Choice of illustrators [WW staff]
Orpheus
I'm not here to complaint directly but I want to transmit a concern that
some players have emitted on other forums.
It seems that several players think that the illustrations of the cards
(mainly the crypt cards) are going down. This critic concerns mainly
expansions since LoB, including the new previews of LotN.
Those players point out not only that some illustrations are very poor in
quality, but also that the overall style is less dark and moody than it used
to be (with notable exceptions, sometimes more in library cards than crypt
cards), and the dark mood is what makes Vampire... Vampire !
On the other hand, the same players underline that the illustrations for
Requiem are quite beautiful, and cling exactly to the required mood.
Others, on this here forum, have posted links to other artists, who are far
from mainstream yet, but whose art is superior to many current VTES
illustrators, and more appropriate.
I am aware, of course, that tastes may vary ; but only to some extent, and
when lots of players react the same way, either positively or negatively,
there is usually something there that has to be taken into account (as in
the last Heroclix expansion, where the figs are mostly of very bad quality
compared to other recent expansions).
So I'd like to ask to anyone currently in charge of the VTES illustrations
department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice for
VTES illustrators ? Is there more money to invest in Requiem than in VTES ?
If not : can we benefit from the same illustrators (or the same level of
illustrations) as Requiem, or other CCG card games in the same success level
/ sales numbers as VTES ?
Deadly Yours,
Orpheus
-----------
"And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the Human Race
Out of time and out of space
And meaning..."
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Teeka
> Those players point out not only that some illustrations are very poor in
> quality,
Just the photochop, IMO. I think the overall quality "as pieces of
art" is ok (of course, there will always be someone better).
However:
but also that the overall style is less dark and moody than it used
> to be (with notable exceptions, sometimes more in library cards than crypt
> cards), and the dark mood is what makes Vampire... Vampire !
>
Agreed! "a game of gothic horror" right? I wouldn't mind seeing more
blood and severed limbs and such. Not just to have a shocking effect,
but to fit the theme, as Orheus said. Changing the background color of
retainers would be good too, I don't like the happy orangy thing.
> So I'd like to ask to anyone currently in charge of the VTES illustrations
> department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice for
> VTES illustrators ?
I asked something similar when doing one of my anti-photochop rants a
while back. Got no answer.
Would like to point out though, that a few artists are able to get the
right mood, IMO. Brian LeBlanc's art in SoC for instance.
Peter D Bakija
> Those players point out not only that some illustrations are very
> poor in quality,
I don't know, really, what you are basing this on. S Word of Caine, the
most recent set, has art that is both across the board pretty good *and*
thematically/moodliy appropriate. The old standby artists were doing a
fine job, and the newer artists (like Heather) are also doing a fine job
(I mean, who *doesn't* love the illustration for Liquify the Mortal
Coil?).
Yeah, a handful of primarily Photoshop-tech illustrations are in there,
which some folks seem to object to, but it is hardly a dominant
illustration style in the set.
Care to come up with specifics you are objecting to?
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
librarian
> On 8 jul, 14:14, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > So I'd like to ask to anyone currently in charge of the VTES illustrations
> > department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice for
> > VTES illustrators ?
>
> I asked something similar when doing one of my anti-photochop rants a
> while back. Got no answer.
>
I would doubt that the art dept goes on fan-boards. Even if they do,
there's no benefit in answering fan-questions. That's not their job,
it's LSJs.
My guess is that some artists ask for more money, some for less.
If you really don't like the art, don't buy the cards - that's the
only thing that ultimately changes behavior at a for-profit company.
best -
chris
Orpheus
>> > illustrations
>> > department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice
>> > for
>> > VTES illustrators ?
>>
>> I asked something similar when doing one of my anti-photochop rants a
>> while back. Got no answer.
>>
>
>
> I would doubt that the art dept goes on fan-boards. Even if they do,
> there's no benefit in answering fan-questions. That's not their job,
> it's LSJs.
Then it's up to LSJ ton answer our concerns.
> My guess is that some artists ask for more money, some for less.
Certainly. But there are artists out there who ask for less and do more.
Maybe taking some time to seek them out would be good.
> If you really don't like the art, don't buy the cards - that's the
> only thing that ultimately changes behavior at a for-profit company.
Sure, I'm not gonna buy any more Snelly waterworks but I'll buy from some
other artists, uh ? And I'll buy the cards I need for my decks but not the
art, sure.
That said, I am not the main complainer here. Some players do buy less and
less Vampire, for various reasons including the art. And some players from
other CCGs don't buy VTES because they think the art is generally poor (I
have heard that complaint personnaly).
Deadly Yours,
Orpheus
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote:
> Then it's up to LSJ ton answer our concerns.
LSJ isn't in charge of the card graphic design. He designs the game, not
the art.
> That said, I am not the main complainer here. Some players do buy less and
> less Vampire, for various reasons including the art. And some players from
> other CCGs don't buy VTES because they think the art is generally poor (I
> have heard that complaint personnaly).
Again, gimme some examples. I mean, I don't doubt that there is some art
that folks don't like. But what, for example?
Teeka
> LSJ isn't in charge of the card graphic design. He designs the game, not
> the art.
>
Yeah but, he could walk into the art dep. room and ask for us. He
doesn't *have* to, of course.
The Lasombra
wrote:
He lives and works 3 hous away from the art department.
Orpheus
>
> LSJ isn't in charge of the card graphic design. He designs the game, not
> the art.
Chris said that it was his job as a representative to answer our questions,
I just just adressing that.
> Again, gimme some examples. I mean, I don't doubt that there is some art
> that folks don't like. But what, for example?
The discussion has spread again after the LotN previews, so most of these
weren't liked. But those comments have been coming out quite a while
recently. If I get the time I'll tell you what I think in details about the
illustrations, but it would be only me. But the general feeling I'm
transcribing here is that *vampire* cards have been going down, in quality
and in mood.
---------
Orpheus
Jeff Kuta
More Drew Tucker!
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> He lives and works 3 hous away from the art department.
He can use a telephone, or an e-mail program. :P
To answer Peter's question, most of the people I know [including
myself] object mainly to "illustrations" of the "take a photo, bang a
filter over it in photoshop and call it art" variety.
Kestrelle Hayes is the best example i can think of off the top of my
head. It's just deplorably, DEPLORABLY lazy.
Peter D Bakija
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> To answer Peter's question, most of the people I know [including
> myself] object mainly to "illustrations" of the "take a photo, bang a
> filter over it in photoshop and call it art" variety.
Which is certainly an opinion that I can understand, but it isn't like
the whole set is like that--I can think of, maybe, 4 or 5 photoshoppy
vampires in the SoC set, out of 60 cards. Which strikes me as perfectly
reasonable.
That being said, like, why are you offended by someone taking a photo
and filtering it and calling it art? I mean, like, yeah, they are
photoshop illustrations, but they aren't bad--I like the Kestrell Hayes
portrait (along with Mariel Saint John) and never look at the
photoshoppy pictures and say "man--those are *horrible*!"--they strike
me as generally ranging from acceptable yet forgettable to pretty good
most of the time.
> Kestrelle Hayes is the best example i can think of off the top of my
> head. It's just deplorably, DEPLORABLY lazy.
Why do you care that it is lazy? Like, are you offended that 'cause you
think someone didn't spend enough time on a piece? If it turned out that
someone spent hours on a photoshop piece due to layering, relayering,
color adjusting, texturing, and whatever, would a piece that you hated
due to it being deplorably laze suddenly be less objectionable?
bodhi
Peter D Bakija ha escrit:
> In article <4691139d$0$11890$426a...@news.free.fr>,
> "Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > Then it's up to LSJ ton answer our concerns.
>
> LSJ isn't in charge of the card graphic design. He designs the game, not
> the art.
>
> > That said, I am not the main complainer here. Some players do buy less and
> > less Vampire, for various reasons including the art. And some players from
> > other CCGs don't buy VTES because they think the art is generally poor (I
> > have heard that complaint personnaly).
>
> Again, gimme some examples. I mean, I don't doubt that there is some art
> that folks don't like. But what, for example?
¿praxis atlanta?
Huruem
> > "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Then it's up to LSJ ton answer our concerns.
>
> > LSJ isn't in charge of the card graphic design. He designs the game, not
> > the art.
>
> > > That said, I am not the main complainer here. Some players do buy less and
> > > less Vampire, for various reasons including the art. And some players from
> > > other CCGs don't buy VTES because they think the art is generally poor (I
> > > have heard that complaint personnaly).
>
> > Again, gimme some examples. I mean, I don't doubt that there is some art
> > that folks don't like. But what, for example?
>
> ¿praxis atlanta?
Have you seen the different previews of illustration of Lords of
night? I haven't any *correct* Illustration except, maybe, Ganesh.
Huruem
Really prefers seeing some photoshop stuff than that.
Orpheus
> > that folks don't like. But what, for example?
>
> ¿praxis atlanta?
> Have you seen the different previews of illustration of Lords of
> night? I haven't any *correct* Illustration except, maybe, Ganesh.
> Huruem
> Really prefers seeing some photoshop stuff than that.
Ok, my 2-cents illustrations from recent (from LoB ro SoC) sets . The "I
want more" part can include illustrators from previous sets (obviously).
I'll mainly focus on vampire cards.
I won't comment on the "ok" stuff, just on the real good or real bad stuff
(including the mood factor, not just technicity).
I WANT MORE :
- Rik Martin !! One of the greatest "new" ones.
- Christopher Shy (I know he's expensive now ; and he did some average stuff
but it was a long time ago, Antara is still pretty good).
- Durwin Talon !!!!
- Jim Pavelec's Melinda Galbraith is great !
- Quinton Hoover does a good job
- Whatever happened to rk post (Lucita Adv) ??
- Jim di Bartolo is nice
- Alejandro Colucci : few illustrations but they look good.
- Chad Michael Ward ! Just look at Paul Corwood... Ok, too much Photochop,
but at least the result is good-looking.
- Eric Lofgren. Never did any vamp, but just look at the mood in the Ruins
of Ceoris !! Now, that's what I expect in a Vampire game...
- Eric Deschamp looks like he can draw. Nice expressivity on faces.
I WANT NO MORE :
- Lawrence Snelly's waterworks (I even preferred his Photochop, at least on
the Blood Brothers !)
- Steve Ellis (too cartoony, just not good enough)
- Katie McCaskill !!! Come on, I can do the same for much cheaper. No,
seriously, just fire her.
- Mark Poole has mood, but lacks technicity
- Come on, we got enough Ken Peyer Jr for 3 eternities !! Ok, he's
progressively learning to draw, his stuff is a little better than 10 years
ago... Still. Out !
- David Day. Come on, guys... There are professional illustrators out there
(sorry David, I'm pissed off).
- Becky Jollensten. Isn't it really Katie Mc Caskill under a borrowed name ?
;-)
- Avery Butterworth. Not worth the (grey) butter he paints with.
I hesitated to "condemn" Richard Thomas, Jeff Holt and a few others, but
they really aren't the worst. They just aren't great either.
So, as you see : there is hope. There are already good artists (for my
taste) in VTES's list, all the art department has to do is operate a choice,
based on more serious artistic considerations rather than just price,
friendship or "he's been doing so-called art for us since the beginning
(Ken, that one's for ya !).
Art for the Dead doesn't have to be moribond.
Orpheus
Peter D Bakija
Huruem <Huruem_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Have you seen the different previews of illustration of Lords of
> night? I haven't any *correct* Illustration except, maybe, Ganesh.
I have seen the previews, yeah, and I think they look pretty cool. I
don't really understand what you mean by "correct" illustrations, so I
can't really respond to that. But, say, the stuff Heather did is nice,
well done, and thematically appropriate.
Olivier_PEREZ
the role playing game. I wish it llok more gothiy and dark. I heard
that a lot from varius players in Geneva.
paladin_brand
Not nearly as lazy as firing one-line armchair-art-critic artist
bashing into a public newsgroup.
-Jason
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote:
> Ok, my 2-cents illustrations from recent (from LoB ro SoC) sets . The "I
> want more" part can include illustrators from previous sets (obviously).
> I'll mainly focus on vampire cards.
(specific artists snipped)
See, yeah, see, I disagree with an awful lot of your assements of the "I
Want No More" artists (i.e. I still love Lawrence Snelly, Steve Ellis is
fine, Katie McCaskill does perfectly reasonable and well done photoshop
stuff, etc). Which simply means that you can't assume that folks are
going to agree with your views of the artists. So coming out and being
all like "These artists suck!" isn't going to build a consensus by any
stretch of the imagination.
In the long run, I think it is safe to say that across the board, the
art for VTES is still generally high quality and still some of the
better stuff in the market.
OrgPlay
> when lots of players react the same way, either positively or negatively,
> there is usually something there that has to be taken into account (as in
> the last Heroclix expansion, where the figs are mostly of very bad quality
> compared to other recent expansions).
>
> So I'd like to ask to anyone currently in charge of the VTES illustrations
> department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice for
> VTES illustrators ? Is there more money to invest in Requiem than in VTES ?
> If not : can we benefit from the same illustrators (or the same level of
> illustrations) as Requiem, or other CCG card games in the same success level
> / sales numbers as VTES ?
>
To be perfectly honest you ask a number of questions I may not
answer.
I can tell you that there are a limited number of artists in the
industry that we allow to do our stuff. A lot of times it comes down
to price and schedule. For example: Kestrelle Hayes was originally
supposed to be done by a different artist. That artist could not meet
the deadline and Katie McCaskill was asked to make that card, same-
day. Y'all may call her lazy and bad, but she whipped that card up in
an hour and a half.
Bottom line is that we are dedicated to making a quality product. I
ask for a little bit of faith from you guys that we here at CCP|White
Wolf make every effort to give you the best.
As always, I am available by email.
Oscar Garza
org...@white-wolf.com
CCP|White Wolf
Orpheus
>> want more" part can include illustrators from previous sets (obviously).
>> I'll mainly focus on vampire cards.
>
> (specific artists snipped)
>
> See, yeah, see, I disagree with an awful lot of your assements of the "I
> Want No More" artists (i.e. I still love Lawrence Snelly, Steve Ellis is
> fine, Katie McCaskill does perfectly reasonable and well done photoshop
> stuff, etc).
We all have our tastes, of course. But the "perfectly reasonnable photoshop
stuff" just doesn't cut it, and that's where the most players agree. Also,
if each of us makes such a list, you'll notice many names returning in the
"more" or "no more" categories.
Which simply means that you can't assume that folks are
> going to agree with your views of the artists. So coming out and being
> all like "These artists suck!" isn't going to build a consensus by any
> stretch of the imagination.
There seems to be a big consensus on "photochop sucks". Also, we're talking
more about the vampiric mood of the illustrations than just the techniques,
and some artists are no good for that, although in other cases it's probable
the art director that should be fired !
> In the long run, I think it is safe to say that across the board, the
> art for VTES is still generally high quality and still some of the
> better stuff in the market.
