FA+
Shop
3700
Views
Views
142
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 1280
File Size 569.7 kB
Report this content
More from Germees
Listed in Folders
Page 5 and here we introduce another new character to the cast of BtL
Who is this lass? She seems to be checking up on Rusty.
Also to give all an update, we're not only adding 1 new comic...but 2! (and further down the road a forth comic!)
We're growing! :D
Next - Shoot 2 Beginning - Previous
Category Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 1280px
File Size 569.7 kB
Listed in Folders
Yea...tell me about it...I have to write the story for 4 comics, I work full-time and am also a full-time student while managing all our comic accounts
The artists for this comic, Fayne is also a full-time student and works as well, Lightdevil works and does constant overtime
the other artists work or have school as well
not to mention we're working on building a website which is eating up even more time xD;
This stuff is a whole lot of work and to be quite frank...I'm getting irritated at people constantly whining about the new style...
The artists for this comic, Fayne is also a full-time student and works as well, Lightdevil works and does constant overtime
the other artists work or have school as well
not to mention we're working on building a website which is eating up even more time xD;
This stuff is a whole lot of work and to be quite frank...I'm getting irritated at people constantly whining about the new style...
The new style didnt phase me at all, I'm reading it for the story because I like the plot.
I work two jobs, one at 40 a week and another at 30 a week, and I'm sitting at one job now. Colouring is something I get to do in my spare time, I brought my tablet to work tonight but have yet to get to use it.
I work two jobs, one at 40 a week and another at 30 a week, and I'm sitting at one job now. Colouring is something I get to do in my spare time, I brought my tablet to work tonight but have yet to get to use it.
I don't mean to be rude at all, but why on Earth would you put so much on your plate when you are already going to school? A couple things can be done here and there, sure, but 4 comics? :l
I'm not liking the whole "We're making even ANOTHER new comic! :D" thing, either. I haven't even gotten used to this one's style, and two more are trying to squeeze into the compact hole. I'd understand if it was a different team, and maybe it is and I'm misinterpreting it, but I think "Germee" should focus on one comic at a time.
Getting to the actual comic, it's either the mother or the girlfriend (be it ex or current). Most likely the latter, seeing as the girl doesn't look anything like Rusty, but when exactly do cartoon characters have to look like their children? XP
I'm not liking the whole "We're making even ANOTHER new comic! :D" thing, either. I haven't even gotten used to this one's style, and two more are trying to squeeze into the compact hole. I'd understand if it was a different team, and maybe it is and I'm misinterpreting it, but I think "Germee" should focus on one comic at a time.
Getting to the actual comic, it's either the mother or the girlfriend (be it ex or current). Most likely the latter, seeing as the girl doesn't look anything like Rusty, but when exactly do cartoon characters have to look like their children? XP
I'd have to say that the only thing that could probably use some touches here and there are the ... what are they called, the different blocks of pictures? Can't think of the name. Anyway, in some pages, there is a lot of empty space that could be filled with more content (like on page 2.2 on the top-right and bottom-right hand corners). It just leaves that "there could have been more ..." feeling. However, I did enjoy the way it was done on this page with the thunderbolt. It didn't feel so much like empty space this time around, but more stylized.
I hope this helped any. :D
I hope this helped any. :D
Technically speaking a perfect circle is impossible to draw~ ;D
Heheh thanks for the kind words but I don't mind. I was expecting there to be a divide over changing art styles so I'm fine with a few who dislike it. I mean after all there's hundred's who still do like it. ^.=.^
Heheh thanks for the kind words but I don't mind. I was expecting there to be a divide over changing art styles so I'm fine with a few who dislike it. I mean after all there's hundred's who still do like it. ^.=.^
But Comics are a good source of progress, espically when you look back. Like for example: you start a comic that lasts 5 years you can go back to the first page and see how much progress you made when you compare it to all the other chapters and the ending.
I mean I won't lie either your style could use some work but I feel that when you get it down 100% and are really confidenet with it you'll be one of the greatest in the fandom.. I can see potential in it.
