Sonic Unleashed?

[Crowbar]

Well, then what do you like? What's good character design to you? And why the calarts hate?

I spent a little while searching for specific examples for this, and had trouble narrowing them down, until I realised that this is a wholly narrow-minded question and you asked it as if it's actually difficult to find designs other than Pixar's. There's like 80 years of animation history behind us, and yet this question suggests that you're somehow unaware of it or are disregarding it. "If you don't like Pixar's designs, what else is there that you could you POSSIBLY like?" is how it sounded to me. Please tell me that's not true.

To give an answer, I like anything that doesn't show the negative traits I talked about. Vagueness and lack of form (appeal is important too, but that's very subjective). Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Wile E. Coyote, Popeye, Top Cat, Yogi Bear, Mock from "Rock and Rule", Champion, Madame Souza, and the Triplets from "Les Triplettes de Belleville", Basil Wolverton's drawings, almost all the characters in the Oddworld universe, Sody Pop (oh no a John K character! Guess I've betrayed myself!) etc. etc.

Yeah you're going to say some of these (maybe alot of these) ARE generic, and maybe it's true to an extent, but even where they are generic they still have well defined forms. I mean, compare these.


If you can't see that Bugs has an infinitely more interesting silhouette (even without the ears), more interesting positive shapes within the larger form and more distinct subdivisions then, as I said, there's no point arguing with you.

Even though I can't prove it, I guarantee in 20 years nobody will remember Mr Incredible's design. Or Elastigirl's. Or Syndrome's. Or the guy from Presto's. Geri maybe, but that's it.

As for the "Cal Arts" comment, I will admit that was a thoughtless John K-ism. I realised this afterwards though and decided not to take his word for it and went looking myself. There wasn't actually as much of the stuff I was thinking of online as I expected, so maybe it was ill-founded, but these really show off what I meant about the eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRQJGiAa ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6kNxf6a ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qon9b-ju ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNrU7HZ ... F&index=11

I suppose now that can's been opened somebody's going to accuse me of just parroting John K. I'm certainly borrowing alot of the language he uses, but I didn't even know his blog existed until long after I'd seen and been thoroughly disappointed by Wall-E, and started to have doubts about the Incredibles.

[Locit]

To be brutally honest I don't think anyone cares about Bugs Bunny anymore.

Also you're comparing an anthropomorphic rabbit to a human. If you were to use, say, Elmer Fudd:

it would be both a more suitable comparison and show that not every character from early WB-produced animation had an incredibly memorable outline, particularly humans.

[Crowbar]

To be brutally honest I don't think anyone cares about Bugs Bunny anymore.

What's your point?

Also, Elmer Fudd, ultra-generic round-faced everyman that he is, still has better defined features than any of the Pixar characters I've been talking about. My point still stands.

[Crowbar]

I just realised that the "I don't think anybody cares about Bugs Bunny anymore" comment was in response to my "Nobody will remember..." (curse you edit restrictions).

To that I say that he may not be in the limelight anymore simply because they're not making good cartoons with him like they used to (I haven't seen "Looney Tunes: Back In Action" but supposedly it bombed spectacularly), but the quality of the studio doesn't change the eternally iconic status of the character.

[Radrappy]

Well, then what do you like? What's good character design to you? And why the calarts hate?

I spent a little while searching for specific examples for this, and had trouble narrowing them down, until I realised that this is a wholly narrow-minded question and you asked it as if it's actually difficult to find designs other than Pixar's. There's like 80 years of animation history behind us, and yet this question suggests that you're somehow unaware of it or are disregarding it. "If you don't like Pixar's designs, what else is there that you could you POSSIBLY like?" is how it sounded to me. Please tell me that's not true.

To give an answer, I like anything that doesn't show the negative traits I talked about. Vagueness and lack of form (appeal is important too, but that's very subjective). Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Wile E. Coyote, Popeye, Top Cat, Yogi Bear, Mock from "Rock and Rule", Champion, Madame Souza, and the Triplets from "Les Triplettes de Belleville", Basil Wolverton's drawings, almost all the characters in the Oddworld universe, Sody Pop (oh no a John K character! Guess I've betrayed myself!) etc. etc.

Yeah you're going to say some of these (maybe alot of these) ARE generic, and maybe it's true to an extent, but even where they are generic they still have well defined forms. I mean, compare these.


If you can't see that Bugs has an infinitely more interesting silhouette (even without the ears), more interesting positive shapes within the larger form and more distinct subdivisions then, as I said, there's no point arguing with you.

Even though I can't prove it, I guarantee in 20 years nobody will remember Mr Incredible's design. Or Elastigirl's. Or Syndrome's. Or the guy from Presto's. Geri maybe, but that's it.

