Is this good character design?

Is this good character design?

Attached: 1589976910332.jpg (600x450, 118.86K)

Not really, HxH always had some grounded designs, I don't know what he was thinking when making the Zodiacs, he probably took inspiration from OP designs but since he's a boomer he thought everyone loved OP designs.

Yes, they are unique and look thematically like animals which was the point when Togashi designed them.

Me again, I'm gonna rate them:
>mouse dude
2/10 might as well be background
>cow
7/10 cool pattern and hat and also cute
>tiger
3/10 looks like shit but +2 for baseballer shirt
>bunny girl
1/10 fuck moeshit and come up with something better then a bunny girl
>dragon (?)
4/10 generic old master but cool mustache
>snake
5/10 ugly but interesting
>horse
8/10 so ugly it's freaky
>sheep
1/10 a fucking nigger
>monkey
2/10 monkey king but with a delinquent gang hype man face, an ugly mix of cliches
>chicken
5/10 easy on the eyes but still basic
>dog
1/10 furshit
>boar
2/10 just a background homeless dude.

No, that's the result of good character design: Characters.
Don't confuse the geneological process with the thing it culminates in.

the fuck are you talking about?

???

The picture OP showed contains well desgined characters. It does not, however, contain "character design".
You can argue that it indirectly depicts character design by directly showing characters that resulted from that design process, but strictly speaking, there's a difference.

Not really, but don't bring it up to Hunterchads. They really think they're better than other people..

What the FUCK are you mumbling about? This is b

yes, they're well designed but still ugly

>The picture OP showed contains well desgined characters. It does not, however, contain "character design".
>You can argue that it indirectly depicts character design by directly showing characters that resulted from that design process, but strictly speaking, there's a difference.
Nigger it's just a pic of characters with a question if they're visually well designed.

Attached: 1589675644682.png (524x524, 141.42K)

Nice One Piece ripoffs.

It would've been good with the 1999 design. Dog would've been much more tolerable.

Honestly with the exception of the cow dude the genetically alright looking ones are the worst to me.
>bunny girl
>dog dirl
>salary man
>hobo
c'mon

No, its too goofy which doesn't help you take these characters seriously

>with a question if they're visually well designed.
Close, but no cigar.

>Rat
Doesn't look like his animal but still alright design, can't go wrong with striped suits. Looks better in the manga though 6/10
>Cow
He cute 7/10
>Tiger
Reminds me of a gash bell character, tiger tail ponytail is kind of dumb but fits 6/10
>Bunny
Playgirl bunny is uninspired but the outfit is cute with a good palette 6/10
>Dragon
Inoffensive but boring 5/10
>Snake
OG design was superior and more snake like, Togashi starts drawing her like a regular human 6/10
>Bird
It's just a sexy design but it works and the bird earrings are cute 7/10
>Horse
Could have made a man with a long face and big teeth, went absolute abomination tier instead 1/10
>Sheep
Le black caricature 1/10
>Monkey
Boring 5/10
>Dog
Love her outfit, dog face and glasses are a big yikes 7/10
>Boar
Smelly homeless manlet just like me 8/10

OP here, I meant visual design, if I wanted to discuss their characterization then I would just ask "are these good characters"

>homeless manlet just like me
user, I...

That's not my point. You asked a literal question, namely "Is this [...] character desgin". The simple answer is that, no, it isn't literal design, it's characters.
Design would be the process of designing them.

If someone posts a pic of food and asks the question "is this good cooking" it's obvious that they mean the process that lead to the final product because sometimes there's no better way of coding a process in the format of a picture then presenting the result.
Also, you're on a spectrum aren't you? Because you're very bad at picking up social cues...

Attached: 5676757567.png (1263x704, 1.14M)

>If someone posts a pic of food and asks the question "is this good cooking" it's obvious that they mean the process that lead to the final product
Is it? Because what you can deduce about that process from a single picture of some meal is rather limited.
Same thing here: We have a few face shots of characters. What we can say about the design process as a whole is limited to the results. And not even that is shown fully, if we're honest. We'd at least need to understand the context in which those characters are introduced and the environment they are in, how they differ from other characters in their design aspects and so on.
In the end, the answer is: Yes, these characters are well designed. But what we see on that picture is neither the design process itself, nor enough information to fully evaluate that design process.

cool, are those the new villains for wano?

Some yes but some of them look really ugly.

I don't feel like talking to you, you're off-topic

Okay, I guess?

Worst Generation and Zodiacs should be compared side by side as examples of how to and how to not introduce a large cast of characters at once. Worst Generation being the good example ofc. Zodiacs just failed at first impressions.

Attached: 4543536.png (1280x720, 788.38K)

>off-topic
Discussing design in a thread that claims to be about design is "off-topic"? Really?
You see, that most people in here just default to rating how much they like how the characters look, just proves my point: OP's pic is not a good basis for actually discussing character design as a process.

Shut the fuck up already.

Case in point.

They either look stupid or boring. Cow guy feels like a one piece tipoff.