DISCLAIMER: Arclight Varus is a very nice skin, I'll never buy it since I don't play Varus, and he loses his tentacles in his ultimate, meaning even if I did play him, I'd avoid buying the skin. But it's a nice skin and I approve of it's existence if for the sake of those who do like the skin...and because Varus has no other skins besides a boring yellow palette-swap. So I do kinda like it in that way. I am only mentioning this Varus skin a lot because that's what triggered thinking about this subject
edit:...okay, now that I think about it some more, while a nice skin, I don't really like it all that much considering the removal of his tentacles. But my point that I'm happy for those who like it and it should exist for their sake still stands.
There's one thing I always disagree with Riot's stance on skins is, it's their supposed stance that a skin violating the idea of a champion too much being unallowed to be made with the supposed exception of Harrowing, Christmas, and Legendary skins.
A long time ago, Xypherous mentioned an absolutely EPIC skin idea that was denied...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xypherous
I still want a Urgot skin, where it is actually Teemo riding around a spider-mecha and throwing mushrooms instead of acid grenades.
And err.. I dunno. Shoots mushroom-seeking blowdarts.
Sadly, I am denied.
(future mention of this skin have some other Rioter pointing out that it's too different or confusing for players)
Regarding another really popular community-requested skin, Morello has this to say about Annie and skins...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello
It opens up the conversation. I think "all grown up" Annie is also just a different character. Annie, by definition, is a creepy little firestarter with dark magic. Growing her up takes all the oomph out of the character.
Here and again you'll also have a Red or two mention that skins that violates the champion too much will get rejected. There was a similar mention in regards to giving Leona a skin that makes her look sexier. Obviously Harrowing and Christmas skins are an exception from what we can see.
But here's the main point I'm getting at.
What makes Arclight Varus, Sanguine and Dreadknight Garen, okay then? I LIKE that skins like these exists. But don't they contradict your stance quite a bit?
No matter how you look at it, those skins are doing the exact thing many other rejected skins are doing that made them get rejected. Arclight Varus turns 180 degrees from Varus' corrupted and dark image(they even took away his tentacles).
DISCLAIMER: Arclight Varus is a very nice skin, I'll never buy it since I don't play Varus, and he loses his tentacles in his ultimate, meaning even if I did play him, I'd avoid buying the skin. But it's a nice skin and I approve of it's existence if for the sake of those who do like the skin...and because Varus has no other skins besides a boring yellow palette-swap. So I do kinda like it in that way. I am only mentioning this Varus skin a lot because that's what triggered thinking about this subject
edit:...okay, now that I think about it some more, while a nice skin, I don't really like it all that much considering the removal of his tentacles. But my point that I'm happy for those who like it and it should exist for their sake still stands.
There's one thing I always disagree with Riot's stance on skins is, it's their supposed stance that a skin violating the idea of a champion too much being unallowed to be made with the supposed exception of Harrowing, Christmas, and Legendary skins.
A long time ago, Xypherous mentioned an absolutely EPIC skin idea that was denied...
(future mention of this skin have some other Rioter pointing out that it's too different or confusing for players)
Regarding another really popular community-requested skin, Morello has this to say about Annie and skins...
Here and again you'll also have a Red or two mention that skins that violates the champion too much will get rejected. There was a similar mention in regards to giving Leona a skin that makes her look sexier. Obviously Harrowing and Christmas skins are an exception from what we can see.
But here's the main point I'm getting at.
What makes Arclight Varus, Sanguine and Dreadknight Garen, okay then? I LIKE that skins like these exists. But don't they contradict your stance quite a bit?
No matter how you look at it, those skins are doing the exact thing many other rejected skins are doing that made them get rejected. Arclight Varus turns 180 degrees from Varus' corrupted and dark image(they even took away his tentacles).
