What was so magical about 1E/OD&D art?

[Nightfall]

*will just settle for the fact he wants more Claudio Pozas art and accept that people don't have taste*

Well except maybe Hussar.

 

[Hussar]

Here now, no need for that.

BTW, I'd like more Pozas too.

RC: I can see what you're saying, but, honestly, I think you're reading far too much into things. It's a pretty big jump to go from "the art in the 3e PHB isn't very good" to "the art in the 3e PHB is an example of the publishers pushing player entitlement."

Here's one of my favourite Otis pieces:

But, look at that piece for a second. The chick is total beefcake, and the guy is just odd. Is he a midget? The perspective in this pic is WAY off.

Looking at those other Otis pics from last page, we see that "dungeon punk" as in spikey armor and weird haircuts certainly predates 3e.

My big beef here is that TX## simply ignores any evidence to the contrary while continually banging the drum that 1e art is somehow the pinacle of gaming art. Yes, there's some fantastic pieces that stand up today - The Paladin in Hell being one of them. But, to just write off later edition art is as bad as writing off all 1e art as nostalgia.

 

[Nightfall]

Okay fine, the people that think like Hussar have taste too.

*still love Claudio work.*

 

[Melan]

I agree that you didn't say that; I'm pointing out the irony that you and RC are taking the same "side" of the "argument" here, but are saying mutually exclusive things to make your points.

I think it's funny, and it's a great example of why the type of "edition wars" discussion you keep trying to bring up don't really get very far most of the time.

You are under the mistaken impression that an argument on an online forum is supposed to be two-sided. Hint: it isn't. That's why they are called forums, and not debate pulpits.

 

[Nightfall]

If they were pulpits, I'd get more respect around here. *points out his Sage title and all...*

 

[Melan]

My big beef here is that TX## simply ignores any evidence to the contrary while continually banging the drum that 1e art is somehow the pinacle of gaming art.

Welcome to Dragonsfoot, cca. 2003.

 

[Maggan]

I wonder, what role do the "iconics" serve? What is gained by having them in all art that represents PC's instead of having a variety of types and characters?

It's all part of the branding. Using easily recognisable characters often make them into "logos" for the game. No one else can use the iconics, so if you see one you know the picture and the product is from WotC.

/M

 

[tx7321]

KM, thanks alot for burning out my retna with those images. YES I can easily see WOTC going in that feminized direction. You guys have to remember, WOTC is into this for the buck. They'll drop you 3Eers just as fast as TSR dropped us 1Eers when 2E came out. And the numbers of players won't matter, what their focusing on is the buyers who spend the most money. If there are 1 million active players, but only 10,000 buy 80% of whats released (you know the sort, they have a closet full of everything WOTC has ever printed....probably 5-10K worth) then guess what, your going to have to adapt to what those 10,000 addicts want; and if that means transgender flakes as heroes, so be it. If it happens, it'll be ironic.


Hussar: "My big beef here is that TX## simply ignores any evidence to the contrary"

Huh, what. I'm not saying there aren't dogs in 1Es collection. However, each version of the game has its overall "feel". 1E has its dark, mysterious, normal looking guys with beards in "believe-able" armor, with a focus on the overall scene and mood rather then any particular character...while 3E has its "unique" style (portraiture, spikey armor, cartoony-yet high realism/ photoshopped look, swimsuit models with big thighs etc. etc.).

Hussar: "while continually banging the drum that 1e art is somehow the pinacle of gaming art." To some of us (who liked it better) it was. Not to you clearly. But then this thread was meant for those who liked the magic of 1E, if you post keep that in consideration. You can always go start your own thread "WHATS SO MAGICAL ABOUT 3E ART", and I'm sure there'll be plenty of people posting alot of great stuff. It's interesting though, check out: "what is your favorite Module Cover" thread. Almost everyone is mentioning Old School or very Old School looking stuff. I'm actually surprised so many people here even know about these old 70s and early 80s modules, never mind considering them to be thier all time favorite cover art (and you can't say its nostalgia when many of them weren't even alive when they were published).


Hussar: "But, to just write off later edition art is as bad as writing off all 1e art as nostalgia."

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said 3E and 3.5 didn't have some good art. Some of their monster manual stuff is great. But 3E/3.5 has an overall look (just like 1E did) that I don't care for (mostly in the PCs, NPCs and humanoid monsters). I'm not saying 1E is better, its not...its just different. Because 1E and 3E are different games with different universes. They're apples and oranges. That I have grown to really love and appreciate apples, and grown to really hate oranges is no big deal. And since this thread is about apples (it says on the tag), sit back and take a bite, and join us in figuring out what makes them so dammed good.

 

[Hussar]

KM, thanks alot for burning out my retna with those images. YES I can easily see WOTC going in that feminized direction. You guys have to remember, WOTC is into this for the buck. They'll drop you 3Eers just as fast as they dropped us 1Eers when 2E came out. And the numbers of players won't matter, what their focusing on is the buyers who spend the most money. If there are 1 million active players, but only 10,000 buy 80% of whats released (you know the sort, they have a closet full of everything WOTC has ever printed....probably 5-10K worth) then guess what, your going to have to adapt to what those 10,000 addicts want; and if that means transgender flakes as heroes, so be it. If it happens, it'll be ironic.

Wow, talk about revisionist history. WOTC wasn't even a gleam in someone's eye when TSR shifted to 2e.

(portraiture, spikey armor, cartoony-yet high realism/ photoshopped look, swimsuit models with big thighs etc. etc.).

Again, examples? Either piddle or get off the pot. We've been more than willing to show examples of what we're talking about. Other than portraits, none of what you are saying actually exists anywhere other than your head.

 

[tx7321]

Hussar: "Wow, talk about revisionist history. WOTC wasn't even a gleam in someone's eye when TSR shifted to 2e."

Edited my original statement to say TSR. But, WOTC will still drop you guys just as fast...watch and see.