"Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."
Sometimes, the light of the moon is a key to other spaces. I've found a place where, for a night or two, the streets curve in unfamiliar ways. If I walk here, I might find insight, or I might be touched by madness.
Honestly think that changing his tint to the reddish/orange and giving him black beads for eyes (or pupils of different size to show their rabidness/psychotic streak) would go a long way.
These guys use human skin and literal faces to make their tents, they need to look unnervingly rabid/savage imo
The shaman looks badass as hell to me and screams "gnoll with armor" and the major reason to me is that it has no humanoid eyes
I've always had a soft spot for Furbolgs since WC3.
Seeing that they descended from a more brutish "bear people" called the Jalgar plus seeing this new model for them... oh man, maybe we'll get to see some.
That's a very good idea—I maintain it's mainly in the face shape and scale of the teeth, though. These simply look too cartoonish and have terrible shape language. Although they have plenty of pointy bits – the armor, ears and claws, namely – these aren't enough to dominate the shape language. The eyes are too rounded and the snout is too square-shaped—the face is where the eyes are drawn, and the shapes there look like a cartoon character. The Pixar comparisons, I think, are very appropriate. It simply doesn't look violent.
Among the changes I'd probably put through would be a total change of the facial shape to something sharper and longer. A longer, thinner snout, slightly pointed at the nose, could help. The eyes could be beadier and less human in addition to lacking pupils, too. The teeth most certainly ought to be larger, even though the current scale is more accurate to real-life Hyenas, and perhaps pointier. The fur ought to be mangier and more disheveled, and the spikes ought to look less curved at the top, making them appear more like legitimate spikes.
Cool but gnolls are not serial killers that are supposed to fade in the background so what is your argument? This is fantasy, the gnolls are not a race where depravity comes in juxtaposition to a seemingly elevated culture; the violence is at center. A furry with a spike collar is just not enough. Give it war paint, larger pupils and more disturbing accessories; e.g. have bones braided in their fur.
#TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde
Warrior-Magi
I mean, to be honest, the more I look at it, the more they are very similar to concept art and other illustration of Warcraft Gnolls.
I put this together in five minutes or less using GIMP, so the art quality is hideous, but this is my best go at trying to rectify some design choices. Admittedly, this doesn't look much better and I'm very terrible at art, but it's my best go. The things I couldn't do properly are give it stronger, Worgen-like teeth (even if that is, admittedly, inaccurate to how Hyenas look. I could see smaller teeth work if framed in the right way, but this isn't exactly a good place for subtlety), make the eyes look very decent or much beadier or rounder (both of which ought to be done—smaller and rounder eyes look creepier) and accentuate the hunch beyond standard WarCraft hunchback-tier to look more deformed. The awkward paw print emblems really confuse things and make them look like militant furries.
- - - Updated - - -
The appearance is good—it's just the presentation. The shapes are fairly decent save for the face, which simply is shaped in too cartoonish a manner. It looks very Pixar-esque and doesn't properly communicate danger.
- - - Updated - - -
Generally agreed, though I'd say less pupil as opposed to more. I think that war paint and bones aren't enough—it ought to be more visceral, less soft, more pointy and energetic.
I mean, I think they are plenty menacing.
especially when you compare them to this.
Honestly some Hyena accuracy would make it look less like a worgen with a weird fur pattern. Ears should be rounded and teeth should not be sharp, meant to tear flesh but blunt, meant to break bones. The face is actually more wolf than hyena. The hunch should also be more pronounced.
And looking at them again I think they are missing a bit of grime and dirt. That white gnolls looks fresh off having a bath. Did someone take it to the yak wash?
And the "Sage" model just looks better.
Last edited by Nymrohd; 2022-07-17 at 06:33 PM.
I'd put that mostly to the pupil-less eyes and simple framing. The darker circles around the eyes make them look rounder and less emotive, and the paint on the snout makes it look thinner and more sinister. I could see blunt teeth or rounded ears working, but they'd have to be very well-executed—preserving shape language is important.
I don't think the model is too clean, really—WarCraft rarely illustrates grime and dirt to begin with. However, I suppose I could see that it's far too plain. I suppose stronger, darker highlights could help.
For blunted teeth, making them too large and wide would make them look too Disney-esque unless there were much effort put into making them jagged and disproportionate. I maintain the pupil-less eyes are the most important part. A thinner snout could help.
The thing about gnolls is that they are historically low-level questing fodder, usually bandits, pirates, and goons to bigger bad guys. I think we can go in circles about whether gnolls should be menacing or are more appropriate as cartoony bad guys but it kinda just boils down to our own interpretation of what a gnoll should be. That's all this discussion ever was; trying to push our preferences using design terminology is a bit naive since a pro character artist can usually use the same terminology to tell us to buzz off.