I mean I won't lie either your style could use some work but I feel that when you get it down 100% and are really confidenet with it you'll be one of the greatest in the fandom.. I can see potential in it.
Take a look at Cheap Thrills by Vivisection Bob and start at the beginning, you'll see that she consciously changes art styles after each chapter. Personally, I found it distracting at first but I kept reading and forget about it until the next chapter >;) That's just the way it is.
I don't see why everyone is so in a huff about the art style. :\ There has been many different comics that change styles each chapter, PAID comics, hell I've even seen published comics that do that. Also Easyspark is an awesome artist yes, but the new art style is just as good, it just has a different style to it. It's like comparing a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake. In the end it's still freaking cake, so be happy you have some at all. X3
For anyone who complains, as they have said multiple times before, Easyspark can't do the comic anymore. The new artist picked it up. If the new artist didn't pick it up there would be no comic at all. Also, it's FREE, so stop your whining.
I personally am glad that someone picked up the comic again, even with the drastic change of art style it's still the same story. I know Myd and I know with his writing it's going to be epic anyway you throw it. =P
For anyone who complains, as they have said multiple times before, Easyspark can't do the comic anymore. The new artist picked it up. If the new artist didn't pick it up there would be no comic at all. Also, it's FREE, so stop your whining.
I personally am glad that someone picked up the comic again, even with the drastic change of art style it's still the same story. I know Myd and I know with his writing it's going to be epic anyway you throw it. =P
Well, that's the thing. People put lots of time into this and they don't have to. It's not an excuse. I'm pretty sure most of the people that say it's an excuse have never drawn anything seriously in their life. My art as it stands takes me around 5-6 hours to complete a full image. Comics are alot more time consuming, and with free ones like this, they aren't getting paid for the 6+hours they put into each comic page.
Plus with a comic like this there is more then just one person doing it. Which means that you are taking out lots of time for multiple people.
People just annoy me. X3
Plus with a comic like this there is more then just one person doing it. Which means that you are taking out lots of time for multiple people.
People just annoy me. X3
I might be one of the few but I like the new art better.
About all those bashing comments. These guys/gals are human (sorry) after all and change is something human beings naturally fear or have a hard time coping with. So don't take it personal. If the current artist had been doing the art from the very beginning nobody would be complaining. Also, if the current artist had done the first part and was then replaced by the former one, they would get the same uproar and outrage. Because it's just not "what people have gotten used to".
Keep up the hard work! :)
About all those bashing comments. These guys/gals are human (sorry) after all and change is something human beings naturally fear or have a hard time coping with. So don't take it personal. If the current artist had been doing the art from the very beginning nobody would be complaining. Also, if the current artist had done the first part and was then replaced by the former one, they would get the same uproar and outrage. Because it's just not "what people have gotten used to".
Keep up the hard work! :)
It seems as if there are some who deflect criticism of the artwork by reminding us all how much work and effort is involved in making a comic. It is not the effort of the artist we are criticizing, but rather the product of his effort we are criticizing.
The primary and most glaringly obvious problem with the artwork is how he draws Anthropomorphic faces: simply enough, he can't draw them. He is obviously learning, as all artists are, but he clearly cannot yet draw Anthropomorphic faces. To put it brutally, the face of the top-left-corner-panel is positively abysmal. This artist draws the animal head with the elongated snout, but then simply places an entire face on the front of the snout, instead of drawing a cohesive head and face.
Again, in response to those who will retort with lengthy tales of the arduous and strenuous work that goes into making a (free) comic, I would argue that such a retort is irrelevant: again, it is not the effort of the artist we are criticizing, he could put 20 hours a day into this comic, and the fact of the matter is his faces (at the very least) are still terrible. It is not the effort we are criticizing, but rather the product of the effort we are criticizing.
To Germees and Mydnyte: If you don't want to read critical comments, I would advise you to save yourself the time of responding, and just immediately delete them. I usually enjoy your work, but I'm not going to lie when I don't enjoy it.
