next »

[Alevice]

No, but if we go by silhouettes alone (the entire point of my post, read also realistic characters), there are plenty of angles were most traits are not noticeable. That is my regard.

Hangedman, I mean like for example, a movie with live actors in a realistic modern setting. Like you want to include a set of characters from within a single social circle where physical traits alone are irrelecant (say, a lawyer firm, where being tall doesnt mean shit in a court).

[DjangoDurango]

So, character in motion can change his shape, costume, personality and facial features?

You can instantly tell what class a clumsy spy is disguised as, from across the map, with only a split-second glance of their rough shape.

 

It might bear saying too that being more reliant on silhouette probably works a lot better in games that don't feature a shitton of characters. Even accepting that, ideally, every character would have a different shape, there comes a point where the differences would be negligible between enough of them. TF2 works in this respect because there are only 9 characters in the game proper. If there were hundreds like in, say, Fallout, you couldn't pick every single one out from another, even if they didn't all use the same two body shapes for everyone.

[Gimym TILBERT]

Realistic proportion ... silhouette them too

[iffi]

How well do silhouettes work for realistic characters in motion? Honest question. I can understand a staic figure - it determines a loads of things like physical traits and role with a given pose. A character in motion cant rely on pose at all.

For characters in motion, the motions themselves takes the place of the specific pose, helping lend identity to the character. Dr. House's limp, for example, distinguishes him from other characters in House, M.D. You can still do this even if the characters are really similar physically (like, as you said, they're all part of a law firm), unless your characters are part of a clone army and all move the same way.

In cases like the aforementioned law firm example, though, I'd say the other aspects of the character (voice, personality, facial features, etc.) define the character more than the silhouette. It's then the creator's job to make sure those defining characteristics are emphasized so the audience really notices and remembers those. That doesn't make the silhouette unimportant, though; it still needs to be consistent with that of a lawyer working for a law firm.

[AMAZON]

i love how much you can tell about their personalities even though they're all wearing basically the same thing

[DjangoDurango]

Realistic proportion ... silhouette them too

This is a good point too. Silhouettes are extremely important in L4D AND the pose and motions associated with them are as well. When your teammates stray too far away or behind solid objects, they appear as blue outlines of their silhouettes so you can tell, without having to read the player's name over top of them, who they are. Additionally, you can also tell if they are in some trouble, as the outline will be orange. You can immediately tell what kind of trouble based on the posing and movement. It's very easy to differentiate when another player is under a Hunter or Smoker attack, which requires immediate assistance because they cannot free themselves, as opposed to a Spitter or Boomer attack, which they may need help but are still standing and able to move freely.

But enough about Valve for the moment.

I think the character design in the Vigilante 8 games was neat because as a player, you see the characters in the cutscenes/slides but you only ever actually drive their vehicles. So they made these characters and then they made cars that expressed those characters in the gameplay. The body styles as well as the stats on each car were made to correspond with the person who owned it.

[Alevice]

How well do silhouettes work for realistic characters in motion? Honest question. I can understand a staic figure - it determines a loads of things like physical traits and role with a given pose. A character in motion cant rely on pose at all.

For characters in motion, the motions themselves takes the place of the specific pose, helping lend identity to the character. Dr. House's limp, for example, distinguishes him from other characters in House, M.D. You can still do this even if the characters are really similar physically (like, as you said, they're all part of a law firm), unless your characters are part of a clone army and all move the same way.

In cases like the aforementioned law firm example, though, I'd say the other aspects of the character (voice, personality, facial features, etc.) define the character more than the silhouette. It's then the creator's job to make sure those defining characteristics are emphasized so the audience really notices and remembers those. That doesn't make the silhouette unimportant, though; it still needs to be consistent with that of a lawyer working for a law firm.

Yeah that seems quite right. The examples people illustrated (specially those guys on orange suits, seem quite spot on. Thanks.

[John Sandoval]

[JWK5]

Also note that hands, feet, and faces are visual landmarks. The moment we realize we are looking at a human-like figure we immediately search out those landmarks (which form a sort of linked composition).

Other landmarks of note, as bad as it sounds, are breasts and butts (and genitals, which is why bicycle shorts are especially evil) which help us discern the masculinity or femininity of the figure we are looking at (not necessarily through size but through presence).

You can greatly effect how a character is "read" by where you place these landmarks. Of all of them the face and hands tend to be the most potent since we tend to look to them to interpret what a person might be expressing, especially while talking.

[kummerspeck]

they're from advance wars

[JWK5]

they're from advance wars

I think he means the curve-vs-flat contrast. EDIT: No wait, I think you're right Thernz, it was two questions, I misread.

I picked up the principle from a book (the name of which escapes me but I'll go look and post it, and possibly scan some of it, a little later) as it applied to body mass movement and energy transfer but I found that the concept applies elsewhere as well. The basic principle (as it applies to body mass) is as follows:



But really, what the curve (opposite of a flat) is telling you is that force (and energy) are being applied to the curve and the flat is rigid in response (in order to counter-balance the shifting of mass). The energy bounces throughout the body in this constant transfer and allows us to defeat gravity and stand upright despite it.

[Graham.]

Fuck gravity.

[JMickle]

jwk you are amazing

[Fifth]

I remember my art teacher touching upon that principle, JWK5.  I think he referred to it as "Cal State Cool", and I have no idea why.

[peanutbuttershoes]

I am confused by your drawing.

Wouldnt curved areas be pulled tight areas too depending on the Body part?

Like say I was curvy and I bent over. My butt would be stretched tight and would be all round and stuff (well if Robert crumb was drawing me anyways) But my front would get all wrinkly and smooched together.
My butt would be different than your drawing.

Maybe I am dumb. Am I dumb?