BTNFelOrc2

Moderator · Feb 14, 2016

13:00, 16th Feb 2016
GhostThruster: that face is really well drawn and defined, but it needs more highlights to flesh out the form and give the icon a light source. furthermore, the red is overwhelmingly monotonous and blends the face into the background too much. give it highlights, and some more diverse colours and this will be a fantastic icon

14:07, 22nd Feb 2016
GhostThruster: good that you made the face more discernible from the background, but it still needs stronger highlights. now that it's brightened a bit more, i've also noticed its shadows are far too dark - shadows in wc3 should never be pitch black, and you shouldn't define your shapes via a black outline either. lighten the shadows & remove or minimise the black outlines, otherwise it looks too cartoony and almost cell-shaded.

same applies to female icon.

17:29, 3rd Mar 2016
GhostThruster: no changes made, but considering how well it's drawn i'll give this one an approval. shame you haven't updated it, but pm me if you do improve it with the suggested changes in comment #17 and i may bump the rating up.

San · Feb 14, 2016

Very brutal looking Orc,I like it.
but the long left teeth looks weird imo

Sunreaver · Feb 14, 2016

looks like ogre

Ginufe · Feb 14, 2016

San said:
Very brutal looking Orc,I like it.
but the long left teeth looks weird imo

It's a fel orc, the fel transforming makes their fangs far longer than the ones of "normal" uncorrupted orcs.

Either way, thanks!

Sunreaver said:
looks like ogre

Then I'm utterly confused with finding out how to draw one...

Last time I drew ogre it ended up the opposite way. :vw_sad:

http://puu.sh/n7Ct6/2519a691cd.jpg http://puu.sh/n7Csq/102c34c350.png

Heinvers · Feb 14, 2016

This is pretty rough and cool looking. You really caught something from Blizz's shading style.

San · Feb 14, 2016

What i meant is the lower part of the teeth

seems a little 'fat' compared to the other one

, but that's just me,don't care it

Stanakin · Feb 14, 2016

Whatever you do, on this site there will always be people who come in the comment section and randomly tell you your icon looks like something else. And then some will even demand you change the name so it fits what they see in it...

Anyway, cool icon.

Ginufe · Feb 14, 2016

Stanakin said:
Whatever you do, on this site there will always be people who come in the comment section and randomly tell you your icon looks like something else. And then some will even demand you change the name so it fits what they see in it...

Anyway, cool icon.

Thanks lad!
Couldn't say it any better. It's cool to see someone sharing the same opinion and seeing the little flaws in this community as I do ... Appreciated!

SpasMaster · Feb 14, 2016

This is really nicely done. It heavily reminds me of the art style used for the Orcs in the "Lords of War" series released for the Warlords of Draenor WoW expansion. Your icons represent well the designated race. This does look like an Orc and the screenshot from above looks like an Ogre. They are true to the respective races.

However, one cannot be blamed for seeing something different. You may one day draw a high quality icon for a Night Elf, inspired by the Night Elf art you have available. It could be an icon that contains all the traits, curves and visual characteristics of a Night Elf. And even then, someone may see some Blood Elf traits in there. Perception is something individual. If many people seem to share the same views, then there may very well be an issue with your work.

In the end: your work does represent well the race it's supposed to (in this case an Orc) and it does it very well in my opinion. The fact that I was reminded of original Blizzard artwork when I saw this should speak a lot (in a positive way). Keep up the good work!

Ginufe · Feb 14, 2016

SpasMaster said:
This is really nicely done. It heavily reminds me of the art style used for the Orcs in the "Lords of War" series released for the Warlords of Draenor WoW expansion. Your icons represent well the designated race. This does look like an Orc and the screenshot from above looks like an Ogre. They are true to the respective races.

However, one cannot be blamed for seeing something different. You may one day draw a high quality icon for a Night Elf, inspired by the Night Elf art you have available. It could be an icon that contains all the traits, curves and visual characteristics of a Night Elf. And even then, someone may see some Blood Elf traits in there. Perception is something individual. If many people seem to share the same views, then there may very well be an issue with your work.

