
Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW) - angersock
http://dresdencodak.tumblr.com/post/3583964949/figures-they-speak-for-themselves-mildly-nsfw
======
alex_c
Another great example is Team Fortress 2. All the characters are carefully
designed to be distinguishable at a glance - I remember seeing a great
explanation of this a few years back, but can only find this pdf right now:

[http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/NPAR07_Illust...](http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/NPAR07_IllustrativeRenderingInTeamFortress2.pdf)

~~~
lifeformed
They kind of threw this out the window after all the hats and costumes,
though.

~~~
teamonkey
It's all about the distinctive silhouettes of the character classes and how
they move. Even with clothes you can quickly recognise a heavy, a pyro, a
medic at a distance.

~~~
lifeformed
It's a lot harder though. The larger hats breaks up the silhouette quite a
bit. At least you can still identify based on posture, which is done pretty
well.

~~~
anateus
The Israeli military uses these:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitznefet_(Israeli_military)>

They're big floppy hats that go on top of the helmet to prevent the classic
helmet silhouette look.

Works better because human bodies aren't quite as distinctive as TF2 classes
:)

------
eterpstra
This reminds me a bit of the DOTA 2 Character Art guide. Valve takes it a step
further and states that a character must be identifiable by only its
silhouette - including orientation and carried weapons. It's a pretty good
read, even with just a passing interest in game & character art.
[http://media.steampowered.com/apps/dota2/workshop/Dota2Chara...](http://media.steampowered.com/apps/dota2/workshop/Dota2CharacterArtGuide.pdf)

~~~
StavrosK
They really have succeeded. I can tell which each of those heroes is by just
the silhouette. Interesting read, thanks.

------
BoppreH
Aaron Diaz is amazing. The time travel/transhumanism comic Hob is greatly
recommended ( <http://dresdencodak.com/2007/02/08/pom/> ).

~~~
angersock
There are many webcomics out there that are strictly better from both a
plotting and dialog standpoint--however, for simply having delightful art and
interesting character design, Dresden Codak is wonderful.

I'm a bit skeptical of the current Kickstarter, but here's hoping, you know?

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
OK, confused. "Current" Kickstarter? Is there more than one? Because the one
that he finished seemed to fund quite well.

Skeptical that it will be late? Well, given the _normal_ DC schedule, that
wouldn't surprise me a lot. But I don't fund projects on Kickstarter expecting
a particular delivery date like it's a store. So if it arrives in November
I'll still be happy.

~~~
angersock
It's funded, to the tune of a half million--I'm curious if he'll actually be
able to deliver. I hope so.

~~~
covingkj
Dresden Codak has been a fully sustainable job for Aaron Diaz for years now -
this is his profession. He has also participated in at least one collaborative
Kickstarter that has already delivered. Given that the professionals that have
been doing the Kickstarter thing this year have largely done very well, and he
already has a track record of delivering, why are you so skeptical?

~~~
saraid216
The Erfworld Kickstarter pretty much bankrupted its author. FYI. He started a
new Kickstarter with blessing from the KS people, which... I can't say I am
happy with. Especially since he's already promising stretch goals again.

------
throwaway1980
Strange, I've never heard the term "figure drawing" used in the context of
comics or animation. Maybe it's common within the field, but the artists I
know generally associate it with drawing human models. Wikipedia doesn't
mention it either.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_drawing>

Interesting post though. I liked seeing the Cowboy Bebop characters again, and
the point about the need for the body to be identifiable without clothes makes
a lot of sense.

~~~
RBerenguel
There's a book by Walt Stanchfield (former head of animation at Disney) named
"Figure drawing for animation" Although the name may have changed, it used to
be a photocopied book passing from hand to hand, but I read it was about to be
properly published.

Edit: memory failure (just woke up, I guess it counts as an excuse) The book
is /Gesture/ drawing for animation, not figure drawing. I mentally mixed the
article content with your reference :) The book is great, though.

~~~
throwaway1980
Sounds neat, thanks!

------
roryokane
If you’re interested in reading more tips about cartoon drawing technique,
there’s a relevant book I’ve read some of, How to Make Webcomics:
[http://www.amazon.com/How-Make-Webcomics-Scott-
Kurtz/dp/1582...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Make-Webcomics-Scott-
Kurtz/dp/158240870X). I sampled a few chapters in a bookstore and remember
that the author of PVP gave very similar advice, which I found interesting
reading. I’m not skilled enough to evaluate the book’s drawing advice, but it
looked like the authors knew what they were talking about. Though I’d caution
that their advice seemed skewed to comics that update often and have a
relatively simple drawing style, as opposed to the kind of comic that releases
a detailed full-color page once a week.

