Once you go C&C, you never go back

[jdrakeh]

Course the truly sad thing is, the words 'old school' seem to have become semantically bonded with 'unchanging' and 'hidebound'.

No, the truly sad thing is that this bonding occurred for good reason I particpiate in a few online old school communities. There are others that I never visit, specifically because their hate of all things new or different is their most prominant defining feature. These are, unfortunately, some of the most visible 'old school' communities.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Completely invalid and irrelevant (and childish, to be honest). Your 3rd point is fine, but these two bring nothing to the discussion. I don't have to be able to do better, if I know that someone else can do better.

The two questions are perfectly valid. Its reasonable to ask what experience someone brings to the table when questioning their value judgments. ^_^

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Message-bord art discussions are always fraught with peril, because of the subjectivity. I personally like a lot of the 70s-style art; for whatever reason, it pushes my buttons and fires my imagination.

Here's some specific C&C pieces that I like (Players Handbook pg references are to the 2nd printing) Many of these are Peters -- some are not:

PH, pg. 10. I like this one because it presents a classic adventuring party. I love the trees/darkness they're heading towards. They're clearly off into the unknown.

PH, Ranger pin-up, pg 12. I like this one because the PC looks cool, and looks like a Ranger, to me (love the beard). I also like the clean black-and-white lines, with just enough shading/grey tones.

PH, Wizard pin-up, pg 21. This one has more shading/grey than I usually like, but the subject is excellent. The pipe and the floppy hat really kick this one up a notch, for me.

PH, Illusionist, pg 22. Peter draws very attractive women. I won't list a bunch of them, but I like this one, as well as most of the others (I have a soft spot in this direction). Clean lines, again, too.

M&T, Doppleganger, pg 19. Just twisted. The dark tone suits the subject.
M&T, Dragon attack, pg 20. Clean, dynamic without going into action overload.
M&T, Ettercap, pg 33. Strong contrasts. Evil looking.
M&T, Lich, pg 54. Fires my imagination. Love the background.
M&T, Mummy, pg 60. Maybe I just like undead. Definitely like the style.
M&T, Owlbear, pg 65. The style suits this subject (hair/feathers). I get a sense of menace and impending action. There's going to be one hell of a fight in a second.
M&T, Satyr, pg 72. I like the "looking from the shadows thing." Tells a story.
M&T, Shadow, pg 72. Much like the Doppleganger, the dark tones are perfect. Like the background, too.
M&T, Poisons, pg 126.

I also think the maps in the Eastmark folio are beautiful. (Peter does a great job on maps -- his work on XXXI is excellent, too.)

 

[jdrakeh]

Its reasonable to ask what experience someone brings to the table when questioning their value judgments. ^_^

Actually, he's right. Critics of games don't need to have a game of their own published to become qualified game critics. Much as qualified movie critics don't have to first become successful directors, qualified book critics don't have to be published authors, and qualified art critics don't need to have painting hanging in a gallery. Suggesting otherwise reeks of bitter resentment, rather than reason.

For the record, I can't think of any C&C art that I dislike. The layout and editing, though, have typically been horrid (although the third printing of the PHB seems to have improved greatly on both).

 

[gideon_thorne]

Actually, he's right. Critics of games don't need to have a game of their own published to become qualified game critics. Much as qualified movie critics don't have to first become successful directors, qualified book critics don't have to be published authors, and qualified art critics don't need to have painting hanging in a gallery. Suggesting otherwise reeks of bitter resentment, rather than reason.

Well, thats the thing, there are reasons why 'art director' is a different position than 'editor'.

And I find the biggest problem that movie, literary and art critics have is that they tend to be none of the above. How can one reasonably expect to offer an even handed assessment of the merits of a given work if they don't have at least some experience to understand what went into the creation thereof? I would at least expect some background in the above arts if one is going to be a 'professional' at it.

*chuckles* I've been a professional published artist for over 20 years who is currently doing exactly what he wants to do in his chosen profession. Bitter and resentful I am not.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Its reasonable to ask what experience someone brings to the table when questioning their value judgments. ^_^

I don't think one needs to be able to cook a gourmet meal in order to enjoy haute cuisine, or to know what one likes and dislikes. Same thing with art; you don't need to be able to produce fine art in order to have a valid opinion about it.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I don't think one needs to be able to cook a gourmet meal in order to enjoy haute cuisine, or to know what one likes and dislikes. Same thing with art; you don't need to be able to produce fine art in order to have a valid opinion about it.

Sure, as I mentioned in the first place, its subjective. But if one is going to offer a truly valid critique, one ought to be able to go beyond such pejoratives as 'it's horrible', as laughable as that assessment was.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...if one is going to offer a truly valid critique, one ought to be able to go beyond such pejoratives as 'it's horrible'...

Yes, I agree that a critique should offer something more than just thumbs-up/thumbs-down. However, not everyone that expresses an opinion is offering a critique -- sometimes it's just an opinion, and can be taken for what it's worth.

 

[jdrakeh]

How can one reasonably expect to offer an even handed assessment of the merits of a given work if they don't have at least some experience to understand what went into the creation thereof?

That said "some experience" in any of those fields isn't limited to "doing that thing professionally". Again, one does not need to have designed or edited a game to issue a qualified critique of one. They may have a master's degree in English Literature or Art History, for example.

The notion that a critic must first do something professionally and be succesful (a purely subjective criteria, mind you) at it before they are qualified to critique said thing, is patently absurd (as well as a popular and long-standing strawman utilized by creative types in the face of negative reviews).

 

[gideon_thorne]

That said "some experience" in any of those fields isn't limited to "doing that thing professionally". Again, one does not need to have designed or edited a game to issue a qualified critique of one. They may have a master's degree in English Literature or Art History, for example.

I wouldn't presume to offer an opinion on good game design, simply because I haven't actually designed and published one.

I don't play games based on critique of their 'design', something, as I said, I am not qualified to address. I play games based on whether the folks I am gaming with can make it a fun experience. Whether I find something fun to play or not certainly has nothing to do with good or bad design. Especially since I have no idea what good or bad design is, since I've never been able to find an objective basis for comparison.

Nor am I, IMHO, a good judge of what computer to buy, or car, or time keeping device, or music player, or a number of other subjects simply because I lack sufficient data to make an informed judgement.

*impish grin* I may be an opinionated prat, but I'm not a hypocritical one.