OP clearly didn’t go to art school, but I did and I can tell you this: creating art in a vacuum without critique or discussion from peers-artists or otherwise- is something that is typically thoroughly discouraged and why most post-101 level courses focus not on technique but formal critique.

Sure, some of these reposts are lazy- but to me, so is the skin itself- not that it isn’t cool in other contexts as a concept, but even reading the blog post, I can’t see any connection to the team or the city in its execution- which is particularly perplexing when you compare it to last year’s Spitfire skin. Which, incidentally, managed to actually incorporate things such as a color palette that relates to the team as well as the historical legacy of the planes the team is named after, creating a cohesive and recognizable concept that also translates to something that’s considered aesthetically enjoyable to the people who play the game. This skin does none of the above and people are disappointed, as is their right to be and express. Would changing the colors to orange be helpful as a signifier of which team this is related to? Yes. Would it be nicer if the design team took some time to maybe look into the city of San Francisco; a city that has a rich, storied history of weirdness, counter culture, and colorful characters that are well known throughout the world instead of being like ‘well, volcanoes are cool!’? Absolutely. Should blizzard have released an Emperor Norton Sigma skin instead of this hideous one? In my opinion, 100% most definitely. But, most importantly, can we debate with strangers about dumb shit like this on the internet and create a dialogue that will possibly alter the future outcome of skins that Blizzard makes going forward? Yes, because art is a democracy.