To those who responded positively to this artwork: it is very possible that you just simply enjoy this quality (or as they put it, "style") of artwork, and this is just where your personal preferences lie. In this case, I have nothing to say to you. However, if you are complimenting this artwork simply because the comic is free, you are friends with the artists involved, or you just enjoy supporting somebody, I would remind you that reinforcing mediocrity and undeserved flattery are death sentences to any artist. Artists only improve when you challenge and criticize them.
The primary and most glaringly obvious problem with the artwork is how he draws Anthropomorphic faces: simply enough, he can't draw them. He is obviously learning, as all artists are, but he clearly cannot yet draw Anthropomorphic faces. To put it brutally, the face of the top-left-corner-panel is positively abysmal. This artist draws the animal head with the elongated snout, but then simply places an entire face on the front of the snout, instead of drawing a cohesive head and face.
Again, in response to those who will retort with lengthy tales of the arduous and strenuous work that goes into making a (free) comic, I would argue that such a retort is irrelevant: again, it is not the effort of the artist we are criticizing, he could put 20 hours a day into this comic, and the fact of the matter is his faces (at the very least) are still terrible. It is not the effort we are criticizing, but rather the product of the effort we are criticizing.
To Germees and Mydnyte: If you don't want to read critical comments, I would advise you to save yourself the time of responding, and just immediately delete them. I usually enjoy your work, but I'm not going to lie when I don't enjoy it.
To those who responded positively to this artwork: it is very possible that you just simply enjoy this quality (or as they put it, "style") of artwork, and this is just where your personal preferences lie. In this case, I have nothing to say to you. However, if you are complimenting this artwork simply because the comic is free, you are friends with the artists involved, or you just enjoy supporting somebody, I would remind you that reinforcing mediocrity and undeserved flattery are death sentences to any artist. Artists only improve when you challenge and criticize them.
Most people are not articulate enough to say anything more than "it sucks". "It sucks" is an extremely generalized verbal behavior, and most people's verbal repertoires are not exercised and/or conditioned enough to discriminate more accurately, IE, detail how and why "it sucks".
I wouldn't agree with the sentiment "it sucks" anyway. As I said, his faces are horrendous, but most of the rest of the art isn't really all that bad at all. I would advise the artist to exercise the behavior of drawing Anthropomorphic faces and heads. Because humans depend heavily on nonverbal visual stimuli, and particularly facial nonverbal visual stimuli, inaccurately drawn faces will severely extinguish the private experience of viewing and seeing artwork. IE, to humans, faces are extremely important, and good or bad faces can make or break your entire piece. As I've said, the faces are the most glaring weaknesses in the artwork, and if these were improved, I would wager that the frequency of the complaints would subside.
I wouldn't agree with the sentiment "it sucks" anyway. As I said, his faces are horrendous, but most of the rest of the art isn't really all that bad at all. I would advise the artist to exercise the behavior of drawing Anthropomorphic faces and heads. Because humans depend heavily on nonverbal visual stimuli, and particularly facial nonverbal visual stimuli, inaccurately drawn faces will severely extinguish the private experience of viewing and seeing artwork. IE, to humans, faces are extremely important, and good or bad faces can make or break your entire piece. As I've said, the faces are the most glaring weaknesses in the artwork, and if these were improved, I would wager that the frequency of the complaints would subside.
"It sucks" isn't particularly helpful, but there's a nifty little thing called "constructive criticism." "Horrendous" and "abysmal" prolly don't fall into that category either. Beyond that, they're subjective little adjectives. Now you're trying to be helpful, I can see that, and the best thing you can do is to offer up a bit of "this is what I'd do differently..." along w/ an example or two. You do do that and that's good. As an aside, there are a number of tutorials on the interwebs re: drawing furries. Black Teagan has one under Blotch. Few others as well. But shit, if a person draws and keeps at it, it will improve over time regardless. I have some drawings in my scraps. By no means pro, but when I first started drawing, they were stick figures in profile o.O Works that way for most everything. Best.
You're right, I suppose "Abysmal" and "horrendous" are slightly more discriminated synonyms of "sucks".
I should say that his faces are grotesquely inaccurate abstractions of human and animal facial features. I would prescribe exercising his drawing behavior so that his faces are more accurately performed: the eyes, nose, and mouth being located on the head where they are realistically located, not on the front of the snout, but rather, the various places on the head where they are located when typically seen.