>
> Peter D Bakija
Have you ever looked at Magic or Wow illustrations ? The quality is much,
much better ! You say those are mainstream games ? Ok, what about Lot5Rings,
or Game of Thrones ? Let's face it : VTES is far behind many games in terms
of illustrations (and that's a remark I get from players coming from other
games, so let's be a little realistic here). The only things that has saved
the game artistically so far is the very special dark mood that permeates
through the pictures. And we're losing that. I think that it's part of what
the players dislike in Photochopping : it's just too casual, as if we take a
picture of just anybody and filter it, not as if we painted a real vampire
!!
So, please : let's go back to the darker side of VTES illustrations, I
really believe it's the right direction to take (and no more vamps bathing
in the sun, not even in African plains, please)...
Orpheus
reyda
Peter, i like you when you play the devil's advocate, but enough is enough.
Look at vampires like Malabranca Franck Litzpar or Lorrie Dunsirn and
you'll be forced to admit that some of the work are LAZY. L.A.Z.Y.
"-oh, my, i asked you for an illustration and you present me this piece
of crap !
-well, you must be mistaken, it took me 24 days to do it !
-oh, sorry i just realize it must be a piece of art, since you spend so
many time doing it".
is it really lazinesse or does some illustrator really takes 128 hours
to photoshop a picture or badly lay some watercolor on canvas ? It's not
my frickin business : i pay for cards and i want illustrations in the
mood of the game i want to play. I want VAMPIRES. I don't want no
frickin blue goblins, no detestable hag masquerading as a vampire nor
guy-next-door with ugly mustache. GOTHIC, SCARY, GLOOMY VAMPIRES. I
don't want to play pokemon, and above all i don't want to pity the poor
people spending time with photoshop layers or stuff like that. If they
cannot draw vampires, let's thank them and ask someone else. Period.
reyda
> In the long run, I think it is safe to say that across the board, the
> art for VTES is still generally high quality and still some of the
> better stuff in the market.
which is total nonsense : one might think you did not pick any other CCG
card in the past 5 years... :/
Blooded Sand
library card with an illustration so gothic and horror that you would
not show it to a young one? This game is very definitely not aimed at
children, so where is the stuff that makes vampires vampires? you
know, BLOOD???? What there is seems underdone, like blood in a family
movie. I want it like it was in Reservoir dogs, great big pools of
lurid scarlet and dark red vitae slowly draining off.
Orpheus
> my frickin business : i pay for cards and i want illustrations in the mood
> of the game i want to play. I want VAMPIRES. I don't want no frickin blue
> goblins, no detestable hag masquerading as a vampire nor guy-next-door
> with ugly mustache. GOTHIC, SCARY, GLOOMY VAMPIRES. I don't want to play
> pokemon, and above all i don't want to pity the poor people spending time
> with photoshop layers or stuff like that. If they cannot draw vampires,
> let's thank them and ask someone else. Period.
Reyda ?
I love you.
Would you leave all your girls for me and accept to be my pet zombie ?
Orpheus
Orpheus
>> illustrations
>> department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice for
>> VTES illustrators ? Is there more money to invest in Requiem than in VTES
>> ?
>> If not : can we benefit from the same illustrators (or the same level of
>> illustrations) as Requiem, or other CCG card games in the same success
>> level
>> / sales numbers as VTES ?
>>
>
> To be perfectly honest you ask a number of questions I may not
> answer.
Oscar,
I want to sincerely thank you for your honesty. It doesn't solve everything,
but it's a start, and as an individual I always appreciate displays of
sincerity.
Now to address your points (the ones you are allowed to address) :
> I can tell you that there are a limited number of artists in the
> industry that we allow to do our stuff. A lot of times it comes down
> to price and schedule. For example: Kestrelle Hayes was originally
> supposed to be done by a different artist. That artist could not meet
> the deadline and Katie McCaskill was asked to make that card, same-
> day. Y'all may call her lazy and bad, but she whipped that card up in
> an hour and a half.
I understanf. But then, part of the issue here is that the previous artist
wasn't as reliable as you (meaning the WW art department) thought, right ?
So part of the answer is obviously to rely on more professional artists.
Now, are they really more expensive ? Some certainly are, but there are lots
of very talented artists out there currently available. You will probably
receive art submissions from some of them.
> Bottom line is that we are dedicated to making a quality product. I
> ask for a little bit of faith from you guys that we here at CCP|White
> Wolf make every effort to give you the best.
That is good. In that case, if there's only one thing you have to remember
from this thread, IMHO it's : players want VAMPIRES on their vampire cards,
and dark art on the whole, not manga-esque, cartoony or casual art.
I love this game, I love vampires, and I'm really ashamed when players from
other games speak of VTES in terms like "the game with the bad art". It
really deserves better. To that goal, being more selective in artists seems
like a necessary step, but also giving them the right directions (vampires
are predators, they don't go out in the light of day, they are chosen for
qualities required in their clan etc.) is essential and indispensable.
Thanks for your time, and feel free to transmit what's being said (and
already transmitted from our playerbases) here.
Yours,
Orpheus
OrgPlay
>
> > I can tell you that there are a limited number of artists in the
> > industry that we allow to do our stuff. A lot of times it comes down
> > to price and schedule. For example: Kestrelle Hayes was originally
> > supposed to be done by a different artist. That artist could not meet
> > the deadline and Katie McCaskill was asked to make that card, same-
> > day. Y'all may call her lazy and bad, but she whipped that card up in
> > an hour and a half.
>
> I understanf. But then, part of the issue here is that the previous artist
> wasn't as reliable as you (meaning the WW art department) thought, right ?
> So part of the answer is obviously to rely on more professional artists.
Some "professional artists" were the ones missing the marks for one
reason or another.
> Now, are they really more expensive ? Some certainly are, but there are lots
> of very talented artists out there currently available. You will probably
> receive art submissions from some of them.
Most of the submissions we get are turned away for quality. To the
tune of 80%, I would say.
>
> > Bottom line is that we are dedicated to making a quality product. I
> > ask for a little bit of faith from you guys that we here at CCP|White
> > Wolf make every effort to give you the best.
>
> That is good. In that case, if there's only one thing you have to remember
> from this thread, IMHO it's : players want VAMPIRES on their vampire cards,
> and dark art on the whole, not manga-esque, cartoony or casual art.
>
I wouldn't make generalizations here. For example, I personally enjoy
Andrew Bates's and UDON's work although they are particularly
"cartoony".
> I love this game, I love vampires, and I'm really ashamed when players from
> other games speak of VTES in terms like "the game with the bad art". It
> really deserves better. To that goal, being more selective in artists seems
> like a necessary step, but also giving them the right directions (vampires
> are predators, they don't go out in the light of day, they are chosen for
> qualities required in their clan etc.) is essential and indispensable.
I'm going to share a little story with all of you:
Justin Achilli was making art notes for a piece for a Sabbat book or
some such back in the day. He writes, "Some clown getting his head
bitten off by a dragon."
For you ESL kids: some clown = random guy.
The artist returns a piece with a dragon biting a clown in half.
Sometimes it's miscommunication, sometimes it's misunderstanding, and
sometimes the artists just ignore art notes.
>
> Thanks for your time, and feel free to transmit what's being said (and
> already transmitted from our playerbases) here.
no problem.
Oscar Garza
VTES Player for the last 8 years.
Peter D Bakija
reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Peter, i like you when you play the devil's advocate, but enough is enough.
> Look at vampires like Malabranca Franck Litzpar or Lorrie Dunsirn and
> you'll be forced to admit that some of the work are LAZY. L.A.Z.Y.
I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm totally serious. I look at
vampires like Lorrie Dunsirn (who's illustration I am very fond of) and
Frank Litzpar (who I think is also totally reasonable--not my favorite
piece, but I like him) and I don't think either of them are lazy. And
the amount of time spent on a piece (i.e., assuming that "lazy" means
"did it in 5 minutes") strikes me as totally irrelevant, as long as the
piece is reasonably good--I'd much rather have a relatively quickly
done, totally acceptable piece of photoshop art than something like
Ambush (which I hate so much that I refuse to play Ambush...)
> is it really lazinesse or does some illustrator really takes 128 hours
> to photoshop a picture or badly lay some watercolor on canvas ? It's not
> my frickin business : i pay for cards and i want illustrations in the
> mood of the game i want to play. I want VAMPIRES. I don't want no
> frickin blue goblins, no detestable hag masquerading as a vampire nor
> guy-next-door with ugly mustache. GOTHIC, SCARY, GLOOMY VAMPIRES. I
> don't want to play pokemon, and above all i don't want to pity the poor
> people spending time with photoshop layers or stuff like that. If they
> cannot draw vampires, let's thank them and ask someone else. Period.
But I don't for a second think that the art across the board *isn't*
like this--I think the art for this game, still, is of consistiently
above average quality and thematically appropriate.
Peter D Bakija
reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> which is total nonsense : one might think you did not pick any other CCG
> card in the past 5 years... :/
Most of the other CCG art I have seen from many current games tends to
be very liscence based (i.e. mostly stills from movies or tv shows or
video games). Magic still has very, very high quality art, but it is
still the A-List CCG. What games do you think have super good art these
days?
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote:
> We all have our tastes, of course. But the "perfectly reasonnable photoshop
> stuff" just doesn't cut it, and that's where the most players agree. Also,
> if each of us makes such a list, you'll notice many names returning in the
> "more" or "no more" categories.
Again, I don't think the photoshop stuff is that big of a deal--it is a
small minority of the work, and is totally harmless.
> There seems to be a big consensus on "photochop sucks". Also, we're talking
> more about the vampiric mood of the illustrations than just the techniques,
> and some artists are no good for that, although in other cases it's probable
> the art director that should be fired !
Well, a consensus among 3 or 4 internet folks who *really* hate it. I
can't think of anyone in my large, extended local playgroup who has ever
voiced any negative opinion on photoshop art.
> Have you ever looked at Magic or Wow illustrations ? The quality is much,
> much better ! You say those are mainstream games ?
Magic is the flagship, still. WoW is fueled by a billion dollar liscence.
> Ok, what about Lot5Rings, or Game of Thrones ?
I was never that impressed by what I saw of Game of Throwns. L5R has
pretty nice work, but in my experience, had just as much throw-aways as
anything else.
Fizeront
> In article <4692921c$0$23626$79c14...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>,
>
> reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > which is total nonsense : one might think you did not pick any other CCG
> > card in the past 5 years... :/
>
> Most of the other CCG art I have seen from many current games tends to
> be very liscence based (i.e. mostly stills from movies or tv shows or
> video games). Magic still has very, very high quality art, but it is
> still the A-List CCG. What games do you think have super good art these
> days?
>
> Peter D Bakija
Well, Call of Cthulhu CCG for example, and you cannot tell me that
game sells more than V:TES, FFG was forced to move the game format to
"non-collectible" due to low budget, but it still has great artwork,
here are some of the latest cards:
http://www.cthulhuccg.com/images2/profanemessenger.jpg
http://www.cthulhuccg.com/images2/basilelton.jpg
http://www.cthulhuccg.com/images2/theropeandanchortavern.jpg
In fact, one of its artists is the one I posted in a previous art
thread, and people agreed she has some great drawings that could be
used in V:TES (and some of her coleagues in the same art pages too):
http://www.tascha.ch/
Sorry for posting some non-V:TES stuff, but I think some examples were
needed.
Salem
> Justin Achilli was making art notes for a piece for a Sabbat book or
> some such back in the day. He writes, "Some clown getting his head
> bitten off by a dragon."
>
> For you ESL kids: some clown = random guy.
>
> The artist returns a piece with a dragon biting a clown in half.
I sure hope you guys went with that. :)
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Peter D Bakija
Fizeront <brigada...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, Call of Cthulhu CCG for example, and you cannot tell me that
> game sells more than V:TES, FFG was forced to move the game format to
> "non-collectible" due to low budget, but it still has great artwork,
> here are some of the latest cards:
I played a lot of Call of Cthulhu, and wasn't overly impressed--I mean,
yeah, it had a share of really good pieces, and the average was good,
but it also had some throw aways, and I'd never consider that it had
better work across the board than VTES.
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> Not nearly as lazy as firing one-line armchair-art-critic artist
> bashing into a public newsgroup.
Hello troll!
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> Which is certainly an opinion that I can understand, but it isn't like
> the whole set is like that--I can think of, maybe, 4 or 5 photoshoppy
> vampires in the SoC set, out of 60 cards. Which strikes me as perfectly
> reasonable.
I'm not saying the whole set is like that. But I'm agreeing with the
OP in saying that even one vampire of this kind of quality is
unacceptable, at least to me. it strikes me as odd that WW would spend
money in hiring the services of artists who do work of this quality,
when one glance at a Reqiuem book will show you that they have a
multitude of incredibly talented artists to work with.
I understand not all vamps can look as good as one another, but with
the talent pool WW has to draw on, I really don't think they need to
look quite this bad.
> That being said, like, why are you offended by someone taking a photo
> and filtering it and calling it art? I mean, like, yeah, they are
> photoshop illustrations, but they aren't bad--I like the Kestrell Hayes
> portrait (along with Mariel Saint John) and never look at the
> photoshoppy pictures and say "man--those are *horrible*!"--they strike
> me as generally ranging from acceptable yet forgettable to pretty good
> most of the time.
Well, here's where we run into a pointless arguement, because like/
dislike of art is totally based upon opinion, which is neither right
nor wrong. Personally, I loathe vampires of the Kestrelle Hayes
variety, simply because I work with Photoshop as [a reasonably small]
part of my job, and know how easy "art" of this variety really is to
produce. The effort required to make it is microscopic - it's
literally a matter of getting a digital camera, banging off a shot of
your buddy [or yourself apparently, in the case of Kestrelle],
downloading the pic into photoshop and literally clicking ONE FILTER.
That's all this "artist" did. A digital shot with ONE photoshop filter
on it. Twenty minutes work, tops. Deplorably lazy.
Plus, and more importantly, the illustration doesn't look at all like
a vampire in the sense of the WoD paradigm. Sabbat vampires who are of
a certain age/power level are almost all on a path of Enlightenment. A
mid cap with two SUP disciplines has certainly been a member of the
Sabbat long enough, and been exposed to enough brutality to either
have a very, very low Humanity, or none left whatsoever [so she's on a
Path]. Either way, Kestrelle would look *wrong*. Only very dim
lighting or Obfuscate could disguise the fact that she is a virtual
ambulatory corpse, a creature of darkness who hungers for the blood of
the living, who's eyes hide the secrets of centuries of butchery and
inhumanity.
Does Kestrelle look like that to you? Or does she look like somebody's
secretary? I mean, this is the freakin' sabbat we're talking about
here. Black Hand Sabbat no less.
> Why do you care that it is lazy? Like, are you offended that 'cause you
> think someone didn't spend enough time on a piece? If it turned out that
> someone spent hours on a photoshop piece due to layering, relayering,
> color adjusting, texturing, and whatever, would a piece that you hated
> due to it being deplorably laze suddenly be less objectionable?
