D&D 5E Starter set cover art meh?

[Emirikol]

Sales metrics have repeatedly and reliably proven that the cover of a product directly affects sales. (quick reference: http://blog.kissmetrics.com/color-psychology/)


At this point, I'm not arguing whether or not I "like" the cover. I'm saying it's inappropriate for sales with the multiple OBJECTIVE reasons I listed. "Liking" it will not make you buy it. Several previous editions had "sales-oriented" covers.

Why would you put a multiple-reason "meh" cover on your product?

 

[Boarstorm]

Why would you put a multiple-reason "meh" cover on your product?

I'm guessing because you (they) thought it was awesome and evocative of the product?

Ultimately, though, how could we know what they were thinking or where their focus testing led them? You seem to want answers, but we're not really the people to ask, are we?

What are you wanting out of this thread aside from validation of your viewpoint?

 

[Emirikol]

What are you wanting out of this thread aside from validation of your viewpoint?

I want some elemental discussion of the art, rather than "me too" or "not me" posts.



jh

 

[doctorhook]

Sales metrics have repeatedly and reliably proven that the cover of a product directly affects sales. (quick reference: http://blog.kissmetrics.com/color-psychology/)

Product designs need to be visually appealing, reflective of their contents, and distinguishable from their competitors.

The notion that this product will sell poorly because they put a green dragon on the cover is ludicrous.

At this point, I'm not arguing whether or not I "like" the cover. I'm saying it's inappropriate for sales with the multiple OBJECTIVE reasons I listed. "Liking" it will not make you buy it. Several previous editions had "sales-oriented" covers.

Why would you put a multiple-reason "meh" cover on your product?

You haven't convincingly demonstrated that there is anything wrong with the cover. In fact, you've tried to spin your dislike for the artwork as a kind of objective fault with the product, à la, "I don't hate the art, but it's completely wrongbad for the following reasons: ...." That's pretty disingenuous.

 

[Agamon]

Sales metrics have repeatedly and reliably proven that the cover of a product directly affects sales. (quick reference: http://blog.kissmetrics.com/color-psychology/)

Okay, so according to your link, green is the easiest color for the eyes to process, put consumers at ease, and targets shoppers on a budget (which, given it's a Starter Set, fits well).

What part of that is objectively horrible? Also, how do the metrics change when you put a dragon on the cover? That site doesn't say.

 

[JediSoth]

Well, that's a start. The dragon does look menacing I suppose learning how to discuss art objectively is a learned skill much like discussing math equations for 3rd edition

The use of drab colors in the current cover makes me want to compare to the other covers...well.... They have menacing dragons too. I would argue that the 1st cover shown looks like it just woke up from a trip to Colorado.

The 2nd cover is Otis' typical "rubbery" style of 60's/70's psychadelica'. That's simply not going to work outside of the Hackmaster audience if you're trying to promote sales (to 12+)

The 3rd cover dragon has actual completion of the artwork and doesn't look so cheap, but Elmore wasn't actually cheap and I suppose in the heyday of D&D's income and independence, that was no object.

Compared to the 5e, that 3rd cover is a European masterpiece.

IIRC Larry Elmore was an employee of TSR at the time he became famous for his fantasy covers. In fact, most of the 1E and 2E art was produced by in-house artists at TSR, so they probably actually operated on a pretty low art budgets since they were already paying those guys.

I actually like the new covers. The Starter Set isn't my favorite of the bunch, but I still dig it more than most of the Wayne Reynolds arts WotC used to use. I don't particularly care for the graphic design (aka trade dress aka the fonts & logos), though. I think it looks understated and cheap. The interiors I've seen of the books so far look perfectly readable, though, so I'm not going to obsess over it.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Okay, so according to your link, green is the easiest color for the eyes to process, put consumers at ease, and targets shoppers on a budget (which, given it's a Starter Set, fits well).

What part of that is objectively horrible?

Easy: If newbs can't process a dragon in their face, I don't want them playing. B) There is a dragon in their face, why are they at ease? 3) I don't shop at Target.

Also, how do the metrics change when you put a dragon on the cover? That site doesn't say.

Dragons make a shopper's reptile brain jealous, which increases the likelihood they'll buy.

Thaumaturge.

 

[evilbob]

Starter Set cover art: I really like it. I like the watercolor nature of it. (I liked Guild Wars 2's art direction, too.) I like the cool, soft colors contrasting with the action and the pointy dragon. I like the throwback to fighting dragons (apparently something on EVERY cover as you've shown). I REALLY like that when you open the box, the art is continued and you can see the full shot with all the different characters, all of whom are doing something very D&D-like. I wish that had been the cover - D&D IS a group game, after all - but I like the cutout pretty well all on its own, too. Action, adventure, color balance; it's all there.

What I don't like is the PHB cover. Absolutely functionless when it comes to the product, the colors are off, the picture is a jumble and I can't tell what's going on. The focus is so strong on the one point of light that the rest of the image just looks like red blur. There's only one character (ok, someone told me once that there's someone else, but I bet you never noticed the other character either) and D&D is a group game. Plus, some kinda giant dude? Who's that? I thought this game was Dungeons and Dragons? Who's this weirdo? Bleh. Hate it, really. I feel like they used their best "party-based true D&D" image on the Starter Set to get their best foot forward, and then all they had left over for the PHB was this. I really like the MM and the DMG, though, and they seem to be done by the same person, so it's not like it's even the artist. It's just this one image. Bleh. Sad to think that'll be on the shelf for years to come. Maybe I'll put the 3.5 PHB of OMG THIS COVER IS AMAZING in front of it.

 

[billd91]

I'm enjoying the cover of the Starter Set. It harkens back to the Red Box art with the sword and board fighter against a dragon. But it also carves out a new identity for itself. If I were to try to read too much into the art work (for I really do believe this is trying to read in too much), I would say it's staking out territory in a more realistic and less cartoony look than its predecessors. Nor does it rely on Dungeonpunk styles. It's a new zeitgeist for a new edition. A back-to-basics look for a back-to-basics edition.

 

[Xodis]

Im going to join the crowd of non-sophisticated art connoisseurs and say I like it. It has a dragon, it has a warrior, its scary, kind of realistic (as far as giant man eating dragons go) and **SPOILER ALERT**relates well to the material its printed on. So in conclusion I like it.