Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darth Shoju" data-source="post: 3233184" data-attributes="member: 11397">I'm sure that some artists are trying to say something with their work. But sometimes, "an orc is just an orc" as it were.And I don't think you are all mentioning the same things. On one hand you have claimed 2ed and 3ed art is too realistic and detailed and hurts your immersion, then you claim 3ed isn't realistic enough and doesn't model logical medieval armour and equipment, instead focusing on big-thighed mohawked elves or somesuch. Other posters have decried 2ed art because it was too mundane. You have claimed that 1ed art was more dynamic than later editions, others have claimed 3ed is too dynamic. You stated that no one was claiming an over-arching message to 1ed art, yet that seems to be what RC is claiming. The only common thread I can find is that 1ed art was better at conveying the "mood", "feel" and "spirit" of the game. If you are going to make that comparison, you have to assume that all three editions were going for the same spirit or mood, yet I've seen posts here claiming they have different focuses. This is something I can agree with; 1ed was more dungeon crawl based, 2ed more adventure (outside the dungeon) based and 3ed more character based. So, if each edition has a different focus, then the comparison becomes which one does a better job of portraying its own focus? Can you say that 3ed art does a poor job of putting the focus on the PCs? My opinion is that each edition has had a different focus and thus a different art style to emphasize that. Whether or not you like that style is personal opinion. Whether or not you feel the art portrays the style it intends is easier to quantify. When  you claim the art of a particular edition has something as nebulous as "a certain magic", that just seems like opinion to me.</blockquote>

Verification