Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5299548" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure, the 2e one hands down.I suspect this is a matter of taste.  I detest the style of the 4e art.  Fourth edition has adopted, as best as I can tell, the same unified art direction found in MtG.  This produces a very consistant product.  If you like the style encouraged/mandated by the art director/conceptual artist, then you are extremely happy.  If you don't, then you are very unhappy.Hense, the fact that 4e artwork pretty strongly divides people.  Some people really love it.  Some people really loath it.  I'm in the latter.  I believe is hands down the worst art ever attached to the D&D product.  That's an opinion of course, but my thinking is something like this.  If I published a fantasy novel, there is hardly a peice of 4e artwork that I would be willing to have grace the cover.  I would feel that such artwork would negatively enhance my sales with my intended audience (because lets face it, people do judge a book by its cover).  Without going into detail about what I believe it targets, I believe that the art targets too narrow of a slice of the fantasy market and that D&D 4e is ill-served by such artwork.</blockquote>