AKA where are all the fat ancients?
So I've noticed this for a while. The ancients, with one major exception (the Gaoler, the first of them) all share a very similar body type:
Despite extra heads, limbs, etc. They're all thin with similar proportions (note how the necks, head size, leg length, etc. are all relatively the same across the board, with outliers in the small limbs on the two dragons themed after limbless animals). The last 5 releases all share this body shape.
Compare all of these guys to the website's older dragon designs:
(both nocturne and tundra poses included due to differences in shape. Tundra mane also traced because I think it's fair to point out that it gives them an appearance of stockiness that the ancients above lack, even if we logically understand them to be fairly thin.)
While there isn't as much variety as I would hope for with dragons, there's still a notable variation in silhouette. Both body type and proportions differ a lot more - legs might be thicker, shorter, more spaced out, necks are longer, heads might be tiny or huge in comparison to the body.
This is also really noticeable with the face shapes. The ancients trip into a sort of draconic same-face syndrome, only really having two face shapes:
Compare again to the pre-ancient dragons:
There's a lot more variation here in chins, noses, eye placement and size, mouth shape and length, etc.
Our only major exceptions in dragon releases of the past 5 years are the gaoler, notably the first ancient released:
and the obelisk:
And while I am glad they add some variation, I would argue that these two are still primarily designed with the intent to look distinctly cool, powerful, etc. in a way that the website initially didn't commit to.
Why does this bother me?
I can't help but think the relative unpopularity of dragons like ridgebacks, bogsneaks, and snappers compared to dragons like skydancers, imperials, and wildclaws has led the artists to largely veer towards a "standard body type" for the dragons - something that's largely thin and meant to be cool, cute, or pretty, rather than fat or ungainly in any way- in order to avoid making unpopular species. I don't think this inclination lends itself well to what's functionally a character creation sim - I often want to make dragons that are fat or not traditionally appealing and find my opinions aren't increasing, even as more dragons are released. I'm a little worried that dragons going forward are going to be designed first and foremost for mass appeal rather than in the interest of adding variation to the website.
On top of this I feel like boxing them into this standard sort of design is going to cut off a ton of interesting animals as inspiration. It seems increasingly unlikely a dragon design will ever take after an aardvark, a spoonbill, a pterosaur, a sockeye salmon, a moose, beluga whale, toucan, gharial, chimney swift, etc., because what makes those animals look interesting and charming is that they have hooked beaks or giant heads or weird noses or gangly legs - traits that the modern dragons seem to shy away from.
It sticks out to me that the undertide loses so much of what makes an eel look distinctive when the eye is moved back to create a more typical dragon face:
I really hope that this levels out over time and the art direction goes back to something less "same face" for lack of a better term - maybe the next ancient will break this trend entirely and be stocky or really tall or have a very distinct face or something. I just think that there's way too many different animals and body types for the website to largely err towards a few silhouettes!
Edit: many people are arguing that this is just the most dynamic shape and makes for inherently more interesting art. I heavily disagree and think that's a really reductive way to think about character design, especially animal influenced character design. Many animals are fat or disproportional and look cool, interesting, and dynamic:
I just don't think snappers having relatively undynamic poses is evidence that, therefore, only this one body shape looks good and should be used - that's a suggestion I find really disheartening. And even if this was some sort of flawless design choice, I still just inherently feel like it'd be better if the designs were more varied - there is a simple, inarguable value in character designs having different shape language.
Edit 2, in response to people pointing out that despite similar shapes the ancients still all have different vibes:
Simple thought exercise just so people understand what I mean by variation:
Let's say I want to make a lore oc who's chubby, and I want the art to reflect this, However, I don't think bogsneaks, snappers, or nocturnes fit what I'm going for. How many options do I have left?
Now, let's say I want to make a lore oc who's lanky, and I want the art to reflect this, but I don't think fae, mirrors, skydancers, or undertides fit the character. How many more options do I have?
Edit 3:
@Requacy researched and made some very thoughtful observations about the lead artist's style and what sort of head shapes and body types are present in it (which we could hopefully see going forward!):
Edit 4:
Many people have suggested that the dragons need to be these shapes so they can act as templates for the genes/clothes/customization. I disagree with this point and need to point out that nothing about designs like this are more difficult to customize, despite looking more distinct from one another:
So I've noticed this for a while. The ancients, with one major exception (the Gaoler, the first of them) all share a very similar body type:
Despite extra heads, limbs, etc. They're all thin with similar proportions (note how the necks, head size, leg length, etc. are all relatively the same across the board, with outliers in the small limbs on the two dragons themed after limbless animals). The last 5 releases all share this body shape.
