Off-putting art in good webcomics

[Kalmageddon]

Have you ever been turned off from reading a good or otherwise popular webcomic by the art style alone?
In my case, it was with Girl Genius. I really like steampunk and the setting itself seemed interesting from what I could read of it on tv tropes and such.
However I just can't get behind how characters are drawn, specifically their facial proportions. It's like an alien tried to draw what it believed was a human but only knew a few basic things. The mouths are freakishly huge and filled with ginormus blunt teeth, the eyes too are always drawn where they really shouldn't be.
Basically, the art creeps me out.
What are your experiences?

[Domochevsky]

...yup. Schlock Mercenary. I hear the comic's pretty good and I used to read it for a while. But man, I cannot stand to look at it, despite its improvements. The core flaws remain, even if the lines get cleaner. >_<

[Vinyadan]

8-Bit Theater. Something in the art hurts my eyes, I can't read more than 5-8 pages without having to close it.

Some of the earliest Sluggy Freelance strips had something of a problem in being too little concerned with readability, which occasionally made me stop reading.

In spite of the knowing it's a good read, I don't read Boulet much because the art feels uninteresting.

[Rodin]

I would honestly say that most webcomics fall under this for me. If it has bad art, I won't read unless there are one of two exceptions (and sometimes requiring both).

1) Stellar reputation. Gunnerkrigg Court was like this for me - it showed up enough on the web that I finally got interested and forced myself to read the early chapters until I was hooked.

2) Proof of improved art further into the comic - Questionable Content being the shining example. The early art is awful, but by the time I discovered it the art had evolved enough that I knew it would get better. If the art is bad and stays bad despite a long time between the first comic and the most recent, that makes me suspicious.

[eschmenk]

Back in the day, I thought Foxtrot was one of the funniest newspaper strips, but the way the people were drawn made it very hard for me to enjoy it.


In my case, it was with Girl Genius.

FWIW, the Foglios are aware that some people strongly dislike Phil's style. Because of that, they hired someone else to draw the book cover artwork for their novelizations using a very different style. Normally Phil's style doesn't bother me, although very occasionally it does.

[Razade]

FWIW, the Foglios are aware that some people strongly dislike Phil's style. Because of that, they hired someone else to draw the book cover artwork for their novelizations using a very different style. Normally Phil's style doesn't bother me, although very occasionally it does.

Honestly I think Phil just draws people like they're a mix between himself and whatever he's got in his head. The man is, not to be unkind, rather goofy looking.

[Honest Tiefling]

There was a link a while back to a DnD Webcomic, that did seem interesting...At least the text did. The art was just bad, very pixelated, and the designs were weird. Of course, since there was only one image, the speech balloons were impossible to follow and I couldn't even read the one linked in the thread. I would show it if I could find it again.

[halfeye]

There was a link a while back to a DnD Webcomic, that did seem interesting...At least the text did. The art was just bad, very pixelated, and the designs were weird. Of course, since there was only one image, the speech balloons were impossible to follow and I couldn't even read the one linked in the thread. I would show it if I could find it again.

Sounds like this one:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?440074-Will-Save-World-for-Gold

I tried to read it for a few months once, but the pixelated style just became unbearable. It wasn't the picures being badly drawn itself that put me off, it was that there were speech balloons connected to better drawings of the characters, so the bad pictures felt lazy.

I still read some of Wildflowers and all of Daily Grind, so it's not as if I hate bad drawing, so long as I can have some sort of belief that the person doing the drawing is doing their best.

[Honest Tiefling]

Sounds like this one:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?440074-Will-Save-World-for-Gold

Would you believe me if it was far more confusing and had less stylish art?

[Neoriceisgood]

Best example I've seen of this is probably 'Hitmen for Destiny'.


Absolutely ridiculous comic that I ended up loving, but dear lord is the art a sight to behold. And that's not a positive statement. :smalleek:

[Domochevsky]

Best example I've seen of this is probably 'Hitmen for Destiny'.


Absolutely ridiculous comic that I ended up loving, but dear lord is the art a sight to behold. And that's not a positive statement. :smalleek:

Oh yeah, I remember that one. Excellent stories from that author (consistently made and completed, too), but the art is indeed ...something. >_>

[Lacuna Caster]

1) Stellar reputation. Gunnerkrigg Court was like this for me - it showed up enough on the web that I finally got interested and forced myself to read the early chapters until I was hooked.
Gunnerkrigg's art ranges between the mediocre and the outstanding depending on how hard the author works- anything involving Coyote or the big splash pages for extraplanar entities is generally easy on the eyes.

The story's a bit of a strange beast for me. Aside from Reynard and Ysengrim, there's no particular character I'm in love with, and while the plot ticks along steadily it rarely grips me on a visceral level. There's more a sort of... slow glacial momentum buildup, I guess(?), which combined with the general texture of the setting tends to keep me reading.