In the end: your work does represent well the race it's supposed to (in this case an Orc) and it does it very well in my opinion. The fact that I was reminded of original Blizzard artwork when I saw this should speak a lot (in a positive way). Keep up the good work!

Thanks fam, appreciated.

Kyrbi0 · Feb 15, 2016

Really cool (like the other one as well), though if I may say, it feels like a lot of red. Kinda hard for me to see where the Orc began & the background started.

But that's just my personal, non-artist opinion. : )

Chaosy · Feb 16, 2016

I like the concept but please use another color for the background. It melts together too well in my opinion. Still solid work, 4/5.

Ginufe · Feb 21, 2016

Icon has been updated. F5 to reload and see.

Kyrbi0 · Feb 21, 2016

(This is one of those times I wish I could "Un-refresh", since hilariously I cannot recall what it looked like just a second ago...)

(I think) it looks (a lot) better now, awexome. The corner-highlight really helps. I still think the other sides could use some de-reddening... But even without that, it's a stellar Fel Orc icon, man. Very Warcraft-y. : )

(just a nitpick: AFAIK there's no such thing as/need for "DISPAS"; the Passive icons all use the same Disabled form as the regular ones do.)

Ginufe · Feb 22, 2016

I am not updating this. It's surely at stage of being approvable at very least. The alterations I was suggested by the mod are purely misc and irrelevant as it depends on people's taste.

Kyrbi0 said:
(This is one of those times I wish I could "Un-refresh", since hilariously I cannot recall what it looked like just a second ago...)

(I think) it looks (a lot) better now, awexome. The corner-highlight really helps. I still think the other sides could use some de-reddening... But even without that, it's a stellar Fel Orc icon, man. Very Warcraft-y. : )

(just a nitpick: AFAIK there's no such thing as/need for "DISPAS"; the Passive icons all use the same Disabled form as the regular ones do.)

Thanks for the feedback, but I'll stay with what it is.

GhostThruster · Feb 25, 2016

Ginufe said:
I am not updating this. It's surely at stage of being approvable at very least. The alterations I was suggested by the mod are purely misc and irrelevant as it depends on people's taste.

i can't force you to update, but let me say that all three of us icon mods/reviewers pretty much think it's not at an approvable stage, with one being slightly more lenient *cough* sin'dorei *cough*. we also all believe it's very close to being approvable, if you make a couple tweaks (the following also applies to your female icon too):
- shade the tusks more
- reduce the strength of the white glow in the background, as currently it stands out a bit too much OR just keep the background black
- add some more highlights and reduce the darkness of the shadows. like i said, currently the icons almost look cell-shaded

none of the above is miscellaneous nor irrelevant. it's the job of a wc3 icon to be of usable technical quality, and yes, whether it is or isn't will come down to the personal taste of a moderator. thus is the nature of reviewing a work of art.
please reconsider updating this (and the female one too). they're drawn so well in terms of perspective, form and adherence to the blizzard style, but their lackluster shading and colouring really brings them down from their potential.

Chaosy · Feb 25, 2016

I actually agree with Ginufe here.

I could likely link a few dozen icons that are far, far, far worse than this but is still approved.
*cough*

I found even worse but I felt like I shouldn't take a worst case scenario. Still, found this one within 1 minute.
They are not even comparable on a quality level.

GhostThruster · Feb 25, 2016

Chaosy said:
I actually agree with Ginufe here.

I could likely link a few dozen icons that are far, far, far worse than this but is still approved.
*cough*

I found even worse but I felt like I shouldn't take a worst case scenario. Still, found this one within 1 minute.
They are not even comparable on a quality level.

i understand your point, but i could also link icons that are better than this and were not approved. precedent is useful in certain contexts, but in terms of individual icon quality, it's not, especially since the wavering roster of moderators and resource section standards means that both you and i could find varying examples to support our points.
also isn't that example you linked a screenshot icon?

both apheraz and i agreed it needs changes to be approvable, and while sin'dorei very slightly was in favour of approval, he also believes the icon needs a lot of changes and misses out on a really good potential rating if it's not updated.

