Creating Compelling Characters: Insights from a Panel of Character Concept Artists
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2019
- In this 2017 GDC talk, concept artists Simon Stafsnes Andersen, Laurel Austin, Claire Hummel, Richard Lyons and Justin Thavirat share some of their philosophies and ideas on how to create compelling characters from four very different perspectives.
Register for GDC: ubm.io/2yWXW38
Join the GDC mailing list: www.gdconf.com/subscribe
Follow GDC on Twitter: / official_gdc
GDC talks cover a range of developmental topics including game design, programming, audio, visual arts, business management, production, online games, and much more. We post a fresh GDC video every day. Subscribe to the channel to stay on top of regular updates, and check out GDC Vault for thousands of more in-depth talks from our archives.
this is SO helpful holy crap
Normally the speakers talk about what they do, but these speakers show us!
I'm implementing their ideas ASAP in my creative process for character and narrative design!
It feels like all of these speakers just scratched the surface on topics that could fill entire talks. I wanted to hear what Claire Hummel had to say about research and Laurel Austin easily deserves a whole hour to talk about faces.
I hope they get the chance to talk more about these things at future conferences.
42:11 I played Owlboy and instantly fell in love with their character design! Everyone fell so unique yet coherent to their world. I'm glad I could hear Simon's perspective of character design, to deconstruct the design up to a basic state in order to identify the key factor and functionability needed for the game.
I loved every piece of this presentation but I especially loved the way it was structured to push a design from start to finish, starting with how to present an idea and moving all the way to putting the finishing touches on a design that almost works.
I also especially liked Simon's line "break everything I talked about". Yes, try out this way of finishing a design. Yes, intentionally do something different from what he suggests. Seeing how another (well accomplished) artist did something and intentionally NOT doing that is one of the best ways to learn about what works and what doesn't!
31:42 Laurel was great!
(Facial expressions & emotions for those curious, really good illustrations)
So wholesome... the last guy that presented didn't feel so good about his presentation, the host noticed, and told him that it was great (55:47 and the left, and you can hear the host say "that was great!")
(I personally did take away valuable things from it, good job!)
He has been fighting with depression for a long time as far as I know
THIS type of content is what keeps me subbed to the GDC channel. This was fantastic.
I absolutely loved Laurel Austin's presentation and the way she explained it. 10min talk maybe & I learned so much about expressions.
She seems like someone who would be a blast to be seated next to at a dinner party. Extremely knowledgeable and skilled, but also perceptive and funny. Her presentation was a joy. The first one was also incredibly helpful; thinking about context as an important aspect of making design decisions.
Claire Hummel and Richard share so nicely absolutely helped me for a better understanding
What an incredibly informative set of talks. Loved how each artist had their own unique approach to the subject. Thank you so much for sharing all these useful tips and techniques.
Respect for Claire. Her presentation is valuable.
Laurel Austin's presentation 31:46 was really valuable. Never knew this stuff
Love the deep voice of the first speaker, and the helpful tip to incorporate pictorial composition for presenting your characters.
One of the best video lecture I've had ever seen about character design. Thank you alot!
the faces one was all right and owlboy was BY FAR the best one. I really like that he said not to take these rules too seriously and to break them if it feels right to you. Thats the difference between an indie making a game out of passion and industry professionals that will get yelled at if their art doesnt meet current day mass market appeal.
These are such an awesome takes on the subject, and the speakers did awesome job on packing so much sense and effectiveness into their talks, one of the best GDC talk
One tip I learned when playing with Daz3D: if a smile looks awkward or fake, try closing the eyes a little (like 1/4). It can look more inviting that way.
Indeed, this was a great talk.
one question I'd have for the lady at 39:38 is "how can facial expressions be communicated through a low-poly, and/or low-texture-resolution style?" I'm imagining something like JC from Deus Ex, or Solid Snake from the first Metal Gear. Got any ideas?
in the last year I made a charachter whose body was around 600Poly... it had enough vertices in its face to pull of most of the morphs needed for most emotions.. lower poly than that you'd need to change the face texture.
It mostly goes through eyebrows motions. Even with an eyeless low poly face, you can identify a frown. Eyebrows motions are very indicative about emotions, this is the part you should aim for and practice.
I'm working with pixel art right now and I find that a lot of it is to do with position of eyebrows, size of the eyes increased or decreased by a pixel, and t the mouth extends or narrows a pixel. But it is tricky to get nuances. It's not part of this talk but I would definitely look into combining your low poly facial expressions with good body language as well. :-)
Very good. Thank you.
