Does artwork matter in a game?

Michele Ellington

unread,

Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97

to

Dave Nalle (gra...@infinity.ccsi.com) wrote:
> In article <6530ev$a7p$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

> > However, I don't buy from first impressions anyway: I wait for reviews.
> > It's the first-impression buyers that the art is slanted to, and
> > apparently many of them disagree with me.

> To branch out from the original topic, where do you find reviews that are
> even halfway worth reading? Most of the magazines I see have reviews
> which are either fluff, or terribly slanted based on the
> editorial/publishing interests of the magazine.

That's interesting, because I would never buy a game based on a
review. I find that too many people have very different tastes
than I do. Look at all the people who play AD&D, after all. I
generally pick a game based on experience having played it, usually
at a gaming con, where I make a special effort to sample new
games. I did buy Shadowrun some years ago because the art attracted
me, and the Changeling book cover art always draws my eye in every
display, I may yet end up buying it.

Art is important to me in a game because it can help set the tone
of the game. Awkward, poorly drawn art is worse than no art at
all, because it can really damage the tone of the game for me.
Of course, I am a very visually oriented person. I draw almost
all my characters, sometimes in different clothing and stages
of development, and keep the drawings in front of me when I play
because I find it strengthens the bond between the character
and myself. It's like looking into a mirror, but the face on
the other side is the character's.

Mary K. Kuhner

unread,

Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97

to

In article <6549vc$g...@rgfn3.epcc.edu> ad...@rgfn.epcc.edu (Michele Ellington) writes:

>That's interesting, because I would never buy a game based on a
>review. I find that too many people have very different tastes
>than I do. Look at all the people who play AD&D, after all.

The ideal review should give the reader an idea whether she will
like the game, whether the reviewer liked it or not: I agree that
this is not an ideal seen often in practice. Still, I can often
get something of use out of a review. I particularly like it if
the reviewer actually talks about his experiences in reading the
rules, generating a character, and playing the game. Then I can
judge if the things that pleased him would please me, and if the
things that annoyed him would annoy me.

_IF_ did a double review of _Aria_, one from someone who loved it,
one from someone who hated it: that was really quite helpful. By
the time you read both reviews you probably had a pretty good idea
which camp you'd fall in.

Conventions would be a good way to learn about new games, but I go
to only one a year and usually spend it wargaming, so that doesn't
work for me.

I will admit, with some embarrasment, that the Shadowrun art (particularly
the Great Feathered Serpent) did have some influence on my decision
to buy the game. I would never have bought any supplements, though,
if I hadn't liked the initial rules. I'm not all that visual.

Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

CeIestiaI7

unread,

Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97

to

</off topic>

Back to the discussion at hand, I think art does indeed matter. People tend
to underestimate the impact that layout and design can have on a product. If
it didn't matter, I doubt that gaming companies would bother with graphics and
layout staff. Most roleplaying games would be a chore to read (and reference!)
if not packaged in an attractive layout.

As for the quality of pictures, a great picture makes a great game superb. A
great picture will often sell a mediocre game, though word of mouth will kill a
game with great design quality but a half-assed system. Poor art, on the
other hand, fails to compliment the text and makes the book easily
put-downable. After all, a roleplaying game is little more than a
gazeteer/encyclopedia/mechanics textbook, which for the most part make for a
poor read. Poor art fails to convey mood. Can you imagine Vampire without its
trademark rose and ankh, or the shadowy depictions of clan members by
Bradstreet? AD&D's Dark Sun was sold on the art of Brom. And never forget
these three words: Magic: The Gathering.

People shouldn't ignore the art when reviewing a game. It reflects conscious
choices made by a gaming company when they put out a product. So it stands to
reason that if the art is crap, the text ain't gonna smell like roses either.

S.A.

Sea Wasp

unread,

Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97

to

CeIestiaI7 wrote:
>
> </off topic>
>
> Back to the discussion at hand, I think art does indeed matter. People tend
> to underestimate the impact that layout and design can have on a product. If
> it didn't matter, I doubt that gaming companies would bother with graphics and
> layout staff. Most roleplaying games would be a chore to read (and reference!)
> if not packaged in an attractive layout.

Yes, but remember that layout and artwork is often -- VERY often -- in
the mind of the beholder. Look at "Wired" magazine. They've even put out
a Web Design guide now. I shudder in horror. That THING is the ugliest
piece of print media I have ever had the misfortune to see; the
newsletter I printed on a ditto machine when I was 13 looked better and
was a hell of a lot easier to read. Yet there are a lot of people who
think it's a great example...

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;

MarThrel