Ginufe · Feb 25, 2016

GhostThruster said:
i can't force you to update, but let me say that all three of us icon mods/reviewers pretty much think it's not at an approvable stage, with one being slightly more lenient *cough* sin'dorei *cough*. we also all believe it's very close to being approvable, if you make a couple tweaks (the following also applies to your female icon too):
- shade the tusks more
- reduce the strength of the white glow in the background, as currently it stands out a bit too much OR just keep the background black
- add some more highlights and reduce the darkness of the shadows. like i said, currently the icons almost look cell-shaded

none of the above is miscellaneous nor irrelevant. it's the job of a wc3 icon to be of usable technical quality, and yes, whether it is or isn't will come down to the personal taste of a moderator. thus is the nature of reviewing a work of art.
please reconsider updating this (and the female one too). they're drawn so well in terms of perspective, form and adherence to the blizzard style, but their lackluster shading and colouring really brings them down from their potential.

The tusks could be worked on, same the background, but I disagree with the highlights and reducing the hard shadows that are being casted in. That's what gave it the WCIII-like feeling and there's no reason for it to be ruined.

So here's what I can do : I'll change the background to black and make a little touch to the tusks, which won't really have much impact on the final look of the whole icon either way, but whatever you say.

GhostThruster · Feb 25, 2016

Ginufe said:
So here's what I can do : I'll change the background to black and make a little touch to the tusks, which won't really have much impact on the final look of the whole icon either way, but whatever you say.

that'll be good enough for approval

your icon only need some little tweaks to get it approved.

about the highlights and shadows and their relation to wc3's style: putting your icon with some blizz ones side-to-side will hopefully show you that there is a noticeable difference in shading.

now, the framing, perspective & form is 99% spot-on. it's really what gives your icon that blizzard feeling. but you can clearly see 3 major colour/shading discrepancies:
1. blizzard icons have less saturated colouring.
2. blizzard icons rarely, if ever, have pitch black shadows. in fact, rarely ever do they have pitch black anywhere on the icon except in the background. their shadows also are blended more than yours, which are sharper.
3. blizzard icons don't outline their shapes with black lines. this, combined with your sharp and dark shadows, is why i described your icon as cartoony and 'near-cell shaded'.

the reason why i tell you this is because, after you fix the background and the tusks, you're a few highlight brustrokes and brightness/contrast adjustments short of not just an approved icon, but one that's 5/5-worthy.

EDIT: also, make sure you update the female version too. the same feedback applies.

Kyrbi0 · Feb 25, 2016

GhostThruster said:
that'll be good enough for approval your icon only need some little tweaks to get it approved.

about the highlights and shadows and their relation to wc3's style: putting your icon with some blizz ones side-to-side will hopefully show you that there is a noticeable difference in shading.

now, the framing, perspective & form is 99% spot-on. it's really what gives your icon that blizzard feeling. but you can clearly see 3 major colour/shading discrepancies:
1. blizzard icons have less saturated colouring.
2. blizzard icons rarely, if ever, have pitch black shadows. in fact, rarely ever do they have pitch black anywhere on the icon except in the background. their shadows also are blended more than yours, which are sharper.
3. blizzard icons don't outline their shapes with black lines. this, combined with your sharp and dark shadows, is why i described your icon as cartoony and 'near-cell shaded'.

the reason why i tell you this is because, after you fix the background and the tusks, you're a few highlight brustrokes and brightness/contrast adjustments short of not just an approved icon, but one that's 5/5-worthy.

EDIT: also, make sure you update the female version too. the same feedback applies.

I'm glad there are people that can see this kind of stuff; all I can do is line custom icons up to existing ones and sorta go "errr, something looks a little off" or "looks great!" or "looks bad", with very little else to help with. :<

BTNFelOrc2

BTNFelOrc2 (Icon)

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Similar threads