I guess my familiarity with the program makes the scenario you're
describing improbable. Because I know how photoshop worksm I can tell
you for a fact the artist DIDN'T spend a lot of time on this piece.
I have no objection to photoshop art whatsoever. I think photoshop can
create beautiful illustrations, and VTES has many examples of artists
who've used the digital medium with exemplary results. But I do
absolutely object to illos of the Kestrelle variety, simply because
they are the digital equivalent of taking a crayon and drawing a stick
figure with pointy teeth and calling it a vampire. Kestrelle took no
effort whatsoever, or at best, took a great deal of effort from
someone who was remarkably bad at photoshop, which resulted in a piece
that looks like a single fitler job.
It looks like a 20 minute job to anyone with a trained eye, and a
trained eye is hardly something you can look at art without
utilising. :)
Peter D Bakija
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> Well, here's where we run into a pointless arguement, because like/
> dislike of art is totally based upon opinion, which is neither right
> nor wrong. Personally, I loathe vampires of the Kestrelle Hayes
> variety, simply because I work with Photoshop as [a reasonably small]
> part of my job, and know how easy "art" of this variety really is to
> produce.
I work with photoshop as a reasonably large part of my job, so yeah, I
also know what is involved with making images like that. And even if it
took, like, a total of 5 minutes to make the image, who cares? Again, I
don't care one iota as to how much time someone spent on a given
illustration, as long as it makes a reasonable illustration. Again, I
have no need at all to have the entire art base be made up of photoshop
pictures (which it isn't--in SoC there are, like, what, 5?), but a
couple here and there strike me as not at all unreasonable.
> The effort required to make it is microscopic - it's
> literally a matter of getting a digital camera, banging off a shot of
> your buddy [or yourself apparently, in the case of Kestrelle],
> downloading the pic into photoshop and literally clicking ONE FILTER.
> That's all this "artist" did. A digital shot with ONE photoshop filter
> on it. Twenty minutes work, tops. Deplorably lazy.
You don't know that. It could have been 5 filters. It could have been a
lot of color manipulation. There could have been a totally different
background and no tatoos and whatever. But even then, I find the "I
don't think they worked long enough, so I don't like it" view to be kind
of questionable. I mean, if you don't like it, you don't like it, and
you don't have to, and I have no intention of trying to make you like
it. But in the long run, as you mention above, all is based on personal
opinion here. Which is why I question the "photoshop art is crap and
shouldn't ever even be seen!" as an assumed baseline.
> Does Kestrelle look like that to you? Or does she look like somebody's
> secretary? I mean, this is the freakin' sabbat we're talking about
> here. Black Hand Sabbat no less.
Well, I don't know what to tell you. I don't play the RPG. I don't know
anything about paths of enlightenment and the effect of being in the
sabbat for a long time, or anything like that. She looks like a person
who could be a vampire to me. Just like anyone else.
> I guess my familiarity with the program makes the scenario you're
> describing improbable. Because I know how photoshop worksm I can tell
> you for a fact the artist DIDN'T spend a lot of time on this piece.
I'm pretty photoshoppy myself, as noted. And while, yeah, maybe it
didn't take a year to do or anything, you just don't know. But still, I
really don't think how long took to do something is relevant if the end
result is reasonable. It isn't like we, the consumer, pay more or less
based on how long it took for them to do the work.
> It looks like a 20 minute job to anyone with a trained eye, and a
> trained eye is hardly something you can look at art without
> utilising. :)
I got a pretty well trained eye. And, well, it doesn't really bother me.
Daneel
wrote:
>> It looks like a 20 minute job to anyone with a trained eye, and a
>> trained eye is hardly something you can look at art without
>> utilising. :)
>
> I got a pretty well trained eye. And, well, it doesn't really bother me.
But then again, you have said during a previous discussion that you don't
mind it if some of the cards don't have any art at all, as long as it is
only a "reasonable" amount of cards.
I see a parallel here - you seem to be much more lenient in these issues,
and you are far more willing to tolerate art that is not fully fitting
the core theme than me (or some of the other players whose opinions were
voiced in this discussion).
I for one mostly agree with the original post. Not necessarily the specific
artists quoted, but then again, the same artist can deliver significantly
different pieces of art. Take Snelly, for example - Archon Investigation
is one of my favourite pieces of art, perfectly fitting the mood; his
photoshop art in FN and Bloodlines is remarkably good (for photoshop art),
though for me not always fitting the theme (I'm mostly an "oil on canvas =
= vampire theme" kind of guy), his later pieces of art seem less detailed,
and also less appealing to my aesthetic sense.
Some of this falls into the "your mileage" camp, but I do agree that even
in something as subjective as art certain rules can be set, and overall I
would expect V:tES to show a greater integrity and adherence to the core
theme - not because there aren't great conceptually fitting pieces of art
in the game, but because I find many pieces of art to be not conceptually
fitting.
--
Regards,
Daneel
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> I work with photoshop as a reasonably large part of my job, so yeah, I
> also know what is involved with making images like that. And even if it
> took, like, a total of 5 minutes to make the image, who cares? Again, I
> don't care one iota as to how much time someone spent on a given
> illustration, as long as it makes a reasonable illustration. Again, I
> have no need at all to have the entire art base be made up of photoshop
> pictures (which it isn't--in SoC there are, like, what, 5?), but a
> couple here and there strike me as not at all unreasonable.
You seem to be under the impression that I think all photoshop art is
bad - I don't think that, and I've never said that. Some photoshop is
fantastic. You also think I'm making a correlation between time taken
to produce the work and the quality of the end result. Again, i'm not.
Though 99% of the time, the more you spend crafting something, the
better it'll be - to the point of overcooking of course- it's
certainly possible for someone to do a one line portrait in 2 minutes
and have it look great.
I do not think Kestrelle and illos like her fall into that category.
They are, in essence, stick figures done with a computer program. They
show evidence of very little industry true, but that's not the real
problem in my eyes. The real problem is that they look like sh!t, and
the fact that the artist spent 10 minutes with a digital camera and a
photoshop filter to make it simply compounds the problem, imo. It's
bad work. It's made worse by the fact that it's lazy work. All imo, of
course.
> You don't know that. It could have been 5 filters. It could have been a
> lot of color manipulation. There could have been a totally different
> background and no tatoos and whatever. But even then, I find the "I
> don't think they worked long enough, so I don't like it" view to be kind
> of questionable. I mean, if you don't like it, you don't like it, and
> you don't have to, and I have no intention of trying to make you like
> it. But in the long run, as you mention above, all is based on personal
> opinion here. Which is why I question the "photoshop art is crap and
> shouldn't ever even be seen!" as an assumed baseline.
I've never said that. I have no idea how you got this impression from
what I've said.
> Well, I don't know what to tell you. I don't play the RPG. I don't know
> anything about paths of enlightenment and the effect of being in the
> sabbat for a long time, or anything like that. She looks like a person
> who could be a vampire to me. Just like anyone else.
Well, I could go into great depth about the WoD paradigm and the
effects of degenerating morality upon a vampire's appearance, but all
that's freely available on the web. Suffice to say, Kestrelle dosn't
look like a mid gen Sabbat in the traditional sense of the word. The
lower your humanity, the more corpse-like you appear. But this is more
a bugbear about the setting, and isn't really about the quality of the
art. It's just one more reason why I don't like it. She looks like
some chick standing in a bathroom to me, a very far cry from a
parasitic, ambulatory corpse who subsists upon the blood of the living
and revels in the darkness of her existence.
Like the OP, I like my vampires to look like, you know, vampires.
> I'm pretty photoshoppy myself, as noted. And while, yeah, maybe it
> didn't take a year to do or anything, you just don't know. But still, I
> really don't think how long took to do something is relevant if the end
> result is reasonable. It isn't like we, the consumer, pay more or less
> based on how long it took for them to do the work.
No, but in 99 out of 100 cases, the more effort you spend on crafting
something, the better it will be. Natural talent also plays a part,
granted. The artist may be a very good photoshop user who just didn't
try very hard, or she might be a terrible photoshop operator. Either
way, I think the illo is awful.
> I got a pretty well trained eye. And, well, it doesn't really bother me.
Well, yes. That's kind of why all debate about art is ultimately
futile. But you can't tell me you look at that picture as an
experienced photoshop operator and can honestly say the artist tried
very hard.
Whether or not that bothers you, again, that's just opinion.
Personally, with so many great artists out there who would work their
fingers to the bone for an "in", it bugs the hell out of me.
Orpheus
>
>> We all have our tastes, of course. But the "perfectly reasonnable
>> photoshop
>> stuff" just doesn't cut it, and that's where the most players agree.
>> Also,
>> if each of us makes such a list, you'll notice many names returning in
>> the
>> "more" or "no more" categories.
>
> Again, I don't think the photoshop stuff is that big of a deal--it is a
> small minority of the work, and is totally harmless.
That small minority is becoming bigger and bigger (I'm not talking just
Photoshop art, because Snelly did lots of it in FN, BL etc. ; I'm talking
*bad* "one-filter" photochop). It isn't harmless because it stains the whole
of the game. And we're talking bad art in general, and lack of darkness in
the art, all things not harmless for many players.
>> There seems to be a big consensus on "photochop sucks". Also, we're
>> talking
>> more about the vampiric mood of the illustrations than just the
>> techniques,
>> and some artists are no good for that, although in other cases it's
>> probable
>> the art director that should be fired !
>
> Well, a consensus among 3 or 4 internet folks who *really* hate it.
If you've read this thread, you've found out that the minority here is...
you ! Please do not discard our opinions as unworthy of interest simply
because you don't share them !
Also, remember that my reason for posting this is reporting that a very big
thread with lots of "internet folks" was full of those concerns, not to
mention players who never post but speak ; O. Perez said the same happened
in Swizerland, some players from very different countries emitted the same
critics...
It may not be important for you, but it appears to be important for many
more players.
> I > can't think of anyone in my large, extended local playgroup who has
> ever
> voiced any negative opinion on photoshop art.
Have you talked to them about it ? Anyway, our playgroups may vary. ;-)
Might be yours also don't come from a RPG background or have no particular
expectations about the darkness of the art and don't care if vampires look
like "regular" folks. Well, they shouldn't. Just take Bradstreet's or
Bolton's art as references : Joaquina Amaya is certainly beautiful, but not
"casual" ! That's what a vampire is.
>> Have you ever looked at Magic or Wow illustrations ? The quality is much,
>> much better ! You say those are mainstream games ?
>
> Magic is the flagship, still. WoW is fueled by a billion dollar liscence.
Sure. I could point you to sites, however, where unknown artists of that
caliber post amateur stuff, and want to get some contracts, and those guys
do great jobs !
>> Ok, what about Lot5Rings, or Game of Thrones ?
>
> I was never that impressed by what I saw of Game of Throwns. L5R has
> pretty nice work, but in my experience, had just as much throw-aways as
> anything else.
I have seen what the L5R players consider "throwaways" and what they
consider to be the pinnacle of their game's art. Both are far above the
average VTES art, I'm very sorry to say.
Orpheus
Orpheus
> game sells more than V:TES, FFG was forced to move the game format to
> "non-collectible" due to low budget, but it still has great artwork,
> here are some of the latest cards:
> http://www.cthulhuccg.com/images2/profanemessenger.jpg
> http://www.cthulhuccg.com/images2/basilelton.jpg
> http://www.cthulhuccg.com/images2/theropeandanchortavern.jpg
>
> In fact, one of its artists is the one I posted in a previous art
> thread, and people agreed she has some great drawings that could be
> used in V:TES (and some of her coleagues in the same art pages too):
> http://www.tascha.ch/
I'm not overly impressed by the 2nd and 3rd picture you just posted, but I
remember the art page you posted, and I am among the people agreeing that
some of those artists did not only great work, but totally clung to the
atmosphere necessary in Vampire.
Please WW go there and recruit some of those people !
Orpheus
Orpheus
>> some such back in the day. He writes, "Some clown getting his head
>> bitten off by a dragon."
>>
>> For you ESL kids: some clown = random guy.
>>
>> The artist returns a piece with a dragon biting a clown in half.
Laugh my heart out...
> I sure hope you guys went with that. :)
Me too ! That would have been great !! LOL.
But if Justin wanted something else, he should have been more precise.
Orpheus
Orpheus
>
> Some "professional artists" were the ones missing the marks for one
> reason or another.
Sure, I get that. Did they get scratched from your list, then ?
>> Now, are they really more expensive ? Some certainly are, but there are
>> lots
>> of very talented artists out there currently available. You will probably
>> receive art submissions from some of them.
>
> Most of the submissions we get are turned away for quality. To the
> tune of 80%, I would say.
And in the end we get Photochop and David Day ? Mmm...
Maybe the art director (is that Justin ?) should go see a few sites like the
one Fizeront posted, and ask those artists for their prices. Or maybe they
should make some choices and give more work to excellent guys you already
have, like Rik Martin (totally fits the mood, maybe currently the one who
does that best).
>> > Bottom line is that we are dedicated to making a quality product. I
>> > ask for a little bit of faith from you guys that we here at CCP|White
>> > Wolf make every effort to give you the best.
>>
>> That is good. In that case, if there's only one thing you have to
>> remember
>> from this thread, IMHO it's : players want VAMPIRES on their vampire
>> cards,
>> and dark art on the whole, not manga-esque, cartoony or casual art.
>>
>
> I wouldn't make generalizations here. For example, I personally enjoy
> Andrew Bates's and UDON's work although they are particularly
> "cartoony".
Wow. Well, I just looked for some Bates art, and... I positively hate
Council of Seraphim ; Blooding could be ok but too sketchy for my taste. And
next to those, in my "Black Hand" album, I have some art from Andrew
Trabbold (recent but excellent addition) or my beloved Rik Martin (the only
one I can think about whose art is close to comics but still dark enough to
fit the theme). Bates can't stand the comparison here (neither can Le Blanc
or Tucker).
Udon has only 2 cards referenced in Feldb, I think That Prophecies is great
and Erciyes is quite ok. Not cartoony at all in my book. Prophecies is
infinitely more dark and realistic than, say, LeBlanc's Fragment of the Book
of Nod or Elysium Arboretum (both pictures totally devoid of any vampiric
intensity, not to mention knowledge of human anatomy ; Powerbase Baranquilla
is much better for mood, still as bad technically though).
Comics-style can be fine if it's dark (Esgrima would be borderline here...),
Manga definitely doesn't cut it, nor does David Day's Extremis Boon or
Emergency Preparations, for instance (as you see I'm on my Masters album
now, lol). Steve Ellis's Retribution is ok technically, but definitely not
"dark art", it would fit in a game about Tokyo Cop Movies treated in manga
style, not a game about gothic-punk vampires.
It's interesting to notice, though, that I began talking mostly about the
art of the vamps, and that you underlined the art on library cards. Both are
important, of course.
>> I love this game, I love vampires, and I'm really ashamed when players
>> from
>> other games speak of VTES in terms like "the game with the bad art". It
>> really deserves better. To that goal, being more selective in artists
>> seems
>> like a necessary step, but also giving them the right directions
>> (vampires
>> are predators, they don't go out in the light of day, they are chosen for
>> qualities required in their clan etc.) is essential and indispensable.
