My one criticism of 4th ed: poor artistic style

[Dragonbait]

I dare to say that DiTerlizzi is cartoon the same way Neil Gaiman's Sandman is a comic book. The difference between Planescape and early 4E is big. The tone in Planescape is darker and, even being cartoonish there was more anatomy and perspective there than some DMG images (look the picture of the party entering a goblin cave or the one in a village).

Let me put it this way. GI Joe was a cartoon. Batman: The Animated Series was a cartoon. I don't think anyone will agree that they looked the same or had even remotely similar art styles. Or to be more radical about it, GI Joe was animated, and so was Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. This is maybe a better example, since DiTerlizzi mentioned being influenced by Amano.

These I can agree with.

But what hacks me off is the utter lack of the things that evoke STYLE inside the books:
no fancy borders, paragraph dividers, page number medallions (that look cool rather than functional, current ones are extremely functional but not evocative) or whatever :/

Planescape was my first D&D setting. I think that the font, unique art, layout, and the VERY distinct voice of the products really brought that particular setting alive. I agree with you about the 3E and especially 4E books lacking those things. It's all very mechanical. However, I wonder if they dropped those aspects because they were not popular by the majority of the players? Even the 3E books lacked a unique voice (but you could easily identify a FR setting book when compared to an generic supplement by page color). I wonder if removing the tone and unique look was intentional to make the products LESS setting-specific?

 

[gabe1k]

I have to agree to the OP. I was very disappointed in the 4e artwork in the core books. Sure the artists are very talented. But all the illustrations look like miniature poses. Nothing creative or exciting in the context of the characters. I also think the whole design of the books is rather bland. I love the drawings in the original AD&D books. And I thought the art and design of the 3e books was outstanding in it's creativity and thoroughness, including the covers. I also think 4e is missing the black and white supplemental illustration that 3e had.

 

[Foundry of Decay]

I have to agree with the OP on several points. Though admittedly they aren't all easy points to 'fix'.

On the case of actual layout, fonts, and theme of various books, I think that, indeed, 4e has become a little too sterile.

In second edition, you could tell you were reading a Ravenloft supplement even if just by the fonts and layout used. The art of Ravenloft varied greatly from book to book, some of it being right bloody awful in a lot of cases, but you were still left with a feeling of 'This is Ravenloft. This is cool!'.

The same could be said for other realms books. You could tell a Forgotten Realms product from a Greyhawk product due to fonts, layout and even page themes. In 3e its even easy to tell the 3e FR books apart from the general Greyhawk setting books (Though the FR art, almost on a whole, was absolutely horrendous from a technical point of view).

Part of the problem might be that there's a select group of artists doing pretty much everything. Eva Widerman (sp?) is an incredibly good artist, the free range artwork I've seen from her is very skilled. However you can tell that she has to operate within a certain 'visual theme' in the new edition. The same goes for William o'Connor. His work is very highly skilled and high quality, but he has to operate within an almost 'corporate view' that didn't exist with earlier editions.

It wouldn't be easy to fix the latter 'problem' because you'd have to go back to a more freeform, loose style. First Edition artwork was, on the whole, obviously done by people the creators knew. 2nd edition was spastic. You had artists like Kieth Parkinson and Larry Elmore who were technically brilliant artists and brought a theme and feel to what they worked on (Dragonlance) but then you had the generally lower grade artwork from the monster manuals, because artists would be suddenly divided up by 'realm' instead of being a part of the whole.

Planescape had the most distinct look of all. Brooding, dark, yet still with an air of impish personality that a lot of people loved. It made the realm. However I'd deeply loathe having to wade through the 'eccentric' art of that nature in each and every book.

So the developers would almost have to go back to assigning 'realm' artists to get back the thematic feel for each new world books that were put out to market every year. Considering it's only once a year now, and for only a couple books, it wouldn't really work I don't think.

And I have to admit, I do wish there was a mix of life-scenes (Adventurers around a fire telling stories, or at an inn, or making some dark deal in an alley) amidst all of the leaping and exploding and fighting and spellcasting. I love action! However too much of it can become overwhelming or at least desensitize people to its cool-factor.

Er, this is going on too rambly and long. In short, I love the 4e artwork from a technical standpoint. I love the books for being easy to read. However I do indeed miss the binding themes that each realm used to have.

 

[Spatula]

Ah, but see, there's more then one type of "cartoony." ...Hmm. Let me put it this way.

GI Joe was a cartoon.

Batman: The Animated Series was a cartoon.

I don't think anyone will agree that they looked the same or had even remotely similar art styles.

