>>115491067>What makes an appealing character design /co/?Readability - a broader version of the silhouette test described by
>>115495517A good character design should be instantly recognizable from a passing glance. The Wander Over Yonder designs shown in
>>115493198 >>115493219 >>115493235 are excellent examples. The team members in TF2 are another excellent example (one which translated extremely well into comic form). There's actually a great presentation from Valve on the 'hierarchy' of readability that went into their character designs (I think it's from like 2008 or 2009, should be easy enough to google), but the gist of it was that when looking at any character whether it's in a game, a comic, a movie, or whatever you should be instantly able to read:
1) Friend or foe/good guy or bad guy
2) What kind of aid/threat to expect
3) What degree of help/hurt to expect
#1 is frequently accomplished by color. In games it's simple Red vs Blue, White vs Black, etc. In comics and movies it's generally lighter or bolder color palettes for goodies, darker and muddier tones for baddies. Not always the case, but a good rule of thumb in contemporary media.
#2 is usually accomplished by silhouette - brutes are big and thick, intellectuals are tall and lanky, etc. This is a spectrum, of course, but in general a character's physique, the they're built and carry themselves, should tell a reader/viewer/player a lot about them
#3 is usually accomplished with their details and gear - the types of equipment they use tells you if they're someone who likes to get their hands dirty or distance themselves from the action, someone who takes an analytic approach or jumps into the fray, and so on.
Of course sometimes the fun is in playing against expectations like, say, a giant brute like Kingpin being more of an intellectual threat than a brawler, or Flash's bright and colorful rogues gallery.