Compare all of these guys to the website's older dragon designs:
(both nocturne and tundra poses included due to differences in shape. Tundra mane also traced because I think it's fair to point out that it gives them an appearance of stockiness that the ancients above lack, even if we logically understand them to be fairly thin.)
While there isn't as much variety as I would hope for with dragons, there's still a notable variation in silhouette. Both body type and proportions differ a lot more - legs might be thicker, shorter, more spaced out, necks are longer, heads might be tiny or huge in comparison to the body.
This is also really noticeable with the face shapes. The ancients trip into a sort of draconic same-face syndrome, only really having two face shapes:
Compare again to the pre-ancient dragons:
Our only major exceptions in dragon releases of the past 5 years are the gaoler, notably the first ancient released:
And while I am glad they add some variation, I would argue that these two are still primarily designed with the intent to look distinctly cool, powerful, etc. in a way that the website initially didn't commit to.
Why does this bother me?
I can't help but think the relative unpopularity of dragons like ridgebacks, bogsneaks, and snappers compared to dragons like skydancers, imperials, and wildclaws has led the artists to largely veer towards a "standard body type" for the dragons - something that's largely thin and meant to be cool, cute, or pretty, rather than fat or ungainly in any way- in order to avoid making unpopular species. I don't think this inclination lends itself well to what's functionally a character creation sim - I often want to make dragons that are fat or not traditionally appealing and find my opinions aren't increasing, even as more dragons are released. I'm a little worried that dragons going forward are going to be designed first and foremost for mass appeal rather than in the interest of adding variation to the website.
On top of this I feel like boxing them into this standard sort of design is going to cut off a ton of interesting animals as inspiration. It seems increasingly unlikely a dragon design will ever take after an aardvark, a spoonbill, a pterosaur, a sockeye salmon, a moose, beluga whale, toucan, gharial, chimney swift, etc., because what makes those animals look interesting and charming is that they have hooked beaks or giant heads or weird noses or gangly legs - traits that the modern dragons seem to shy away from.
It sticks out to me that the undertide loses so much of what makes an eel look distinctive when the eye is moved back to create a more typical dragon face:
I really hope that this levels out over time and the art direction goes back to something less "same face" for lack of a better term - maybe the next ancient will break this trend entirely and be stocky or really tall or have a very distinct face or something. I just think that there's way too many different animals and body types for the website to largely err towards a few silhouettes!
Edit: many people are arguing that this is just the most dynamic shape and makes for inherently more interesting art. I heavily disagree and think that's a really reductive way to think about character design, especially animal influenced character design. Many animals are fat or disproportional and look cool, interesting, and dynamic:
I just don't think snappers having relatively undynamic poses is evidence that, therefore, only this one body shape looks good and should be used - that's a suggestion I find really disheartening. And even if this was some sort of flawless design choice, I still just inherently feel like it'd be better if the designs were more varied - there is a simple, inarguable value in character designs having different shape language.
Edit 2, in response to people pointing out that despite similar shapes the ancients still all have different vibes:
Quote:
Let me draw some dragons really quick:
Here's some guys. They're all kind of different. Maybe one's cute and one's scary. Maybe the guy on the bottom left is more majestic. Some have smaller eyes or bigger nostrils. But they still all kind of fit into one anatomical niche, and if you don't love that category, or if it doesn't fit the character you have in mind for a dragon? tough luck.
Here's some different guys. This time, more people are likely to see a design that they like. Someone who loves frogs or parrots or vultures or really wants a chubby dragon design for a specific character they have in mind will find something here that they didn't find in the first lineup.
But that's not fair, of course, because the guys on top could get some features to better distinguish them:
Now they're all completely different!
Except, while I don't think they all look identical or communicate the same things, the person who wanted the chubby dragon or really loves parrots isn't going to find that here.
What I'm actually arguing for is /this/:
Sure, sandsurges and auraboas aren't the same thing. I don't think that. But I still would rather see more variety in shape rather than those first guys back to back to back.
Here's some guys. They're all kind of different. Maybe one's cute and one's scary. Maybe the guy on the bottom left is more majestic. Some have smaller eyes or bigger nostrils. But they still all kind of fit into one anatomical niche, and if you don't love that category, or if it doesn't fit the character you have in mind for a dragon? tough luck.
