Does art matter in a publication?

[Fallen Seraph]

Art definitely matters, and it can also alter ones view of the game. Look at Mage: The Awakening. Many people were very put off by the line-drawings in it.

My favourite art has been in some Vampire books (not all but some), Promethean, Changeling and the Planescape books that Diterlizzi did.

 

[Tetsubo]

It'll always happen. They'll always find a way you use (insert word here) to criticize 4th Edition. It won't stop for many years to come, god knows why.

I think that should be telling you something.

 

[Tetsubo]

Art can make or break a gaming book for me. I have passed on buying a book just because the art was bad. I've bought gaming books just because the art was good. For me item illustrations are particularly important. Especially weapons and armour. If the game designers can't choose good illustrations for the purposes of describing their world, I don't want to buy or read their work. The art can be as fantastical as it wants to be but it should have the look of believability in its use. Even a fantastical sword, needs to function as a sword.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think that should be telling you something.

What, that if x people say a certain kind of thing, it is still that kind of thing?

Oops. . .

Um, anyway. For me, it's like this: theTruth == badArt < noArt < goodArt

(or something like that.)

 

[blargney the second]

Yep, art matters a lot to me. I find that recycled artwork is always really jarring - 3e was particularly bad on that score with the little black & white cliparts they used all over the place for the first several years of both 3.0 and 3.5. 4e has continued that unfortunate trend, but at least it's with better pieces.

I'm really happy with the inclusion of several Michael Komarck pieces in 4e. That guy can really bring a scene to life!
-blarg

 

[Derulbaskul]

No edition war for me, but Todd Lockwood (see most of the iconics in 3e) beats the pants off of Anne Stokes (see any Eladrin in 4e) or Ralph Horsey (chapter 1 opening in the 4e DMG).

While I have to agree that anything by Todd Lockwood is pure gold, 4e has one COLOSSAL advantage when it comes to art: no Dennis Cramer/Crabapple. Glad he is back to illustrating soft pr0n and the other rubbish that was his bread'n'butter before 3E came along. I'm still suprised that the WotC art director(s) kept him around for so long.

 

[Thanee]

It doesn't affect my purchase or my liking a product in the slightest degree.

I definitely prefer books with beautiful art in them. Also a beautiful layout.

No art is preferable to crappy art, though.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If someone recommends a good product that fills a need or offers something that I can't get elsewhere, I'll absolutely buy it, art or not.

That said, I like good art in a fantasy book. I know that I've had more favorable opinions of certain companies product lines because they had better art.

Sidenote: It's peculiar how good art and good layout can dress up mediocre writing a lot. (There's a whole separate discussion I think about how it would be nice to have good art, good layout and good writing all in one all the time from everyone.)

 

[Stogoe]

It'll always happen. They'll always find a way you use (insert word here) to criticize 4th Edition. It won't stop for many years to come, god knows why.

Because 4e haters use exactly the same arguments as (or, more probably, co-opt them from) people who incidentally dislike parts of 4e. Without further information, it's impossible to tell someone who doesn't like (the art) from someone on an ideological quest to tear down WotC and 4th Edition.

 

[doppelganger]

I was never able to get into GURPS 3e, even though I had friends who pushed it with all the zeal of drug dealers, because the art was so utilitarian and functional instead of inspiring that it completely leeched my sense of fun from the game. Merely flipping through the rulebook would quell any interest that I had built up in the game during the preceding week. So I have to say that art really matters to me.