Do you like computer generated illustrations in d20 products?

[Liquide]

I think much of the problem people have with CGI is that there's so much poor graphics foating around the net.

Like Liquide showed above, it can be real good. It's just that it often is real )£@%!.

We are spared most of the real bad hand drawn art, as nobody scans it.


(BTW, Liquide, what are you doing up at this hour? It's, gosh, 3 AM here in sweden.)

Well I could prolly ask you the same question, !
Actually I'm improving some code at the d20reviews page and I'm trying to get inspiration to my graphical designs (I still work best during the night for some reason)

 

[Henrix]

Actually I'm improving some code at the d20reviews page and I'm trying to get inspiration to my graphical designs (I still work best during the night for some reason)

That's certainly a valid answer!
(And ditto, except for the coding and graphics )

 

[Ventifus]

It depends on what you call "computer generated". If you mean 3d renderings, then it'd have to be *extraordinary* for me to like it. Things like the Final Fantasy movie just don't cut it.

That said, if it is less photo-realistic then I'm more willing to see computer stuff. I've almost convinced myself that the color work in the core books was done with Procreate's Painter .

Liquide's cover is an example of good computer art (though you need more depth. It looks flat. Layering, overlap! Have things extend underneath the border)

For another example of good stuff, if anyone has played the Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale games, the portraits were done digitally.

When it comes down to it, if the art is good I like it, if it's not, I don't .

 

[adndgamer]

I like illustrations like that found in OD&D rulebooks. I loved that stuff. I hate the new stuff, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

 

[Henrix]

It depends on what you call "computer generated". If you mean 3d renderings, then it'd have to be *extraordinary* for me to like it.

Like Gevidal's stuff?
(This was linked a couple of days ago, from these boards.)

I don't know how well it would do in print, though.

 

[gubaru]

In general, I don't like wholly computer generated art as much. Specifically, I dislike a lot of wholly computer generated art of living beings, especially people, that I've seen.

The less it looks like it was drawn on a computer, the more likely I am to like it.

 

[Liquide]

In general, I don't like wholly computer generated art as much. Specifically, I dislike a lot of wholly computer generated art of living beings, especially people, that I've seen.

The less it looks like it was drawn on a computer, the more likely I am to like it.

Then I must ask what you think of my above creation (see link in my first pos of this thread) since it is totally 100% computer generated but intended to look like it was drawn by hand.

You seem to have the critics eye I'm looking for when I try to simulate the illusion of something

 

[MythandLore]

I like very few works by computer.
They have to be really really super high caliber.
The BRAID group is good, they use 3D and photoshop etc.
http://www.braid.com/

Craig Mullins is very very good and uses program 'Painter'.
http://www.goodbrush.com/

It really is al about tools, if you draw well you can probably adapt to drawing on the computer well.
Though I like the stuff at BRAID, I don't think it is really sutible for fantasy stuff (like almost all 3D computer images).
I do have a good eye for the stuff though, I took the 'alias/softimage' real/cg test and picked them all out very easy.

 

[PenguinKing]

I've never understood this prejudice against realistic computer-generated art. If someone did a near-photo-realistic oil painting (it's been done many times before), would you react the same way? Or is it specifically realism in the CG medium? It's not really any easier to get "real" on a computer, y'know.

(I know more than a few people where I can show them a real photograph of a real scene, tell them it's computer-generated, and watch them spend twenty minutes ranting about how "unrealistic" it is. )

- Sir Bob.

 

[Black Omega]

For me at least,my only problem with CGI the type that is badly done. There is some excellent photorealisticCGI that literally looks almost real, nice use of textures, shading, enough of a human touch so it's not all smooth lines and perfect curves.

Another pet peeve is CGI that was obviously done color and just grayscaled for the book. It's usually ends up-way- too dark.

Done properly CGI art looks just fine. There are plenty of examples out there of stuff people did for free that looks amazing. Sadly, most of the CGI Isee in game books just looks bad.