My one criticism of 4th ed: poor artistic style

[Silverblade The Ench]

Ok, I am not bashing the artists But I have serious problems with the lack of "inpsiration" 4th ed artistic layout in the books :/

Let me explain:
go pick up some old 2nd ed adventures and add ons, for Dark Sun, and Spelljammer, other settings too, but those pair in particular.
What do you notice?
A coherent internal and external layout that screams at you "THIS IS D&D! THIS IS DARK SUN! THIS IS SPELLJAMMER!"
This is absolutely vital, and IMHO, lacking terribly in 4th ed, it is failing to build an "atmosphere".

[sblock="Dark Sun and Spelljammer covers"]

[/sblock]

you see? What I cannot show you of course, is the internal work, fonts , layout, background page colours (Dark Sun stuff for instance has an evocative fading organge gradient on it's pages)

By use of fonts, page colours, specific little bits of recurring artwork, like borders (see Ravenloft for all the little macabre items of minor artwork) it helped draw you into the atmosphere of the setting.

4th ed is well laid out, it's extremely practical. But it sucks for atmosphere, it has none, none at all!!
Now, I really hope they add some in for the Eberron books for 4th ed, 'cause the Realms books were dull as dishwater to me.

Go look at the very first Forgotten Realms boxed set...absolutely stunning page layout and artwork inside, draws you right into what the Realms "is", you know?
But then look at the last Realms boxed set under 2nd ed, ugh, it looks cheap! I was appalled
And the 4th ed one...meh...boring!!
Again, not fault of the artists who contributed, I'm talking about lack of page borders or colouring, fonts etc etc.
For crunch, stick to set crisp fonts and lyout, but for fluff, oh please for pity's sake, add evocative design!!!


I'm also not a fan of much of the artwork used now, it's very "wuxia" or "faded pastels", I know many of them are great artists, and lots of bits are good, but I like art that really kicks you in the gonads and says THIS IS D&D!!!
Compare Larry Elmore's amazing pic inside the 2nd ed Player's Handbook:

to the 4th ed work. ELmore screams out at you the essence and styl eof D&D.
See what I mean? I know WOTC cannot find lots of new ELmore's, Parkinson's and Caldwell's, but...I miss their style of work.
Those guys scream at you "THIS IS D&D!", not "This is anime/wuxia influenced fantasy". I knwo it's a different era and all, but...to paraphrase a song:
"It's still D&D to me!"

So, 4th ed, coherent, neat layout: good
Lack of beautiful, evocative page layout (especially for fluff) and not enough bold, crisp art: bad!

 

[Wormwood]

I know WOTC cannot find lots of new ELmore's, Parkinson's and Caldwell's . . .

And for that I thank the gods nightly.

I mean, no offense to those artists, but I'll take the current look over airbrushed van mural art any day of the week.

edit: grats on posting the sole Elmore painting that doesn't make me think I'm lost in a head shop (although that wizard would make a rockin' bong).

 

[hong]

You are making the assumption that Elmore-ish art is a necessary and sufficient condition to evoke the atmosphere of D&D.

This assumption may not necessarily be universal.

Also, Spelljammer art is evocative of Spelljammer. Whether this extends to any part of D&D other than Spelljammer may not be true. Ditto for Dark Sun.

 

[Quickleaf]

While I really like William O'Connor, Kieran Yanner, and Michael Komarck's work, I would like to see more of Vincent Dutrait (Vincent Dutrait - Illustrations) in place of the more cartoony stuff.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I do not play 4e, but the art is OK for it. I do like some of the older artwork, but most of it looks kinda funky.

 

[Dimitri Mazieres]

What I don't like from 4e's aesthetics is the blatant recycling of art from previous 3e products. While the pictures themselves are good, recognizing a previously used piece of art screams "cheap!" in my head. Even more so when the original concept wasn't related to the current use. I.E. The image used for Kaz in Open Grave was originally used for a samurai vampire in Monster Manual V.

Edit: Corrected sources

 

[Quickleaf]

What I don't like from 4e's aesthetics is the blatant recycling of art from previous 3e products. While the pictures themselves are good, recognizing a previously used piece of art screams "cheap!" in my head. Even more so when the original concept wasn't related to the current use. I.E. The image used for Kaz in Open Grave was originally used for a samurai vampire in Libris Mortis, IIRC.

You know, I hardly bought any 3.0/3.5 books and none by Wizards, and some of the art is so out of place that even I can guess it's being recycled.

 

[Hussar]

It really depends I suppose. Are you reading D&D books for the atmosphere or are you reading them for the rules?

The problem is, when you decide that one particular aesthetic (Elmore for example) typifies D&D, you alienate those who don't like that particular aesthetic. One solution is to just cut down on the art and not worry so much about it.

I'm not saying that's a good solution, but it is A solution.

 

[Spatula]

Of course, the various 2e product lines were pretty notorious for constantly using recylced art. Perhaps because it had to be tailored to evoke that particular setting?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

The only artist I would like to see come back, especially for anything dealing with the planes and even more especially Sigil is DiTerlizzi.

One thing I would like to see is more freedom with how things look. Take for example Dragonborn and Tieflings, or other more out there races. Since they have less specific folklore behind them I wouldn't mind seeing the artist go beyond just normal written descriptions of what they look like and explore a whole gambit of different looks.