Art is probably the least important part fo a book for me. I've bought some books with terrible art just because i love the rules and setting, but i might be the odd man out. Could it be better? Sure, especialy the cover, but i'm not buying a coffee table picture book, i'm buying teh Deathwatch RPG corebook, art shouldn't factor that much into it.

Setting trumps everything, for me. It can be an atrocious set of mechanics with absolutely awful artwork, but if there is some interesting background information then I'm so there. Indeed, if I were to rank these three aspects then they would be:

1. Setting
2. Mechanics (to see if they are really appropriate for the setting and how another system might represent these).
3. Art (to inspire me about the setting, but ultimately it's the pictures in my mind that are evoked by the setting that are the most important).

Of course, it's been noted that some find it quirky to purchase games even if you're never going to play them in the home system but... Again, quirky. So, yeah, strip out the artwork and I don't think that I would be that bothered. In fact, send me a Notepad document with all the information and I'm good to go.

With that said, I really would prefer the artwork to be nice and pretty so as to take some of the pressure off my increasingly enfeebled mind. It's certainly not going to stop my buying the book, even if other things are going to ensure that I never use the system.

It is actually interesting to see how different people array their preferences when it comes to an RPG, though. In its own way this makes this thread quite fascinating (to me if no-one else).

Kage

Well Kage, as you know, I agree my order is along your lines, mine differ only in that system comes a VERY distant third place for me.

I have the core system I would use for any new game already, I might port in some concepts (Profit Points in RT for example, perhaps Hordes in DW?) but I have the system that I find works for me, I don't need to learn another one.

On the other hand I am a voracious consumer of setting, fluff, and preprepared adventures. Good art can contribute towards good setting fluff, so it's important in that sense to me, but it's not the be all and end all.

Like others have said, I have played in game settings where the official books have pretty atrocious art, indeed two of the best fantasy settings ever have pretty poor and amateurish art by and large; Tekumel and Harn.

I think John Blanche btw is a good artistic designer, but not a great painter of 'realistic' pictures. I think for example he creaties great 40K costumes, that should be then drawn or painted by someone who can represent them in a clean 'realistic' style (as was kinda done in the Inquisitor Game rulebook btw).

Adam France said >>>

Well Kage, as you know, I agree my order is along your lines, mine differ only in that system comes a VERY distant third place for me.

Well, the problem with an ordered list is that it follows sequentially. If I were to attribute weighted ranking to them, it would be setting (1), mechanics (50) and art (52). Or something like that. The point being that I'm more interested in the setting. The mechanics are interesting insofar as they might elegantly simulate the setting, and the art... Well, if it can aid the creation of my own mental imagery then more power to it. It just remains unnecessary, if useful.

Err, but there we go.

Adam France said >>>

I have the core system I would use for any new game already, I might port in some concepts (Profit Points in RT for example, perhaps Hordes in DW?) but I have the system that I find works for me, I don't need to learn another one.

Oh, I'm the same. See the above. I've found that a few of the mechanics in the 40k RPGs are pure golden, and I've converted those over. The other stuff, including what I've seen of Hordes at the moment, I don't bother with. That, however, seems like a topic of another thread.

Adam France said >>>

I think John Blanche btw is a good artistic designer, but not a great painter of 'realistic' pictures. I think for example he creaties great 40K costumes, that should be then drawn or painted by someone who can represent them in a clean 'realistic' style (as was kinda done in the Inquisitor Game rulebook btw).

Of the images that I remember I liked of his, the gate to the Inner Sanctum of the Inner Palace scored highly, and the other that springs to mind was a picture of Capitalis Imperialis (or whatever they're called) and lots of troops coming out of them. He managed to capture the scale of conflict quite well in that image, but without being able to show you...?

On the bright side, the only artist I liked less was Ian Miller. His cityscapes just did so very little for me. Then again I prefer the clean line art that started to evolve out of the late 1e/early 2e period when I quit from the setting for a while...

Kage

One of the main things with a book full of Space Marines is that drawing Power Armour is VERY hard and even GW's in house artists (if they even have any atm, if not their freelancers) don't have a 100% strke record when it comes to Power Armour. And in a book like Deathwatch full of Space MArines you are going to get your fair share of howlers...

(I am astounded at this last one...)

As well as your fair share of artwork that is just pitch perfect...

In fact I'm pretty sure one of the main offenders is the guy that drew that Space Wolf above and if I'm not mistaken the dark angel on the website front page.... his style is quite obvious and I'm sorry guy, but you can't draw Space Marines in Power Armour.

Anyhoo, yeah Power Armour... some artists just don't get it.

As I said in my previous post, it's that bad perspective that makes the picture look wierd. The detail work, highlighting etc looks great, but that perspective/foreshortening just looks horrible.