As for the "Cal Arts" comment, I will admit that was a thoughtless John K-ism. I realised this afterwards though and decided not to take his word for it and went looking myself. There wasn't actually as much of the stuff I was thinking of online as I expected, so maybe it was ill-founded, but these really show off what I meant about the eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRQJGiAa ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6kNxf6a ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qon9b-ju ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNrU7HZ ... F&index=11

I suppose now that can's been opened somebody's going to accuse me of just parroting John K. I'm certainly borrowing alot of the language he uses, but I didn't even know his blog existed until long after I'd seen and been thoroughly disappointed by Wall-E, and started to have doubts about the Incredibles.

I think it's entirely possible to have an objective discussion about this so I'm going to ignore our previous slanderous tones. I am not disregarding the classic designs of 80 years that are indeed timeless. However I think the majority of the characters you list are built for completely different sensibilities than the ones designed for the Incredibles. Characters are designed to fit certain genres and situations. I'm not sure that characters like Bugs or daffy would work in a feature length film with the tone that the Incredibles aim to achieve. These characters are at their core, built from the ground up for slapstick entertainment in short films. I mean, the Triplettes from "Bellville" are very similar in terms of pushed design to Anton ego. Also, most of the examples you list are hand drawn characters. While the same fundamentals apply to CG, it's an entirely different ballpark in terms of what turns out to be successful on the big screen. Being such a new form of animation, the designs in the Incredibles are a huge step in the right direction.

I think to say bugs will be remembered for years to come is not so much do to his design as it is due to his application. Bugs' icon status has been forged from almost 40 years of audience exposure to his shorts, not to mention his poster boy position as the mascot for WB for a while. The Incredibles weren't bred to be as such.

Also, I think the problem with your chosen picture of Mr. Incredible is that it's a publicity graphic. Same thing with the crap Kogen posted before. In the movie, there is much more vibrancy and appeal to the design.





Could they be pushed more and still work within the boundaries of the established world? Maybe. Are they bland designs? No.

[Baba O'Riley]

I like what I like, and if that makes me a simpleton, well, I never claimed to be an artist.

[Esrever]

But even ignoring genre concerns, the Incredible designs are still just generally very conservative. But of course they are! It's a Disney movie. Disney's character designs have always been conservative, and repetitive from film to film. They have a very defined traditional house style, and the directors who work for them today (especially at Pixar) seem generally enthusiastic about recapturing and carrying on that tradition. But what that means is that, yes, the characters in the Incredibles do have very generic designs... Dash and Elastigirl look almost exactly like Hogarth and his mother from the Iron Giant, who were in turn variations of the child and mother designs Disney has used for decades.

Bugs Bunny is probably not a great point of comparison... but some slightly less conservative, more pushed designs that are actually in the same genre and stylistic vein as the Incredibles would probably looks something like this:



There's nothing wrong with "liking what you like" -- hell, I loved the Incredibles -- but it's not like there isn't room for improvement. Pixar is a great studio, miles ahead of their contemporaries... but they're not exactly producing animated masterpieces. Sometimes I think people have a predisposition to mistake the best thing out there for the best thing possible.

[Radrappy]

what?

Also the team fortress designs I'd place at about the same level of exaggeration as the incredibles.

How is this



generic?

or this

[Rob-Bert]

They don't look generic to me. They actually look highly distinctive.

And Esrever, anybody with a brain can tell that the best thing out there isn't the best thing possible. There's always room for improvement with any art form. The thing is, it's still the best thing out there, which naturally bears mentioning and consideration.

[Baba O'Riley]

There's nothing wrong with "liking what you like" -- hell, I loved the Incredibles -- but it's not like there isn't room for improvement. Pixar is a great studio, miles ahead of their contemporaries... but they're not exactly producing animated masterpieces. Sometimes I think people have a predisposition to mistake the best thing out there for the best thing possible.

I can relate to this sentiment, but at the same time, hoping for bigger and better all the time might just end up leading to disappointment, so I dunno. I'd like to believe there will always be artists pushing the envelope, I just know that Pixar won't be one of them. That said, in much the same way that Motown had a formula that was both successful and satisfying, so, too, does Pixar. Groundbreaking? Hardly. Consistent? Definitely. Producing regularly above average work is something to be commended, but only so long as it doesn't stagnate.

[FlashTHD]

Breaking from this exciting art style snobbery for a moment: if these song titles are supposed to be translated from the jap Wii version, then it appears Eggmanland's action stage is called Crimson Carnival over there. Is it like this in the english Wii/PS2 versions too or is this a weird localization cut?

