North America - English

League of Legends Community

League of Legends Community > League of Legends > General Discussion
@ Xypherous More on the "body analysis" bit we discussed.

First Riot Post
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Darkwahn ?? Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-04-2012

But there are also people who dont feel that any champs are relatable, and play them simply for a mix of effectiveness and fun mechanics. :P

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Chad ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronStylus View Post
Why hello!

This is a very cool analysis and quite honestly, i think it's completely on the mark. I talked to Xypherous about the context, (because I lacked the context of the thread) and I do happen to agree with him that creatures, especially if they're to be featured such as a champion is, have to be relatable. That's the largest challenge when designing a creature as a champion. You have to avoid something looking like either an NPC or a raid boss. You can certainly have aspects of the two, but you still need something to ground it.

I think that's why anthropomorphic animals such as Volibear, Nasus and Renekton work. They're humanoid but still have heavy animal features. Certain champions however sometimes fall into those monstrous areas without completely succeeding I feel. We encountered that challenge with Skarner, though I feel with Skarner we did a pretty good job. Still, overall I don't think he's as popular as a lot of other champions. I'd say creatures have a smaller audience than more humanoid champions, that's not to say that audience should be under-served, I just think it happens to be a small audience.
As someone that has loved nature documentaries about interesting creatures like molluscs, arachnids, insects and snakes (basically anything that skitters, crawls or slithers) I simply love playing all the weird champs I can get my hands on.
For this very reason I don't fancy the anthropomorphic champs very much, but at least they're more interesting to play than pure human characters.
Need I say that I find Urgot and Cassiopeia the most awesome looking champs in the game? Urgot is the guy to go to I you feel like skittering around, while Cassiopeia does an awesome job of slithering.
Skarner on the other hand, while not having the human bits (which is a good thing in my eyes), lacks in skittering
His very small and tiny legs are only noticeable to you if you focus on them which is kind of sad, he got nothing on Urgot!

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronStylus View Post
That said, there's no reason we should back down from making monstrous or creature champions, we just have to avoid the pitfalls of Omen. What this analysis has shown sums up exactly what I felt when working on him. He became a mishmash that didn't have a lot of identifiable components, and where he was identifiable, the features really weren't compelling enough, nor were they cohesive.

I think we can make a successful creature champion but usually it takes longer for the idea to cook, and a lot has to be figured out as opposed to a more human or familiar archetype which can lean on immediate relatability. Creatures are challenging, but all good things come from challenges!
From the recent red post regarding monsters and grotesque champions one thing is clear to me. You want them to have personality!
Now I'm not a professional designer, but it's my opinion that the eyes are very important when drawing a character. Sure, the whole glowing eyes thing looks kinda cool and bad-ass, but they come at a price; they detract personality from the character.
Sure, some of the monsters, like Skarner and maybe Kog'maw, are inspired by real life
creatures that don't have the same kind of eyes as mammals and humans, only black button eyes, which are pretty much equally useless for expressing any kind of feeling, maybe save flabbergastedness, which make them even worse than the glowing eyes that at least convey power or evilness.

Glowing eyes are cool, but I'd like to see them on even less characters still. Very few have a reason for them; the only one I can think of on the top of my head is Xerath which doesn't have a real body, so he's excused. But the rest of the human mages, no matter how powerful their powers are, could still do with some normal eyes.
My favourite example of the value of the eyes can clearly be seen in Shyvannas case, where her normal skin splash art have her eyes glowing, in contrast to both of her two other skin splashes, where Ironscale Shyvanna just looks bad-ass and attractive (without exposing too much skin/cleavage! (Ammagad - how can this be?! :O ))!
Yea, she's not a real monster champ, but if that's the difference between glowing eyes and a pair of normal ones, why not try for a monster champ with a real pair/set of eyes with pupils, some with vertical slits maybe? Or spice it up with horizontal goat pupil eyes?
You had your chance with Soraka in the remake, but I heard she's gonna look even more human now; makes me sad

Also one more thing that's had me thinking. Why don't monsters wear clothes?
Clothes and hair and other accessories does so much when creating a character as is obvious from the much discussed "one female body model" with different cloths and hair style on them. You can clearly tell the different characters apart just because of their cloths and hair.
So why can't monsters and creatures also dress up in clothes or armour? Why do they have to be naked? Putting clothes on a character clearly marks it as something sentient and civilised and can be varied to the point of infinity. After all, if all the humans in the league were naked you'd have a hard time keeping track of you character in team fights. Clothes and armour makes it so much easier to distinguish them.
If people want a mindless savage monster that just likes to rip people apart clothes on it doesn't make much sense I agree. But since you guys at Riot seems set on giving the monster champs some personality I don't see this as a hindrance.
I've rarely seen it done, but the most proniminent example I can think of is the Qiraji from world of warcraft. Now they're a bit more humanoid than your avarage monster, but I still like the looks of them http://images.wikia.com/wowwiki/images/3/33/Qiraji.jpg

