JimLotFP wrote:TheRedPriest wrote:Good technical artist, she has some nice stuff. It'll be interesting to see how she realizes "old school" art.
I'm torn on this. I don't want Insect Shrine to come across in any way retro (which sounds weird saying it just because of what the project is!). She says she's going to look at all the "classic" artwork from the old TSR days, but I told her that artwork that looks good is more important than satisfying people with oldschool expectations.
Oops.. as those darn kids say today... "my bad".
Most of the 1e stuff coming out has been retro in appearance, and I just ASS U MEd
Insect was too. Doh!
Good art is always better than bad art.
Better to produce what you do best, than to crank out something mediocre just attempting to mimic a style. If Davidsson produces illustrations as good as the works on her site, they'll definitely be an asset to the product.
Just in the realm of FYI, I can try to define what, for me, is meant by "old school" type gaming art.
It's not about a particular art style, but more about how the subject characters are portrayed.
Starting with the game itself, AD&D 1e. While the stats for the characters of this version may have been, on average, higher than those in OD&D, typically, they were not superhero stat'ed across the board. The art reflected this. Whereas recent RPG rulebooks are illustrated with impossibly-muscled human-ish characters that would look more at home in a superhero comic book or on WWF, the older publications depicted much more plausibly human subjects. Sure, they sometimes had some snazzy looking armor, but the figures themselves were not unrecognizable as basically human. Occassionally, they were even a bit vulnerable. The art reflected the style of play, much as the art of now reflects the more recent every-character-a-superhero style of play.
Anyway, the art in a gaming product is not what gets me to buy it. It's all about the content. The preview for
Insect definitely has me interested.