The above is not perfect, but it's better than "horrendous" and "abysmal".
I should say that his faces are grotesquely inaccurate abstractions of human and animal facial features. I would prescribe exercising his drawing behavior so that his faces are more accurately performed: the eyes, nose, and mouth being located on the head where they are realistically located, not on the front of the snout, but rather, the various places on the head where they are located when typically seen.
The above is not perfect, but it's better than "horrendous" and "abysmal".
Also, if you're going to write that much text, use more noticeable paragraphs. Most people would look at that and think "TL;DR" since it's all bunched up, but if you space it out a little, it becomes much more readable. I find it usually helps to have a space between each paragraph.
Here is a fine face by one of my favorite artists. There are many examples of quite accurately-drawn faces on this website, and this is one of them.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5434584/
Now of course, there aren't very many artists who have such discriminated, developed, exercised drawing repertoires, IE are that accomplished artistically, but it would be functionally advantageous for those that are not currently as accurately conditioned to observe and be influenced by those whose drawing behaviors are as extensively exercised, IE the average performers should be influenced by the excellent. Furthermore, it would be functionally advantageous if individuals, upon observing varying degrees of accuracy and quality in artistic stimuli (works), punished less accurate artistic behavior, reinforced more accurate artistic behavior, and verbally or visually modeled more accurate behavior in order to influence, shape, and condition more accurate behavior. IE, connoisseurs of art should encourage the positive attributes in an artist's work, and criticize the flaws and faults of that same artist's work. Because of art's reinforcing influence upon our existence (lives), it is functionally advantageous for viewers of art to behave in the previously verbally-modeled manner because the functionally advantageous shaping of artistic behaviors will maximize (as much as possible, of course) said artistic behavior's reinforcing consequence upon our lives, thus assisting in maximizing the reinforcement of our lives, thus maximizing our lives, which is the only empirically demonstrable and defensible function of the existence of surviving biological organisms. IE, standards matter, because they embetter our lives, which is the only real meaning of life: its pursuit and maximization. My apologies for composing a small manifesto in the comment section, but my philosophy behind my point matters as much as the point does, as the philosophy supports and reasons for the point.
I shall repeat that conclusion, the colloquially-translated articulation of my point, because it needs to be repeated: standards matter.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5434584/
Now of course, there aren't very many artists who have such discriminated, developed, exercised drawing repertoires, IE are that accomplished artistically, but it would be functionally advantageous for those that are not currently as accurately conditioned to observe and be influenced by those whose drawing behaviors are as extensively exercised, IE the average performers should be influenced by the excellent. Furthermore, it would be functionally advantageous if individuals, upon observing varying degrees of accuracy and quality in artistic stimuli (works), punished less accurate artistic behavior, reinforced more accurate artistic behavior, and verbally or visually modeled more accurate behavior in order to influence, shape, and condition more accurate behavior. IE, connoisseurs of art should encourage the positive attributes in an artist's work, and criticize the flaws and faults of that same artist's work. Because of art's reinforcing influence upon our existence (lives), it is functionally advantageous for viewers of art to behave in the previously verbally-modeled manner because the functionally advantageous shaping of artistic behaviors will maximize (as much as possible, of course) said artistic behavior's reinforcing consequence upon our lives, thus assisting in maximizing the reinforcement of our lives, thus maximizing our lives, which is the only empirically demonstrable and defensible function of the existence of surviving biological organisms. IE, standards matter, because they embetter our lives, which is the only real meaning of life: its pursuit and maximization. My apologies for composing a small manifesto in the comment section, but my philosophy behind my point matters as much as the point does, as the philosophy supports and reasons for the point.
I shall repeat that conclusion, the colloquially-translated articulation of my point, because it needs to be repeated: standards matter.