>
> I'm going to share a little story with all of you:
>
> Justin Achilli was making art notes for a piece for a Sabbat book or
> some such back in the day. He writes, "Some clown getting his head
> bitten off by a dragon."
>
> For you ESL kids: some clown = random guy.
What is ESL ?
> The artist returns a piece with a dragon biting a clown in half.
ROTFL
> Sometimes it's miscommunication, sometimes it's misunderstanding, and
> sometimes the artists just ignore art notes.
Ok. But, apart from the fact that the anecdote is great and I'd have loved
to see that clown (like the one in Day of the Dead, next to the ballet
dancer...), I think that it's Justin who screwed up there. If you want the
job to be done correctly, you have to describe things preceisely enough.
"Random Guy" takes one more word than "clown" and there's no interpretation
possible (except a dice-shaped guy, but... not really). And if an artist
isn't able to understant what you want or fit the theme... get a new one !!
Yes, it's time, probably money, invested in building a reaaaaaaally good
artists base. But it's be worth it.
Seriously. LeBlanc. Meyer. For years !!
>> Thanks for your time, and feel free to transmit what's being said (and
>> already transmitted from our playerbases) here.
>
> no problem.
>
> Oscar Garza
> VTES Player for the last 8 years.
About the same as me, then ? Did you also get introduced to the game by
Philippe Boulle when Sabbat War came out ?
-----------
Orpheus
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote:
> That small minority is becoming bigger and bigger (I'm not talking just
> Photoshop art, because Snelly did lots of it in FN, BL etc. ; I'm talking
> *bad* "one-filter" photochop).
Which is a small minority of the art in the set.
> It isn't harmless because it stains the whole
> of the game. And we're talking bad art in general, and lack of darkness in
> the art, all things not harmless for many players.
And perfectly harmless for many others. I have no issue at all with the
"lack of darkness" or whatever--the illustrations in the most recent set
seem perfectly vampirey to me. I don't really like the Sanguinary Wind
picture. And the portrait for the Abombination is not something I'm
particularly fond of, but for the most part, I like the new set. And
have no sense at all that it lacks some sort of vampire-ness, or
whatever.
I'm not saying that you should like it if you don't, but assuming that
everyone shares your views of the art is unlikely to be correct.
> If you've read this thread, you've found out that the minority here is...
> you ! Please do not discard our opinions as unworthy of interest simply
> because you don't share them !
I'm simply trying to point out that just 'cause *you* think the
photoshop art is ambominable, it isn't safe to assume that everyone
shares your opinion.
> It may not be important for you, but it appears to be important for many
> more players.
Maybe, maybe not--again, I have a pretty big playgroup, and for the most
part, I have heard very few negative comments about the quality of the
art.
> Have you talked to them about it ?
Not in the sense of "hey--do you hate this?", but no one really bothers
to make a point about hating anything (well, ok, everyone made fun of
the Grover card...)
> Might be yours also don't come from a RPG background or have no particular
> expectations about the darkness of the art and don't care if vampires look
> like "regular" folks. Well, they shouldn't.
I disagree that they "shouldn't". I mean, it is true that I don't play
the RPG and know very little about the world of darkness except as it
pertains to VTES. But VTES and the RPG are different games. And one need
not be stapled to the other.
Peter D Bakija
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> You seem to be under the impression that I think all photoshop art is
> bad - I don't think that, and I've never said that.
No, I don't think you think that. And read where you said "I don't think
all photoshop art is bad".
> Some photoshop is
> fantastic. You also think I'm making a correlation between time taken
> to produce the work and the quality of the end result.
Well, you do keep saying "they spent 5 minutes on it! It sucks! That is
deplorably lazy!" Which may just be a blurring of lines.
> I do not think Kestrelle and illos like her fall into that category.
> They are, in essence, stick figures done with a computer program.
Well, more goes into it than that, but I see where you are going with
that.
> They
> show evidence of very little industry true, but that's not the real
> problem in my eyes. The real problem is that they look like sh!t,
But they don't look like shit. They look like harmless and mostly
forgettable, yet totally non glaring portraits. Are they great, compared
to, like, the really good stuff by, like, Snoddy and Bradstreet? No, of
course not. Are they even above average? No. But the portrait for, say,
Kestrelle Hayes is just, at worst, forgettable. Like, the portrait for
Zubeida strikes as a far worse illustration than the one for Kestrelle
Hayes--I'd never not play Kestrelle Hayes (and mind you, I regularly
irrationally don't play cards due to my feelings on the art--I'm *still*
yet to put an Ambush in a deck, and I do my very best to never use non
Jyhad Flash) due to her portrait. But I'm not building a Zubeida deck
just 'cause I don't like the card art.
Yeah, the photoshop filter art is, well, photoshop filter art. And
everyone knows that. And no one is impressed by it, I'm sure. But at
worst, these pictures are simply forgettable, in a visual sense. I don't
doubt that folks are offended on a base level that that sort of thing is
being used in the game (rarely, mind you. And in the Kestrele Hays
instance, there is a specific reason for it), but it is hardly
destroying the game.
> > opinion here. Which is why I question the "photoshop art is crap and
> > shouldn't ever even be seen!" as an assumed baseline.
>
> I've never said that. I have no idea how you got this impression from
> what I've said.
I got that impression from what many other folks have said, not
necessarily you.
> Well, I could go into great depth about the WoD paradigm and the
> effects of degenerating morality upon a vampire's appearance, but all
> that's freely available on the web.
No need. I'm not really interested. See, if I wanted to worry about the
RPG aspects of the game, I'd play the RPG. But I don't, as, well, I
don't really like RPGs. Which doesn't mean that the RPG background is
bad, but I don't feel the need to have the two games stapled together.
> Well, yes. That's kind of why all debate about art is ultimately
> futile. But you can't tell me you look at that picture as an
> experienced photoshop operator and can honestly say the artist tried
> very hard.
Well, no. You are correct. That particular piece (Kestrelle Hayes)
probably did not take that long to do. But still, I'm not really
concerned--it was the result of needing a portrait at the last second
when someone else failed to show up, and as a last second entry? I'd
rather see that than something that could be much, much worse.
XZealot
> > "Orpheus" wrote:
>
> >> We all have our tastes, of course. But the "perfectly reasonnable
> >> photoshop
> >> stuff" just doesn't cut it, and that's where the most players agree.
> >> Also,
> >> if each of us makes such a list, you'll notice many names returning in
> >> the
> >> "more" or "no more" categories.
>
> > Again, I don't think the photoshop stuff is that big of a deal--it is a
> > small minority of the work, and is totally harmless.
>
> That small minority is becoming bigger and bigger (I'm not talking just
> Photoshop art, because Snelly did lots of it in FN, BL etc. ; I'm talking
> *bad* "one-filter" photochop). It isn't harmless because it stains the whole
> of the game. And we're talking bad art in general, and lack of darkness in
> the art, all things not harmless for many players.
There's plenty of it in Jyhad, Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts as
well (Anneke and Al-Ashrad). Also if Darkness is an unobjectionable
standard of good art, then why don't we fire all the artists and just
substitute a big black square where the art would be.
It could look like anything with the lights turned off!
> >> There seems to be a big consensus on "photochop sucks". Also, we're
> >> talking
> >> more about the vampiric mood of the illustrations than just the
> >> techniques,
> >> and some artists are no good for that, although in other cases it's
> >> probable
> >> the art director that should be fired !
>
> > Well, a consensus among 3 or 4 internet folks who *really* hate it.
>
> If you've read this thread, you've found out that the minority here is...
> you ! Please do not discard our opinions as unworthy of interest simply
> because you don't share them !
Actually, most players don't care enough to complain that it is
"good" (that being paradoxical and all).
> > I was never that impressed by what I saw of Game of Throwns. L5R has
> > pretty nice work, but in my experience, had just as much throw-aways as
> > anything else.
>
> I have seen what the L5R players consider "throwaways" and what they
> consider to be the pinnacle of their game's art. Both are far above the
> average VTES art, I'm very sorry to say.
L5R art is ass. In fact, I wouldn't defile my rectum to wipe my butt
with those cards.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
"Now that's how you criticize art!"
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> But then again, you have said during a previous discussion that you don't
> mind it if some of the cards don't have any art at all, as long as it is
> only a "reasonable" amount of cards.
That is correct. And you indicated that you thought that cards without
art were more or less going to destroy the game. Lemme see where you are
going with this...
> I see a parallel here - you seem to be much more lenient in these issues,
> and you are far more willing to tolerate art that is not fully fitting
> the core theme than me (or some of the other players whose opinions were
> voiced in this discussion).
Go on...
> I for one mostly agree with the original post. Not necessarily the specific
> artists quoted, but then again, the same artist can deliver significantly
> different pieces of art. Take Snelly, for example - Archon Investigation
> is one of my favourite pieces of art, perfectly fitting the mood; his
> photoshop art in FN and Bloodlines is remarkably good (for photoshop art),
> though for me not always fitting the theme (I'm mostly an "oil on canvas =
> = vampire theme" kind of guy), his later pieces of art seem less detailed,
> and also less appealing to my aesthetic sense.
Ok...
> Some of this falls into the "your mileage" camp, but I do agree that even
> in something as subjective as art certain rules can be set, and overall I
> would expect V:tES to show a greater integrity and adherence to the core
> theme - not because there aren't great conceptually fitting pieces of art
> in the game, but because I find many pieces of art to be not conceptually
> fitting.
I'm just not finding the same thing. Looking over the most recent set,
the vast majority of the art is just as vampire-y as it needs to be. A
few negative standouts for in my view (I hate the Zuibeda picture; the
"Now I'm Grover!" illustration of Mantle is just silly; I don't like
Shaggy Dog, probably 'cause it might be the same person who did Zuibeda;
I don't like Sanguinary Wind), but for the most part, the vampires and
library cards strike me as both above average quality wise, and
thematically appropriate.
OrgPlay
> >> So part of the answer is obviously to rely on more professional artists.
>
> > Some "professional artists" were the ones missing the marks for one
> > reason or another.
>
> Sure, I get that. Did they get scratched from your list, then ?
No, some of the reasons were personal and unavoidable, but since we
work with so many artists so often, this is common.
>
> >> Now, are they really more expensive ? Some certainly are, but there are
> >> lots
> >> of very talented artists out there currently available. You will probably
> >> receive art submissions from some of them.
>
> > Most of the submissions we get are turned away for quality. To the
> > tune of 80%, I would say.
>
> And in the end we get Photochop and David Day ? Mmm...
I think you're being unnecessarily harsh on Day. Lots of people like
his art, and he is one of the few artists that still actually paints
his stuff.
The Photoshop work is sometimes unavoidable like i've mentioned. Katie
McCaskill did the cover to Mage: The Awakening, IMHO the best cover we
have.
Also, Lorrie Dunsirn and Kestrelle Hayes were both self-portraits, can
you believe that?
>
> Maybe the art director (is that Justin ?) should go see a few sites like the
> one Fizeront posted, and ask those artists for their prices. Or maybe they
> should make some choices and give more work to excellent guys you already
> have, like Rik Martin (totally fits the mood, maybe currently the one who
> does that best).
Mike Chaney is the VTES Art Director and I have all the faith in the
world in his abilities.
>
> >> > Bottom line is that we are dedicated to making a quality product. I
> >> > ask for a little bit of faith from you guys that we here at CCP|White
> >> > Wolf make every effort to give you the best.
>
> >> That is good. In that case, if there's only one thing you have to
> >> remember
> >> from this thread, IMHO it's : players want VAMPIRES on their vampire
> >> cards,
> >> and dark art on the whole, not manga-esque, cartoony or casual art.
>
> > I wouldn't make generalizations here. For example, I personally enjoy
> > Andrew Bates's and UDON's work although they are particularly
> > "cartoony".
>
> Wow. Well, I just looked for some Bates art, and... I positively hate
> Council of Seraphim ; Blooding could be ok but too sketchy for my taste. And
> next to those, in my "Black Hand" album, I have some art from Andrew
> Trabbold (recent but excellent addition) or my beloved Rik Martin (the only
> one I can think about whose art is close to comics but still dark enough to
> fit the theme). Bates can't stand the comparison here (neither can Le Blanc
> or Tucker).
>
> Udon has only 2 cards referenced in Feldb, I think That Prophecies is great
> and Erciyes is quite ok. Not cartoony at all in my book. Prophecies is
> infinitely more dark and realistic than, say, LeBlanc's Fragment of the Book
> of Nod or Elysium Arboretum (both pictures totally devoid of any vampiric
> intensity, not to mention knowledge of human anatomy ; Powerbase Baranquilla
> is much better for mood, still as bad technically though).
>
I appreciate your opinions.
> Comics-style can be fine if it's dark (Esgrima would be borderline here...),
> Manga definitely doesn't cut it, nor does David Day's Extremis Boon or
> Emergency Preparations, for instance (as you see I'm on my Masters album
> now, lol). Steve Ellis's Retribution is ok technically, but definitely not
> "dark art", it would fit in a game about Tokyo Cop Movies treated in manga
> style, not a game about gothic-punk vampires.
>
> It's interesting to notice, though, that I began talking mostly about the
> art of the vamps, and that you underlined the art on library cards. Both are
> important, of course.
You mentioned cartoony cards, i don't recall any portraits that are
particularly cartoony.
>
>
>
> >> I love this game, I love vampires, and I'm really ashamed when players
> >> from
> >> other games speak of VTES in terms like "the game with the bad art". It
> >> really deserves better. To that goal, being more selective in artists
> >> seems
> >> like a necessary step, but also giving them the right directions
> >> (vampires
> >> are predators, they don't go out in the light of day, they are chosen for
> >> qualities required in their clan etc.) is essential and indispensable.
>
> > I'm going to share a little story with all of you:
>
> > Justin Achilli was making art notes for a piece for a Sabbat book or
> > some such back in the day. He writes, "Some clown getting his head
> > bitten off by a dragon."
>
> > For you ESL kids: some clown = random guy.
>
> What is ESL ?
English as a Second Language.
>
> > The artist returns a piece with a dragon biting a clown in half.
>
> ROTFL
>
> > Sometimes it's miscommunication, sometimes it's misunderstanding, and
> > sometimes the artists just ignore art notes.
>
> Ok. But, apart from the fact that the anecdote is great and I'd have loved
> to see that clown (like the one in Day of the Dead, next to the ballet
> dancer...), I think that it's Justin who screwed up there. If you want the
> job to be done correctly, you have to describe things preceisely enough.
> "Random Guy" takes one more word than "clown" and there's no interpretation
> possible (except a dice-shaped guy, but... not really). And if an artist
> isn't able to understant what you want or fit the theme... get a new one !!
>
> Yes, it's time, probably money, invested in building a reaaaaaaally good
> artists base. But it's be worth it.
>
> Seriously. LeBlanc. Meyer. For years !!
>
> >> Thanks for your time, and feel free to transmit what's being said (and
> >> already transmitted from our playerbases) here.