I'm a bit sulky cause all the cute-lovers out there got their happy-go-luck yordles already, while we who like eating yordles for breakfast only have a few proper monsters (Cho, Kog and maybe Skarner.), while the rest of them like Nasus and Alistar and the likes of them are second-rate half-breed monsters :P
I'd like to see a real Yordle Eating Monsters species to counter the yordles, and not some monster alliance, but I'd be real happy if there just were some more proper monsters. And no more puppies dressed up like monsters either! I'm looking at you Kog....

I like what I'm reading here IronStylus. There are yet hope for the monsters. I shall wait for them.

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
LouisLeGros ?? Senior Member
This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronStylus View Post
Why hello!

This is a very cool analysis and quite honestly, i think it's completely on the mark. I talked to Xypherous about the context, (because I lacked the context of the thread) and I do happen to agree with him that creatures, especially if they're to be featured such as a champion is, have to be relatable. That's the largest challenge when designing a creature as a champion. You have to avoid something looking like either an NPC or a raid boss. You can certainly have aspects of the two, but you still need something to ground it.

I think that's why anthropomorphic animals such as Volibear, Nasus and Renekton work. They're humanoid but still have heavy animal features. Certain champions however sometimes fall into those monstrous areas without completely succeeding I feel. We encountered that challenge with Skarner, though I feel with Skarner we did a pretty good job. Still, overall I don't think he's as popular as a lot of other champions. I'd say creatures have a smaller audience than more humanoid champions, that's not to say that audience should be under-served, I just think it happens to be a small audience.

That said, there's no reason we should back down from making monstrous or creature champions, we just have to avoid the pitfalls of Omen. What this analysis has shown sums up exactly what I felt when working on him. He became a mishmash that didn't have a lot of identifiable components, and where he was identifiable, the features really weren't compelling enough, nor were they cohesive.

I think we can make a successful creature champion but usually it takes longer for the idea to cook, and a lot has to be figured out as opposed to a more human or familiar archetype which can lean on immediate relatability. Creatures are challenging, but all good things come from challenges!

Ysereh: L = 9a
You're inspiring me to make a spin off thread from the armored women thread for monstrous characters Parrot.

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Caporai ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronStylus View Post
Why hello!

This is a very cool analysis and quite honestly, i think it's completely on the mark. I talked to Xypherous about the context, (because I lacked the context of the thread) and I do happen to agree with him that creatures, especially if they're to be featured such as a champion is, have to be relatable. That's the largest challenge when designing a creature as a champion. You have to avoid something looking like either an NPC or a raid boss. You can certainly have aspects of the two, but you still need something to ground it.

I think that's why anthropomorphic animals such as Volibear, Nasus and Renekton work. They're humanoid but still have heavy animal features. Certain champions however sometimes fall into those monstrous areas without completely succeeding I feel. We encountered that challenge with Skarner, though I feel with Skarner we did a pretty good job. Still, overall I don't think he's as popular as a lot of other champions. I'd say creatures have a smaller audience than more humanoid champions, that's not to say that audience should be under-served, I just think it happens to be a small audience.

That said, there's no reason we should back down from making monstrous or creature champions, we just have to avoid the pitfalls of Omen. What this analysis has shown sums up exactly what I felt when working on him. He became a mishmash that didn't have a lot of identifiable components, and where he was identifiable, the features really weren't compelling enough, nor were they cohesive.

I think we can make a successful creature champion but usually it takes longer for the idea to cook, and a lot has to be figured out as opposed to a more human or familiar archetype which can lean on immediate relatability. Creatures are challenging, but all good things come from challenges!

Ysereh: L = 9a
Now I want bugs for that!

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Caporai-KabuNaar-OriginalSkin.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	139.4 KB
ID:	436444  
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
TheHatPerson ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by srsizzy View Post
Man, this discussion.

One of the main issues in the first thread was "he has back spines, but they're not part of his combat design."

Then take off the back spines?

Honestly, most character designs at other big companies see a huge number of visual iterations without much trouble and they make it work. This conversation is pretty pointless -- the real conclusion is that the people who work at Riot didn't like the idea and decided not to use it.

Personally I don't see how it's that hard to "fix" Omen, and I definitely don't totally buy into the "miniboss" versus "hero" concept. If the person doesn't have enough personality, add more. If Pixar can make us feel for a boxy robot and a white ovoid that barely talk, pretty much anything can be done. Whether or not it's easy or the people at Riot right now want to go out of their way to do that for certain concepts is the actual question.