You seems to be speaking of a utopian way of thinking in that "This is the way it should be" rather than the way it will most likely happen. And you seem to be thinking completely objectively without the consequences of human error. While all that you said are very true such perfect ideals will most likely never be achieved. I mainly mean that artists aren't machines and while we strive to get better it isn't the main thing on our agenda 24/7. Although I always enjoy doing practices to improve my work I still have other obligations. While it's good to have philosophy it's also necessary to be realistic about the situation. And realistically I won't see all the greatests artists of my time nor will I learn them but I can always improve on what I see and I do.
Now some criticism for the artist you gave me (and for anthropomorphic artists in general myself included) I'd say that anthropomorphic creatures as we draw them mostly appear like humans with animal like traits rather than a healthy mix of the two as a werewolf (from mythology) is or the minotaur. And while it's okay to stray from this formula I still feel like sight has been lost of anthropomorphs truly are. For example I've seen twink like dragons (a dominating species) and super muscled ferrets (a moderately submissive species) and I think it's the traits of the species that I really want to catch rather than throw fur on a human and put an animal head on him.
Now some criticism for the artist you gave me (and for anthropomorphic artists in general myself included) I'd say that anthropomorphic creatures as we draw them mostly appear like humans with animal like traits rather than a healthy mix of the two as a werewolf (from mythology) is or the minotaur. And while it's okay to stray from this formula I still feel like sight has been lost of anthropomorphs truly are. For example I've seen twink like dragons (a dominating species) and super muscled ferrets (a moderately submissive species) and I think it's the traits of the species that I really want to catch rather than throw fur on a human and put an animal head on him.
I would argue that your view as initially articulated is narrowly pessimistic, which is an understandably frequent view given the condition of today's public social environment. I strive to avoid speaking in terms of "ought", "should", and language that is usually paired with and provokes some sort of "moralistic" meaning, only referencing these terms and words in order to translate my philosophy into more colloquially used language to increase the probability of my philosophy's conditioning consequence. I strive to describe the relevant objective, empirical phenomena as linguistically accurate as possible, dealing with organisms within an environment, their behavior, and the consequences of said behavior. As "living", functioning, biological organisms, there are only two options from which to select from: existence or nonexistence, survival or nonsurvival, "life" or "death". An organism's selection between these two options is probabilistically selected by the contingencies of accumulative survival history of antecedent biological organisms and the contingencies of functionally-advantageously-shaped organismic activity. The survival, existence, function, "life", of an organism is continued by this activity, and the evolution of organisms is the integral aspect of that continuation of activity: without continual evolution through natural selection of varying organismic traits and activity, the organismic congregation will stagnate and, eventually, die, nonsurvive, dysfunction, nonexist. To put it colloquially, if the human congregation does not behave as I have described, it will eventually die. This is a simple, basic fact of biological existence.
There are various forms of reinforcement, and varying degrees of functional advantageousness of these forms of reinforcement. Often our avenues of reinforcement are not shaped advantageously, and are merely continued as is (as you have described). I would wager that this is what most people do most of the time, as shaping their behavior advantageously by challenging it requires more "energy", "resources", "effort" (I'm not exactly sure how to articulate that at the moment), more discriminated activity. However, congregative organismic activity that is continuously stagnant will result in an eventual death for everyone, so some amount of behavioral challenging is necessary, and I would even wager would be reinforcing when experiencing it, IE, you would enjoy it, like it, prefer it. Accurate philosophy is being realistic about the situation: Philosophy is a verbal tool to provoke and influence functionally advantageous behavior. Good philosophy is the most practical thing in the world.
It appears as if you're projecting your own private experience and view upon the very general genre of "Anthropomorphic art". In every artistic genre, there are variations upon variations: thus in Anthropomorphic art you see the sort of art you have described, and the sort of art I previously linked to. Due to biological susceptibility and social reinforcement of human physiology, the type of Anthropomorphic art that is more topographically synonymous with human physiology will more probably provoke reinforcing responses from humans, IE Anthropomorphic art that more closely resembles humans will be more popular among humans because we are, well, humans.
Secondly, even within a species, take a dragon species for example, even within a species that is traditionally portrayed as physically powerful and of acquiring primary stimulus opposition, IE, is usually portrayed as dominant, there will be variation within that species. There would be males who would be dominant, and there would be males that would be submissive: this is the reality of organismic congregations (species). Then again, maximizing the accuracy of abstractions might not be reinforcing for some people, IE some people might not care about the degree of realism of their fantasies.