[Shadow Hog]

No idea. It didn't show up in the OST track titles, though - it's just "Eggmanland - Day" and "Eggmanland - Night" there.

[Esrever]

Dash and Hogarth have the exact same head. The differences you see are entirely surface level... they have different hair, and Hogarth's ears are slightly larger, and they have different colouring styles because they were illustrated in different mediums. But the fundamental design of the characters -- the actual construction of their heads -- is identical, both to one another and to dozens of previous Disney children. In fact, here is another character who has the same head as Dash:



But look... this is not even necessarily a criticism. It is just an observation about how Disney designs characters. They have a few established, well-liked visual formulas, and when the time comes to create a new character they just take one of those formulas and give it big ears or a rounder nose or slightly pointy hair. The Incredible family in particular are just really, really standard-looking Disney humans. The designs are still technically solid. They just aren't very unique. That's what I mean by conservative.

Now Edna, on the other hand, is a great example of what happens when you take one of Disney's character formulas and really push it a more unique direction. Several of the humans in Ratatouille are as well! And the Heavy from TF2 stands out as a more pushed, more distinct variation on the same basic template that Mr. Incredible comes from... the pronounced brown, receded eyes, tighter cheeks and more clearly defined chin give his face contrast and definition, which makes it more unique and easier to read.

[Zeta]

Now Edna, on the other hand, is a great example of what happens when you take one of Disney's character formulas and really push it a more unique direction.

From what I saw of the trailers for UP, the old man who is the main character in it is done using this style, too.

[hedgepig]

This guy has done a great job of making this game look epic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhx-YFu3 ... annel_page.

If there was ever a Sonic movie, VE studios are the ones to do it.

[UCHU]

God, people these days, arguing over cartoon characters.

[Ritz]

God, people these days, arguing over cartoon characters.

Is character design not as viable for discussion as any other facet of art? Really?

[Kogen]

God, people these days, arguing over cartoon characters.

Is character design not as viable for discussion as any other facet of art? Really?

I love how this went from confusing criticism of Pixar character designs, to being pedantic about confusing criticism of Pixar character designs, to finally heading full steam in the direction of the classic confusing criticism of Pixar character designs.

Way to go Kogen Ritz! Making mountain ranges out of molehills, one confusing criticism of Pixar character designs at a time!

[Neo]

Pixar's characters always look similar and that's both a safety blanket and a an annoyance to some. Some people love their work, and others can't stand it. This doesn't mean that their movies suck, it just means tastes are subjective. Also Kogen and Ritz love eachother and FlashTHD is FlashTHD.

Now can we stop striking things out stop bickering and talk about Sonic and friends?

[Blount]

If it helps, I recently played Unleashed on my brother's PS2, and thus, have an opinion about it!

Controls are ass.

Werehog:Hedgehog ratio is ass (you play as the Werehog for over 80% of the game).

Music is... surprisingly good.

Unskippable cutscenes are ass.

Having to listen to Sonic going "WRRAAAAGH!" every single time you drift or boost is major ass.

I would like to go more into detail with the controls. Imagine you're playing as Metal Sonic in Sonic R. Now imagine that to accelerate, you push the analog stick instead of holding down a button. Now double Metal Sonic's speed and you pretty much have all the ingredients for the Hedgehog controls.

Also, "You little... you little!" just doesn't have the same appeal as "Get a loada... Get a loada... Get a loada this!".

[Kogen]

They only added that WARGGG noise to the PS2/Wii version.

There are more Werehog levels because they split them up. On 360/PS3, most of those are combined into a really long level. Just makes it seem like there are more because werehogs are slow.

[Blount]

That's probably even worse, considering you can't save your progress until you've finished a level (I think). The daytime stages really do feel more like mini-games than anything else, at any rate. I don't think they even have act names, though I could be wrong.

[Kogen]

They do have act names. Adabat is called Jungle Joyride or something, for example.

I think it is only listed in sound test because Sonic Team is Sonic Team.

[Shadow Hog]

Actually, IIRC it's mentioned when you approach a level entry point in the 360 version (eg: approach the first non-tutorial stage in Apotos, and it'll tell you this entryway leads to Windmill Isle Act 2).

And yes, the controls are ass. It's my most major gripe with the game, since a lot of it would probably be really, really good if I could actually friggin' control myself.

[FlashTHD]

Actually, IIRC it's mentioned when you approach a level entry point in the 360 version (eg: approach the first non-tutorial stage in Apotos, and it'll tell you this entryway leads to Windmill Isle Act 2).

And when picking acts on the world map.

No such luck on the low defs?