Monster Manual and re-used art

[Desdichado]

This is an issue?

Not for me. Still; I'm surprised that that much art was recycled. Like I said, I think for this kind of product in this industry the way it is today, that's a high number.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

This is an issue?

I think this is the kind of thing that resists quantification. If I had perfect recall of all the stuff in the MM, and picked up the 4e with great anticipation, seeing recycled art would probably have a disproportionate negative impact.

 

[Klaus]

Outside of math and physcis, "trivial" is subjective - context matters. Six to eight percent of the M&Ms I consume in a year is trivial to me, while the same percentage of my paycheck is not.

This is below ten percent of the artwork. Not the total content, just the artwork. If fully half the book's useful content were art (I don't believe it is, but let's just use that for demonstration), we would be talking about 3% to 4% of it was not new. For a $30 book, we are now talking about one or two dollars of value.

Basically, you're paying a buck or two more for stuff that has already been seen. You may not own the products it was seen in, or may not see the art in those products again, as you won't use them while you are playing 4e.

This is an issue?

To me, it is. And not only because I'm an artist trying to get my foot on the door.

As was said above, this is one of THE 3 rulebooks for D&D. This is the time where you go "spare no expenses!". If it is 15 images, you could spend less than $3000 (a trivial ammount for WotC) and have NO reused art. The night hag, for instance, is the same picture since the 3.0 MM, from 8 years ago!

This gripe isn't only with the reused images, mind you. It's also with several pictures in the PHB that simply should've been better. Look at the bad art for the dwarf, elf, halfling entries of the races chapter. Look at the (extremely poorly) photoshopped picture of the humans entry. This is the single most important book of this edition. It HAD to have the best art ever.

 

[Soel]

Agree with Klaus.

This is 4e, probably the most marketed version of d&d yet. This was time to step up and deliver something new, but I bet many looked in this book and frowned. More importantly, likely reinforced some of the opinions that 4e might just have been a quickly cranked out money-grab attempt. First impressions and all...

There is no excuse to have recycled art at all in the core books. It definitely had a negative impact on me, as the Monster Manual is the only core book I do not own as of yet, and mind you, I dm, and I am an addict of monster books.

 

[Quantarum]

I recall in several of the 3.0 books they reused art in the same book as fillers and breaks. It was also pretty common for art from Dragon magazine to pop up in a number of 2ed products. I suppose in some cases they may have commissioned art and then decided it was inferior to pieces in their catalog, but I think the cost savings theory is more likely.
The company I work for is a major subdivision of a renowned blue chip which invested more than nine million dollars in infrastructure improvements last year. Our daily electric bill is around seven thousand dollars. Despite all the big bucks they've spent, they still refuse to put our paychecks in envelopes and won't fix pot holes in the parking lot until they become epic level hazards. When you're on a budget, when you have to answer to bean counters, no amount is really trivial.

-Q.

 

[FriarRosing]

The art is in general the only real thing about 4E that I don't like.

The fact that they recycled art almost comes off seeming lazy. Surely it's not, I would think, but I can't imagine that they couldn't have got new art for those few images.

Sure it's not really a big deal, but I would have still liked to see some new and exciting stuff. Recycling art isn't exciting. It's boring. Looking at it bores me.

 

[lutecius]

To me, it is. And not only because I'm an artist trying to get my foot on the door.

As was said above, this is one of THE 3 rulebooks for D&D. This is the time where you go "spare no expenses!". If it is 15 images, you could spend less than $3000 (a trivial ammount for WotC) and have NO reused art. The night hag, for instance, is the same picture since the 3.0 MM, from 8 years ago!

This gripe isn't only with the reused images, mind you. It's also with several pictures in the PHB that simply should've been better. Look at the bad art for the dwarf, elf, halfling entries of the races chapter. Look at the (extremely poorly) photoshopped picture of the humans entry. This is the single most important book of this edition. It HAD to have the best art ever.

Agreed. Also, the recycled art would be more understandable if it was all matchless pieces. The bog and dune hags were pretty good, the shop job on the succubus from the Demon Pits, not so much.
It really looks like they ran out of time or something.