Reworking the Dragon Request Sub-forum

[Jazeki]

Since I am awake and clearly this discussion is still going forward without context, I'm clarifying and then won't be posting anymore in the thread. I included the medieval line as an example of what I thought didn't fit the guidelines because it said that you can assume a time period and I did mention that I felt some dragons were too advanced. Artists asked me which dragons and I named them, reiterating that they felt more modern than the time period that they are supposedly adhering to. It has nothing to do with the colors or whether or not I think they are dragons or if I have a problem with them. They just look more modern than say a white dragon or a green/pebble. My main point (which got clarified in discord) is that the use of the word medieval is stifling for a world that is clearly advanced in magic and has the ability to have dragons and other creatures that can evolve and mutate thanks to mana exposure or reside on other planes, etc. Medieval is something that is applicable to old DC dragons, but not to concepts that are coming out as the site moves forward in its world building.

[Fuzzbucket]

Medieval is something that is applicable to old DC dragons, but not to concepts that are coming out as the site moves forward in its world building.

If TJ says it applies, it applies. And I have to say I have always thought of dragons as mediaeval. I've not seen a HINT of one in today's world

 

Technology probably scared them off

 

And from the guidelines, which still apply:

 

Fit into DC

--- There is a basic Medieval setting to DC (so you can imagine a timeframe), so a cyborg dragon will not fit in the cave. Even if you give me ten pages of information on your dragon, it doesn’t fit in with DC and will not be chosen.

Edited June 8, 2017 by fuzzbucket

[angelicdragonpuppy]

As Jazeki said I simply think the DR guidelines could state:

 

"A fantasy world without modern technology"

 

Again it is largely a simple matter of semantics and I doubt requests will be handled much differently, but as has been stated several times now, "fantasy" evokes a world that can be fairly advanced magically and culturally without modern electronics, while Medieval suggests a world of oooh science scary let's behead each other and die of plague.

 

This will be my last post on what was meant to be a simple harmless wording discussion, because a few people have chosen to completely twist words and meanings out of context and be very nasty over nothing. :/

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Fantasy - fine - but I can't see fantasy as including machinery, is all...

 

I don't see mediaeval as

oooh science scary let's behead each other and die of plague.

 

I do see it as no massive metallic beasts - those are robots and not living. (And I was one of those who was not happy with the power rangers references, by the way.)

[Sundew]

If a mod thinks a concept won't be approved by TJ, will they still accept it?

Yes, I think they should. Concepts can be reworked and I don't think having a questionable one should mean yours gets outright rejected. Approving concepts that need improvement would open more discussion on ways to make it work, instead of putting all the pressure on one person to bring it up to par. Unless the concept is really really out there, or breaks one of the actual guidelines, I don't think a mod should reject it for not fitting.

However, I do think seeing something like "Your concept may need a bit of reworking in order to fit into the DC universe" in the approval PM could be useful, just so people don't get the wrong idea about what does and doesn't need revision.

[irrelevantindigo]

Yes, I think they should. Concepts can be reworked and I don't think having a questionable one should mean yours gets outright rejected. Approving concepts that need improvement would open more discussion on ways to make it work, instead of putting all the pressure on one person to bring it up to par. Unless the concept is really really out there, or breaks one of the actual guidelines, I don't think a mod should reject it for not fitting.

However, I do think seeing something like "Your concept may need a bit of reworking in order to fit into the DC universe" in the approval PM could be useful, just so people don't get the wrong idea about what does and doesn't need revision.

Personally, I agree that a concept should be reworked to fit into DC in private. A PM from a mod summarizing elements of a concept that are unsuitable would be ideal.

There are many concepts that are and have been in the DR that have been questionable or have flaws however, the conceptor refuses to change the unviable elements of their idea. It bogs down the DR and can be avoided from the get-go.

[TehUltimateMage]

How well do you all think a separate concept subsection would work? Even in any major production like a game or movie, there's often extensive sketches and things just to iron out concepts and designs before going for the final product.

 

In this case, all the supplementary material and "brainstorming drawings" goes into the concept subsection. When the concept gets ironed out and final sketches chosen and redlined, the topic 'graduates' into sprite production mode where the nitpicks are purely technical.

 

This gives a little more weight to sketchers, though I see it might disadvantage people who like to jump right into the sprites -- although quick sprites could also be used for testing concepts?

Edited June 8, 2017 by TehUltimateMage

[olympe]

Of course, sprites could also work for testing concepts - however, it's only one way of many. Who is going to tell an artist how big they're supposed to make their "sketch", or which materials they have to use? If someone wants to make their "sketch" no more than 100 x 100 pixels big and use good old paint to do so - which means they're making a sprite, actually - then that's just as fine as a sketch involving pencil and paper - be it a huge poster or a small post-it note. As long as there's something graphical to work with/on.