But both are still "cartoony" which is what was being responded to. Anyway, I don't see a lot of cartoon stylization in the 4e art, but of course charges like "cartoony" are usually just applied to art that one doesn't like and are not intended as serious criticism. DiTerlizzi's art is obviously cartoonish (and also amazingly good), with lots of exaggerated facial features. The early D&D books were jam-packed with actual cartoons! "Superhero" was another pejorative label thrown at 4e art upthread, when TSR had an actual superhero artist in Bill Willingham (and at least one other that was majorly influenced by superhero art in Jeff Dee) doing tons of work for the game.

What I do agree with is that the 4e books themselves could stand to look less boringly text-book-y, and that there's too many tieflings and dragonborn in the 4e art pieces.

 

[CaptainChaos]

I don't mind the art, but the graphic design is really lacking. It's like they spent two years working on the game and 10 minutes on the look and feel.

 

[Jhaelen]

But what hacks me off is the utter lack of the things that evoke STYLE inside the books:
no fancy borders, paragraph dividers, page number medallions (that look cool rather than functional, current ones are extremely functional but not evocative) or whatever :/

Ah, alright. I can agree with that. Page spreads without any pictures look quite boring.

In that regard one of the most gorgeous 3E books was the Tome of Magic. For each of the three magic systems it contained they used a completely different style. Very cool!

So, yes, 4E could probably look a bit more evocative.

 

[Scribble]

But both are still "cartoony" which is what was being responded to. Anyway, I don't see a lot of cartoon stylization in the 4e art, but of course charges like "cartoony" are usually just applied to art that one doesn't like and are not intended as serious criticism. DiTerlizzi's art is obviously cartoonish (and also amazingly good), with lots of exaggerated facial features. The early D&D books were jam-packed with actual cartoons! "Superhero" was another pejorative label thrown at 4e art upthread, when TSR had an actual superhero artist in Bill Willingham (and at least one other that was majorly influenced by superhero art in Jeff Dee) doing tons of work for the game.

What I do agree with is that the 4e books themselves could stand to look less boringly text-book-y, and that there's too many tieflings and dragonborn in the 4e art pieces.

Hrmm I understand what you mean, but I would probably say the art of 4e is "more cartoony" then the art of 2e was (Overall) and I don't dislike the 4e art.

I would say something appears "cartoony" when it has a number of the following features.

* Limited color palet. (The colors seem to be more "solids" and less gradients, or shadows.)

* Limited definition. (Related to the above things tend to lack a lot of "fine" detail work. For instance, we might have a face, but the face doesn't show a lot of the shadows, or lines and wrinkles of a real face.)

*Reliance on "Outlines." (Again related to the above. In a "realistic" picture, one object would be diferentiated from another by shadows. In cartoon artwork there's more reliance on dark solid lines to seperate one object from another. )

* Exagerated body movements. (IE people making movements and body piositions that would be awkward in real life, but look cool. It's also present in non cartoon art, but tends to be more prominent in cartoon artwork.)

* Exagerated body parts or exagerated equipment . (Body parts are weird sizes, or shapes, and likewise for equipment. While this can also show up in non cartoon artwork, its appearance often highlights a mistake by the artist. In cartyoon artwork, however, it's used for effect.)

To be fair, I wouldn't always call Elmore (my favorite D&D artist) always "realistic," it's just that I tended to see his work as realistic with elements of cartoon style, while I see the more recent stuff as cartoonish with elements of realism.

 

[Ariosto]

I like those DiTerlizzi samples!

I also like Willingham and Dee in such contexts as V&V -- but some of their work struck me as clashing with the feel of D&D at the time.

I did not like the busyness of 3E design. I have grown quite accustomed to fairly "clean" and functional layout. Ease of reading fulfills the primary function of a rule book. A border might be a nice touch, so long as it does not cramp the text, but it's not something I miss. I think there are sound reasons why some practices have been widely adopted and endured for a long time.

Again, I think the character of illustrations tends to be in tune with how the publisher intends people to view the game. WotC has gone for a focus on larger-than-life characters in a comic-book kind of world, and ramped that up in 4E.

In the Monster Manual, the dragons stand out for being depicted in more traditional style, and within a view of a wider world. The latter has always been an exception, given the requirements of an MM. The efforts to make monsters look strange relative to established D&D expectations (green goblins being but a minor example) are interesting.

Pretty thoroughly, D&D-land is presented as bizarre. Formerly, the prevailing approach (again, setting aside Otus!) was to contrast the other-worldly with familiar Earthly references.

That seems to me quite in keeping with the general tenor of 4E. It is clearly meant as a departure from tradition, a break with the past, a new game for a new generation.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'd be much happier with about 95% less glowing weapons...the visuals remind me of video games in a bad way.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'd be much happier with about 95% less glowing weapons...the visuals remind me of video games in a bad way.

Yes. The super glowing magic weapons annoy me to no end.

Did anyone here play Morrowind? You know how magic items looked horrible because they looked like they were made of plastic? That's what the glowing magic weapons remind me of.