>>39062438Anatomy/natural issues mainly
>How does the design function in it's natural environment, i.e. what role does it play? >Does it look too artificial for what it's going for?>Does it's appearance/anatomy make sense for whatever role it takes or lore it has?>Does the design in question accurately potray the type given it. (Can you tell it's type after a quick glance)>Does any and all ccessories/attachments serve any natural purpose in it's environment and or at the very least drives home it's inspiration even further?>Is it's body shape, coloring and general anatomy believable yet distinct enough so it's not confused with an already existing design? Granted, I know the questions/criticism above doesn't have to necessarily apply to every design under the sun but still.
I believe the design in question answers the above questions, though not thoroughly exactly. But enough that the point of the design gets across.
If the design in question does not meet any of requirements, than in my opinion that's when any criticism becomes valid. You can have top-tier 10/10 artwork or reaply a kick ass design all day. These are just the bare minimum. But if it fails to answer any of above questions than thats when it goes to shit.
Things I don't consider valid criticism:
>"It's shit. Lol">"muh waifubait.">"muh furbait/barabait"You're only going off your subjective tastes, which you're free to have amd voice by all means but none of that offers questions, and or any insight into why you believe the design doesn't work as a living creature. Or doesn't even offer the designer any notes or building blocks to go back and work on.
Cont. in my next post.