Im actually designing a character rn so this be helpful
The redheads content is A+mazing
10/10
Simon Stafsnes Anderson, D-Pad Studio 41:53
And that's why blizzard art is some of the best.
If you want more on this topic I made a video "Game Design School: Character Design
"
Oof, based on news thats coming out at the moment a bunch of game devs with 20 beers imbibed per person watching revenge of the nerds sounds like a REALLY bad idea... that mental image that hasn't aged very well aside I absolutely loved this talk! Haven't gotten into any sort of game design yet but I just find the subject fascinating!
= Laurel
My issue with the 1st speaker: ignoring the modern "grand narrative" reality.
The characters that are widely loved and known today are those that can exist outside their current "minor narratives" - those can be put anywhere (and they are, by the fandom), and they will make a great story around themselves because their largely databased traits already set the expectations right. But as the speaker demonstrated himself, with his approach it literally doesn't matter who the character is, because it's all about the context itself. So, why should players care about those characters? What got designed was a non-character - a _bland blank slate_ for the player in which some "cute" "girl" (indistinguishable from a chubby guy) will see herself represented, and which everyone else would forget the moment they turn the game off because stories don't exist in a vacuum and there are millions of characters you're competing with.
My issue with the 2nd speaker: professional deformation.
95% of players would prefer cool-looking costumes over perfectly functional and authentic dresses. The other 5% would pedantically nitpick everything anyway, so unless you're selling a product solely on its authenticity, it's _counterproductive_ to discard pearls, corsets and even bikini chain-mail. "Rule of Cool" trope exists for a reason - with a game, people are buying an attractive abstraction of life, not its faithful but uninspiring reproduction.
I 200% Agree with you. Current western character designs are starting to look more souless and not so memorable, and those 2 are great example. "realistic" or "cinematic" is not always the way to go, even less in the entertainment industry.
Honestly I'm not even exaggerating when I say these two reason are the biggest things holding Western AAA developers back. I hate how often people say "games suck nowadays" or "Japanese games are better" because there have never been more Western devs with the talent and dedication to make something new and memorable. Look at some of the recent AAA games that BUILT brand trust instead of milking it, where fans are excitedly begging for more: Doom 2016, Warframe, Titanfall, and Obsidian and CD Project Red's spiritual successors. What did these franchises all have in common? Higher-ups telling them "Your idea sucks because it's too unrealistic and/or doesn't follow a cinematic narrative structure" and making them work on shitty trend-chasers that flopped, or just slashing the budget and rushing them out.
Like, a lot has been said about microtransactions and chasing the Hot New Trend, but I can see why devs and publishers would pursue them: it makes money, at last in the short term. Forcing devs to make "cinematic" pitch-friendly narratives and spend millions on research, modeling, mocap, etc. in the name of "realism" is flushing money down the fucking toilet, unless your game was specifically designed to fill this niche and has the money to beat its competitors.
Some outside commenters call this kind of realistic-cinematic game "safe" because they turn out bland, but anyone even tangentially related to the industry knows there is nothing remotely "safe" about paying hundreds of modelers to constantly crunch while painstakingly animating Troubled Father Figure #914's facial animations, desperately hoping the audience won't tear it apart. This isn't 2010. Cinematic realism isn't universal, it's just another niche, subject to the same market forces as MOBAs and Battle Royales, but at least those don't require multi-million investments just so players won't immediately ridicule you like Mass Effect: Andromeda. If you want "safe", iterate on a franchise and only change enough so players won't get bored. If you want "high risk high return", try shorter dev cycles on ideas you think might catch on, and give them a marketing push. If you want to waste a lot of fucking money for low ROI and a big chance at failure, make your devs strictly follow "cinematic narrative" and "realism".
As far as the second speaker goes, I don't think her concepts are wrong and instead the problem is that developers are either picking the wrong values for their games or sticking way too closely to industry trends, instead of exploring what might really work best for their projects. The AAA game industry has been really, really stuck on "realistic" for a long time and I think we're overdue for a change. This is what happens when companies only want to make bets so big that anything other than the most generic option is terrifying. (And then almost all of them all perform "below expectations" anyway.)
