The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs. Which is why I feel FR could use a better rule of thumb. I think it's more important to remember the human beings who'll be viewing these images rather than if that set of 0s and 1s is hurting because its too red. Plus, in addition, as many players have pointed out, "suffering" isn't as precise as it seems as skin conditions can be misery, a familiar dying from having its beak ripped off is horrible, and undead exposed muscles are still nausea-inducing for some humans. As mentioned several pages ago, the clearly defined visual guide would help with that.
Plus, most primarily for me, I feel it's important to address just how much red and which shades of red artists can use when making plague/zombie themed skins.
The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs. Which is why I feel FR could use a better rule of thumb. I think it's more important to remember the human beings who'll be viewing these images rather than if that set of 0s and 1s is hurting because its too red. Plus, in addition, as many players have pointed out, "suffering" isn't as precise as it seems as skin conditions can be misery, a familiar dying from having its beak ripped off is horrible, and undead exposed muscles are still nausea-inducing for some humans. As mentioned several pages ago, the clearly defined visual guide would help with that.
Plus, most primarily for me, I feel it's important to address just how much red and which shades of red artists can use when making plague/zombie themed skins.
Pings are disabled.
If writers are supposed to "show not tell," why are we called "storytellers" and not "storyshow-ers"?
[quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-10-14 07:51:59" ]
The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs.
[/quote]
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether they are 'pixels', and can't really suffer, but rather that the people viewing them can feel 'empathy' for said pixels and thus can 'suffer'.
It is like seeing an image of animal abuse, even if it is a 'cartoon'. People still dislike it, because they relate it to 'real animals' and it is the same here. Just because these are 'fictional pixel creatures' doesn't mean that people don't relate them to real things and thus seeing them 'suffering' feels the same as seeing a 'real animal' suffer.
I agree with the rest, but I have seen the 'they are just pixels, who cares if they are suffering' used elsewhere, but it is never about the actual *dragons* suffering, but about the humans who equate those said pixels to real life animals or real life concepts that 'suffer'.
gemajgall wrote on 2021-10-14 07:51:59:
The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether they are 'pixels', and can't really suffer, but rather that the people viewing them can feel 'empathy' for said pixels and thus can 'suffer'.
It is like seeing an image of animal abuse, even if it is a 'cartoon'. People still dislike it, because they relate it to 'real animals' and it is the same here. Just because these are 'fictional pixel creatures' doesn't mean that people don't relate them to real things and thus seeing them 'suffering' feels the same as seeing a 'real animal' suffer.
I agree with the rest, but I have seen the 'they are just pixels, who cares if they are suffering' used elsewhere, but it is never about the actual *dragons* suffering, but about the humans who equate those said pixels to real life animals or real life concepts that 'suffer'.
[quote name="IchiHanabi" date="2021-10-14 01:44:36" ]
All in all, I think part of the problem is the lack of access to references like these. I spend a good half hour hunting these down, and that's unreasonable to ask of someone who just wants to make sure their blood splatters are okay on an accent. Hand in hand with that, some of these show that some skins that have been rejected are actually well within what the site itself shows. I also saw on a couple of occasions dripping pink liquids from very much alive familiars, bringing to mind the hambone skin as well as the glitch skin from previous years in this thread.
There should be a better guide than just 'if you can't find it, don't draw it'. What is some people couldn't find any of these example I listed for one reason or another? Even just linking to these items as a guide would be far better than nothing. In addition, providing more examples can help add to the clarity of where the line is drawn. As it stands, the users cannot see it, and we are the ones who need it.
[/quote]
This very well summarizes some of the thoughts I’ve had lately. I’ve considered participating in the RoR skin contest since it’s my flight and I love the body horror aspects of it. In fact, I entered a skin last year, but since it didn’t win I’m kinda at a place where I’m not sure if one of the reasons was that it was considered too gory. Referencing site art for an accurate assessment of that doesn’t feel feasible. What I created - or wish to create - is not directly present in any of the site art I can remember. And what with how many items the game has, browsing through every possible instace to see if I can find something that might resemble my vision or a part of it to make a guesstimate of how I should draw my skin seems inaccurate at best and quite frankly I just don’t have that much free time in my hands anyway.
I recognize I’m obviously not missing out on anything grand because of this, but I would hope the staff would see that using official art as a reference is not a good guideline, because not only is it a massive task to investigate the entire art catalogue of the site, it still leaves a lot open for interpretation in cases where there is no direct counterpart to what an artist wants to create. Further clarification and even a directly referencable list of examples are sorely needed.
IchiHanabi wrote on 2021-10-14 01:44:36:
All in all, I think part of the problem is the lack of access to references like these. I spend a good half hour hunting these down, and that's unreasonable to ask of someone who just wants to make sure their blood splatters are okay on an accent. Hand in hand with that, some of these show that some skins that have been rejected are actually well within what the site itself shows. I also saw on a couple of occasions dripping pink liquids from very much alive familiars, bringing to mind the hambone skin as well as the glitch skin from previous years in this thread.