There are various forms of reinforcement, and varying degrees of functional advantageousness of these forms of reinforcement. Often our avenues of reinforcement are not shaped advantageously, and are merely continued as is (as you have described). I would wager that this is what most people do most of the time, as shaping their behavior advantageously by challenging it requires more "energy", "resources", "effort" (I'm not exactly sure how to articulate that at the moment), more discriminated activity. However, congregative organismic activity that is continuously stagnant will result in an eventual death for everyone, so some amount of behavioral challenging is necessary, and I would even wager would be reinforcing when experiencing it, IE, you would enjoy it, like it, prefer it. Accurate philosophy is being realistic about the situation: Philosophy is a verbal tool to provoke and influence functionally advantageous behavior. Good philosophy is the most practical thing in the world.
It appears as if you're projecting your own private experience and view upon the very general genre of "Anthropomorphic art". In every artistic genre, there are variations upon variations: thus in Anthropomorphic art you see the sort of art you have described, and the sort of art I previously linked to. Due to biological susceptibility and social reinforcement of human physiology, the type of Anthropomorphic art that is more topographically synonymous with human physiology will more probably provoke reinforcing responses from humans, IE Anthropomorphic art that more closely resembles humans will be more popular among humans because we are, well, humans.
Secondly, even within a species, take a dragon species for example, even within a species that is traditionally portrayed as physically powerful and of acquiring primary stimulus opposition, IE, is usually portrayed as dominant, there will be variation within that species. There would be males who would be dominant, and there would be males that would be submissive: this is the reality of organismic congregations (species). Then again, maximizing the accuracy of abstractions might not be reinforcing for some people, IE some people might not care about the degree of realism of their fantasies.
I read the comic for the story; not the art. I can plainly see that one artist did the first series and another artist is doing this one. But regardless, the story is still the same story. Every artist has their own style and if this was to be animated, I am sure Germees would get the best artist they could afford. Currently for a free comic, they have to use whatever artist they can get to do the art.
But as I said, it's the story I am interested in. AND IT'S GOOD!
As for now, I am waiting for that cute bunny boy to make another appearance. I think Rusty was impressed by him the most since the bunny was nice to him to start with and the rest of the crew seem to get off on scaring the hell out of Rusty.
But as I said, it's the story I am interested in. AND IT'S GOOD!
As for now, I am waiting for that cute bunny boy to make another appearance. I think Rusty was impressed by him the most since the bunny was nice to him to start with and the rest of the crew seem to get off on scaring the hell out of Rusty.
here's my two cents
like i said in IB, i don't like the new "style" but now than i can see the artist work here in FA i can add an extra commentary about why i think is wrong and what can you do to improve
the main problem i see is the head anatomy, trying to stick a small face in a big head, and sorry, thats not style, is a mistake, and im pretty sure its a mistake because the artist who did this work ...
Fayne_of_Fur right? had really good works in his gallery but most of them are dragons or lizard-like characters, and the main character here is a cat, a mammal, and is not his character, thats why he still not get used to him, and if you try to stick a mamal face into a dragon head, well ...
but really, be carefull, because most of the crew in the first part of the comic are mamals too, so if you not take care, the same issue will happend again with more characters
PS: sry for my bad english, im not from a english speaking country
like i said in IB, i don't like the new "style" but now than i can see the artist work here in FA i can add an extra commentary about why i think is wrong and what can you do to improve
the main problem i see is the head anatomy, trying to stick a small face in a big head, and sorry, thats not style, is a mistake, and im pretty sure its a mistake because the artist who did this work ...
Fayne_of_Fur right? had really good works in his gallery but most of them are dragons or lizard-like characters, and the main character here is a cat, a mammal, and is not his character, thats why he still not get used to him, and if you try to stick a mamal face into a dragon head, well ...but really, be carefull, because most of the crew in the first part of the comic are mamals too, so if you not take care, the same issue will happend again with more characters
PS: sry for my bad english, im not from a english speaking country
Comments