For what it's worth, I find most high profile Japanese games have fallen into a similar trap, just with a different set of priorities. They're flashier but it's always the same limited genre of flash and I'm just as tired of their absurd non-functional outfits as I am with our relentless drabness. Everything is exhausting.
@@helloofthebeach Now that's a daring critique. I agree, AAA games seem to be stuck in some kind of impasse at the moment, I assume because of the temporary instability of the market, and they are waiting inside their burrow for the right moment to pop out and start exploring around again.
However, I think speaker #2 is based. She has a burning passion for fashion and she is probably very harsh with herself when it comes to realism and believability in her works. I'm not so focused on clothes when I play a game, but I think they make that invisible difference from good to great.
Feedback form: Please add some de-essing.
When they started out with the last of us 2 guy, I became doubtful of his skills because of how bad the last of us 2 characters were written, but surprisingly he is very good at what he does. I learned a lot thanks for sharing this talk.
Padmes design is iconic, what is this blasphemy
It doesn't make sense, that's it. Iconic ≠ good/realistic/functional design.
@@phlegios it does make sense. She is a princess who is meant to be viewed and revered as someone majestic, respected, and capable. Shes also born into the role so she is supposed to look divine. On top of that the design is alien as they live on a different planet, but either way the design philosophy and shape language is consistent throughout their culture. The design isnt meant to be functional and there is vastly more to design than just functionality. They werent designing a welders outfit - they knew enough to craft a design philosophy, culture, and reason for the way she dresses.
@@jackwinterson9801 The context doesn't align with the dresses Padme was wearing in the snapshots shown by the speaker. Who goes to bed in a fancy lingerie that looks like a formal dress? It's so fragile, she might pull some strings or stretch out the cloth by turning side to side during sleep. Same for the ultralight dress. Who wears that while sitting by the fireplace? It's way too formal and seductive.
I get that she's an angel and all that, but just because it's her characteristic, it shouldn't necessarily mandate her every day look. Even in Clone Wars cartoon she was more grounded and realistically depicted, wearing various outfits that fit the context.
@@phlegios ill be real with you i watched this video hella long ago and i thought he was referring to her dresses she wears in meetings. The going to sleep in formal clothing is not great, but that skintight shirt she wears in the arena is cool. Also, there are two different concept design philosophies - function over form and form over function. Sometimes aesthetic appeal takes priority. One isnt necessarily better than the other - depends on context and what the creators are aiming for.
@@jackwinterson9801 Well, yeah, just as one of the girls said during the talk, "you have to find a sweet spot in costume design". Also, that white skintight shirt kinda fit the context.
Wasn't she wearing it while they were on Tatooine and then she was captured on Geonosis while also wearing that outfit, and it had a function: protect from the heat of Tatooine suns. So that outfit did serve its purpose.
Naughty Dog is the Top Dog of gaming
I found the first presented design not realistic at all despite the artist explaining how it doesn't "fit stereotypes" - it really ends up being a big surreal stereotype.
Men in school usually don't use physical violence to bully girls, it is mostly the use of mean words since women are physically weaker. It is very rare that young boys feel that instinct towards a girl, the extreme cases of violence would be sexual abuse, but not "punch fight". Men at that age go through hormonal changes and they have crushes on girls they don't want to kill them lol.
That's a very woke design in my opinion not reflecting reality at all. Also she is not cute at all, usually bully's target are the people they are mostly jealous/ envy about, or even the cute girl that rejected them could be a target.
Very odd choice in my opinion.
Otherwise, I find all those methods very interesting. I feel like these poor artists are subjugated by company politics and weird choices made to follow big corpo agendas.
Eh first talk sounds very much like a push for unidentifiable generic characters because they aren't "cliches". Which to be fair is accurate, but something can't be "cliche'd" when its never used to represent something because it is simply so boring. No wonder the last of us part 2 was absolutely obliterated in the public space....
This whole ‘formal stage-and-pulpit’ speech session carries something so formal and formulaic that it’s somewhat cringeworthy...like we’re watching some U.N. meeting on how to use a pencil and paper.
Sounds like you’ve never been to a conference.
Christ this is how you make art boring.
Poor fellas, I thik they did a good job.
Without coming off trollish, how would *you* outline the process of good character design?
Why do you think it's boring?
it makes me sad theres hardly any people of color on these big panels...just sad. there's hundreds of thousands of talented artists...anyways thanks for the video anyways
Is there a black character designer in particular you would have liked seeing in the panel?