Yes - I haven't talked about this in-depth, but there's several ways a skin can play to what a character is. One is flipping it on its head or doing sort of an opposite theme as a contrast. Arclight Varus is exactly this, as are a lot of the other examples. I might let BravoRay or IronsStylus talk more about their creative processes here, since that's their bag
Again, the things I'm saying aren't rules, they're guidelines. Zileas and I talk a lot about how to make stuff (Counter-play, Clarity, etc) but everything is a "best practices" and guideline approach, not really doctrines or laws - those types of things can stifle creativity. And if you're going to hire artists and task them with creating awesome stuff, you can't clamp down on that a lot if you want to get good stuff
There's other types of skins as well, like Jokes, costume, etc. that also have different goals. In relation to Teen Annie, if the "it doesn't fit the character" is a secondary reason to the reasons I think we shouldn't do it - mostly that I think it treads a line I'm not willing to walk.
@Morello:Don't a lot of skins contradict what you say about needing to "fit" them?
edit:...okay, now that I think about it some more, while a nice skin, I don't really like it all that much considering the removal of his tentacles. But my point that I'm happy for those who like it and it should exist for their sake still stands.
There's one thing I always disagree with Riot's stance on skins is, it's their supposed stance that a skin violating the idea of a champion too much being unallowed to be made with the supposed exception of Harrowing, Christmas, and Legendary skins.
A long time ago, Xypherous mentioned an absolutely EPIC skin idea that was denied...
And err.. I dunno. Shoots mushroom-seeking blowdarts.
Sadly, I am denied.
Regarding another really popular community-requested skin, Morello has this to say about Annie and skins...
Here and again you'll also have a Red or two mention that skins that violates the champion too much will get rejected. There was a similar mention in regards to giving Leona a skin that makes her look sexier. Obviously Harrowing and Christmas skins are an exception from what we can see.
But here's the main point I'm getting at.
What makes Arclight Varus, Sanguine and Dreadknight Garen, okay then? I LIKE that skins like these exists. But don't they contradict your stance quite a bit?
Full List(updated as I remember them)
Arclight Varus
Frostfire Annie
Frostfire Annie
Cryocore Brand
Sanguine Blade Garen
Dreadknight Garen
No matter how you look at it, those skins are doing the exact thing many other rejected skins are doing that made them get rejected. Arclight Varus turns 180 degrees from Varus' corrupted and dark image(they even took away his tentacles).
edit:...okay, now that I think about it some more, while a nice skin, I don't really like it all that much considering the removal of his tentacles. But my point that I'm happy for those who like it and it should exist for their sake still stands.
There's one thing I always disagree with Riot's stance on skins is, it's their supposed stance that a skin violating the idea of a champion too much being unallowed to be made with the supposed exception of Harrowing, Christmas, and Legendary skins.
A long time ago, Xypherous mentioned an absolutely EPIC skin idea that was denied...
(future mention of this skin have some other Rioter pointing out that it's too different or confusing for players)
Regarding another really popular community-requested skin, Morello has this to say about Annie and skins...
Here and again you'll also have a Red or two mention that skins that violates the champion too much will get rejected. There was a similar mention in regards to giving Leona a skin that makes her look sexier. Obviously Harrowing and Christmas skins are an exception from what we can see.
But here's the main point I'm getting at.
What makes Arclight Varus, Sanguine and Dreadknight Garen, okay then? I LIKE that skins like these exists. But don't they contradict your stance quite a bit?
Full List(updated as I remember them)
Arclight Varus
Frostfire Annie
Frostfire Annie
Cryocore Brand
Sanguine Blade Garen
Dreadknight Garen
No matter how you look at it, those skins are doing the exact thing many other rejected skins are doing that made them get rejected. Arclight Varus turns 180 degrees from Varus' corrupted and dark image(they even took away his tentacles).
Again, the things I'm saying aren't rules, they're guidelines. Zileas and I talk a lot about how to make stuff (Counter-play, Clarity, etc) but everything is a "best practices" and guideline approach, not really doctrines or laws - those types of things can stifle creativity. And if you're going to hire artists and task them with creating awesome stuff, you can't clamp down on that a lot if you want to get good stuff
There's other types of skins as well, like Jokes, costume, etc. that also have different goals. In relation to Teen Annie, if the "it doesn't fit the character" is a secondary reason to the reasons I think we shouldn't do it - mostly that I think it treads a line I'm not willing to walk.