Does art matter in a publication?

[joethelawyer]

I know I am in the minority with this one, but I don't really care if something I buy has art in it at all, other than maybe functional art, like a basic sketch to describe what an exotic weapon looks like, or something like that. It doesn't affect my purchase or my liking a product in the slightest degree.

How do you all feel?

 

[RangerWickett]

Does art matter in a publication?

YES!​

When 4e came out, I cringed at below par the art was. This is the company that creates Magic: the Gathering, with some of the most talented fantasy artists in the world working for them, and they bunted with D&D art. Instead of evocative and compelling, they went with simple spot illustrations and static poses. In the few illustrations where something interesting is going on, they got artists whose styles I don't want to see in a fantasy book.

 

[justanobody]

The less waste of space the better. Full page art depicting some battle that has no text telling about this picture is pretty much useless. A map of a city where the city is described is a good use of "art". A map of a city just to have a map of a city, with nothing talking about cities or the map itself is a waste of space.

This goes for smaller filler art as well. If you just want pictures to look at then a museum is a good place to find them, or stick them in an art book for the people who REALLY want the art.

I don't care for eye candy for the sake of having eye candy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm more with Ryan.

I AM in this thing for eye candy.

I mean, this is a fantasy game. FANTASY! I should get a little jolt of awesome whenever I look at a picture!

Using the re-hashed artwork and the cartoony style slightly turn me off, but 4e has some pretty nice pieces, too. Not as awesome as it could be, but some cool stuff here and there.

I still can't stand the 4e tiefling look, though. So dumb, makes me die.

 

[JoeGKushner]

D&D is in part a game of the imagination.

Well done art can help bring that to life.

 

[xechnao]

I think art is important to show the feel of the environment of the game. For a game about action you need scenes that feel like the type of action you want. For a game about exploration and discoveries you need to show the smallness of characters in front of vast but interesting sceneries.
I also want to say that I have a preference towards black and white because I think if properly done it has the possibility to inspire more. Full color can be more attractive on impact but for something to resist time regarding ones interest black and white is better. Animated video games properly use full color graphics. Same for CCG. But, I think, Wotc has wrongly been using full color for D&D.

 

[Serendipity]

It can but doesn't always. Sometimes the art just blends beautifully with the text and sometimes it's an abomination level eyesore. The rest of the time it's just kind of there.
I find that certain publishers are better (and worse) about this sort of thing than others, but it depends.

 

[Mark Hope]

Well, in some books the art is not vital - it's nice if it's good, but you could do without it.

Bad art, on the other hand, is worse than having none at all.

In some releases, however, strong and evocative art is vital. Dark Sun was greatly enhanced by the artwork of Brom in the original releases. His work defined the setting as strongly as the written material (moreso in some cases) and I can't imagine that setting without his images alongside it.

 

[JackSmithIV]

Art is huge. For third party publishers especially art is a huge factor. It's one of the most enormous expenses a developer can take on. High-quality imagery simply reflects on the professionalism of the content, whether or not it is good or bad. People, by majority, want great art.

 

[Shemeska]

Good art is a must.

Bad art seriously detracts from a book. And recycled art is just as bad. It makes the final product look rushed and of poor production quality (4e MM I'm looking at you).