Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8816081" data-attributes="member: 6801228">While I'm sure I can waste my time arguing with you about how you said "little weight" and that doesn't mean "zero weight", I really don't think that is constructive when it was clear what I have meant. Especially in light of the posts from multiple people about how the image depicted can't be trusted to be accurate, since it is a fantasy creature and therefore doesn't follow the rules. Additionally, we had that little aside about the angels and how some monsters are just "what our mortal minds can comprehend" and not what they actually look like. I have zero interest of litigating the difference between "little" and "zero" in this current environment.Funny, it doesn't look like that art was created on stained glass. Also, cartoons DO depict how it looks, some worlds are cartoon worlds, not photo realistic worlds, and so if it does not show how that cartoon world actually looks, then it is a bad job. But frankly, this has nothing to do with the criticisms I have leveled against the design, and is just a pure sophistry that "well, if the art was done in a different medium or a different style, then it would be considered differently" Which is entirely pointless since I'm not discussing an art that has been done in a different medium or a different style, but the art I posted.If someone draws a landscape of a hill that looks like an ocean, I'm going to say they did a bad job of portraying a hill. Now, maybe they are doing something symbolic, and you can find art that was made to make a land of rolling hills look like an ocean, using a visual metaphor, but that is clearly different than what I'm talking about. Because the visual metaphor is clear in their design and artistic choices. It isn't like they tried to make a land of rolling hills that looked like an ocean that really looked like a urban skyscraper. Which again, would be a failure of their artistic design. If the artist of the Ravager intended it to have shapeshifting legs without bones and tendons, then depicting it with bones and tendons UTTERLY FAILS THEIR DESIGN. I do not understand how this is such a contentious point of discussion.Do you?Does it matter since I can't even get to the point of "the thing clearly looks like X"? Seriously, you all are jumping down my throat to insist things that you cannot see must be true, just to justify a bad design as not actually being bad. I do not understand it. The thing doesn't have shapeshifting legs, that is abundantly clear. If the artist wanted to depict shapeshifting legs, they should have done so, not relied on the observer to psychically understand that this fantasy creature actually looks differently than it was depicted.And what I'm suggesting is that if you are supposed to look at the Mona Lisa and say "She is clearly supposed to be the King of Germany" then the artist did a bad job. You people are adding unsubstantiated "facts" to this creature solely to defend something that does not need to be defended. It doesn't hurt the game to admit that the Ravager was a bad design. I don't care that if I look at a cartoon illustration of a person it has been simplified from the photo of the person, because this isn't a cartoon design, this is much closer to a photo realistic design and so I don't need to consider "what if it was a cartoon and you had to interpret" or "what if it was a stained glass design instead". Because we have the art, we aren't guessing at what the art looks like, it is right there.</blockquote>

Verification