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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3239833" data-attributes="member: 43146">Darth S:  "The size of an elf's ears don't speak even one whit to the quality of a piece of art."   Your right it doesn't.  The problem with the ears being that large on elves is that "many" of us don't picture elves that way in D&D.  We picture elves, more or less, the way they are depicted in 1E, or the LOTR movies, or any other number of sources. Normally giant ears wouldn't be a big deal, but when the player is forced (through consistancy of the art) to accept that this is the new look of D&D elves....well....its just a huge turn off to me and many others (I'm not the first or the last to notice).  Same goes for the hugely proportioned fighters and dwarves,  with tiney squarish heads w/snarly faces and roided out bodies, or guys running around with modern hair cuts, soul patches or tattoos.  Its cheeky and created to get a pop, rather then truely represent what the player is supposed to be seeing in their imagination. Or at least I don't think thats what the vast majority people see, (based on the depiction of elves and dwarves in the LOTR movies, I'd say 1E proportions and armor and dress are still favored by most.)So, is one kind of style or art superior to another.  No.  But you can make comments on what is depicted, does it set the mood, does it help you picture the world your playing in.  Does the art do its job in that way?Your right though, you can't say one editions art is "better" then another, BUT a bunch of guys can jump online and talk about what we did like "better" about one over the other.  And you can jump in and disagree.  Thats mature and intellegent.   And its fine that you picture the world you play in populated with elves with huge ears, and dwarves that look like ticks (little squinty heads and enormously muscular bodies), and that everyone is dressed so kewl.   But, if that bugs you as well about your favorite game, there's nothing wrong in saying so.  You can still prefer 3E, but at the same time, prefer 1E artwork.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   So, please don't see this as an edition war, its not.  Its simply a thread about what we like and don't like about D&D art as a whole.   Any how, there is another thread talking about what is great about 3E artwork.I'd argue 3E and 3.5 artwork does score an A+ when it comes to delivering what the publishers want.  It grabs the attention of "the right" viewers who might otherwise pass their products up.  It also attracts the video game and computer crowd, a much larger market.And who knows, without that art would WOTC sold near as many books?  Would AD&D 1E have completely faded away if it wasn't for the popularity of 3E (which is partly derived from the effects of its artwork)?   Ironic in a way, isn't it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />  But, just because 3E artwork delivers in the marketing department, doesn't mean its suited as the best "portal" to another world.  I think 1E did just the opposite.  Its artwork created a portal that we all could relate to (because its pretty conservative/generic fantasy really), but it failed to deliver the POP to capture the "right" people, the ones wth the right buying habits, and it failed to be supportive of an expanding growth philosophy as new products reached into broader markets and "lines" were created (ie, creating sagas like Dragonlance, etc.).</blockquote>

Verification