>
> > no problem.
>
> > Oscar Garza
> > VTES Player for the last 8 years.
>
> About the same as me, then ? Did you also get introduced to the game by
> Philippe Boulle when Sabbat War came out ?
I learned to play early in High School in my hometown of Brownsville,
Texas. Taught myself how to play Magic. Luckily about a month later I
saw some guys playing VTES at my local coffee shop. They let me sit
down and I learned the game.
Oscar
Meej
> If you've read this thread, you've found out that the minority here is...
> you ! Please do not discard our opinions as unworthy of interest simply
> because you don't share them !
Peter may appear to be the minority, but that may be because Peter
is the only one willing to waste his time trying to debate this with
you
folks (the three or four of you posting on this).
I know I, personally, am shaking my head at a lot of it. Especially
the
idea that the recent RPG lines have universally better art - there's
a
whole steaming pile of crap in there, too. That's kinda how it goes.
Comparing the better pieces from other games, with the worse ones
from V:TES (and, especially, focusing over and over again on a piece
that was an admitted hour-and-a-half "oh, crap, we need a new pic"
rush job at the very last second!), doesn't really make much of a case
to discuss.
I'll grant that you make some good comments about mood and tone
in other art, but there have ALWAYS been clunkers, in pretty much
every game and every set. I certainly haven't seen anything to make
me, at least, feel like the art in V:TES is getting any worse.
If anything, it's getting to have less gratuitous cartoon gore that
seems, to me, to be puerile and really beside the point. A splatter-
fest of gore isn't horror, it's just shock.
> I have seen what the L5R players consider "throwaways" and what they
> consider to be the pinnacle of their game's art. Both are far above the
> average VTES art, I'm very sorry to say.
Really? 'Cause L5R - which I played, a lot - had a whole lot of trash
art in it, too, and a whole lot that was much further "off tone" than
much
of VTES art.
Also, let's try to keep in mind: you're talking mainly about Crypt
card
pics, if I read you right - and, being portraits, those are INCREDIBLY
static most of the time. A really good action shot is hard to fit
into
that oval frame and have it feel "right". So we've got a group of,
mainly,
portraits, which are, mainly, less exciting by nature. Apologies if I
misread you, though, and the focus is on the art as a whole. (In that
case, try drawing examples from the art as a whole, rather than from
Kestrelle Hayes.)
- D.J.
Teeka
posted in other threads:
-It's not about whether or not the artist apparently put effort into
it. What matters to me, is the atmosphere-factor and the overall
quality of the art itself. It's possible to make great art using
photochop. I just don't see it in VTES.
-If it is clear that a piece is, or used to be, a picture of a real
person, that ruins my enjoyment of this implementation of the "fantasy-
world" that is the (o)WoD. I want the vampires, other unnatural
beings, everything really, to look "unreal", if you get what I mean.
-I have no problems when people use a photo as a base and then paint
over it to make something unreal looking (and good). I do hate it when
it just looks like an actual photo with either bad lighting, photo-
development gone wrong, or like some kid drew some doodles on it.
-So, I agree with the OP: I want to see the "fictional beings called
vampires", not real people acting like vampires.
-Photochop limits an artist greatly. If you draw/paint something, you
can go all-out making deformities, creepy faces, etc. (couldn't have
done Duality with photochop, or Velya). Most photochop artists can't
pull those things off, making their art very uninteresting and not
"mood-fitting", darkness or not.
-My biggest complaint on Shy's work is the fact that he made all the
vampire portraits the same way: dark background, dark clothes, grey
blur over the face, and another all-blurry filter to top it off.
Making all his work look the same.
First of all, it's boring, I don't feel I get my money's worth if I
get another samey-looking vampire. Second, it makes the vampires, who
are supposed to be unique charcters, unrecognizable and completely
interchangable.
For what it's worth, I share this opinion with my entire playgroup, a
grand total of 5 people. ;-)
Add these 5 to the "complaining minority" if you wish.
...But still, I'm talking 5 people who really care about the look of a
game, almost just as much as the gameplay itself. Heck, I for one find
it very relaxing to use my albums of CCG cards as picture books and
just sit down to admire the art. I wonder if the people in Peter's
playgroup even care about art. If not, that might explain why he never
heard any complaints on photochop himself (of course, it's perfectly
all right if they don't care).
On a quick note about the quality of MTG art: those guys killed their
own "distinguishing mood" when they introduced the phyrexians. It's
called Magic, but we get guns and cyborgs. And this was a long time
ago, since then they did lots of that crap. So no matter the quality
as pieces of art, lots of MTG art is totally non-mood fitting. I think
VTES does a much better job compared to that.*
-Teeka
who now really REALLY wants a VTES card of a clown being bitten in
half (a protean-warform card perhaps?)
* I stopped buying new cards after the Invasion sets. No idea of what
the art looks like now, except that I hated the new layout, which was
a big reason to stop buying.
OrgPlay
That's my point exactly.
When we say vampire we don't expect them to be in sunlight but it
happens. It would be crazy to tack "at night" on every art note we
give for vampires.
It was a Rage card. Zmei.
oscar
v.ri...@gmail.com
1) Some say the mood of the game has changed and doesn't fit the WoD
2) Some say that the quality of the drawings is below average.
I could give my opinion about these two points, but it wouldn't be
very useful (though I grant Brian Miskelley the title of worse VTES
artist ever -- even though I like some other pieces he did (yeah, I
wanted to check on his website whether he can't really draw or not)).
But I think it would be more useful to find a trend among all players
so we can answer question 1. A good idea would be to put online a
gallery of vampires so everyone could vote for what seems ok or what
seems wrong. It would also partially answer question 2, but in fact
both are entwined.
It shouldn't be very hard to do.
john...@hotmail.com
that it is really important to have a certain degree of quality and
that it is representative of the WoD. I will just say as another V:TES
player, that the dark atmoshphere, the gothic, the horror was the
thing that got me interested in Jyhad in the first place. The art and
esthetics thereof of V:TES is very imortant to me, and that it fulfil
and satisfy my taste for the above mentioned. Quality art (most of the
time subjective opinions, but..often agreed upon what is and what is
not) and art that is true to the Vampire theme is most important to
me. It is the fuel that got me enthustiastic and want to use the cards
(and of course playability decides, but if both..killer!), more easy
to promote the game when you feel when you are trying to get people
into (Vampire card game), is represented in the presentation of the
cards. Mood, blood, predadors, power, undeads..Maybe I´ll follow with
some examples of artists and pieces I like later. But I am sure in the
long run, the art is an important factor for the longevity of the
game!
XZealot
> who now really REALLY wants a VTES card of a clown being bitten in
> half (a protean-warform card perhaps?)
I am totally with you on that one. I was thinking a Gangrel/!Gangrel
requiring hoser for Malkavian/!Malkavians.
"Hey! I was just kidding!"
Action requiring Gangrel/!Gangrel
Only usable against a vampire you bled you since your last turn.
Enter combat with that vampire, in that combat the targeted vampire
may not maneuver or strike. If either vampire is in torpor at the end
of combat then burn them. Untap all vampires that were involved in
this combat at the end of combat.
Peter D Bakija
Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> -It's not about whether or not the artist apparently put effort into
> it. What matters to me, is the atmosphere-factor and the overall
> quality of the art itself. It's possible to make great art using
> photochop. I just don't see it in VTES.
Which is a reasonable view, but personally, I'm not seeing the lack of
atmosphere as an endemic. Yeah, there are a few pictures in every set
that aren't particularly atomspherically appropriate, sure. But there
are also a few pictures in every set that I totally hate for reasons
that may or may not be rational or based on my personal tastes. In
neither case, however, do I think that WW is doing anything wrong with
their art and design. I just accept that there are always a few pictures
I'm just not gonna like (just like there are always gonna be a few
pictures that someone else isn't gonna like) but I don't think that WW
needs to do anything differently, just 'casue there are a few pieces I
don't like.
If you don't like the quicky photoshop stuff (which I'd never claim is
the best stuff in a set, as it isn't), that's fine. But again, it is a
very small portion of the set.
> -If it is clear that a piece is, or used to be, a picture of a real
> person, that ruins my enjoyment of this implementation of the "fantasy-
> world" that is the (o)WoD. I want the vampires, other unnatural
> beings, everything really, to look "unreal", if you get what I mean.
Well, that happens. What are you gonna do? Like, I see where you are
coming from, but this sort of thing doesn't bother me personally, and I
suspect that it doesn't bother as many folks as it does.
> -So, I agree with the OP: I want to see the "fictional beings called
> vampires", not real people acting like vampires.
Then you are in luck! The vast, vast, vast majority of the vampire cards
in the game are pictures of "fictional beings of vampires" and not
pictures of real people acting like vampires. There always are a few
pictures of real people acting like vampires, and have been since Jyhad.
But most of the portraits are, and always have been, just like you want.
> -Photochop limits an artist greatly. If you draw/paint something, you
> can go all-out making deformities, creepy faces, etc. (couldn't have
> done Duality with photochop, or Velya). Most photochop artists can't
> pull those things off, making their art very uninteresting and not
> "mood-fitting", darkness or not.
I dunno--I'm pretty certain that both, say, Raphael Cattarari and Old
Nedacka are primarily photoshop based work. And I think they are a great
example of going all out making deformities and creepy faces. And
personally, I love both those images.
> -My biggest complaint on Shy's work is the fact that he made all the
> vampire portraits the same way: dark background, dark clothes, grey
> blur over the face, and another all-blurry filter to top it off.
I thought folks were complaining that VTES didn't have enough dark
images?
:-)
In any case, a lot of people are critical of Shy. I thought Shy did very
nice, consistiently good work. Yeah, a few vampires were a tad too
similar looking, especially as I have the mind type where I primarily
remember what all the vampires do by their picture ("Which one is that?
Is she the one with the big hat? Oh, yeah, her..."), but overall, I
thought Shy was great. But mostly moot, as he doesn't seem to be doing
VTES anymore.
> ...But still, I'm talking 5 people who really care about the look of a
> game, almost just as much as the gameplay itself. Heck, I for one find
> it very relaxing to use my albums of CCG cards as picture books and
> just sit down to admire the art. I wonder if the people in Peter's
> playgroup even care about art.
They do. As do I. Like, not to say that I am the best artist in the
world or anything (and I'm certainly not much of an illustrator, mind
you--I made bronze and steel sculpture in grad school), but, like, I
went to art school for 6 years. And teach art for a living. I care about
art more than most folks. So it isn't like I'm voicing the opinion of a
country rube or something--I'm voicing the opinion of someone who uses
photoshop a lot and spent an awful lot of time studying aesthetics, art
history, and art implementation.
> If not, that might explain why he never
> heard any complaints on photochop himself (of course, it's perfectly
> all right if they don't care).
Nope. People like art. They just don't seem to be hyper-critical of a
few lag pieces here and there. However, most of the folks I play VTES
with aren't and haven't ever been VtM RPG players. So no one really has
any preconceived notions about what things are supposed to look like
(other than the general "Nosferatu are creepy monsters; Toreador are
beautiful arty types; etc.), which I suspect has a lot to do with
whether or not people get het up about the particulars of the art.
Peter D Bakija
Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Peter may appear to be the minority, but that may be because Peter
> is the only one willing to waste his time trying to debate this with
> you folks (the three or four of you posting on this).
Hey! It's summer! I'm on vacation!
Although that really doesn't seem to have much actual impact on
anything...
:-)
Teeka
> If you don't like the quicky photoshop stuff (which I'd never claim is
> the best stuff in a set, as it isn't), that's fine. But again, it is a
> very small portion of the set.
>
It is now, fortunately. But during BL / Cam Ed / BH, I thought there
was way too much. And it already is, for me, too big a portion of my
crypt card collection. I'd rather have no more at all.
> Well, that happens. What are you gonna do?
Say it here and hope perhaps LSJ or Oscar, or anyone, will take the
opion of this one player into account, if only a little. That's all I
can do. I'm not going to go over there with pitch forks and torches,
although that would be mood-fitting. :-)
Like, I see where you are
> coming from, but this sort of thing doesn't bother me personally, and I
> suspect that it doesn't bother as many folks as it does.
>
Perhaps. We'll never know for sure unless we hold a poll and a vast
majority of players responds.
> > -My biggest complaint on Shy's work is the fact that he made all the
> > vampire portraits the same way: dark background, dark clothes, grey
> > blur over the face, and another all-blurry filter to top it off.
>
> I thought folks were complaining that VTES didn't have enough dark
> images?
>
> :-)
Heh. could've know that was coming, having formulated myself this way.
Yeah, a few vampires were a tad too
> similar looking, especially as I have the mind type where I primarily
> remember what all the vampires do by their picture ("Which one is that?
> Is she the one with the big hat? Oh, yeah, her..."),
Exactly. That's not just you, that's the way the human mind works.
but overall, I
> thought Shy was great. But mostly moot, as he doesn't seem to be doing
> VTES anymore.
>
Really?
I wonder if the people in Peter's
> > playgroup even care about art.
>
> They do. As do I. Like, not to say that I am the best artist in the
> world or anything (and I'm certainly not much of an illustrator, mind
> you--I made bronze and steel sculpture in grad school), but, like, I
> went to art school for 6 years. And teach art for a living. I care about
> art more than most folks.
Wow. I did not know that.
So it isn't like I'm voicing the opinion of a
> country rube or something--I'm voicing the opinion of someone who uses
> photoshop a lot and spent an awful lot of time studying aesthetics, art
> history, and art implementation.
>
Allright. I'll re-read what you wrote with that in mind. I for one am
a musician, so I only speak from a totally subjective standpoint,
keeping in mind that I love art, have seen lots of art and have
discussed and contemplated art and aestetics for many years.
> Nope. People like art. They just don't seem to be hyper-critical of a
> few lag pieces here and there. However, most of the folks I play VTES
> with aren't and haven't ever been VtM RPG players.
Me neither. But I like to read about it on the net. Even though I only
know a small portion of the background stories, they do add to my
experience of the fantasy world that is VTES. I like explaining to
people what the Toy Chest Test really is, or how the Kyasid came to
be, or what an antediluvian is, etc.
LSJ
> -If it is clear that a piece is, or used to be, a picture of a real
> person, that ruins my enjoyment of this implementation of the "fantasy-
> world" that is the (o)WoD. I want the vampires, other unnatural
> beings, everything really, to look "unreal", if you get what I mean.
You understand that this game is based on Vampire: The Masquerade and that the
Masquerade bit is the tradition by which the vampires try to look real, not
unreal, right?
LSJ
Call me crazy, then.
I now try to tack on "at night, of course" to any description that involves a
scene set-up with vampires in action (rather than, say, and object set up, like
"a knife").
Robert Goudie
...and might I add that the sets that are less concerned with the
Masquerade (i.e. The Sabbat) generally feature much more dark and
violent art than the others.
-Robert
Jadasc
> You understand that this game is based on Vampire: The
> Masquerade and that the Masquerade bit is the tradition
> by which the vampires try to look real, not
> unreal, right?