In spite of the knowing it's a good read, I don't read Boulet much because the art feels uninteresting.
Is this (http://english.bouletcorp.com) the strip you're talking about? I quite like it.

[halfeye]

I don't in general like art.

Literature the same, I love a good story, but if the flowery language is more important than the plot, nope. Terry Pratchett I like because he keeps the jokes under control, and doesn't make messing with the language something that overules the story.

It's a matter of (semi-metaphorical) transparency, if I can clearly see the story through whatever the medium is, that is good, if the medium is all there is and the story is lost in swirls and curliques, then I lose interest too.

Bokeh is another thing that doesn't sit right with me, somehow, I can't really put my finger on exactly why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

[rooster707]

Someone's already mentioned Questionable Content; not only has it improved since it started but it's never really stopped since then.

Also, Darths and Droids, which is otherwise excellent and usually looks fine, has this thing where during fight scenes they insist on making all the panels weirdly shaped and confusing, sometimes to the point that I can't tell which order they're supposed to go in.

[Scarlet Knight]

FWIW, the Foglios are aware that some people strongly dislike Phil's style. Because of that, they hired someone else to draw the book cover artwork for their novelizations using a very different style. Normally Phil's style doesn't bother me, although very occasionally it does.

Funny, I love Phil's style so it really bothers me when the backup team draws Girl Genius.

[ellindsey]

For me it's El Goonish Shive. The story looked interesting, but I found the artwork just too off-putting to get used to.

[Mith]

For me it's El Goonish Shive. The story looked interesting, but I found the artwork just too off-putting to get used to.

With regards to EGS, the art does improve significantly over time, to the point that I do not read the earlier comics.

[ellindsey]

With regards to EGS, the art does improve significantly over time, to the point that I do not read the earlier comics.

I've tried reading the more recent strips, and I find them off-putting in exactly the same way as the early ones. I'm not bothered by bad art, there's just something in the art style of EGS that just makes it unreadable for me.

[Mith]

I've tried reading the more recent strips, and I find them off-putting in exactly the same way as the early ones. I'm not bothered by bad art, there's just something in the art style of EGS that just makes it unreadable for me.

Fair enough. I guess It's close to other art I see out there that it feels pretty middle of the road for a professional artist.

[Onyavar]

hm, in my case the art is important to hook me up with a webcomic. The same time, good art is not everything, the story is the more important factor. Once I know the art style, I can tolerate it unless it drastically changes. I never really thought about it before, but if, after a change in either, the combo of art and story didn't match my interest, I walked away.

- Most important, I dislike comics that rapidly switch between chibi style, manga style, and western comic style, or even have seventy different in-between gradients/variant styles. There are examples where I can tolerate it (Misfile, Grrlpower), but it always annoys me. I stopped Supernormal Step, Trying Human and Spinnerette - actually not just because of this issue, but it wasn't in their favour either.
- Of the comics mentioned in this thread, Gunnercrigg Court is the one I never warmed up to because of the art style. I tried, but several pages into it, I lost interest and the art was the major reason. Oh, I'm sure it's good, no question.
- on the same issue, Schlock Mercenary started much worse, but I got hooked up enough to follow it into the better-art-sections...
- Erfworld switched artists, and regularly changes the storytelling style (comics, logbooks, conversations, wall of text with picture in it). It turned out rather consistent overall, but it put me off the fandom for sure
- T.Hunt has made huge visual changes on his Goblins, too. In this case, slowly improving art quality coincided with a worse comic: Post-Brassmoon, Goblins started to be unbearable.
- I also noted the Foglio discrepancies between the artists, but also the creeping art development. I'm never sure if it's towards "easier drawing" or "higher quality" - sometimes both, sometimes neither. I haven't stopped reading Girlgenius - yet.
- According to this forum, I seem to be one of the few people who had little problems with the Deegan chronicles - once I "learned" Mookies style, I could take it for granted without it impacting my reading.
- I read a lot more comics, but don't remember other notable discrepancies between artwork and overall quality there.
- OotS was, after a recommendation of a friend, my first webcomic (Note: the art-change at the start of book 6, while good, took me a certain time of getting used to!), and what I learned to appreciate is the crisp-clear linestyle and the expressive faces.

Oh yeah: expressive faces. In a lot of comics, emotions are either not drawn consistently, or not expressive enough, or simply just weird.
I hope Crimson’s expression makes sense in panel 3. (http://grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2597) I’m pleased with it especially cause I didn’t know what term to google to find a reference. It’s supposed to be like when you’ve told someone something and you have no idea if it’s good or bad news, and you have that expectant kind of half squint. I seem to remember Seinfeld doing it a fair amount. Anyway, Crimson’s kind of doing that expression cause she’s treading the line between “maybe you can’t do everything” and “Be tactful and don’t bruise the most powerful Super’s ego.” What Dave describes here is a difficult facial expression to start with, but I'm happy he's doing an online comment right below each page, because I sure couldn't get that. While 3rd panel's speech bubbles get the point across, Crimson's lewd face during this announcement made no sense to me.

