Erfworld Thread X: A Series of Unfortunate Cliffhangers

[Lethologica]

The characters steal from their own intro off-story panel. The Giant does Silly pretty good.

This is, by the Giant's own word there was no plot at all when he started the comic, just a bunch of generic adventurers already in a generic dungeon and rolling with it. And everybody has time to crack jokes no matter how dire the situation.

And Erfworld was always a juxtaposition of the silly with the serious. Which is why cartoony stuff like eyes being different sizes shows up in Book 1, too.

Said head is smaller than Hamster's hand at 3rd panel despite the characters not changing positions.

Also Hamster's bracer went missing in the last panel.

Hamster's hand is drawn as abnormally large throughout the update. It's practically as large as his own head. And it's even covered in panel 2, so you can't actually compare it to panel 3.

Hamster's bracer is covered by his other sleeve. Whether you think a tiny bit of black should be poking out is not enough to conclude much of anything.

Whoever's the new artist draw a proper mass fight sequence like Stanley vs Jillian showdown first then you can argue that.

This is, technically there's been a bunch of big shootouts in Tee Vee AND WE GOT TO SEE ZERO ACTION FROM IT. Only the "before" and "after". At least David could draw big combats.

Everything with Lilith and the MK shootout happened under Xin. For that matter, the entirety of frickin' Jetstone happened under Xin, albeit with a different production regime.

I rate the quality of your arguments as far below the quality of any of the artists, including David.

[Anarchic Fox]

As soon as Xin took over, it was back to those dead brown eyes again, cause, apparently, no one is capable of drawing pupils except David. [/FONT]

As an amateur artist, I find it very hard to include separate pupils without making it look creepy. It really isn't as simple as putting a black circle in the middle. Now, Xin's a professional (if you make a living doing it, you're a professional), and thus doesn't have the excuse, but it's still a challenge, particularly for some art styles.

[Razade]

I rate the quality of your arguments as far below the quality of any of the artists, including David.

Holy crap.



Re: the pupils. Only Parson has ever had them. Erfworld characters never have. They've always monochrome eyes. So why is this a problem now? David's eyes were just like the rest of David's art. Terrible.

[deuterio12]

Re: the pupils. Only Parson has ever had them. Erfworld characters never have. They've always monochrome eyes. So why is this a problem now?

Jillian has pupils. Her wiki pic even has them in great detail.

David's eyes were just like the rest of David's art. Terrible.

Terrible compared to what? We got most of book 3 out of it and we got it in a much regular schedule.

Heck, with David Rob could advance the plot with barely any text.

[Welf]

Please kill me.

Look at those eyes, just look. Human eyes are simply not supposed to be so far apart that they'll look different sized from perspective. It's a basic newbie mistake and it is just wrong and looks bad unless you're going for a silly style which archons aren't supposed to be. And there's supposed to be 3 artists working on this?

And it's not just that panel, the perspective keeps shifting in basically every panel, like between the 1st and 2nd Stanley shrinks quite a bit compared to Hamster.

Curse you for showing me that. I like Xin's art

YAY STANLEY LEADING THE CHARGE!
WITH A PIKE!

I like that in theory, but I have a bad feeling about it. There are a few hints Jillian might attune to the arkenhammer, and that bodes not well for Stanley.

Jillian has pupils. Her wiki pic even has them in great detail.


Terrible compared to what? We got most of book 3 out of it and we got it in a much regular schedule.

Heck, with David Rob could advance the plot with barely any text.

That page worked with his art. But at its best David's art gave me a feeling of "this is okay". It is not as detailed and cute as Xin's, and not as dynamic as Jaimie's. He has a gallery of example art, and it looks good, but the style does not fit for Erfworld.

[Anarchic Fox]

Curse you for showing me that. I like Xin's art

On a human face, at an angle beyond about thirty degrees from forward, the nasal bridge will begin to occlude the far eye. However, depicting this explicitly tends to put far too much emphasis on the nose. Drawing the far eye slightly smaller achieves this effect without making it seem like the character has a huge nose.