I'll note here that the sects that abide by that Tradition are the
Camarilla and the Anarchs -- the Laibon don't feel any need to hide,
and the Sabbat exult in their monstrousness.
Jason
Peter D Bakija
Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is now, fortunately. But during BL / Cam Ed / BH, I thought there
> was way too much. And it already is, for me, too big a portion of my
> crypt card collection. I'd rather have no more at all.
Sure, but then the current trend is that there is even *less* photoshop
art than in the past, so I'd think everyone would be happy :-)
> Perhaps. We'll never know for sure unless we hold a poll and a vast
> majority of players responds.
Heh. Good luck with that. As we all know, the interweb and self
selecting polls add up to not real reliable, but ya know, I always like
people trying to get more information...
> Really?
I haven't seen any Shy work in the last few sets--did he do anything in
Legacies, Nights, 3rd, or SoC? I mean, like, he might have had one or
two slip in there somewhere, but I don't think he has done much VTES
work (if any) for a while.
> Wow. I did not know that.
Well, ya know, we all live mysterious lives behind the keyboard :-)
> Allright. I'll re-read what you wrote with that in mind. I for one am
> a musician, so I only speak from a totally subjective standpoint,
> keeping in mind that I love art, have seen lots of art and have
> discussed and contemplated art and aestetics for many years.
Like, I'm not here saying that anyone should like stuff they don't like.
It is inevitable that there is going to be work in any set of cards that
folks don't like. As noted, there is always something I don't like in a
given set, and tend to irrationally take it out on the cards--I've still
never used Ambush in a deck (and was on the forefront of the "Make the
NoR rules cards legal!" just so I could use the rules card Ambushes in
place of the illustrated Ambushes...); I avoided using the new art Flash
for years and years (and still only use the new card if I'm trying to
make an "all VTES back" deck for whatever reason). I almost never ever
use Regilio, Seeker of Akhnaten, even though I play the Nosferatu
constantly, and he is a good weenie (to the point that I have generally
used 4 cap Sammy for inferior obf instead of Regilio for the same thing.
Just 'cause I don't like his picture). But that doesn't mean that I
think that WW is doing a bad job overall with their art selection,
'cause I think that across the board, they do a pretty good job. Most of
the art is above average. Most of the art is thematically appropriate. A
few bad pieces (ya know, according to me) always fall into the mix, but
that is to be expected. It seems like folks in this discussion (not
neccessarily you, though) are picking out a few pieces they don't like
for whatever reason (Kestrelle Hayes, say), and using that as evidence
that the whole system is broken, which I don't think is actually the
case.
James Coupe
Jadasc <jad...@gmail.com> writes:
>I'll note here that the sects that abide by that Tradition are the
>Camarilla and the Anarchs -- the Laibon don't feel any need to hide,
>and the Sabbat exult in their monstrousness.
Some bits of the Sabbat are less stupid than other bits of the Sabbat.
It's not all monstrous revelry. If nothing else, some of them find it
necessary to interact with mortals in a non-scary ass shit way, and
others need to infiltrate other sects. And there are other reasons too.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Teeka
Ok. Language barrier problem here.
I meant that I want everything to look unreal as opposed to "a picture
of someone who actually exists". Like all humans from comic books look
unreal while still being, you know, human.
Teeka
> > Perhaps. We'll never know for sure unless we hold a poll and a vast
> > majority of players responds.
>
> Heh. Good luck with that. As we all know, the interweb and self
> selecting polls add up to not real reliable, but ya know, I always like
> people trying to get more information...
>
Ehm. I meant what I said sarcastically. As in, we really will never
know for sure. (Cool, two language barrier problems in one post, I
need to fresh up on my English.)
>(and was on the forefront of the "Make the
> NoR rules cards legal!" just so I could use the rules card Ambushes in
> place of the illustrated Ambushes...);
Kudos for being persistant in your beliefs! :-)
> 'cause I think that across the board, they do a pretty good job. Most of
> the art is above average. Most of the art is thematically appropriate.
For the record, I think the overall art is good in VTES. I just don't
like photochop, that's it. Ok, and the background coloring of
retainers. But that's it. Really.
> It seems like folks in this discussion (not
> neccessarily you, though)
Ok, thanks.
are picking out a few pieces they don't like
> for whatever reason (Kestrelle Hayes, say), and using that as evidence
> that the whole system is broken, which I don't think is actually the
> case.
Me neither. I, for one, think the Kestrelle art is totally excusable,
because of how it came to be. I don't like it, but I don't blame Katie
McGaskill at all for doing what she did to get out of a very sticky
situation. At least we HAVE the card, right? Some other art I find to
be really bad is not that excusable IMO, because the artist apparently
meant to make it the way it is.
You're right though, the bad art is, fortunately, just a small part of
the total package. Nevertheless, to return to the original issue, a
bit more overall "gloom and doom" would be nice.
librarian
> > I am aware, of course, that tastes may vary ; but only to some extent, and
> > when lots of players react the same way, either positively or negatively,
> > there is usually something there that has to be taken into account (as in
> > the last Heroclix expansion, where the figs are mostly of very bad quality
> > compared to other recent expansions).
>
> > So I'd like to ask to anyone currently in charge of the VTES illustrations
> > department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice for
> > VTES illustrators ? Is there more money to invest in Requiem than in VTES ?
> > If not : can we benefit from the same illustrators (or the same level of
> > illustrations) as Requiem, or other CCG card games in the same success level
> > / sales numbers as VTES ?
>
> To be perfectly honest you ask a number of questions I may not
> answer.
>
> I can tell you that there are a limited number of artists in the
> industry that we allow to do our stuff. A lot of times it comes down
> to price and schedule. For example: Kestrelle Hayes was originally
> supposed to be done by a different artist. That artist could not meet
> the deadline and Katie McCaskill was asked to make that card, same-
> day. Y'all may call her lazy and bad, but she whipped that card up in
> an hour and a half.
>
> Bottom line is that we are dedicated to making a quality product. I
> ask for a little bit of faith from you guys that we here at CCP|White
> Wolf make every effort to give you the best.
>
Haha, mystery solved!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e6605138d4034bef
best -
chris
Teeka
> Haha, mystery solved!
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e660...
>
Wow! I knew someone had already said that was what happened! If you
turn out to be right about the Halo2 thing too, you and me need to go
to the casino some day. And you would need to change you nick from
Librarian to Psychic.
Totally amazing. Unless, of course, YOU are the artist in question? ;-)
librarian
fact, I have learned to be careful letting my kids look at the cards -
they'll say "Dad, what's that?" and I'll say "Oh, it's Immortal
Grapple", and they'll say, "Is that blood? Is that his arm?".
"Ohhhh, yeah, can I have that card back now?"
(I'm on vacation, so don't have most of my cards to find an exact
example).
I will say that I find it ironic that people are praising Shy now,
there was a long thread several years ago right after Sabbat War came
out that panned him (especially Moncada - the thumb).
The only artists I like consistently and remember are Durwin Talon,
Rebecca Guay, and Anson Maddocks. There are very few art pieces I
don't like - the second Bewitching Oration looked kind of amateur.
And so many of you are decrying art saying "It sucks!". I think we
can agree that that is a bunch of opinion. I think that most L5R art
is pretty boring. I do like AGOT art, but not better than VTES.
And to top it all off, if the decision was to pay more for artists or
more for game development and promotion, I go with the latter over the
former.
Finally, I think more art with pornographic themes like Tumnimos and
True Love's Face - I see both are Rik Martin, so I say give him more
work. Glare of Lies is good too - more Brad Williams. At least those
cards I would be sure to keep out of the way of the embraces...
best -
chris
Orpheus
>> happens. It would be crazy to tack "at night" on every art note we
>> give for vampires.
>
> Call me crazy, then.
>
> I now try to tack on "at night, of course" to any description that
> involves a scene set-up with vampires in action (rather than, say, and
> object set up, like "a knife").
Better safe than sorry...
That's the LSJ we've come to know !! ;-)
Orpheus
Peter D Bakija
Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ehm. I meant what I said sarcastically. As in, we really will never
> know for sure. (Cool, two language barrier problems in one post, I
> need to fresh up on my English.)
No, no, I got the sarcasm. I was just, ya know, responding in a combo of
return sarcasm and clarity for the sake of the internet world :-)
> Kudos for being persistant in your beliefs! :-)
Hey man, I'm nothing if not filled with steely tenacity.
> For the record, I think the overall art is good in VTES. I just don't
> like photochop, that's it. Ok, and the background coloring of
> retainers. But that's it. Really.
Fair enough.
> You're right though, the bad art is, fortunately, just a small part of
> the total package. Nevertheless, to return to the original issue, a
> bit more overall "gloom and doom" would be nice.
You really think there isn't enough doom and gloom? Like, I've never
noticed a lack of doom and/or gloom, myself. But maybe I'm not looking
hard enough.
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> Well, you do keep saying "they spent 5 minutes on it! It sucks! That is
> deplorably lazy!" Which may just be a blurring of lines.
Well, that's just the limits of the interent and my ability to express
myself. :) I guess a better way to put it would be "It sucks. And they
spent five minutes on it. Which makes it suck worse."
> But they don't look like shit.
Well here's the opinion thing again. I think they look like shit. It's
cool if you don't. We just have to agree to disagree. To me,
forgettable art is bad art. That might come from having to
successfully communicate in visual mediums to pay my mortgage. If
people forget what I've tried to tell them, then I suck at my job. I
apply the same criteria to other visual communicators, I guess.
> (and mind you, I regularly
> irrationally don't play cards due to my feelings on the art--I'm *still*
> yet to put an Ambush in a deck, and I do my very best to never use non
> Jyhad Flash) due to her portrait. But I'm not building a Zubeida deck
> just 'cause I don't like the card art.
I don't think that's irrational at all. :) The aesthetics of the game
are very important imo.
> Yeah, the photoshop filter art is, well, photoshop filter art. And
> everyone knows that. And no one is impressed by it, I'm sure. But at
> worst, these pictures are simply forgettable, in a visual sense. I don't
> doubt that folks are offended on a base level that that sort of thing is
> being used in the game (rarely, mind you. And in the Kestrele Hays
> instance, there is a specific reason for it), but it is hardly
> destroying the game.
Well, I've never claimed it's destroying the game. But the game is not
perfect, there is always room for improvement, and I think this kind
of 5 minute turbo photoshop art is one of the areas in which they can
improve.
> No need. I'm not really interested. See, if I wanted to worry about the
> RPG aspects of the game, I'd play the RPG. But I don't, as, well, I
> don't really like RPGs. Which doesn't mean that the RPG background is
> bad, but I don't feel the need to have the two games stapled together.
I don't really understand this point of view. The game is called
VAMPIRE the Eternal Struggle. It's a game about vampires, based
entirely upon the WoD paradigm. The two are intrinsically linked - you
cannot separate them in my mind, since the one is based on the other.
If the card game were to be viewed as an entity unto itself, we might
as well be playing with simple bits of cardboard with numbers and
alpha-numeric code and different colours as designators. We're not -
we're playing a game about vampires. I don't think it's an
unreasonable expectation for the vampires we play with to LOOK LIKE
vampires, and for those vampires to adhere to the paradigm upon which
they are based.
This game would not exist without the RPG. I would wager many of it's
players [myself included, because yes, I played the RPG 13 years
ago :) ] were first drawn to try out the CCG because they liked the
RPG. Adherence to the RPG is what gives our game it's flavour, and the
flavour of this game is one of it's most attractive elements for a lot
of people.
> Well, no. You are correct. That particular piece (Kestrelle Hayes)
> probably did not take that long to do. But still, I'm not really
> concerned--it was the result of needing a portrait at the last second
> when someone else failed to show up, and as a last second entry? I'd
> rather see that than something that could be much, much worse.
If kestrelle were a one off deviation, then yeah, I could buy that.
But the fact that she's just one in a series of shitty 5 minute trubo
photochops leads me to worry about the trend, and thus join the OP in
asking for intervention.
Peter D Bakija
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> Well here's the opinion thing again. I think they look like shit. It's
> cool if you don't. We just have to agree to disagree. To me,
> forgettable art is bad art. That might come from having to
> successfully communicate in visual mediums to pay my mortgage. If
> people forget what I've tried to tell them, then I suck at my job. I
> apply the same criteria to other visual communicators, I guess.
I'd never claim that, like, Kestrelle Hayes, or whatever, is the best
illustration ever. As she isn't. But compared to some other portraits
done in a totally traditonal way (say, Regilio, the Seeker of Akhnaten,
who has one of my least favorite illustrations in the game, but I don't
think that because Regilio has a portrait that I hate that the designers
did something wrong by printing him...), I'd much rather see her
mediocre photoshop portrait than a crappy painted piece. Every set has
pictures that someone isn't going to like. Clearly, you don't like the
photoshop stuff. That doesn't mean that the system is flawed.
> Well, I've never claimed it's destroying the game. But the game is not
> perfect, there is always room for improvement, and I think this kind
> of 5 minute turbo photoshop art is one of the areas in which they can
> improve.
Sure. But they can also improve by not having crappy, non 5 minute, non
photoshop art. Yet they have that too. But overall, neither types
dominate.
> I don't really understand this point of view.
Welcome to a world of mystery.
> The game is called VAMPIRE the Eternal Struggle.
Yes it is.
> It's a game about vampires, based entirely upon the WoD paradigm.
Which I know not that much about, and am very happy that I don't *need*
to know much about it to play VTES. I picked up an old copy of the
original VTM rulebook at a used bookstore once. And was happy with that
as background.
> The two are intrinsically linked - you cannot separate them in my mind, since the one is based on the other.
That is your mind. They are different games with similar source
material. I don't expect the RPG to adhere to the CCG either ("Hey! You
can't do that! Your protean isn't high enough, and you need superior to
use that ability in VTES!")
> If the card game were to be viewed as an entity unto itself, we might
> as well be playing with simple bits of cardboard with numbers and
> alpha-numeric code and different colours as designators.
I'd be ok with that. I have said many times before, that if VTES was the
same game, but used, like, muppets or space monsters or something, it
would be just as good of a game. I mean, like, I certainly appreciate
the background material of the game, as I like monsters and gothic
horror and whatever, but what makes VTES a good game, more than anything
else, is that it is a good game, not the background material. I started
playing VTES with zero knowledge of the WoD, have been playing it for 13
years now with a pretty limited knowledge of the WoD, and I'm totally ok
with that.
> we're playing a game about vampires. I don't think it's an
> unreasonable expectation for the vampires we play with to LOOK LIKE
> vampires, and for those vampires to adhere to the paradigm upon which
> they are based.
They are doing a good enough job for my money. Most Nosferatu look like
creepy monster types; most Torreador look like pretty arty types. That's
really all I need.
> This game would not exist without the RPG. I would wager many of it's
> players [myself included, because yes, I played the RPG 13 years
> ago :) ] were first drawn to try out the CCG because they liked the
> RPG.
And surprisingly, likely just as many were drawn in without any, or very
minimal, experience with the RPG. And they all play the game.