[Doorhandle]

I was raised on webcomics terrible sprite comics, so the art has to be really bad to turn me away: what puts me off is unclear art, where it's hard to tell what the hell is going on.
Or when it's a poor mix of digital and meatspace rendering.
Much to my distaste, the latter category tends to fit my work when I draw something. :smallannoyed:

[Celestia]

Pieces of Eights almost hits this for me. The art style has this sort of hyper detail to it that is incredibly weird. I still read the comic because it's great, but I do have to overlook the art most of the time.

[NontheistCleric]

Honestly I think Phil just draws people like they're a mix between himself and whatever he's got in his head. The man is, not to be unkind, rather goofy looking.

Really? I've seen pictures of him, and most of the Girl Genius characters don't really look like him at all.

[halfeye]

I don't care about the art, at all.

That's probably because when I was a kid, the only comic I was allowed, because it was "educational" was an atrocity called Jack and Jill (UK only, and the rest of you were very lucky about that). No speech bubbles were allowed, and the text below and about the images had to rhyme. It wasn't poetry. Imagine poorly paid journalists stuck in a dank office, the rhymes were easily as bad as you'd expect. So now I hate poetry and like comics with words in the pictures.

[Traab]

Funny, I love Phil's style so it really bothers me when the backup team draws Girl Genius.

Oh god, that mini comic where the GG crew got shrunk? /shudder (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20140101#.WaMCjMaQyUk)

[Razade]

Really? I've seen pictures of him, and most of the Girl Genius characters don't really look like him at all.

All their faces are weird and squat and googly eyed like him.

[Doorhandle]

Oh god, that mini comic where the GG crew got shrunk? /shudder (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20140101#.WaMCjMaQyUk)

With you on that one. Normal GG art is merely cartoony at it's absolute worst and still a pleasure to look at. That one just dives into the uncanny valley.

[Drakilian]

As much as I like Kill Six Billion Demons I am pretty put off by the art, but I also get that that's kindof the point and there are some pretty cool shots and extremely detailed sections that wow me from time to time. Also, the world-building kicks ass.

[keybounce]

...yup. Schlock Mercenary. I hear the comic's pretty good and I used to read it for a while. But man, I cannot stand to look at it, despite its improvements. The core flaws remain, even if the lines get cleaner. >_<

It has been a while. Please, go to the start of the current book, and take another look. (If you look at the current dailies, you'll see a combat scene and might think it's normally this ugly).


Most important, I dislike comics that rapidly switch between chibi style, manga style, and western comic style, or even have seventy different in-between gradients/variant styles.

You might consider "Not a villain". It has three styles, based on where it is. (Most of the story takes place inside a world-wide virtual reality setting. There's also a "real world" and a "Game inside the VR world" setting.)


on the same issue, Schlock Mercenary started much worse, but I got hooked up enough to follow it into the better-art-sections...

Yes, the art got better.


Oh yeah: expressive faces. In a lot of comics, emotions are either not drawn consistently, or not expressive enough, or simply just weird.

I've seen artists say that they prefer drawing animals because it's easier to do expressions -- most animals use their whole body where we use just our faces.

If you want to see good art of animal characters, I'd suggest Habibah's Song. There's a thread for it in this forum.

[NontheistCleric]

All their faces are weird and squat and googly eyed like him.

Well, no. Phil himself isn't weird or squat or googly-eyed. He's just very fat. It's not the same thing at all.

[Vinyadan]

Maybe this impression actually comes from the fact that Phil Foglio is often depicted dressed like one of the guys he draws? So the clothes emphasize the same body parts.

[rooster707]

A recent one for me is David Morgan-Mar's new comic, Eavesdropper. It's probably great, like everything else I've seen by him, but dear god that art is just the worst. :smallsigh:

[DigoDragon]

Well, no. Phil himself isn't weird or squat or googly-eyed. He's just very fat. It's not the same thing at all.

Phil is a Hoffmanite? :smalltongue:


My first introduction to Phil was the Buck Godot comics. I thought the stories were pretty darn funny, even if the art is a bit off and doodle-y. It wasn't bad though.

[NontheistCleric]

Phil is a Hoffmanite? :smalltongue:


My first introduction to Phil was the Buck Godot comics. I thought the stories were pretty darn funny, even if the art is a bit off and doodle-y. It wasn't bad though.

Well, we're not talking about the art being bad or good here. Just whether we might, personally, find it off-putting.

[DigoDragon]

Well, we're not talking about the art being bad or good here. Just whether we might, personally, find it off-putting.

Right. Phil's art is a little off, particularly the way he draws women. They come in one shape it seems. :smalltongue: