/ inspecting the concept in an image editor to get a better understanding what carries the design (e.g. measure proportions). To get the general figure down, it can help to block it out with primitive shapes first, not jumping into high-res sculpting too early.
But generally, if you want to focus on low-poly baking and stylized texturing, I wonder whether doing a whole character at this point isn't spreading yourself too thin, as you're throwing in anatomy as well? Could make the projects' scope more manageable by just doing a bust or the shield at first. Can still expand once finished. But that's just me thinking loud, got to have fun too
On a side note, when using someone's concept, I would credit them.
I think you should work on the secondary forms a bit more. The face looks a tad flat. The eyes could be pushed back a bit more. The nose could be pushed out and have a more "flow-y" form, etc. The transition and proportions on the shoulders could be improved. The silhouette of the torso could be better. Also, the torso looks to be buldging to the back. Watch out for the hand form, those are tricky. It's an overall tricky character to sculpt. @Fabi_G is very on point. Break down the forms first. Try to simplify the forms with primitives. Really spend the time adjusting proportions in the blockout phase.
Hope you can get this through the finish line and have fun with it!
Not bad, especially the head looks better. Other areas look just different to me.
He looks a bit like he's shrugging with the clavicles raised that high. While I think the angle of the clavicles isn't quite right in the concept, either, and might be a result of wanting to show something that wouldn't be visible from this angle, you perhaps have additionally misinterpreted them as being raised even more due to the horizontal lines converging (see e.g. the angle of the line connecting the cheekbones where it's perhaps more obvious that this is due to perspective).
For the ribcage, I'd differentiate more between the volume of the ribs and the muscles directly attached to them, like the serratus anterior on the one hand, and the volume of the latissimi on the other. There seem to be surface depressions, but the ribcage seems a bit too wide even compared to the concept. The width in the back should come from the lattissimus, especially with arms raised, which should be visible from the front. Obviously you'll have to make some compromises/changes depending on if and how this will be rigged, but generally it should hold true. The back looks a bit like a balloon that has been blown up ignoring the anatomy, so again more surface depressions than volumes. Also you'd expect the form language of the front to continue, here.
The traps can be more massive and simplified like in the concept, and you'll want to define the acromion as a clear border for the delts and traps.
Edit: Any you really should credit the author of the concept you are using. You can still edit your first post to do that.
Well done so far. I haven't read what others posted so forgive me if I repeat. The last image in the thread, the back of the sculpt is ballooned out, there is no rib cage. It's the stuff you don't see in the ref pic so I reckon you don't know. Anatomy will solve these mistakes so get to know it.
Your back bulges to the top of the shorts which looks odd.
The face is flat. Last image second pose. It's ok to give characters different attributes it's just that when it looks strange it is.
The hands are not good. The thumb and character of the hand looks unnatural so get some hand reference shots.
This is personal but a neutral poser with the feet straight looks odd. Keeping a pose natural helps you sculpt more effectively. In fact you can give your character a little help by pushing the pelvis slightly forward, splaying the feet, raising the chin makes for a pose that is easier to work on.
Current Progress
Replies
I think proportions/anatomy don't quite match up with the concept and the stylization falls short in areas in terms of boldness (hard-surface parts) and definition/sharpness (folds). I recommend breaking down/ inspecting the concept in an image editor to get a better understanding what carries the design (e.g. measure proportions). To get the general figure down, it can help to block it out with primitive shapes first, not jumping into high-res sculpting too early.
But generally, if you want to focus on low-poly baking and stylized texturing, I wonder whether doing a whole character at this point isn't spreading yourself too thin, as you're throwing in anatomy as well? Could make the projects' scope more manageable by just doing a bust or the shield at first. Can still expand once finished. But that's just me thinking loud, got to have fun too
On a side note, when using someone's concept, I would credit them.
Keep it up!
Insteresting design.
I think you should work on the secondary forms a bit more. The face looks a tad flat. The eyes could be pushed back a bit more. The nose could be pushed out and have a more "flow-y" form, etc. The transition and proportions on the shoulders could be improved. The silhouette of the torso could be better. Also, the torso looks to be buldging to the back. Watch out for the hand form, those are tricky. It's an overall tricky character to sculpt. @Fabi_G is very on point. Break down the forms first. Try to simplify the forms with primitives. Really spend the time adjusting proportions in the blockout phase.
Hope you can get this through the finish line and have fun with it!
He looks a bit like he's shrugging with the clavicles raised that high. While I think the angle of the clavicles isn't quite right in the concept, either, and might be a result of wanting to show something that wouldn't be visible from this angle, you perhaps have additionally misinterpreted them as being raised even more due to the horizontal lines converging (see e.g. the angle of the line connecting the cheekbones where it's perhaps more obvious that this is due to perspective).
For the ribcage, I'd differentiate more between the volume of the ribs and the muscles directly attached to them, like the serratus anterior on the one hand, and the volume of the latissimi on the other. There seem to be surface depressions, but the ribcage seems a bit too wide even compared to the concept. The width in the back should come from the lattissimus, especially with arms raised, which should be visible from the front. Obviously you'll have to make some compromises/changes depending on if and how this will be rigged, but generally it should hold true.
The back looks a bit like a balloon that has been blown up ignoring the anatomy, so again more surface depressions than volumes. Also you'd expect the form language of the front to continue, here.
The traps can be more massive and simplified like in the concept, and you'll want to define the acromion as a clear border for the delts and traps.
Edit: Any you really should credit the author of the concept you are using. You can still edit your first post to do that.