>>531285105
>I am arguing that the design elements already involved and made are more cohesive and meaningful than your suggestions which are overall plainer than the design being criticized.
Alright well I disagree with you entirely on that and find her a very bland and lackluster attempt at a Chupacabra.
But if you're willing to agree that yes this just comes down to subjective preference then we can leave it at that. I agree clothing should not be ignored. Her clothing is most of what drags down the entire design, which is why I cannot ignore her clothing.
I can see what they were aiming for, and I can see the intent. But it didn't come together in the end.

But to each their own. I just tend to like much more Monstrous Monster Girls.

>Really
yes
it works
it just works
A Chupacabra is innately a much more animalistic, monstrous creature while the Flatwoods Monster was already a bizarre humanoid alien-thing. So it works better. She doesn't look like she's wearing a mascot suit with light-up-eyes and goofy plastic teeth that you'd find in a halloween costume shop. That's just how the Flatwoods Monster always looked, seen >>531227108 >>531230636. Although I will admit, I'd probably prefer if she had some stuff from >>531230113 like the eyes.
But no I don't think most of my criticisms apply to her the way they do to the Chupacabra. One works better as an Alien, the other doesn't. She's just got a really nice simple look to her and I just like it a lot. Like I said I'm probably pretty vanilla for the thread. Also if those hands are mechanical it blends together with her suit much, much better than the lance-hose combination.
I guess I think the Chupacabra over-complicated an otherwise simple design into something more cumbersome, while the Flatwoods just is that simpler design, and it looks smoother as a result.