~~~
jholman
Did you just point out that Scott Kurtz (one of the authors of that book) gave
some advice similar to that given by Scott Kurtz (author of PvP)?

(hopefully the humour/snark part of that comment doesn't overwhelm the
information part)

~~~
roryokane
No, I meant that Scott Kurtz (the book co-author and PvP author), in his book,
gave very similar advice to Aaron Diaz, the author of this “Figures” blog
post. But I see how my wording was ambiguous.

~~~
jholman
Then my apologies. =]

------
sp332
The rest of the "comic theory" series:
<http://dresdencodak.tumblr.com/tagged/design> I think my favorite is "Primary
and Secondary: A Tale of Two Focal Points". (Note the "Drawing Hands" one has
a nude girl, but she's curled up and doesn't show anything. And of course the
"Figures" one from OP is in there too.)

------
steven2012
I am an avid fan of the Walking Dead comic books, but this is the #1 problem I
have with the art: I can't tell the difference between the characters. Many of
the characters look the same, especially the female characters, so the story
gets confusing, especially when you only buy the trade paperback every few
months.

------
kevingadd
Not exactly 'mildly' by any united states standard... interesting post though.

~~~
kevingadd
I guess this is what I get for trying to be informative by pointing out that
the post's content is in fact definitely, most very not-safe-for work:
downvotes and ranting from the HN hivemind about how I'm oppressing art with
my puritan American worldview, or something.

Let's enumerate the things I didn't do here:

\- Say this post shouldn't be on HN

\- Say the post is inappropriate for viewing by anyone

\- Say the post was porn or smut

\- Say anything is wrong with the post

I know tons of people who read HN at work, but screw those people, right?

~~~
gojomo
It's your broad claim "by any United States standard" that's likely the cause
of the downvotes.

Lots of US people here work in places where these two non-pruriently-posed
cartoon nudes, used for a valid illustrative purpose, present no 'safety'
problem.

Please don't make the US work environment seem more prude or homogenous than
it actually is. This is not "definitely, most very not-safe-for-work". It
depends on where you work. That makes "mildly NSFW" a fair description - it's
enough of a warning for those in very sensitive environments, while allowing
that in other places it'd be considered harmless.

~~~
kevingadd
I've never encountered a work environment where viewing those drawings at work
would be defensible unless you were actually an artist.

Note that I'm not saying that this would be a firable offense, but that
someone could easily complain to HR about it and it could be considered
creating a hostile work environment if it makes them feel unwelcome. These
things matter!

~~~
gojomo
And I've never worked anyplace where it would be a problem. Which refutes your
categorical pronouncements about nationally-consistent standards.

Everyone's got an anecdote!

~~~
kevingadd
Well, if you're demanding standards, you could spend a few seconds looking up
the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_hara...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_harassment)

You'll notice 'pictures of pornography in cubicles' is one of them.

<http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html> (a government website,
note) mentions specific cases where visible pornography counted as
establishing a hostile work environment.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
In an ancestor comment you (correctly) noted that you hadn't said this post
was porn. Now you are all but saying exactly that. Which is it?

~~~
kevingadd
I'll make my point again: The problem is not that the content is or isn't
pornography; the problem is that the content can be considered pornography by
a viewer. It doesn't matter whether _I_ think it's pornography, it's whether
the person at the desk across from me does. If they think it's pornography,
they're well within their rights to file an HR complaint if it makes them
uncomfortable.

Which is why it's good to have clear 'NSFW' warnings on things that might be
inappropriate in the workplace. Trying to get really specific about what might
be appropriate doesn't do anyone much good; just tag it NSFW if it's remotely
questionable and people can check it out at home. Make sense?

Visible genitals - whether male or female - are often considered not
appropriate for general audiences in the US. So it is not exactly crazy to
assume that someone might be made uncomfortable or upset by a coworker viewing
them at work.

~~~
lucian1900
Nudity is not pornography. I don't think it's healthy to assume others are so
crazy as to call this blog post pornography.

------
groundCode
"using hair alone to distinguish heads is cheating" xkcd might disagree :)

~~~
LeonidasXIV
He explicitly mentions stick figures that can be better than photorealistic
painting as readers of xkcd might agree.

But take the Scott Pilgrim stories, everybody looks mostly the same except for
hairstyles. I remember there is also a joke by one of the characters that
everybody looks the same anyway.

I'd say, these are suggestions and not hard rules. You might get away
disregarding some of these.

------
mogrim
What a surprise: the only naked figures are a) women and b) cute.

~~~
sp332
They are also c) the main characters in his webcomic.

~~~
Pxtl
To be fair, it is a reasonable criticism of Aaron Diaz - he frequently posts
feminist-commentary and lambasts others for using sex to sell comics, but he
throws a lot of pin-up worthy cheesecake in his work.

