You can compare 2006 and 2016 variants by yourself. New one wouldn't be a choice for everyone, despite being much more advanced in technique of drawing. That's because of stereotype of a "cute cyborg girl", new variant don't fit it. You may think, what's wrong with "cute cyborg girl", why do I try to avoid it? OK, here is an example from "expanded universe" of Star Wars. Character named Lumiya was described there as a personage of Vader lifestyle - that is to say a living human with countless cybernetic implants and prostheses. Like Vader, she was more machine than human, also covered by a techno-suit with menacing look. That suit was destroyed in one of comic issues, and there was no "more machine than woman" under it, just a human with modest amount of scars on her cheek. It seems, her implants and prostheses was designed only to keep character in the borders of most banal and popular archetype of "cute maiden". That's just sooo disappointing, that's part of widespread phobia to portray female character being severely wounded or being just creepy, really monstrous creature. A lot of interesting sci-fi or fantasy settings were spoiled by obsession with "nice female" stereotype. Remember Sylvanas from WoW (supposed to be walking dead, killed and then raised, but having only gray skin and red eyes of any possible features of walking dead). Same with Kerrigan from Star Craft (mutated, then "healed" and returned back to almost her original appearance). In the same time, authors still (in 2016!) fear to portray male characters as graceful, flirty or well-groomed personages; also charts of most disfigured characters still are filled almost entirely by males. So many interesting stories are still untold because of that inertia! I'm tired of such a bullshit, so I try to work out of this limits.
Date: August 2016.