> If kestrelle were a one off deviation, then yeah, I could buy that.
> But the fact that she's just one in a series of shitty 5 minute trubo
> photochops leads me to worry about the trend, and thus join the OP in
> asking for intervention.
I don't think the intervention is necessary. There is already less
photoshop art in the most recent set than in previous sets.
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> I'd never claim that, like, Kestrelle Hayes, or whatever, is the best
> illustration ever. As she isn't. But compared to some other portraits
> done in a totally traditonal way (say, Regilio, the Seeker of Akhnaten,
> who has one of my least favorite illustrations in the game, but I don't
> think that because Regilio has a portrait that I hate that the designers
> did something wrong by printing him...), I'd much rather see her
> mediocre photoshop portrait than a crappy painted piece. Every set has
> pictures that someone isn't going to like. Clearly, you don't like the
> photoshop stuff. That doesn't mean that the system is flawed.
Again, this is pure opinion. I don't think this piece is mediocre. I
think it's utter gobshite. In my headspace, knowing what I know about
the digital medium, when I look at kestrelle, I see a stick figure. I
see a bad digital shot with a watercolour filter chucked on top and an
artist who really didn't give a toss. That's just me. You're just you.
It's ok?
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of vamp illos done in more
tradtional media that I don't like either. I probably feel stronger
about the photchop from the kestrelle/marielle school simply because
they're not only bad, but they smack of zero effort, whereas at least
I can look at Regilio and think "Yeah, that's pretty awful, but at
least the dude tried".
Kestrelle's artist didn't try very hard, if at all. You and I both
know that. If that doesn't bother you, splendid.
> Sure. But they can also improve by not having crappy, non 5 minute, non
> photoshop art. Yet they have that too. But overall, neither types
> dominate.
Absolutely.
> That is your mind. They are different games with similar source
> material. I don't expect the RPG to adhere to the CCG either ("Hey! You
> can't do that! Your protean isn't high enough, and you need superior to
> use that ability in VTES!")
Pete, they don't have similar source material. The RPG **IS** the
source material. It is the one, the only foundation upon which the
card game is built. V:TES's every concept comes from the RPG. The
concepts of Clan, Sect, Disciplines, Methuselahs, the very Jyhad [red
flag! red flag!] itself, it's all from the RPG. You simply cannot
divorce the card game from it's progenitor. Our minions are vampires,
and call us kooky, call us whacky, but most of us think it wouldn't be
insane to suggest that they actually look like they're supposed to.
> I'd be ok with that.
Well, I most certainly would not. Pokemon might be the greatest game
to ever grace the earth, but I'm never going to find out, simply
because it's Pokemon. And I'm not alone in that mentality.
>I have said many times before, that if VTES was the
> same game, but used, like, muppets or space monsters or something, it
> would be just as good of a game. I mean, like, I certainly appreciate
> the background material of the game, as I like monsters and gothic
> horror and whatever, but what makes VTES a good game, more than anything
> else, is that it is a good game, not the background material. I started
> playing VTES with zero knowledge of the WoD, have been playing it for 13
> years now with a pretty limited knowledge of the WoD, and I'm totally ok
> with that.
Yeah, that's all cool. But given you don't care whether you're playing
Space Monster: The Chest Burstening or V:TES, it doesn't really matter
to you if the designers actually listen to the people like me who do
care and make our vamps look like vamps, does it? So they may as well
listen to people like me, because you'll be happy either way.
> They are doing a good enough job for my money. Most Nosferatu look like
> creepy monster types; most Torreador look like pretty arty types. That's
> really all I need.
Again, this is cool. I would like more. Folks are different, that's
life, and if folks like me get our way on this issue, it doesn't
effect you either way as evidenced above. :)
> And surprisingly, likely just as many were drawn in without any, or very
> minimal, experience with the RPG. And they all play the game.
Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that many of the game's players
were attracted to it by the game upon which it's based, and that it's
not an unreasonable expectation for those players to want the card
game to adhere to that paradigm, does it? It may not bother you if the
next lot of vampires are printed as pink fluffy squirrels, that's
cool. But surely you acknowledge it would bother a lot of us?
> I don't think the intervention is necessary. There is already less
> photoshop art in the most recent set than in previous sets.
Again, not asking for less photoshop. I'm asking for less photshit.
Shade
> If you've read this thread, you've found out that the minority here is...
> you ! Please do not discard our opinions as unworthy of interest simply
> because you don't share them !
Well no... he's not doing that. This is one of those issues where if
the art offends / disappoints you you're going to say something as you
and a few others are. If you generally think things are OK, or just
don't really care about the art, you're hardly going to take the time
to post a response. Unless you're Peter and (apparently) have *way*
too much time on your hands ;-) Which is probably why he is the only
one responding to you.
Oscar has replied to a particular card with, in my opinion, a
perfectly reasonable explanation. I'm sure that other artists have
had to rush things through for one reason or another and produce cards
that aren't their best work, but you know we all do that at work every
now and again so people in glass houses and all that. A few cards
will look a bit dodgy to some people - maybe even to most people - but
that doesn't make the overall artwork bad in any way shape or form.
Cheers
Simon
Orpheus
*Try* is the key word here. When you see, for example, a Vampire movie, the
vamp tries to pass for human, but there is always something eerie about him.
That's what makes him interesting to the spectators.
Also, we see pictures of vampires, not necessarily in the times when they
try to hide their inherent nature.
Now, there are many ways to render a picture darkly, and many artists have
succeeded in that feat over the years in VTES without "overdoing" it. But
when a picture just feels like (or is) you took someone's picture (Oscar's,
Emiliano etc.) and put a filter on it, it reminds us that they're "just
people", and that's not good.
BTW, is Kestrelle's "model" (and artist, then) the same as Mariel St John ?
Because they look very much alike, one just ate more sweets recently...
Orpheus
Teeka
> Well, I most certainly would not. Pokemon might be the greatest game
> to ever grace the earth, but I'm never going to find out, simply
> because it's Pokemon. And I'm not alone in that mentality.
>
Too bad. I play Pokemon, and it's a fun and interesting game, with
much more depth and strategic possibilties than the cartoon license
would suggest.
It's like two-player, combat-only VTES, with the possibility of
advancing minions and switching combatants. Really, almost every part
of that game has an equivalent in VTES. You should try it once, if you
can get yourself over the fluffiness which I, in a weird way, seem to
like (I mean, yes they're cute and pink and yellow, but they ARE all
about kicking each other's ass). Use the old sets though, the ones
before the whole gameboy-compatible crap.
...
Erhm..
Back to VTES.
> >I have said many times before, that if VTES was the
> > same game, but used, like, muppets or space monsters or something, it
> > would be just as good of a game. I mean, like, I certainly appreciate
> > the background material of the game, as I like monsters and gothic
> > horror and whatever, but what makes VTES a good game, more than anything
> > else, is that it is a good game, not the background material. I started
> > playing VTES with zero knowledge of the WoD, have been playing it for 13
> > years now with a pretty limited knowledge of the WoD, and I'm totally ok
> > with that.
>
I think it wouldn't be as good. The gameplay would, of course, be the
same. But to me the total enjoyment is more than just gameplay, it's
also other things, including the way things look. Like I said in a
previous post, the change of layout was one of the major reasons for
me to stop buying Magic. I still like and play Magic though, but only
with the "old" cards which I like looking at.
> Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that many of the game's players
> were attracted to it by the game upon which it's based, and that it's
> not an unreasonable expectation for those players to want the card
> game to adhere to that paradigm, does it?
I wasn't attracted to the RPG at all, but by the fantasy world that is
the oWoD, which the RPG stories inhabit. But I think that's what you
mean to say.
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote:
> BTW, is Kestrelle's "model" (and artist, then) the same as Mariel St John ?
> Because they look very much alike, one just ate more sweets recently...
A) Unlikely.
B) Now that's just a mean and dicky thing to say.
Peter D Bakija
Shade <sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless you're Peter and (apparently) have *way* too much time on your hands ;-)
> Which is probably why he is the only one responding to you.
I'm like a high school teacher in summer--no class!
Jozxyqk
> BTW, is Kestrelle's "model" (and artist, then) the same as Mariel St John ?
Kestrelle is a self-portrait of Katie McCaskill.
Rumor has it that Lorrie Dunsirn is also based on a self-portrait.
But Lorrie Dunsirn's artwork is not nearly as ugly as Paulo de Castille.
Peter D Bakija
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> Again, this is pure opinion. I don't think this piece is mediocre. I
> think it's utter gobshite.
Yeah, see, I just think you are thinking too hard. Yeah, ok, it is in
fact, a portrait with a filter or two thrown on top of it (and to be
fair, probably color adjustment and other tweaks here and there--I don't
know if the tatoos are real, say). Which isn't real complicated. And
when my student's photographs, which are done the totally hard way with
film and chemicals and filters they hold by hand are rejected from shows
and replaced by some crappy photoshopped picture (where, ironically, I
say the exact same thing--"Man! They just, like, took a digital photo,
threw it through a filter, and passed it off as good art! What the
hell?"), I'm irritated too. But the reality of the situation is that,
yeah, ok, trumped by a computer, but it happens, and the end result is
not actually that bad looking.
> In my headspace, knowing what I know about
> the digital medium, when I look at kestrelle, I see a stick figure. I
> see a bad digital shot with a watercolour filter chucked on top and an
> artist who really didn't give a toss. That's just me. You're just you.
> It's ok?
Sure. But that is you reacting to not the image itself, but what is
behind the image. In terms of the actual image? It is a portrait. The
color is nice. The filter choice is appropriate. Her expression is a
good one. Not a bad picture. I mean, like, kind of forgettable, compared
to, like, Calebros the Martyr or Carna, but at worst, all I can view it
as is forgettable and average.
I know you don't like it, think it is horrible, and I don't expect you
to change that opinion. But it *really* seems like what you dislike
about it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the actual image in
and of itself.
> Kestrelle's artist didn't try very hard, if at all. You and I both
> know that. If that doesn't bother you, splendid.
You do know why the Kestrelle illustration is what is is, right? Oscar
posted it in this very discussion (the original artist crapped out, and
they were like "Katie! We need a portrait for a vampire in 5 minutes!
Otherwise, the set gets delayed!")
> Pete, they don't have similar source material. The RPG **IS** the
> source material.
Which is mostly irrelevant. I play the CCG. I don't play the RPG. I am
very happy that I need zero knowledge of the RPG to play the CCG. They
are different games.
> It is the one, the only foundation upon which the
> card game is built. V:TES's every concept comes from the RPG.
And yet the game works just fine without any knowledge of the RPG at
all. Which is for the best.
> The
> concepts of Clan, Sect, Disciplines, Methuselahs, the very Jyhad [red
> flag! red flag!] itself, it's all from the RPG. You simply cannot
> divorce the card game from it's progenitor.
And yet I have. And I'm a pretty good VTES player. And don't feel I'm
missing anything by not knowing who Lucita's sire was.
> Our minions are vampires,
> and call us kooky, call us whacky, but most of us think it wouldn't be
> insane to suggest that they actually look like they're supposed to.
There is a difference between "trying reflect the source material"
(which is what VTES does a very good job with) and "slavishly adhering
to the source material" (which VTES is very good at avoiding on all
levels--in VtM, can a really young vampire [i.e. 3 cap] perform Body of
Sun? From what I understand, no. And yet Hungry Chandloford certainly
can. Which is fine.)
> Well, I most certainly would not. Pokemon might be the greatest game
> to ever grace the earth, but I'm never going to find out, simply
> because it's Pokemon. And I'm not alone in that mentality.
See--there you are just shooting yourself in the foot. Pokey-man is
actually a very entertaining game. Like, I hardly play a lot, but it is
a well designed fun game. And you get to say "My Mankey slaps your
Wheedle!"
> Yeah, that's all cool. But given you don't care whether you're playing
> Space Monster: The Chest Burstening or V:TES, it doesn't really matter
> to you if the designers actually listen to the people like me who do
> care and make our vamps look like vamps, does it? So they may as well
> listen to people like me, because you'll be happy either way.
But, see, indicting the company for minor flaws isn't asking to make
stuff closer to the background material--if this whole discussion had
been framed as "Hey, White Wolf? 'Could you get the artists to stick to
the background material a bit better?" rather than "The art sucks!
Photoshop sucks! We are losing players to the crappy art!", I probably
would have never got involved :-)
OrgPlay
This thread has lost all credibility.
oscar
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> But the reality of the situation is that,
> yeah, ok, trumped by a computer, but it happens, and the end result is
> not actually that bad looking.
I have no problems whatsoever with a traditional piece of photographic
art being trumped by a digital piece. May the best piece win,
regardless of the technique. Regardless of technique, this illo is
shit imo. The technique [or lackthereof] simply compounds it's
shittiness in my eyes.
> Sure. But that is you reacting to not the image itself, but what is
> behind the image. In terms of the actual image?
It's both. Even divorcing the image from it's technique, it's still
boring, uninspired shite with no relevance to the vampire genre
whatsoever. It fails on every level that a portrait should succeed
on.
Does it look nice? No.
Is it well made? No.
Does it represent it's subject accurately? Given what i know of the
WoD paradigm, no.
Bzzzzt. What do we have for the losers, Bill?
> You do know why the Kestrelle illustration is what is is, right? Oscar
> posted it in this very discussion (the original artist crapped out, and
> they were like "Katie! We need a portrait for a vampire in 5 minutes!
> Otherwise, the set gets delayed!")
That does nothing to change the fact that it's crap. "Omg, the artist
had to do it in five minutes, give her a break!". No. Sorry, but I
won't. Besides which kestrelle isn't the first photoshite portrait
we've seen recently. Did Mariel St john [i think that's her name] have
to get done in 5 minutes too? Because she's cut from exactly the same
cloth.
> Which is mostly irrelevant. I play the CCG. I don't play the RPG. I am
> very happy that I need zero knowledge of the RPG to play the CCG. They
> are different games.
It's absolutely relevant. Whether or not you care about the RPG or
not, the card game is still 100% based on it. It's still called
"VAMPIRE: the eternal struggle". Our minions are vampires, the game is
set in a world of "gothic-punk horror" and it's the duty of the
design team to adhere to that setting. The game still works fine
without that adherence, yes, the rules still work yes. But there is
more to a card game than rules and system. There are aesthetics and
mood, which is just as important imo. If you dont' feel that way,
fine. But for you to not acknowledge that the aesthetics, mood and
parallels to the RPG ARE an important part of the game to many people
is just pigheadedness.
So again, if it makes not one iota of difference to you whether our
minions actually look like vampires, and it DOES matter to some of us,
why are you arguing this? I understand you don't care about the
paradigm. I do. Others do. It makes no diff to you either way. So why
argue?
> And yet I have. And I'm a pretty good VTES player. And don't feel I'm
> missing anything by not knowing who Lucita's sire was.
The very fact that you're using terms like "sire" show you haven't
divorced the game from the genre. You may not be interested in certain
elements of the backstory, but you're still thinking of your minions
in vampiric terms. They have "sires", they drink "blood" etc. They are
not just pieces of cardboard with numbers on them.