As we see from Xyph's post above, it's been mostly Rioters who don't actually have the qualifications in visual character design leading this discussion on the forums because they're consistently articulate online and the people who actually have this as a job don't feel like talking with the community about it.
malz got a dagger and freaking NEVER USE IT, GIVE US OMEN

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
ApokalypticKing ?? Senior Member
This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

Reds have time to post in useless thread but not help ppl who cnt play?

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
N49 ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronStylus View Post
*scissor sound*
Any argument made against Omen is killed by Veigar.

Yeigar looks like a beefed up purple minion, with his lack of a face, his wand and gigantic glove.

I mean, he looks great, but if his robes and hat had a purple shade to it, you probably couldn't tell the difference.

It dose not make him any less of a character though. Omen never even really got that chance.

I swear if there ever was a company that's "too responsible" or "too perfect" with the way it treats it's product, it has to be RIOT.

Loosen up a little guys, we want our raid boss and stereotype characters, just as much as we want the gems like Taric or Leona.

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
BadgerDrool ?? Senior Member
This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

I can't help but imagine swapping the direction of Omen's back spikes. Then giving him a dash / backwards cone AoE where he stops. Leap forward, toss spikes behind you. <-----

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Cud ?? Senior Member
This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

You want a cool creature champ?

How about a Gecko?

If you're bored take a look:
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/...9#post14042489

 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Von Nicklesnout ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
05-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronStylus View Post
Why hello!

This is a very cool analysis and quite honestly, i think it's completely on the mark. I talked to Xypherous about the context, (because I lacked the context of the thread) and I do happen to agree with him that creatures, especially if they're to be featured such as a champion is, have to be relatable. That's the largest challenge when designing a creature as a champion. You have to avoid something looking like either an NPC or a raid boss. You can certainly have aspects of the two, but you still need something to ground it.

I think that's why anthropomorphic animals such as Volibear, Nasus and Renekton work. They're humanoid but still have heavy animal features. Certain champions however sometimes fall into those monstrous areas without completely succeeding I feel. We encountered that challenge with Skarner, though I feel with Skarner we did a pretty good job. Still, overall I don't think he's as popular as a lot of other champions. I'd say creatures have a smaller audience than more humanoid champions, that's not to say that audience should be under-served, I just think it happens to be a small audience.

That said, there's no reason we should back down from making monstrous or creature champions, we just have to avoid the pitfalls of Omen. What this analysis has shown sums up exactly what I felt when working on him. He became a mishmash that didn't have a lot of identifiable components, and where he was identifiable, the features really weren't compelling enough, nor were they cohesive.

I think we can make a successful creature champion but usually it takes longer for the idea to cook, and a lot has to be figured out as opposed to a more human or familiar archetype which can lean on immediate relatability. Creatures are challenging, but all good things come from challenges!

Ysereh: L = 9a
Thanks for the compliment on the analysis. One of the problems with Omen (as noted) is that like the information we have from you, the Riot employees, and a closer look at him/her/it... there's really no discernible identity due to the mish-mash of elements in its design.

That is to say, it's not a BAD design, just weirdly put together. Like for instance: It has an almost feline body (picture something like a cat leaping forward, that's what the "loping gait" bit was trying to describe), and because of the head/neck placement it'd be more advantageous for the creature to strike with its back spikes.

But then there was the whole debate on whether or not it should be melee or ranged attack damaged base, when the biological structure of the creature would suggest melee over a ranged approach, but eh. Not an expert on this sort of thing (Though it does feel fun to pretend to be an astrophysicist to Stephen Hawking in proportionate scale to this discussion).

On the anthropomorphic characters: They work because they have distinct personalities that's both tied in the lore and how they carry themselves. For example: Nasus looks more like he's wearing a sort of decorative regalia that befits his nature as a worshipped deity and librarian. As such, not only are his animations more or less "reserved" movements, but his personality is calm and collected.

Renekton on the other hand has a more brutal fighting style with his bath'leth like weapon, and evokes a more primal/beastial tone with his mannerisms and animations which once again befit his backstory.

Volibear works (for me) partly due to his noble appearance and the fact that his armor just WORKS. It's almost like scale mail, but at the same time not due to there being pauldrons, a helmet, et cetera. While he is clearly inspired by characters like Iorek Byrinson from His Dark Materials, Volibear's armor is an easy comparison to Omen's carapacean plates.

If you look at the scale mail Volibear wears, the scales point downward, which allows for sharp points and cutting edges alike to glance off of them without hitting his furry/fatty underbody beneath the armor, giving him superior protection. Then you look at how Omen's carapace is structured on the back and it seems almost redundant from a defensive standpoint, because while it does have the large spikes... it also has musculature exposed RIGHT UNDERNEATH the plates.