There should be a better guide than just 'if you can't find it, don't draw it'. What is some people couldn't find any of these example I listed for one reason or another? Even just linking to these items as a guide would be far better than nothing. In addition, providing more examples can help add to the clarity of where the line is drawn. As it stands, the users cannot see it, and we are the ones who need it.
This very well summarizes some of the thoughts I’ve had lately. I’ve considered participating in the RoR skin contest since it’s my flight and I love the body horror aspects of it. In fact, I entered a skin last year, but since it didn’t win I’m kinda at a place where I’m not sure if one of the reasons was that it was considered too gory. Referencing site art for an accurate assessment of that doesn’t feel feasible. What I created - or wish to create - is not directly present in any of the site art I can remember. And what with how many items the game has, browsing through every possible instace to see if I can find something that might resemble my vision or a part of it to make a guesstimate of how I should draw my skin seems inaccurate at best and quite frankly I just don’t have that much free time in my hands anyway.
I recognize I’m obviously not missing out on anything grand because of this, but I would hope the staff would see that using official art as a reference is not a good guideline, because not only is it a massive task to investigate the entire art catalogue of the site, it still leaves a lot open for interpretation in cases where there is no direct counterpart to what an artist wants to create. Further clarification and even a directly referencable list of examples are sorely needed.
If we're allowed to reference site art, we should be allowed to copy the look of the Nightmare familiar. Small red gashes --without active bleeding--. The distinction that the Nightmare isn't a corporeal being shouldn't matter and feels like an unfair loophole. We were told to "reference site art" not "reference site art, but only in these very specific cases". Plus we're supposed to ignore text when it comes to art. So the Nightmare's description of not being corporeal doesn't matter. It still looks like a red, bloodless gash, and since we can find it on the site, we should be able to copy it in a skin/accent.
If we're allowed to reference site art, we should be allowed to copy the look of the Nightmare familiar. Small red gashes --without active bleeding--. The distinction that the Nightmare isn't a corporeal being shouldn't matter and feels like an unfair loophole. We were told to "reference site art" not "reference site art, but only in these very specific cases". Plus we're supposed to ignore text when it comes to art. So the Nightmare's description of not being corporeal doesn't matter. It still looks like a red, bloodless gash, and since we can find it on the site, we should be able to copy it in a skin/accent.
[quote name="Jemadar" date="2021-10-14 08:05:49" ]
[quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-10-14 07:51:59" ]
The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs.
[/quote]
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether they are 'pixels', and can't really suffer, but rather that the people viewing them can feel 'empathy' for said pixels and thus can 'suffer'.
It is like seeing an image of animal abuse, even if it is a 'cartoon'. People still dislike it, because they relate it to 'real animals' and it is the same here. Just because these are 'fictional pixel creatures' doesn't mean that people don't relate them to real things and thus seeing them 'suffering' feels the same as seeing a 'real animal' suffer.
I agree with the rest, but I have seen the 'they are just pixels, who cares if they are suffering' used elsewhere, but it is never about the actual *dragons* suffering, but about the humans who equate those said pixels to real life animals or real life concepts that 'suffer'.
[/quote]
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was making a point that the human users' comfort should come before whether or not a fictional creature is "suffering." For example, just because a zombie feels no pain doesn't mean real, breathing users don't have a visceral reaction to seeing its entrails. That's my point. The standard should be the real humans, not fictional constructs.
Jemadar wrote on 2021-10-14 08:05:49:
gemajgall wrote on 2021-10-14 07:51:59:
The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether they are 'pixels', and can't really suffer, but rather that the people viewing them can feel 'empathy' for said pixels and thus can 'suffer'.
It is like seeing an image of animal abuse, even if it is a 'cartoon'. People still dislike it, because they relate it to 'real animals' and it is the same here. Just because these are 'fictional pixel creatures' doesn't mean that people don't relate them to real things and thus seeing them 'suffering' feels the same as seeing a 'real animal' suffer.
I agree with the rest, but I have seen the 'they are just pixels, who cares if they are suffering' used elsewhere, but it is never about the actual *dragons* suffering, but about the humans who equate those said pixels to real life animals or real life concepts that 'suffer'.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was making a point that the human users' comfort should come before whether or not a fictional creature is "suffering." For example, just because a zombie feels no pain doesn't mean real, breathing users don't have a visceral reaction to seeing its entrails. That's my point. The standard should be the real humans, not fictional constructs.
Pings are disabled.
If writers are supposed to "show not tell," why are we called "storytellers" and not "storyshow-ers"?
[quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-10-14 10:14:25" ]
[quote name="Jemadar" date="2021-10-14 08:05:49" ]
[quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-10-14 07:51:59" ]
The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs.