> There is a difference between "trying reflect the source material"
> (which is what VTES does a very good job with) and "slavishly adhering
> to the source material" (which VTES is very good at avoiding on all
> levels--in VtM, can a really young vampire [i.e. 3 cap] perform Body of
> Sun? From what I understand, no. And yet Hungry Chandloford certainly
> can. Which is fine.)
I'm not asking them to "slavishly adhere" to source. I'm asking for my
vampires to look like vampires. This is not the absurd, outlandish
request you seem to be trying to imply it is.
> See--there you are just shooting yourself in the foot. Pokey-man is
> actually a very entertaining game. Like, I hardly play a lot, but it is
> a well designed fun game. And you get to say "My Mankey slaps your
> Wheedle!"
Each to their own.
> But, see, indicting the company for minor flaws isn't asking to make
> stuff closer to the background material--if this whole discussion had
> been framed as "Hey, White Wolf? 'Could you get the artists to stick to
> the background material a bit better?" rather than "The art sucks!
> Photoshop sucks! We are losing players to the crappy art!", I probably
> would have never got involved :-)
Well, i've not suggested we're losing players to bad art, nor that
photoshop sucks. I've suggested that 5 minute photshite illos of the
kestrelle hayes/mariel st john variety suck, and that I'd like my
vampires to look like vampires. That's all.
Alias
> In article <1184115718.807496.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Prepare to enter: The SCARY DOOR!
sorry, I had to.
> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
James Coupe
nood...@iprimus.com.au writes:
>Does it represent it's subject accurately? Given what i know of the
>WoD paradigm, no.
Given vampires can and do look exactly like humans on many occasions,
this is a very strange claim.
Vampires can look like pretty much anything they want, between not
having changed much, having a few merits / flaws that do neat things,
Obfuscate, flesh-crafting, assorted rituals, makeup, pre-existing
weirdnesses etc.
There's no reason that most vampires can't look like pretty much
anything they want, with the exception of those who are specifically
cursed (like Nosferatu and Samedi have issues here).
Peter D Bakija
(heh. I had a longer and more sensical response to this, but I
apparently accidentally deleted it with a newsreader critical fumble,
so I'll just cut to the chase)
> Well, i've not suggested we're losing players to bad art, nor that
> photoshop sucks. I've suggested that 5 minute photshite illos of the
> kestrelle hayes/mariel st john variety suck, and that I'd like my
> vampires to look like vampires. That's all.
That is true. But the original premise of this argument was "VTES has
bad art which is chasing away players". Which is the only reason I got
involved in the first place, and then it spirailed out from there.
Yes. You are correct. All you have said is that you don't like crappy
photoshop art (not unreasonable) and that you want your vampires to
look like vampires (which I'd argue, ya know, they do, as vampires
often look just like regular people, but that is not an unreasonable
statement either).
Strike: We Move On!
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> noodle...@iprimus.com.au writes:
> >Does it represent it's subject accurately? Given what i know of the
> >WoD paradigm, no.
>
> Given vampires can and do look exactly like humans on many occasions,
> this is a very strange claim.
Any vampires who's been in the Sabbat for an extended period of time
[as we can assume with kestrelle, given her multiple superior
disciplines and capacity] with have either:
a] A very low Humanity score
b] Be on a Path of Enlightenment
Either way, they look corpse-like. A vampire with a Humanity score
hovering around 3 or below literally looks like walking corpse -
sunken eyes, dessicated skin starting to stretch over bone, etc.
Vampires on paths of enlightenment look altogether inhuman - simply
because they are. A touch of rouge isn't going to cover that up.
Kestrelle has no obf, so she can't mask herself. I suppose it's
possible she got a tzimisce buddy to fleshcraft her, but that's so
thin it's anorexic...
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> (heh. I had a longer and more sensical response to this, but I
> apparently accidentally deleted it with a newsreader critical fumble,
> so I'll just cut to the chase)
Is this a D&D reference? You ARE a roleplayer! :)
> That is true. But the original premise of this argument was "VTES has
> bad art which is chasing away players". Which is the only reason I got
> involved in the first place, and then it spirailed out from there.
Yeah i've not said it chases away players. At worst, all I've seen it
do is limit deck construction, ala, your refusal to play ambushes
because you think the art sucks. Kestrelle isn't in my !Ven deck for
exactly the same reasons.
> Yes. You are correct. All you have said is that you don't like crappy
> photoshop art (not unreasonable) and that you want your vampires to
> look like vampires (which I'd argue, ya know, they do, as vampires
> often look just like regular people, but that is not an unreasonable
> statement either).
>
> Strike: We Move On!
Fair enough.
Peter D Bakija
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> Is this a D&D reference? You ARE a roleplayer! :)
Pah. Every game has critical fumbles. And, like, I *was* a high school
kid once. Of course I have played D+D :-)
> Yeah i've not said it chases away players. At worst, all I've seen it
> do is limit deck construction, ala, your refusal to play ambushes
> because you think the art sucks. Kestrelle isn't in my !Ven deck for
> exactly the same reasons.
Reasonable :-)
> Fair enough.
And so once again, we prove that the interweb *can* be a place of sane
discourse :-)
Teeka
> In article <1184288047.516000.19...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> > Is this a D&D reference? You ARE a roleplayer! :)
>
> Pah. Every game has critical fumbles.
Board game tip of the week: Blood Bowl. Make a fumble, drop the ball,
and break your own neck! Great!
gpett...@gmail.com
> On Jul 10, 10:47 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > You understand that this game is based on Vampire: The Masquerade and that the
> > Masquerade bit is the tradition by which the vampires try to look real, not
> > unreal, right?
>
> Masquerade (i.e. The Sabbat) generally feature much moredarkand
> violent art than the others.
>
> -Robert
I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on this. I like my
Camarilla expansions to have Class, and my Sabbat expansions to have
Blood, and my Independent expansions to feel Exotic (which is why I'm
going to start another flamewar and say I liked the manga-style art
from Bloodlines). And while the game suffers from no dearth of
darkness, I'd love to see more.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
PS - It's probably not feasible, but I'd love to see reprints with
some of the Jyhad art instead of the Sabbat art. When I'm playing a
Camarilla Vote Deck, it feels weird to use the Sabbat-inspired art.
Robert Goudie
wrote:
> I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on this. I like my
> Camarilla expansions to have Class, and my Sabbat expansions to have
> Blood, and my Independent expansions to feel Exotic (which is why I'm
> going to start another flamewar and say I liked the manga-style art
> from Bloodlines). And while the game suffers from no dearth of
> darkness, I'd love to see more.
Yeah, I'm with ya. Really, the dark, twisted art is my favorite for
the game. Actually, the first expensive piece of art I purchased was
Decapitate (which is fantastic by the way and it will be on display at
the NAC this year).
Other great ones: Vascular Explosion, Sacrament of Carnage, Tortured
Confession, etc.
-Robert
reyda
It's not because some contributors start doing bad jokes that a thread
is dead.
There's a real, tangible problem with art on the crypt cards.
atomweaver
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>
> Pete, they don't have similar source material. The RPG **IS** the
> source material. It is the one, the only foundation upon which the
> card game is built. V:TES's every concept comes from the RPG. The
> concepts of Clan, Sect, Disciplines, Methuselahs, the very Jyhad [red
> flag! red flag!] itself, it's all from the RPG. You simply cannot
> divorce the card game from it's progenitor. Our minions are vampires,
> and call us kooky, call us whacky, but most of us think it wouldn't be
> insane to suggest that they actually look like they're supposed to.
>
Try a Google Groups search of the jyhad newsgroups for "Dog Poo, The
Eternal Struggle" sometime. RPG lock-step fandom is not congruous with
most of the VTES player base (that is represented in the online community,
anyways).
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
P.S. Majesty is uasble by a 2 cap with basic presence. :P
Peter D Bakija
reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's not because some contributors start doing bad jokes that a thread
> is dead.
> There's a real, tangible problem with art on the crypt cards.
Sigh. No, no there isn't. The Crypt cards are still totally acceptable
and in all ways, above average. Yeah, a few cruddy ones here and there
(which is nothing new--there are always a few outliers in every set),
but overall, totally solid portrait art. Looking at the most recent set,
for my money:
-Gatjil Munyarryun: Very nice. A.
-Fairuza: Dark, thematic, well done. A.
-Shaggydog: Don't like so much. Not horrible. B-.
-Rashid Stockton: Dark, thematic, well done. A.
-Saul Miera: The lame kinda photoshop work. C.
-Appius Claudius Corvus: Totally solid, if not spectacular. B+.
-Ondine Sinclair: Totally solid. B+.
-Arianne The conqueror: Totally solid. B+.
-Lubomira Hradock: Fantastic. A.
-Nails: Best in the set. A+.
-Marge Khan: Very nice. Thematically appropriate. A.
-Hagar Stone: Unspectacular. Kinda boring. C.
-Kestrelle Hayes: Unspectacular. But the color is nice. C+.
-Elimelech: Awsome. A.
-Ash Harrison: Totally reasonable. B+.
-Carmen: Lovable, but slightly sketchy. B.
-Stephen Bateson: Not bad. Uninspiring. B-.
-Dr. Morrow: Very nice. A.
-Nizzam al-Latif: Totally solid. But looks like a TV reporter. B.
-Zubeida. I hate this one. But even then, I've seen worse. C-.
Yeah, of course, these are my opinions, and not everyone is going to
agree even remotely. But I *really* am having trouble seeing where the
"real tangible problem with art on the crypt cards" is coming from. We
have 2, arguably lazy, unspectacular photoshop pieces; 2 wildly
uninspiring traditional paintings. And then 16 pieces that are all
totally reasonable, thematically appropriate, and generally above
average.
James Coupe
nood...@iprimus.com.au writes:
>> noodle...@iprimus.com.au writes:
>> >Does it represent it's subject accurately? Given what i know of the
>> >WoD paradigm, no.
>>
>> Given vampires can and do look exactly like humans on many occasions,
>> this is a very strange claim.
>
>Any vampires who's been in the Sabbat for an extended period of time
>[as we can assume with kestrelle, given her multiple superior
>disciplines and capacity] with have either:
That's a very specific assumption. A superior discipline in V:TES only
equates to somewhere around level 4-6, usually, and there quite a few
cases where relatively newly Embraced vampires have decent disciplines,
because they were Embraced by someone of a high level or important.
>a] A very low Humanity score
>b] Be on a Path of Enlightenment
Generally true, though not necessarily entirely true. Not *everyone* in
the Sabbat is in the "raving stupid, let's go burn people for kicks"
camp.
>Either way, they look corpse-like. A vampire with a Humanity score
>hovering around 3 or below literally looks like walking corpse -
Not a requirement. There are all sorts of ways, with examples in canon,
of vampires who don't look like sunken-eyed walking corpses who have
relatively low Humanity scores - or who are on a Path of Enlightenment.
This is the "default" for characters, and a good way of encouraging PCs
to stay with moderately high Humanity scores (thus helping the
Storyteller work a plausible narrative because the players will probably
pick one or two of the non-violent plothooks), but there are a large
number of ways around this problem where necessary.
That, and vast numbers of Sabbat vampire cards look nothing like walking
corpses - picking on Kestrelle Hayes for that rather than, well, lots
and lots of other cards is a bit odd.
reyda
ok, i read the stuff and i just realize that your expectation level is
quite lower than mine. It's like, we both sit at a restaurant and they
toss uncooked meat directly on the table. While i'm whining because
there is no forks, nor fancy plates to eat the raw steak, you are the
one eating with a smile saying "at least there's plenty of protein".
I'm sorry, i am so demanding ! ;)
librarian
> Hello all,
>
> I'm not here to complaint directly but I want to transmit a concern that
> some players have emitted on other forums.
>
> It seems that several players think that the illustrations of the cards
> (mainly the crypt cards) are going down. This critic concerns mainly
> expansions since LoB, including the new previews of LotN.
>
> Those players point out not only that some illustrations are very poor in
> quality, but also that the overall style is less dark and moody than it used
> to be (with notable exceptions, sometimes more in library cards than crypt
> cards), and the dark mood is what makes Vampire... Vampire !
>
> On the other hand, the same players underline that the illustrations for
> Requiem are quite beautiful, and cling exactly to the required mood.
>
> Others, on this here forum, have posted links to other artists, who are far
> from mainstream yet, but whose art is superior to many current VTES
> illustrators, and more appropriate.
>
> I am aware, of course, that tastes may vary ; but only to some extent, and
> when lots of players react the same way, either positively or negatively,
> there is usually something there that has to be taken into account (as in
> the last Heroclix expansion, where the figs are mostly of very bad quality
> compared to other recent expansions).
>
> So I'd like to ask to anyone currently in charge of the VTES illustrations
> department, or a WW representative : what are the criteria of choice for
> VTES illustrators ? Is there more money to invest in Requiem than in VTES ?
> If not : can we benefit from the same illustrators (or the same level of
> illustrations) as Requiem, or other CCG card games in the same success level
> / sales numbers as VTES ?
Would you pay $3.29, or $3.49, or $3.69, or $3.99 (all in US$, convert
to Euros or Sterling or what have you) for your packs? To have better art?
Magic packs are suggested retail of $3.99. And boxes sell on the
Internet for $85 or so. VTES is still SRP of $2.99, boxes selling
post-release for $65 or so. Cheap!
VTES is an amazing game with decent art for the price. The amount of
cards per pack probably won't change, nor the printing quality. Let's
hope the designer doesn't change. So to get "better" art, WW would have
to pay more. The money doesn't come from trees, it comes from us, the
buyers, in the form of higher prices.
Sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it too, even in France.
(Pardonnez moi, Mlle Antoinette...)
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Peter D Bakija
reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ok, i read the stuff and i just realize that your expectation level is
> quite lower than mine.
I don't think it is a matter of "expectation". It is just a matter of
taste. Which you are never going to win an argument on. Like, I'm a
pretty well educated guy, in terms of art and aesthetics and design, and
as noted, for my money, the vast majority of the vampires in the S Word
of Caine set are, at the very least, above average, if not excellent.
You clearly don't think so. Which is fine. But then what do you consider
good?
> It's like, we both sit at a restaurant and they
> toss uncooked meat directly on the table. While i'm whining because
> there is no forks, nor fancy plates to eat the raw steak, you are the
> one eating with a smile saying "at least there's plenty of protein".
I don't eat steak :-)
James Coupe
Or you could like steak tartare or blue steaks.
Me? Can't stand them, but I don't find it necessary to imply that chefs
that make them are substandard or that people who like them have lower
expectations than me.
XZealot
> >http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
>
> ok, i read the stuff and i just realize that your expectation level is
> quite lower than mine. It's like, we both sit at a restaurant and they
> toss uncooked meat directly on the table. While i'm whining because
> there is no forks, nor fancy plates to eat the raw steak, you are the
> one eating with a smile saying "at least there's plenty of protein".
....but I like my steak rare, like knock off the horns and wipe its
ass rare.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp