Perhaps not the best place to initiate a discussion (or, more appropriately, "rant"), but it is relevant to what's going on here... an' pixelation is one of the few hidey-holes on the internet where you can pose your thoughts and have reasonable hope for an informed reply!
So, I begin.
How much does it matter?
In this case, the "it" is the feeling of weight of the gorilla. In the context of the game, how much does it matter? The animation, as is, looks... well, like a gorilla running. it doesn't necessarily look like a slaughterous, 900 pound cyborg primate feline, it doesn't necessarily project each of our specific images for what it -should- look like*... but at the end of the day, in the context of the game, it -is- emitting a mood and seems to be performing the actions it is supposed to be performing.
It is/was also being judged primarily (by myself, at least) as a stand-alone animation, without regard for the context it was in. If/when it is seen in its home context, I have a hard time believing the already small errors of weight in animation will be all that easy to pick out, or noticeable... especially considering the player will likely have more important things to worry about, such as robots shooting LASERS at his FACE.
This is my opinion, though. I was raised and have always taught myself in a more or less absolute, black-OR-white yes OR no sort of way. The reason I'm raising my voice here is because there's quite a few minds (helm-who-must-not-be-named (
), NDChristie and/or Adarias (I still fight with your name change!) would be the two most vocal) who comment upon and point out the merits of subtlety in game design and art in general. I've never outright disagreed with that notion, but there are times when I struggle to see its strength, and times where I see the pursuit of subtlety be damaging to the process in general.
Off on a bit of a tangent, here, but I'm sure I'll work my way back to... uhh... somewhere.
"It's the little things that count" is a saying that comes to mind. I don't disagree with that saying. It is one that popped up occasionally in my formal education, and every time I heard it I could think of examples where it rings true. Take the entire "knytt" series as a shining example. There's a ton of subtle environmental interaction and sound effects and... things that all wonderfully support the main theme of the game. Most of 'em you don't even consciously register until you realise that it's the subtle things that are sucking you in, and start looking for 'em. It works brilliantly, and why it works brilliantly, I think, is directly connected to a saying that was welded to my chest by my formal education.
"YOU'RE POLISHING THE TURD". The reason "knytt" works so well is because its core is solid. The concepts, gameplay, and progression all work, and all the little subtle things compliment the fact that the core is solid, and make the whole game enjoyable (for some). To get away from the game theme, and back to why/how I find focus on subtlties to be detrimental to the whole process is this: Often, I find myself (and other artists) focussing on something that essentially amounts to "polishing the turd" (NOT YOU, HOWARD DAY! I'm off on a tangent, just needed to clarify that this does not pertain to your work!). For 'zample, how often have we seen (and done!) someone working really hard on a human face, trying to convey this precise emotion, drawing and redrawing and redrawing the smile and CURSING THE SKIES BECAUSE THIS FRIGGIN PORTRAIT ASDFFFFFFFF... only to have someone walk in and mention "Hey, your perspective / proportions are off!"
Same thing goes for people attempting to draw drapery over volumes they don't understand. Adding the interaction of subtlety over a core that is broken is only going to result in it being shiny poo.
I think I did that thing where i answered my own quesiton. Lemme check. Yep!
Subtlety matters, but the biggest thing to remember is that subtlety adds, not masks.
HOW this relates back to the topic and subject and whatnot (Kay, Howard. This is you again!) is that either our, the critic's view of the core is bustigated, meaning we don't know something he does that makes it work... OR the core of the beast is bustigated, meaning it is not designed or constructed in a manner that makes sense or reads correctly to the viewer.
Personally, after a bit of observation, I'm opting for the latter. Unless the character is redesigned in a way that supports more believable subtle motion (Primarily, I think, the allowance of shoulder motion would do wonders. I'm not too sold on the rotating disc shoulder joint, as it doesn't allow for much chest rise/fall on impact, and I feel that a lot of the weight in four-legged creatures of this nature is shown by the shoulderblade breaking the contour of the back/neck.)
OF COURSE, that is just criticism in the context of Howard Day's pursuit of believable animation as an artist. I don't have any criticism for the animation in the context of the game, as I think it works well now, and adding anything further to it will excessively complicate matters without reaaaaaaaaally adding that much.
This post was something of an experiment. Thanks for allowing me to let my train of thought do a couple laps around the mountain!
