Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wombat" data-source="post: 1064259" data-attributes="member: 8447">One point that seems to be coming up over and over again in this thread is the quality of the art.  I, and I know I am in a tiny minority, don't really care about art in most rpgs.  I find all but a couple of the artists working for rpgs to be pretty blase and hackneyed.  Eric Hotz and Tim Bradstreet come up with some interesting takes, but otherwise they get a collective **shurg** from me.Consider a couple of rpgs, comparing art to system.  The new Decipher Star Trek & LotR games have a LOT of art, movie & stills of incredibly high quality.  OTOH, the games are poorly written, poorly explained, and in the end not worth the money.  Does the art improve the value?  Maybe a touch, but that is all.Then there is Atlas' Over the Edge.  Most of the art is pretty mediocre; the cover may or may not inspire a gamer.  BUT this is one of the most innovative systems running out there.  With AU I found a couple of pieces of art that are okay, a lot that are forgettable and one or two that I actively did not like.  Then again, I was not picking up an art book.  If I wanted that, I would do so.  In fact, I would prefer if most games had LESS art in them due to the general mediocrity seen throughout -- this is not cyberpunk, we are not going to Style Over Substance.  So, no, the art did not affect my opinion of AU.  Only the actual gaming material did.</blockquote>