Do you like computer generated illustrations in d20 products?

[The Furious Puffin]

It really depends

A) how "generated" they look

and b) whether that fits the product.

I really hate the "clean" look you tend to get with some computer artwork, uder all circumstances, but some stuff is really good. Also if is for a sci-fi game, computer generated art sits better with me then line drawn stuff, sometimes

 

[hong]

I prefer strong line drawings. But computer generated might be better suited for a sci-fi game.

You mean like *cough* Fallout 3 *cough* ?

 

[Mistwell]

I find often the best art is a combination of the two.

Here is one of the better examples I know of:

http://www.archangel-studios.com/comics/redstar/studio/redlining.htm

 

[Kichwas]

It's not the method used to create the art that matters; it's the skill and style of the artist.

So far the d20 industry hasn't used any of the better 3D artists.

It has used some good digital artists on things like the covers to the core rules, the stat books, and so on.

The only 3D artist I'm aware of in the d20 world so far was in a few Mongoose books.

The works the artist used in those books were way below the quality he normally posts online (I tracked down his gallery and there was a vivid difference) and his sty
le just didn't look good for the book.

He used older, cartoony models and rendered them in a 'furred' like way...


Once again...

It's not the method of the art that counts, is the style of the artist.

I urge anyone here with reservations on 3D art to spend a day browsing through http://www.renderosity.com

You will see a vast variety in skill and styles.

Some of them look very 'plastic' and would not do well in a book. Other's are amazingly beautiful works of art that can grab the fantasy feel as well if not better than most 'line' artists.

3D programs are NOT 'click to be an artist' despite what some may think. It takes skill and talent. Just like buying a set of paints will not make you an instant Van Gough or getting a camera will not make you an instant Ansel Adams...

If you have reservations about 3D or CG art; it's only because you haven't been looking at the right artists.

As some of you know I am a 3D artist, you can find my gallery in the sig below, but much of it is 'not for viewing at the work computer'...

If you compare my older images up there with my newer ones you'll see a big change. I don't consider myself one of the better artists at Renderosity though. I'm still an amateur. Hopefully someday the stuff I do will be good enough to make me proud...

As for that 'too clean' look... see some of my 'sketches'.


My second post in this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10031

links to some 'sketch' style work that is not what most people associate with CG or 3D work. Mature warning on those images though.

 

[Ventifus]

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.

There are three things working against 3d CGI: One, most importantly, 3d graphics are only just now becoming even capable of looking realistic. Counterpoint to that, the Realist movement is more than a century dead, so it has seniority, weight and gravity to it; people are used to it in paint, but not in pixels. This leads to point Two: paintings are never really "wrong" about how they portray something, while if cg dosn't look right, then its gotta be flawed. Three--there is no three.

Without getting too deep into art theory, what we are seeing with computer generated graphics and art now is pretty much a recapitulation of the whole history of photography.

That dosn't mean I want to see photographs in my gaming books though .

 

[Kichwas]

Also check out this guy:

http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=gevidal

That's all done in a 3D app folks...

The style of this may not go for some of you though, but it's amazing work nonetheless.

 

[gubaru]

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

Liquide,

Looks good. It does have a hand drawn look to it.


To be a little more specific than my original post, I have nothing against cg art. There are a number of pieces I've seen that I like (such as gevidal's gallery from the links above). I also agree that talent matters a lot more than the medium.

However, I think certain media lend themselves better to certain endeavors. I personally don't think cg art works as well for an RPG book. Since most of them are BW, I prefer pencil work for RPGs. Covers and color work is a different story, though, and art that I look at to enjoy outside of an book illustration context is another yet.