Here's some different guys. This time, more people are likely to see a design that they like. Someone who loves frogs or parrots or vultures or really wants a chubby dragon design for a specific character they have in mind will find something here that they didn't find in the first lineup.
But that's not fair, of course, because the guys on top could get some features to better distinguish them:
Now they're all completely different!
Except, while I don't think they all look identical or communicate the same things, the person who wanted the chubby dragon or really loves parrots isn't going to find that here.
What I'm actually arguing for is /this/:
Sure, sandsurges and auraboas aren't the same thing. I don't think that. But I still would rather see more variety in shape rather than those first guys back to back to back.
Simple thought exercise just so people understand what I mean by variation:
Let's say I want to make a lore oc who's chubby, and I want the art to reflect this, However, I don't think bogsneaks, snappers, or nocturnes fit what I'm going for. How many options do I have left?
Now, let's say I want to make a lore oc who's lanky, and I want the art to reflect this, but I don't think fae, mirrors, skydancers, or undertides fit the character. How many more options do I have?
Edit 3:
@Requacy researched and made some very thoughtful observations about the lead artist's style and what sort of head shapes and body types are present in it (which we could hopefully see going forward!):
Requacy wrote on 2024-04-20 23:21:38:
Okay so I'm back! I decided to take a look at Undel's most "weird" dragons I could find, and I decided on these two 'rules' that dominate her art style beyond shading and inking and stuff. (Ping me if you want pictures of the full bodies)
-Undel doesn't exaggerate, but is always stylized. Generally, no dragon of her features some extreme proportion or shape. Nothing is too round, too pointy, too short, too long, too straight, too zig-zagged. Closest thing I can use to describe is "comic book," with the visualization of cel-shaded superhero comics in mind.... except not Rob Liefeld or Frank Miller or anything really exaggerated like that.
-Undel usually mixes different animals together, rather than copy-pasting an animal completely. You might notice an eagle-like beak, or a camel-like nose, or a doglike forehead, but they will be mixed in with other species as well to create something more blended. This is seen best with the dragons I linked above which obviously take a lot of animal inspiration, including two which I forgot to link which is really bearlike and very dinosaurian.
-Undel's most 'basic' head is a wedge shape of mid-to-long length, the eyes 3/4 to the back of the head, with a pointed end for a brain case and a pointed end for the surangular part of the jaw bones.
This, of corpse, leaves the elephants in the rooms, Auraboas, Undertides, and Aethers, since Auras and Aethers are relatively exaggerated and based off a real animal, and Undertides are essentially ribbon eels with wings and reptilian eyes. You can see the contrast with the moderns based off animals like Obs, Nocturnes, Ridges, and Bogs, which are more blended. We can talk later about the art shift in FR but that's not for today.
So, using these dragons as bases, I tried to draw some dragons trying to be as extremely close to the "basic" style I determined, but to follow the later Ancients, I tried to base them off animals!
-Undel doesn't exaggerate, but is always stylized. Generally, no dragon of her features some extreme proportion or shape. Nothing is too round, too pointy, too short, too long, too straight, too zig-zagged. Closest thing I can use to describe is "comic book," with the visualization of cel-shaded superhero comics in mind.... except not Rob Liefeld or Frank Miller or anything really exaggerated like that.
-Undel usually mixes different animals together, rather than copy-pasting an animal completely. You might notice an eagle-like beak, or a camel-like nose, or a doglike forehead, but they will be mixed in with other species as well to create something more blended. This is seen best with the dragons I linked above which obviously take a lot of animal inspiration, including two which I forgot to link which is really bearlike and very dinosaurian.
-Undel's most 'basic' head is a wedge shape of mid-to-long length, the eyes 3/4 to the back of the head, with a pointed end for a brain case and a pointed end for the surangular part of the jaw bones.
This, of corpse, leaves the elephants in the rooms, Auraboas, Undertides, and Aethers, since Auras and Aethers are relatively exaggerated and based off a real animal, and Undertides are essentially ribbon eels with wings and reptilian eyes. You can see the contrast with the moderns based off animals like Obs, Nocturnes, Ridges, and Bogs, which are more blended. We can talk later about the art shift in FR but that's not for today.
So, using these dragons as bases, I tried to draw some dragons trying to be as extremely close to the "basic" style I determined, but to follow the later Ancients, I tried to base them off animals!
Edit 4:
Many people have suggested that the dragons need to be these shapes so they can act as templates for the genes/clothes/customization. I disagree with this point and need to point out that nothing about designs like this are more difficult to customize, despite looking more distinct from one another:
