next »

[Miko Galvez]

Shouldn't this be in references?

[Inanimate]

Depends on if it's being used for reference, or just art appreciation. What do you guys think?

[Bandages]

I see it as Design, personally

but Art is probably the easiest place for it to be

[Miko Galvez]

I see it as Design, personally

but Art is probably the easiest place for it to be

but Design is more for Game Design. I guess it IS art but it's more for References (which is under Art) because it provides inspiration (like the setting/world thread in References)

[rek]

It doesn't seem to be for reference – so far people are loathe to say why their overly complicated/utterly generic/I-really-like-the-character-so-it-must-be-good-design characters are "good designs".

Oops, I vented.

[DjangoDurango]

An instantly identifiable cast of characters. It's instantly obvious what the role of each character is, just by looking at their size/stature.

you picked an old pic that doesn't have the designs that were actually on the release game. Also the poses aren't as good.

 

I think TF2 illustrates the thing some of you guys were getting at re: fighting game character designs. TF2 is not a fighting game per se, but like them, it doesn't have a lot of in-game narrative. I had no idea, for instance, that Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter even had a plots until about five years ago. So a player, especially a new player, must determine which character will fit their playstyle just by looking at them.

TF2 characters are well-designed because you can tell by looking at each what their relative speed will be, which is going to have the most health, the primary function of each class, and the level of and type of skill needed to successfully use their weaponry (at least before they started adding more weapons with advantages and detriments). They also read well in-game, where there's shit flying around everywhere and there could be up to 32 players at once.

I don't agree at all the fighting games have the best character designs, but I do think fighting games require better, more communicative ones.

[Bones]

The reason the characters from TF2 are such great design is because they were designed from their silhouettes.
Good character design is obvious when the characters are still very recognizable in silhouette form.



The same goes for Pokémon, their silhouettes are so recognizable because each one is unique enough that it can be recognized from shape alone.

I actually think a few of the characters posted in this thread would not be recognizable at all from only their silhouette.
To me that makes them fall into bad character design.

[nekokoneko]

Is silouette readability the be all and end all for games?

Characters from Naruto/Onepiece for example (probably do have memorable silouettes but thats not where im going) theyre memorable because of their colour masses. Wouldnt that have some value?

I've not really thought it through as im merely wondering about it now, as is i do really value readability as theres been a lot of games to make characters into a clusterfuck of greeble and noise.

[HöllenKobold]

no it's just one aspect

readability of limbs and etc are pretty important and that's not entirely covered by silhouette if you have awful contrast or conflicting color choices

along with a bunch of other stuff


like how sexy is it

[JWK5]

[Bandages]

"Choice tits"

[ink.inc]

tons of magic damage

so gud

[Bones]

Is silouette readability the be all and end all for games?

I sure hope so, silhouettes are an important practice in illustration.
It's all about them shapes.

Characters from Naruto/Onepiece for example (probably do have memorable silouettes but thats not where im going) theyre memorable because of their colour masses. Wouldnt that have some value?

Absolutely color has value.
I'm sure these have been posted more than they need to, but for discussion sake.




I'm sure their silhouettes would be recognizable because we have seen them for so long.
But it's their colour palettes that really resonate with people.

[Dacke]

If you are going for realism it doesn't make sense to focus too heavily on silhouettes, though.

[rek]

If you are going for realism it doesn't make sense to focus too heavily on silhouettes, though.

If you're going for realism, colour blocks don't really make sense either. That's why superhero comic book movies mute or completely replace the bold yellows and reds and magentas of costumes – they'd look ridiculous in context.

I have a hard time seeing realistic characters as well-designed characters. They're often too busy – too many straps and pockets and frills and layers of clothing – or just improbable/costumy.

[JWK5]

If you are going for realism it doesn't make sense to focus too heavily on silhouettes, though.

If you're drawing anything, realistic or not, it makes sense to focus heavily on silhouettes. Silhouettes describe the overall form, balance and movement, and what positive space the figure is taking up in the scene. It's very important because it is one of the first things you start to analyze as you put together in you head what it is you think you are seeing (squint your eyes while looking at a character and you can get a pretty clear view of the silhouette). It's not the only thing you should be focused on, but it is definitely up there near or at the top of the visual hierarchy.





You can actually use this to your advantage and establish character ideas very quickly. By making quick line silhouettes you can churn out dozens of rough character ideas in mere minutes.

[Dacke]

Sure silhouettes are important. But if you are creating a realistic human, you can't really rely on silhouettes to make the character memorable, lest the character becomes unrealistic.

I have a hard time seeing realistic characters as well-designed characters. They're often too busy – too many straps and pockets and frills and layers of clothing – or just improbable/costumy.

Except that there are plenty of memorable live-action movie characters out there. So it's arguably possible to create good human characters that actually look like humans.

[JWK5]

Sure silhouettes are important. But if you are creating a realistic human, you can't really rely on silhouettes to make the character memorable, lest the character becomes unrealistic.

Contrary to popular belief the goal of a silhouette isn't to make the character memorable (since the shape of a character's silhouette will change dramatically based on what they were doing), the goal of the silhouette is identification (i.e. to be able to pick them out of a scene easily). A unique silhouette is only "memorable" in the same manner an uncommon color scheme or distinct hair style is. Memorable or not, you don't want to give a character any kind of silhouette (in any pose) that will make them hard to "read".



You can see here, in this realistic painting, the silhouette still plays a major role in how the image is taken in. You can also see that grouping light and dark masses is very important as well. A good test of this is to look at the image and progressively move back from your monitor. You can see that even at a distance the silhouette and general form (as blocked by light and dark masses) still holds up. This is what silhouettes are meant to accomplish, identification.

[rek]

I have a hard time seeing realistic characters as well-designed characters. They're often too busy – too many straps and pockets and frills and layers of clothing – or just improbable/costumy.

Except that there are plenty of memorable live-action movie characters out there. So it's arguably possible to create good human characters that actually look like humans.

Is a memorable character necessarily a well-(visually)designed character? Are we including personality, distinct speech patterns, emotional sensitivity, etc, when we say a "good character design"?

[HöllenKobold]

probably should