[ludwig8989]

I personally say maybe instead of subsections we need two "final" critiques or maybe 3 at a push: one of sketches, one for lines and one for shading. That way at the end of a concept someone doesn't say something that's been missed and have to drastically change something that's shaded and almost ready to go. Also everything is kept in one place and people can sprite from scratch if they want. Make it common for people in the subtitle to say which critique they're after. Lines aren't done until the sketch has been critiqued and then shading isn't done until lines have been critqued. More work for the in cavers I'm afraid but I c u already popping up sooner on in DR requests so I'd like to thank you all a lot for being so active <3 The non-artists appreciate it! 😊

[Corteo]

The thing is, besides creating more work for us critiquers, I can take a sub-par sketch and make a decent sprite out of it, as I am confident some other artists in DR can. So that's why it makes more sense to have a final critique at the end instead of at every stage. Although artists should still seek crit at every stage it seems like having a formal final crit at each stage would be overkill.

[ludwig8989]

The thing is, besides creating more work for us critiquers, I can take a sub-par sketch and make a decent sprite out of it, as I am confident some other artists in DR can. So that's why it makes more sense to have a final critique at the end instead of at every stage. Although artists should still seek crit at every stage it seems like having a formal final crit at each stage would be overkill.

Aaa yes I can see that. That didn't cross my mind. Would doing this for lines and shading be better instead?

[olympe]

The thing is, besides creating more work for us critiquers, I can take a sub-par sketch and make a decent sprite out of it, as I am confident some other artists in DR can.  So that's why it makes more sense to have a final critique at the end instead of at every stage.  Although artists should still seek crit at every stage it seems like having a formal final crit at each stage would be overkill.

Well, there's a reason you're an in-cave artist and most people working in DR aren't. Besides, the anatomy/pose issues do need to be addressed sooner or later - and sooner is way better because it involves less work overall.

 

Besides, what I said before still stands: If you have a sub-par sketch that doesn't get past "final" sketch critique, and make it into a sprite that is cave-worthy - then you can have the sprite critiqued. Or state that you feel confident you can make it work / edit it yourself. However, not everybody is that good, I'd even say most aspiring spriters aren't. And giving them the necessary pointers before they've lined, flat-colored and shaded the whole thing will give them a better chance at not having to re-do everything.

 

Which is why I'd still like to see something like sketch critque.

Edited June 8, 2017 by olympe

[irrelevantindigo]

Aaa yes I can see that. That didn't cross my mind. Would doing this for lines and shading be better instead?

I agree with this. Having to redo lines after colors and shading had happened is no fun and completely avoidable.

Sketches/Lines could potentially use their own sub-forum separate from Sprites/Tweaking/Descriptions.

Edited June 9, 2017 by irrelevantindigo

[Sundew]

If there are going to be multiple stages of formal critique, I think it would need to be at spritelines (most likely requiring finished lines for all stages) and once finished. Poor sketches can be corrected, like Corteo said, so I don't think requiring sketch crit is a good idea. Sketches can get regular crit all they like, and a conceptor can hold off on lining to wait for crit for as long as they want, but I wouldn't be in favor of requiring it.

 

I still think simply maintaining topic descriptions better would work just as well as having separate subforums, and without the clutter and extra work for mods.

[Sundew]

It's really nice to see TJ's new feedback for the topics currently marked completed. Don't know if he plans for this to be a regular thing, but I think it would be really helpful to get responses like that from him on completed topics (or as part of the final crit process? though that may be too busy). While anatomy crits are always great, the comments on "this name won't work"/"what makes these unique"/"these don't work well with the current in-cave standard" are especially useful in knowing what to avoid for the future.

[irrelevantindigo]

It's really nice to see TJ's new feedback for the topics currently marked completed. Don't know if he plans for this to be a regular thing, but I think it would be really helpful to get responses like that from him on completed topics (or as part of the final crit process? though that may be too busy). While anatomy crits are always great, the comments on "this name won't work"/"what makes these unique"/"these don't work well with the current in-cave standard" are especially useful in knowing what to avoid for the future.

I saw this too. It makes me really hopeful for the future of the DR and the CL.

Especially since people do work so hard on these sprites-- it's great to have feedback on them from the admin so they're hopefully not stuck in the CL forever.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

I would love to see more unique dragons get into the cave. It would be nice to have more skinny dragons or chubby pygmies because most of the dragons being released make me think of Barbie dolls. But, eh, that is just my opinion

[Sundew]

I would love to see more unique dragons get into the cave. It would be nice to have more skinny dragons or chubby pygmies because most of the dragons being released make me think of Barbie dolls. But, eh, that is just my opinion

I don't really see how the comparison to Barbie dolls works -- the last 3 non-holiday releases alone have had a huge variety of different designs and body types, and Fell dragons were among them (hardly what I'd call Barbie-like).

 

I think TJ does have a good point about chubby pygmies possibly being a problem in distinguishing hatchlings and pygmies. I'm sure there are ways to pull it off but it is certainly something that needs to be considered.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I think the guidelines might need to be even more clearly defined, since TJ just rained down crit on all of the very first three to make it through the new critique process. T___Tu

[olympe]

Well, if you want to work in Dr, you'd probably be well-advised to read through TJ's critique. Because it's very much straight to the point, and mostly objective.

[Fuzzbucket]

Surely there CAN always be changes made, even to the ones on the completed list, after all ?