Arcane Power Art Gallery: Welcome back, old friends

[avin]

then who cares?

Looks like most of people posting on this topic so far

In this economy, it is a cost cutting measure.

Maybe, but while I'm buying their books I want new art and don't want the "economy" as an excuse.

 

[hong]

I like this guy's work more and more each time I see it.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/20.jpg

 

[Estlor]

It continues to amaze me how many people are bothered by recycled art. I didn't buy Arcane Power for this pictures, I bought it for the rules. The inclusion of material from Dragon Magazine (i.e. the recylcing of rules) bothers me. Old pictures? Psh. It's a D&D supplement, not an art book.

 

[Quickleaf]

Why not replace those recycled art pieces with more rules content or fluff? Everybody wins.

 

[Drkfathr1]

For me, art is part of the product. I don't want to see artwork I've already seen in a book I bought a few years ago.

Not a huge deal, but art is important, its part of the total package. I know some people only want the rules and don't care about the art, but personally I like to see art that is evocative of the rules I'm reading. Art that helps inspire me and art that helps focus the overall product by producing the right tone/feel.

Definately a cost cutting measure.

 

[alleynbard]

Personally, I don't see the issue in recycling some art. If the images best describes the topic. ie a class image, or something else, then who cares?

In this economy, it is a cost cutting measure. And I would prefer they use this particular cost cutting measure than any number of other ones.

Also, there are people new to 4e that might like some of the images. If they are appropriate, then it's not a big deal to me.

Eh....A few pieces don't bother me. Too many and I start to get somewhat annoyed. I wouldn't say I am angry or anything, just a bit irritated.

You are right, a big part of the cost of making one these books is the art. Cutting back in that area is a cost effective way of increasing profit. And by continuing to charge the same amount for the book as you would if all the art was new is definitely a way of increasing that margin even more. Go too far though and it starts to wear on me.

Honestly, I recognize that this is not a huge deal. Just a little something that gets beneath my skin is all. I am about as close to a WotC fanboy as one can get, so it certainly has nothing to do with how I feel about the company or the product they produce.

 

[alleynbard]

For me, art is part of the product. I don't want to see artwork I've already seen in a book I bought a few years ago.

Not a huge deal, but art is important, its part of the total package. I know some people only want the rules and don't care about the art, but personally I like to see art that is evocative of the rules I'm reading. Art that helps inspire me and art that helps focus the overall product by producing the right tone/feel.

Definately a cost cutting measure.

My thoughts exactly. The art direction is an integral part of the experience and has been since 1e. Art from that era evokes a certain feel. 2e's art direction started off pretty well. Then it got all over the place, but still remained somewhat consistent within product lines. Once recycled art became the norm and not the exception, the books felt like a mess.

But, like you say, recycled art is not a *huge* deal and I would much prefer that to no art at all. Of course, I make my living as a graphic designer so my opinion is a bit skewed.

 

[alleynbard]

Why not replace those recycled art pieces with more rules content or fluff? Everybody wins.

Works for me.

 

[Klaus]

Eight of the first eight are recycled. There's a few other recycled pieces scattered about, but frontloading it like that is really obvious, and rather annoying.

Try again. 9 of the first 9 are recycled, or 10 of a total 66 pictures. That's almost 1/6th of all art in the book.

The new art is mostly very good, though.

 

[alleynbard]

I like this one: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/26.jpg

Very nice indeed.