Updates Wednesdays

Comic 357 - Well that descalated quickly

Posted on Wednesday, the 15th of May at 12:00 AM, 2019 in 2019

Author Notes:

DanVzare Wed, 15. May 12:00 AM, 2019 edit delete
Yes, I know they're going to fix the way Sonic looks. But personally I think that's a bad thing, because let's face it. This film is going to be terrible! And I think an unintentionally creepy main character, might just push it into that "so bad it's good" range.

What's really weird though, is that I've actually seen some people say that Sonic looks alright. Like... seriously. People have said that. People with actual eyes. I mean, forget that it's supposed to be Sonic for a moment, forget about keeping the design similar or anything like that. How can ANYONE say that it looks alright? It's terrifying! It looks like someone messed up, and then tried to fix it by adding more and more detail, which in turn only made it worse!
I suspect that these are the same people who didn't see those creepy smiling faces on old children shows and such as creepy as well. You know the type I'm talking about. The things like clocks, the moon, and other stuff, but given the most creepiest smile possible (usually with huge puffed up cheeks). And it was always for stuff targeted towards children!
Thankfully people know how to not make inanimate objects with faces, look creepy now. I mean, it's not even that hard! Just don't add unnecessary amounts of detail.

This reminds me of a time I was searching through Youtube and found a video about Twinkle Little Star. Just the song and a CGI animation to go with it. It was pretty decently animated. Don't ask why I was on that video, I honestly don't remember. The thing is though, it was TERRIFYING! The faces were pure nightmare fuel! I remember there was a cow in it, and I'm telling you, that cow was way scarier than anything I've ever seen in a horror movie. But what made it worse, was that no one in the comments seemed capable of seeing what I saw!
All of the comments were filled with parents saying things like "Oh, this would be lovely for my child."
So that's why I'm going to say that anyone who can't see just how bad Sonic's design is in that original trailer, has what I'm going to call "parent blindness". Which is a condition where if you're told that it's for children, you are completely blind to how terrifying it is.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find that Youtube video anymore. If I could, I would give a link. But it was many years ago.

Also, something else I want to say, that's completely unrelated.
Whenever I mention that logos are getting way too flat and simple, people bring up the minimalism argument, saying that "that's the way it's gotta be, because that's good design, and it looks good".
Yet, whenever I bring up that characters in games, especially fighters in Soul Calibur and Pokemon in the newer Pokemon games, all look like clowns with way too much going on. People always say that "that's the way it's gotta be, because that's good design, and it looks good".
Honestly, what the frick? Talk about irony. (Am I using that word correctly? Probably not.)
Please tell me I'm not the only one who recognizes this all for what it is.
Firstly, a fad. In a decade or two, all of the logos and menus and stuff will be redesigned to be full of gradients and bumping out and such. And chances are characters will start to be underdesigned using minimalism. I mean it was like that in the late 90s and early 2000s, and what's considered good design hasn't changed. Just the fads surrounding it.
Secondly, I can't wait for it to flip flop back to that. Because quite frankly, things have gotten out of hand. The Windows logo is now quite literally four blue squares neatly aligned in a grid, and most fantasy characters look like they shouldn't even be able to move with the copious amounts of crap hanging off them. I mean, when even an open source game maker, also changes their logo from something that looks nice, to something that looks like it was made by me ten years ago (I was a really terrible artist), you know something's wrong.