4E Art Direction--Yay or Nay

[Lord Mhoram]

The art is good and bad, but I really prefer the stylistic choice over 3rd. I really didn't like the dungeonpunk aesthetic.

Layout is leaps and bounds better. Clean white backgrounds with black text that you can actually read. I detested the backgrounds and look of the pages in 3rd - it looked like a cluttered magazine. 4th looks like a book again.

 

[Jon Wake]

I liked the direction the 3e was going, but that could be because I, myself am a former punk rocker artist nerd, and I was finally seeing something different and edgier than the vanilla blandness of 2nd edition.
I was even impressed with some of the art from Races and Classes, but a lot of the intricate pencil work was lost on the paintings. When someone does a generic "This guy dresses like a Ranger from LoTR but has a different shaped sword!" fantasy art, I need them to really floor me with their technical mastery of their tools, and not a one of the art pieces show even an attempt at technical mastery.
The Dragonborn look ridiculous (and are one of the sillier concepts to execute, but bully for trying), and a really talented artist could have had some great fun with them. The more I look, the less I like.

On the other hand, the layout is fantastic. And that's a huge step up from 3e's layout, best described as 'labyrinthine'.

 

[Spatula]

I liked the art in the 3e books. Especially Todd Lockwood's stuff. And I generally enjoy WAR's work, as well. The 4e PHB & DMG art is great IMO, especially most of the William O'Conner pieces - check out the spread on pg 52-3 of the DMG. The big chapter spreads have tons of atmosphere and action, and really make me want to play, whereas 3e rule book art tended towards static character images. The 4e MM art is very hit-and-miss, and then there's all the reused art in it...

And yeah, most of the 2e art was really bland.

 

[Jack Colby]

It's a toss-up for me. A lot of the art is average or sometimes below average, amateurish-looking stuff. But there are a small number of pieces that are really excellent. I'm not sure if it balances out, but even if it does, that leaves us at "average." Overall I find the art "ok", but not much jumps out at me as being memorable or inspiring. And inspiring art is the kind RPG books really should have. I do generally prefer the 4E art to the 3E stuff, however.

EDIT: And I agree that the layout is fantastic. Clear, easy to read, easy to reference. No excess background or border art making the text hard to read. I love it. Wish the character sheet was as clean and attractive as the pages of the rules, but I already made a new one, so no biggie.

 

[JeffB]

I prefer the theme and style of the 4E art- I hate to say it, but its's less dungeonpunk, and more "classic".

However, I do feel most of the 3E art was better from a "technical" standpoint.

I'd like to see more WAR, and the various pieces of art in the couple of Eberron books I have is REALLY good, especially the Xendrik book.

NOTHING could be worse than the employment of Dennis Kramer/Crabapple-McKain or whatever (same guy) for the first year or so of 3.0 books and Dragon mag. Yikes- HORRID HORRID artwork. Not to mention at the time he made a complete @$$ of himself here..or was it on the WOTC boards? (can't remember which-getting old )

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Other than hospitals, the only art I actively dislike is the weapon/armor illustrations. Just something about them is throwing me off. Ah! Figured it out for the weapons... it looks like watercolor.

And whoever modeled for the leather armor had some killer hips (or no waist)!

Wayne England did the art for the weapons. Also know as "that guy who drew the hexblade in Complete Warrior, which looked terrible" and "that guy who drew that dragon in a book and it looked terrible". Wayne England is up there with Dennis Crabapple McClain and Erol Otus as far as Artists-Whose-Style-I-Loathe goes.

[edit]

NOTHING could be worse than the employment of Dennis Kramer/Crabapple-McKain or whatever (same guy) for the first year or so of 3.0 books and Dragon mag. Yikes- HORRID HORRID artwork. Not to mention at the time he made a complete @$$ of himself here..or was it on the WOTC boards? (can't remember which-getting old )

This man speaks the truth. He also has a good name. Kudos!
[/edit]

That being said, he does draw some good female forms. Female faces/details not so much, but general shapes and outlines are decent.

Overall, I like most of the stuff in 4e so far. More work from Jason Engle and Steve Argyle would be appreciated, though. Oh! And Storn Cook, Claudio Pozas, and Darren MA Calvert, too.

-TRRW

 

[neceros]

I love the art in all three books.

 

[hong]

Needs more anime.

 

[pukunui]

Hit or miss for me.

PHB: Mostly ok. Preferred a lot of what was in the previews to what's actually in the book. I also art done with paint brushes rather than the brush tool, so while I like most of the 4e art over the 3e art (most of which was dull and boring), I still like a lot of the 2e stuff best. My biggest disappointment is that they recycled the equipment pics instead of doing new ones.

MM: Wow! Now that's some good art! Forget the recycled stuff (of which there really isn't very much). Most of the new art is really fantastic! I'm sure most, if not all, of it was done on the computer, but it's not as easy to tell as a lot of what's in the 4e PHB.

DMG: I skimmed this one very quickly but I was very happy to see that the illustration of the elf warlock doing a ritual in the woods had not only made it into the core books but had also made it in as a 1.5-page section header! Woot! That has got to be my most favorite 4e illustration so far.

As a budding graphic designer, I really dig the layout. The pages are nice and clean and easy to read while the photoshopped stuff adds a nice flourish without being over the top. There's nothing that really impacts on the readability of it. The use of lots of negative space also has the side effect of making the books more environmentally friendly and therefore sustainable as they require less ink to print than the 3e books needed (I asked the Rouse if this had been a consideration but he didn't think so - just a happy consequence of the design direction!).

On a side note: Has anyone else noticed that of the five 1.5-page section illustrations (which is half of the total) featuring tieflings, in every instance the tiefling is all the way over on the left-hand side of the illustration, thus making it the first creature viewed in the illustration and often the only creature on the left-hand page. Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide ... EDIT: It's not just the PHB. The one in the MM has the tiefling on the left as well. Although I will admit that the section illustrations in the DMG that feature tieflings place them over in the larger right-hand portion of the image.

Side note 2: It appears that Regdar and Lidda, at least, are still around (if only in the art -- I haven't read all the text so I don't know if they're mentioned by name).

 

[JustKim]

I loved one of the tiefling illustrations, I think she was a warlock.