Also, the original criticism assumes archons have human eyes at all, and not, say, glowing points of light. *waits for someone to link to a text-only update from a side story that explains archon eyes*

[tomaO2]

Re: the pupils. Only Parson has ever had them. Erfworld characters never have. They've always monochrome eyes. So why is this a problem now? David's eyes were just like the rest of David's art. Terrible.

Yes, every character EXCEPT PARSON lacked pupils. I specifically said that is the reason why it bothered me that Jamie stopped including them. David was the first artist that actually gave Parson his pupils back, and when he left, they disappeared again. It's not a new issue, I've been reading this comic since it was first posted in the website, and it's ALWAYS annoyed me. It's my biggest pet peeve with the art.

Jillian has pupils. Her wiki pic even has them in great detail.

Aside from the fact that your link does not show Jillian in great detail, the fact is that what she has is an iris, not a pupil. There is a little bit of whiteness on the iris, but that's to indicate light reflecting off them.

A pupil is the black part of the eye, not the coloured part. Parson is the only character with pupils. It is his signature human physical trait (along with blood), as was was shown very clearly in the early part of book 1, before Jamie got lazy and stopped including it.

[deuterio12]

Aside from the fact that your link does not show Jillian in great detail, the fact is that what she has is an iris, not a pupil. There is a little bit of whiteness on the iris, but that's to indicate light reflecting off them.

A pupil is the black part of the eye, not the coloured part. Parson is the only character with pupils. It is his signature human physical trait (along with blood), as was was shown very clearly in the early part of book 1, before Jamie got lazy and stopped including it.

Wiki Jillian has pupils, they're just mostly hidden by the white reflection bit just like Hamster's own. If you zoom in the wiki pic you'll see Jillian's black bit just under said reflection.

Although it seems that in-comic Jillian gets neither iris nor reflection so nevermind that, seems like it was just concept art for the character cast page.

As for Hamster's stupidworld humie traits, he's also taller than Erfworld's "humans", with only ogres matching his height, not to mention more realistic body proportions while everybody else's more chibi/super-deformed style.

[lord_khaine]

I know the comic does not have much going on at the moment, but come one? there got to be more interesting stuff to discuss than pupils or the lack of them?

[tomaO2]

It was within the broader context of talking about David's art. I simply stated a thing I liked about it, and people want to disagree. The lack of pupils is a sore spot though. It's a very important issue to me, personally, so I'd appreciate you not acting so dimissing about it.

You know, I asked Rob about it, way back in book 1, and he didn't want to give any hints. I was left to wonder if it was a story based reason for this, or if it was part of the art change. I personally hoped it was the former option. When Xin came in for book 2, she followed up on the same style of art for Parson's eyes, and I asked her about it too. She said she was just copying book 1, and hadn't been told anything. I don't know if she talked to Rob about it later on or not. I was left wondering again. Then David comes in, and he added them proving once and for all that, yes, it was just a frikken art change. Just another let down, after YEARS of wondering about this.

The summoning of Parson is one of my favorite bits in the entire series. Had my favourite interaction between Stanley and Parson. Lots of close up shots between the two, it established Parson as being quick on the ball, and able to give as good as he got, even when in a really bad situation. There were also interesting bits of information, like the first mention that Parson lacks a stat board (which was almost never mentioned again, even though that should immediately draw the eye of any unit capable of seeing them), a mysterious headache (due to being at a higher elevation then before, and not something interesting, like magic inserting itself into his brain), potato men (just a one-off joke). I feel like there was a lot more potential from it than ended up being realized. The only thing that really stuck was the Tool joke.

Parson was honestly at his best in book 1. I miss the battle board, I miss strategic thinking.

[Razade]

Although it seems that in-comic Jillian gets neither iris nor reflection so nevermind that, seems like it was just concept art for the character cast page.

Was going to point that out but...seems you found it yourself.

It was within the broader context of talking about David's art. I simply stated a thing I liked about it, and people want to disagree. The lack of pupils is a sore spot though. It's a very important issue to me, personally, so I'd appreciate you not acting so dimissing about it.

Oh I gotta know. How is this a very important issue, the characters not having pupils? Do you not have any pupils? Are you blind? Did your pupils get run over? Like, what? It's absolutely something to dismiss. It's such a nitpick. It's the nitpick of the nitpicks. The fact that you didn't follow up on why it was very important to you...unless the massive block of text that follows is said reason..it's just an excuse.

You know, I asked Rob about it, way back in book 1, and he didn't want to give any hints. I was left to wonder if it was a story based reason for this, or if it was part of the art change. I personally hoped it was the former option. When Xin came in for book 2, she followed up on the same style of art for Parson's eyes, and I asked her about it too. She said she was just copying book 1, and hadn't been told anything. I don't know if she talked to Rob about it later on or not. I was left wondering again. Then David comes in, and he added them proving once and for all that, yes, it was just a frikken art change. Just another let down, after YEARS of wondering about this.

But if it was the style of the comic, David broke that style. For what reason? It was a big problem. It got him canned. I wouldn't, as a creator, want to answer the question either even if it didn't matter. Would you be satisfied with "It's just the art"? If them having pupils is very important then no answer seems satisfactory.

And no reason for why it's very important. Such a shame. Was curious.

The summoning of Parson is one of my favorite bits in the entire series. Had my favourite interaction between Stanley and Parson. Lots of close up shots between the two, it established Parson as being quick on the ball, and able to give as good as he got, even when in a really bad situation. There were also interesting bits of information, like the first mention that Parson lacks a stat board (which was almost never mentioned again, even though that should immediately draw the eye of any unit capable of seeing them), a mysterious headache (due to being at a higher elevation then before, and not something interesting, like magic inserting itself into his brain), potato men (just a one-off joke). I feel like there was a lot more potential from it than ended up being realized. The only thing that really stuck was the Tool joke.

Parson was honestly at his best in book 1. I miss the battle board, I miss strategic thinking. [/FONT]

I agree here. I loved Book 1. Everything after Book 2 has been a let down.

[deuterio12]

I would like to add that it was about after David leaving that the comic turned a nosedive into STRINGSFRIENDSHIPSTRINGSLOVESTRINGSTRINGSTRINGSTRI NGSSSSTTTTRRRRIIIINNNGGGSSS

potato men (just a one-off joke)

Trems dared to joke about Hamster being a potato a second time.

A few minutes later Jetstone was a massive barbecue, their king was dead, then Hamster personally waltzed into the city and killed said king with bare hands a second time while Trems was running away for his royal life.

Just saying, Hamster made a pretty strong point about what happens to anybody besides Stanley who dare to joke about him being a potato, so it make perfect sense nobody dared to do it a third time.

I feel like there was a lot more potential from it than ended up being realized.

currentErfworld.jpg

[Morgaln]

One of the branches of magic in Erfworld is Signamancy, which is the magic of determining things about people by how they look and how their looks change. As such, the question whether someone has pupils or not and what it signifies when they suddenly stop having pupils is an entirely valid and relevant one, and only stops being so once Rob himself says it doesn't mean anything.

[DigoDragon]

New page.

Spoiler

Show

My thought on seeing Parson's "plan": S-smartest man in the universe.

Seriously, I mean... he doesn't know about the underground access (which his portal now has, and which would change everything if he knew about it), and this plan isn't unreasonable given what he knows, but this is still something that could go so very very wrong so very very fast, even without Stanley leading the charge. It's not like shockamancy is the only thing the Magic Kingdom has to fight back with.

Yeah, but Parson tends to do interesting things when thinking on his feet. This will at least put him back into action which I think the story really needs right now.

[-D-]

Oh I gotta know. How is this a very important issue, the characters not having pupils? Do you not have any pupils? Are you blind? Did your pupils get run over? Like, what? It's absolutely something to dismiss. It's such a nitpick. It's the nitpick of the nitpicks. The fact that you didn't follow up on why it was very important to you...unless the massive block of text that follows is said reason..it's just an excuse.

Here is the thing. This is a self inflicted wound by Rob. One word - signamancy.

Basically it boils to:
A) Rob saying it's important
B) Signamancy being the worst thing to happen to this comic since Fate and STRINGS (and Cryptocurrency). Wait. Signamancy is Fate aligned. **** Fate.

Now you might ask why is Signamancy worst thing to happen to this comic. Well, every slight errors might be taken as Sign of something greater. Which means that artists are under huge pressure to not add a mistake by accident. Imagine painting Sistine chapel, except there is a crowd below yelling - Is that Prophet Mathew? Is he eating beans? Are you implying Eucharist isn't true, because Beans could be understood as metaphor for the Gnostic Order!11!!11

[tomaO2]

Oh I gotta know. How is this a very important issue, the characters not having pupils? Do you not have any pupils? Are you blind? Did your pupils get run over? Like, what? It's absolutely something to dismiss. It's such a nitpick. It's the nitpick of the nitpicks. The fact that you didn't follow up on why it was very important to you...unless the massive block of text that follows is said reason..it's just an excuse.


But if it was the style of the comic, David broke that style. For what reason? It was a big problem. It got him canned. I wouldn't, as a creator, want to answer the question either even if it didn't matter. Would you be satisfied with "It's just the art"? If them having pupils is very important then no answer seems satisfactory.

And no reason for why it's very important. Such a shame. Was curious.

Wow, rude much? If you wanted to know, which I don't think you did, then you could have just asked instead of giving me that much attitude. Yes, what -D-, and Morgaln, said is part of it. More readers focused on the fact that erfworlders used to be bobble heads at the start of book 1, and then become more human, than Parson's eyes, but the common theme is that we can't just assume that it's art, because it COULD be significant, due to signamancy, and Rob was happy to feed that belief. There were suggestions that Parson's signamancy was influencing erfworld as a whole, that he was turning erf to look more like our world, while also becoming more erflike himself.

There is no reason for any of that speculation. If it's just an art shift, then say so. It bothered me that it was kept close to the chest for no reason whatsoever. Don't pretend that this is some sort of plan to do something great, when it's just a thing. When Xin first took over, the necks of dwagons were short and stubby. There were lots of comments about this, and she came right out and said that it was just a style choice, and that she decided that the fans were right, and that the dwagons did look better with longer necks, SO SHE CHANGED IT BACK.

That is the respectful way to handle art comments. Just be honest about the stuff that doesn't matter, take feedback, have a dialogue. Rob is so closed mouthed, that he refused to give an answer when asked about the "Barry cameo" (Barry is a fan meme about a level two warlord that became popular and was officially added to canon). We know he is part of the art, but Rob wouldn't even confirm my guess on which character it was, even though it had a unique bit of art to point him out. What is the point of a cameo if you don't even tell anyone where it is?

By the same token, I would have appreciated it if they had told me it was an art change from the start. Yes, it would have, in fact, been satisfying to me if Rob had said it was "just the art". If I had known that, then I could have made a case to include it again, because Parson's eyes were the biggest visual cue that he is different to the readers. However, if it had a story driven reason to be that way, then I shouldn't say anything. By not giving an answer, Rob is telling me to shut up and just accept it. I see it as a tactic for shutting down criticism. If, on the other hand, he had been truthful and said that this was the new normal, I would have been able to have my say, and not bothered thinking that it might be anything more, only to be disappointed later on.

If you want a more blatant example of a mistake how you spend so much time dismissing what I admit to be a pet peeve with the art, while ignoring my comment on the dwagon colours mess up from the Jillian/Stanley battle. That was a series of screw ups that really didn't need to happen. One moment Vurp is riding the only green dwagon, next minute a different green dwagon appears.

Then there was my mention of no other character, other than Stanley, talking about Parson's lack of a stat board. No one has anything to say about that either. Why is it no other character thinks it's odd. It's just as blatant as the fact that no one noticed that Parson's chief warlord bonus still active on Maggie and Jack, when everyone thought that Parson was summoned away, which is a massive plot hole in the story arc. Another art bit was the fact that a skeleton was shown underground, which goes against the idea that even if you bury a corpse, the body disbands the next turn. Either this is a clue towards the Magical Kingdom's status, or was a mistake. I'm not aware of any public mentions Rob has given about it, so readers don't know. It's fikken annoying.

[Anarchic Fox]

Imagine painting the Sistine chapel, except there is a crowd below yelling - Is that Prophet Matthew? Is he eating beans? Are you implying Eucharist isn't true, because Beans could be understood as metaphor for the Gnostic Order!11!!11

Okay, that got a smile from me.

[Welf]

Oh I gotta know. How is this a very important issue, the characters not having pupils? Do you not have any pupils? Are you blind? Did your pupils get run over? Like, what? It's absolutely something to dismiss. It's such a nitpick. It's the nitpick of the nitpicks. The fact that you didn't follow up on why it was very important to you...unless the massive block of text that follows is said reason..it's just an excuse.

It's a comic, the art is part of the story telling. The eyes are a very important part of a face, and their display tells a lot about how we should perceive the character. Only a few characters had those eyes, the main character Parson, the sort-of protagonist Jillian, also Wanda and Jack from the mysterious Faq. So there seemed to be something going on, and this is reason to discuss it. In particular when we talk about the quality of the art.
And no, we don't have to talk about anything more important. We talked already about stringsstringsstrings.

[Anteros]

I always just assumed that certain characters were more detailed because they were more central to the story. I very rarely take signamancy as indicating anything significant towards Erfworld's plot. It's more for jokes and memes.

[Anarchic Fox]

Wow, rude much? If you wanted to know, which I don't think you did...

If it's any consolation, I did report the post you're responding to. Its aggression was preternatural.

On-topic, a tremendous amount of thought goes into even the smallest elements of art, if you're a devoted artist. Don't pretend that a basic knowledge of perspective or anatomy suffices for judging the quality of a given piece of art.

[deuterio12]

Then there was my mention of no other character, other than Stanley, talking about Parson's lack of a stat board. No one has anything to say about that either. Why is it no other character thinks it's odd.

Obviously it's just another sign of Stanley's savant genius, able to notice things others don't.

[halfeye]

On-topic, a tremendous amount of thought goes into even the smallest elements of art, if you're a devoted artist. Don't pretend that a basic knowledge of perspective or anatomy suffices for judging the quality of a given piece of art.

Well, maybe. I still say the best way to judge the usefulness of a chair is to sit in it, and the best way to judge visual art is to look at it. There can be no accounting for personal tastes, but whether something looks aproximately right can be seen. I would hate to live in a culture where it was often said "you can't have an opinion about that it's art and you aren't an artist".

[guttering flame]

Ever heard the saying 'the eyes are the window to the soul'? If Erfworld characters don't have pupils, maybe they're really dolls from the box and don't have souls. Maybe Parson losing his old eyes means he's gradually losing his souls (and brilliance?) and turning into another doll. Maybe Bill was onto something.

Edit to add - religious paintings absolutely must comply with the religious doctrine they represent. That's what the religious organization paid the artist for.

[-D-]

Edit to add - religious paintings absolutely must comply with the religious doctrine they represent. That's what the religious organization paid the artist for.

If this is referring to the joke I posted earlier? My point wasn't that religious painting must not comply with religious doctrine, but that Signamancy adds an additional layer of complication, because ANYTHING could mean SOMETHING.

Beans are not symbol for Gnostic order, but one could construe a theory Beans == Gnosticism. I could construct a theory that Beans are symbol for Satan. And that Matthew is in league with the devil.

A better example is "The drapes were blue" through prism of different views:
A) What was written - "The drapes were blue"
B) What art majors think - "The drapes represent the sadness main character experiences"
C) What writer intended - "The drapes are ****ING blue"
D) What Signamancy means - "The drapes are working for Charlie"

[guttering flame]

If this is referring to the joke I posted earlier? My point wasn't that religious painting must not comply with religious doctrine, but that Signamancy adds an additional layer of complication, because ANYTHING could mean SOMETHING.

Beans are not symbol for Gnostic order, but one could construe a theory Beans == Gnosticism. I could construct a theory that Beans are symbol for Satan. And that Matthew is in league with the devil.

A better example is "The drapes were blue" through prism of different views:
A) What was written - "The drapes were blue"
B) What art majors think - "The drapes represent the sadness main character experiences"
C) What writer intended - "The drapes are ****ING blue"
D) What Signamancy means - "The drapes are working for Charlie"

Not sure if this discussion is allowed here.

In any case these types of argument occur all the time. That's art interpretation for you. I don't think it's necessarily bad. If a comic character has an odd expression isn't it natural for the readers to wonder whether she's sad or not and what exactly she's sad about? The shade of the skies could signify the hour but also the mood the artist wishes to convey or to create a balanced color theme for the page. You can ignore these details if you like.

Remember the average time reader spend staring at a page is 1-2 minutes if we're generous. The artist spends hours sometimes days to create it. The amount of thought he puts into it is naturally bigger.

[Anarchic Fox]

Well, maybe. I still say the best way to judge the usefulness of a chair is to sit in it, and the best way to judge visual art is to look at it. There can be no accounting for personal tastes, but whether something looks aproximately right can be seen. I would hate to live in a culture where it was often said "you can't have an opinion about that it's art and you aren't an artist".

Yeah, I would too. But aesthetic judgements are a realm distinct from both factual statements and ethical assertions. One might think having a certain amount of knowledge or experience would be enough to make one an expert judge, but I don't think this is ever the case.

(Thanks for being so civil.)

[-D-]

In any case these types of argument occur all the time. That's art interpretation for you. I don't think it's necessarily bad. If a comic character has an odd expression isn't it natural for the readers to wonder whether she's sad or not and what exactly she's sad about? The shade of the skies could signify the hour but also the mood the artist wishes to convey or to create a balanced color theme for the page. You can ignore these details if you like.

he artist spends hours sometimes days to create it. The amount of thought he puts into it is naturally bigger.

I guess my point escaped you completely.

Rob added a whole new layer of interpretations, by having symbols having actual impact on Erfworld. So now you can argue what it means, you can argue what effects will the symbols have on the plot, and whether looking like an angry Martian adds +2 to your AC.

And while the artists may spend hours working on the art, they don't share their mind with Rob. Who knows what stuff is from Rob and what stuff is just random mistake from artist (see pupils discussion).

[guttering flame]

I guess my point escaped you completely.

Rob added a whole new layer of interpretations, by having symbols having actual impact on Erfworld. So now you can argue what it means, you can argue what effects will the symbols have on the plot, and whether looking like an angry Martian adds +2 to your AC.

And while the artists may spend hours working on the art, they don't share their mind with Rob. Who knows what stuff is from Rob and what stuff is just random mistake from artist (see pupils discussion).

It's simple enough to clarify such issues. All Rob needs to say is: it's (signamantically) significant / it's spoilerific to clarify so RAFO / it's art / it's wrong (signamantically) and supposed to be <that way> . From the comments on the thread it sounds like he's secretive but really, Erfworld isn't that deep. It's a fun webcomic. There's no need for an in-depth dissertation to understand it. I like the art more than the story so you can understand my viewpoint.

[-D-]

It's simple enough to clarify such issues. All Rob needs to say is: it's (signamantically) significant / it's spoilerific to clarify so RAFO / it's art / it's wrong (signamantically) and supposed to be <that way> . From the comments on the thread it sounds like he's secretive but really, Erfworld isn't that deep. It's a fun webcomic. There's no need for an in-depth dissertation to understand it. I like the art more than the story so you can understand my viewpoint.

Again, see the pupils discussion. Rob said it was significant. Except it wasn't since Book 1, so either he is lying or they forgot about it. Basically, Rob is the only arbiter or Signamancy and he is unreliable at that.

But overall I agree - it's just another webcomic. I just hate fan dumb that is around Erfworld and especially Signamancy.

[guttering flame]

Again, see the pupils discussion. Rob said it was significant. Except it wasn't since Book 1, so either he is lying or they forgot about it.

who knows. Can mean Erfworlders are doll-like and lack a soul and free will.