[andrea_susini]

Thanks Rob!! I agree the environment could tell so much more. I'll do some fixes when got some spare time
oh btw, you rock!

edit: i forgot to mention that the guy is underwater :P

[Irongollem]

Great entries, I learned alot once again! I'm not up to par to judge the others as some of them are still in the AWESOME catagory which makes me overlook all the possible flaws :P

I'll give it a go though coming from my biological side (thats what I actually studied

SuperJbro - Although I liked the design this guy is far too much a predator, and not even close to a skittisch creature as described. The leg morphology is done well although it striked me odd that it's hind legs and front legs (mid-legs?) are so different in type as well as length. The mandibula-like mouth makes it alien and nice in my book

andrea_susini - One of two votes I passed. Always have a weak of chameleons (had one myself until recently) so this drew me in. Also love the bright colours! What I miss here are the telltale signs of a nocturnal creature depending on eyesight. The small chameleonic eyes are very dependent on strong light and movement and virtually blind from dusk till dawn. The anatomy itself looks believable and neat. If I came across this species I'd think it relies heavily on the motion sensitive protrusions covering it's body and or it's lateral line organ.

jbro - The creature it self is great and anatomically correct although it's clownish smile makes it look more humouristic than realistic and to me rather lessens the picture than improve upon it. The third eye also looks plopped on there because of the assignment rather than having an actual function. The musculature looks believable

tchuck - I liked the strange design of this creature. One of few that used the extra eyes a bit more naturally usefull with two sidewards facing eyes for greater field of vision and a central eye probably for more active use of food scurrying. The bioluminescence here is overdone and distracts from the actual creature. As also said in the WIP's a skittish creature probably wouldn't advertise itself with two giant light flags as well. At first glance the exoskeleton suggests an insectoid nature but upon closer inspection the lower portion of the body and extremeties have no segmentation. The head also suggests a beak making this creature more a hybrid between an armoured mammal and a bird. This discovery, to me, was quite pleasing.

Miaaa - I liked this creature, and looks skittish and nocturnal. The large shrewlike nose (and knowledge of shrews) gives me the idea that this is the primary sense though. The third eye looks a bit stuck on there. At first glance the anatomy looks believable with the fur covering most telltale signs of musculature to say otherwise. Upon closer inspection I have a hard time seeing it actually move though. The crouched creature's middle legs are mounted more like wings high up its back with the standing creature I think that if it walked on four legs the front part would look more like a cat or dog trying to walk on two legs more than a natural position it could continue for more than a few seconds. The mood of the creatures and the image as a whole though to me compensates for these things.

proskurinartwork - The perspective of the creature makes it hard to look at its anatomy. The eyes are clearly its primary sense but again all placed on the front of the face, not taking a biological advantage of the extra eye. Judging from it's fur makeup the grass lands are more of a dangerzone it needs to go through rather than it's actual habitat. The arms are slothlike and suggest to me an arboreal creature.

mayanew - This creature is very hard to look at anatomically. It's either completely wrong, or uses a totally un-earthlike make up. I cannot see any joints making the creature look jellylike. Eventhough it's standing inside a hollow treelog it still feels quite large. (over 4 meters tall) The eyes are placed productively increasing it's range of view which is a plus, and the lack of other visible senses makes it clear that this part of the assignment is done well. I cannot help but notive the scribbly lines everywhere which lead me to conclude that you are using small brushsizes way to much. Increase this a bit and probably play around with brush hardness. Keep t up!

pr0t3r - When I looked at this creature the first thing that came to mind where termites, worms and maggots. The bloated body looks unsegmented. The extremeties look consistant with each other and the third eye is placed conviniently mobile on top as an enemy locator. The setting however, the droopy eyes, the barbles all suggest theres extremely little light to go on where this creature lives and probably relies on some form of tremorsense. I liked the use of color and it's surroundings although it felt a bit empty with the well lit rocks but totally dark top portion.

rob_powell - My other vote this creature looked strangely familiar. The creapy placement of the top eyes puts them in a vulnerable but observant position. Not really clear in the front creature, but better in the one in the background. The front deadspot it covered by the lonely eye with the others covering (almost) all of the rest. Placing the solitary eye across what you'd expect I think to overcame the awkwardness of the uneven eyes better than the others. The anatomy is clearly mouselike and even with the extra extremeties correct. I would have expected more feetlike paws on the middle legs for more mobility but now I guess it has more dexterity. I learned a lot both designwise as well as techniquewise from this image and I hope to incorporate some of it in my next one!

Hope this long haul helps some of you guys. If I sound harsh, it's only to help you grow, as I know it always helps me