[/quote]
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether they are 'pixels', and can't really suffer, but rather that the people viewing them can feel 'empathy' for said pixels and thus can 'suffer'.
It is like seeing an image of animal abuse, even if it is a 'cartoon'. People still dislike it, because they relate it to 'real animals' and it is the same here. Just because these are 'fictional pixel creatures' doesn't mean that people don't relate them to real things and thus seeing them 'suffering' feels the same as seeing a 'real animal' suffer.
I agree with the rest, but I have seen the 'they are just pixels, who cares if they are suffering' used elsewhere, but it is never about the actual *dragons* suffering, but about the humans who equate those said pixels to real life animals or real life concepts that 'suffer'.
[/quote]
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was making a point that the human users' comfort should come before whether or not a fictional creature is "suffering." For example, just because a zombie feels no pain doesn't mean real, breathing users don't have a visceral reaction to seeing its entrails. That's my point. The standard should be the real humans, not fictional constructs.
[/quote]
Ah, okay. I am used to seeing the whole 'they are pixels' as a way to say 'well, so what if they seem to be suffering, they aren't alive'.
gemajgall wrote on 2021-10-14 10:14:25:
Jemadar wrote on 2021-10-14 08:05:49:
gemajgall wrote on 2021-10-14 07:51:59:
The thing about using "suffering" as a guideline is that none of these creatures are really alive. They're just pngs.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether they are 'pixels', and can't really suffer, but rather that the people viewing them can feel 'empathy' for said pixels and thus can 'suffer'.
It is like seeing an image of animal abuse, even if it is a 'cartoon'. People still dislike it, because they relate it to 'real animals' and it is the same here. Just because these are 'fictional pixel creatures' doesn't mean that people don't relate them to real things and thus seeing them 'suffering' feels the same as seeing a 'real animal' suffer.
I agree with the rest, but I have seen the 'they are just pixels, who cares if they are suffering' used elsewhere, but it is never about the actual *dragons* suffering, but about the humans who equate those said pixels to real life animals or real life concepts that 'suffer'.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was making a point that the human users' comfort should come before whether or not a fictional creature is "suffering." For example, just because a zombie feels no pain doesn't mean real, breathing users don't have a visceral reaction to seeing its entrails. That's my point. The standard should be the real humans, not fictional constructs.
Ah, okay. I am used to seeing the whole 'they are pixels' as a way to say 'well, so what if they seem to be suffering, they aren't alive'.
This thread feels like it's trailing off a bit..
Tooltips of beastclan bits do not equal dragons. They're not really relevant?
Accents with 4 digits are pretty irrelevant too. Those are from "before".
All this discussion about "what is suffering" feels like it's going to bite us..
Reading the last 5 pages makes me want to lock this thread lol The main point seems to be gone.
Just my two cents. Don't kill me. It'll be suffering ;-)
This thread feels like it's trailing off a bit..
Tooltips of beastclan bits do not equal dragons. They're not really relevant?
Accents with 4 digits are pretty irrelevant too. Those are from "before".
All this discussion about "what is suffering" feels like it's going to bite us..
Reading the last 5 pages makes me want to lock this thread lol The main point seems to be gone.
Just my two cents. Don't kill me. It'll be suffering ;-)
Yeah, there's a few things here I'd like to remind folks of
Writing =/= visuals with gore. You can't point to the written lore as an example of what should be allowed. The violence in the lore is undetailed enough to not be disturbing to many readers - just because you can imagine blood and chunks in the canon lore doesn't mean you have to.
and just because something is indescernable and red does not mean its an example of blood or gore. we're going backwards here. i thought that was the whole problem.
Yeah, there's a few things here I'd like to remind folks of
Writing =/= visuals with gore. You can't point to the written lore as an example of what should be allowed. The violence in the lore is undetailed enough to not be disturbing to many readers - just because you can imagine blood and chunks in the canon lore doesn't mean you have to.
and just because something is indescernable and red does not mean its an example of blood or gore. we're going backwards here. i thought that was the whole problem.
[quote name="SCB" date="2021-10-14 12:58:38" ]
Accents with 4 digits are pretty irrelevant too. Those are from "before".
[/quote]
before what? /gen
SCB wrote on 2021-10-14 12:58:38:
Accents with 4 digits are pretty irrelevant too. Those are from "before".
before what? /gen
[quote name="Kuroikumo" date="2021-10-14 13:45:52" ]
[quote name="SCB" date="2021-10-14 12:58:38" ]
Accents with 4 digits are pretty irrelevant too. Those are from "before".
[/quote]
before what? /gen
[/quote]
Before rule changes and guidelines, I'm assuming
Kuroikumo wrote on 2021-10-14 13:45:52:
SCB wrote on 2021-10-14 12:58:38:
Accents with 4 digits are pretty irrelevant too. Those are from "before".
before what? /gen
Before rule changes and guidelines, I'm assuming