Hellebore

yes, the cover is poor, i'll give you that. but are you blind? . no offence but have a look on this web site at the great art work all over it. take you r eyes out, give them a good wash and then pop them back in to have another look, you may change your mind(s)

just my 2 bolter rounds worth

if you don't like it after that, well you could get the book but close your eyes when you look at it

peace my brothers!

Court Jester said:

Yes, thank you! Whoever is responsible for those first two pieces breaks my heart. From a technical perspective (we're not even talking about the subjectivity of taste, here) that work is just not good. And consistently (I first noticed it in Ascension) in that artists work, the foreshortening and proportion is pretty off.

On the flip side, the artist responsible for those last three pictures (Bradbury, I think?) does a darned good job.

And I do agree with all you folks expressing dislike for the cover. A book cover is the first thing a prospective buyer sees, and it should carry a stellar example of art if you're going to put art on the cover at all. I mean heck, the cover is sometimes the only piece of color art you'll get in a book. Do I judge a book solely by its cover? No. Does it effect my judgment of the book? Yes, yes it does.

It's interesting to me that so many of you have proudly stated that art has no effect on whether or not you purchase a book. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way; it genuinely surprises me. For myself, good art is very important. On the other side of the fence from many of you, I have bought books before for fantastic art alone, when the rest of it (setting or rules or what-have-you) may have been so-so or even lousy. If there's enough good art, it's valuable to me as an inspiration mine. On the fllp side, I've definitely passed up on books because the art was uniformly bad. Bad art makes it difficult for me to take something seriously, almost regardless of how well it's written. Of course there are exceptions. If something was written fantastically well, but had terrible art, I would be inclined to buy it anyway, and either strip the offending visuals out, or replace them with my own. And as already stated, even terrible writing I will purchase if the art is good enough (though it doesn't mean I'll actually read or use said writing). But I am a very visual person, so pictures and images are just a fundamental part of how I think. But yeah, enough bad art can definitely be a gaming buzz-kill for me.

On a side note, I absolutely love Blanche's work! I totally understand that not everyone does, and I probably wouldn't advocate that all of 40k being illustrated in his still (these days), but would I love to play an RPG illustrated completely by him and him alone? Yes, oh god, yes!!!

theDevilofWormwood said:

While they have made some massive leap forwards ahead in their recent publications, my system of choice is GURPS. I feel confident in saying that artwork that is not the greatest in some of the older editions has not detracted me from purchasing a book, nor has it actually enticed me to buy it. Of course, I'm a captive audience since that is my system of choice. One has to imagine that there is a certain element of that appearing in reference to this discussion, though.

Kage

I really think you need to lay off the drugs for a bit until your head clears.

Not sure what cover art people keep referencing, but I've not seen anything that I would consider horrible except the second one in Court Jester's post. Even the first one in his post isn't really terrible in my eye other than the bolter arm proportions seeming quite off. I still think that the artist for that one isn't particularly shabby.

Perhaps I'm just immunized by a decade or two of exposure to John Blanche.

But really, I've seen the artwork of FFG's 40k offerings as one of the high-points in RPG publishing in recent years. Hell, really, FFg has some fabulous art direction for pretty much all of their products that I've seen.

Deathseed said:

If that's to me, then LOL. I quite often think that about many posts on this and other 40k hobbyist forums.

Kage

Well, it was to the OP, but after reading your GURPS post I'll cast my net a bit wider

Just kidding

I like the artwork a lot so far. *shrug* And I don't hate the cover. It's not a stunner, but it's OK and I certainly wouldn't reconsider buying the book because the cover didn't blow me away. The importance of the art depends to me on what you want the book for. With Deathwatch - well, it is awesome to have great art, but in the end, I am going to be playing the game and not looking at the pictures in the book. I might buy some RPGs for the art in the book, but that's not my reason for wanting Deathwatch. There are manga/comics I won't buy because the art is ugly, no matter how many people love the story and tell me it's great (One Piece, this is you). But a manga or a comic book is an art form where the pictures and the words are equally important as they're responsible for telling the story. In an RPG, the ST and my imagination are responsible for that in the end. Just my opinion.

I actually dislike the cover as well. It's too colourful, which sounds like an odd thing to say, but it's eye-catching in a bad way. And the viewpoint is far too 'zoomed in', and it looks like a wide-angle lens, making the Marine look wider than he should do.

The artwork on the Final Sanction booklet is great. The DW cover? Not so great. It's not going to impact my choice to buy it in any way. I've been waiting for this book since 40K RPG was announced.

BYE

This cover art ('the Lord Flasheart Marine') seems so unanimously disliked ... it will be interesting to see if FFG is listening and swaps it for the more or less unanimously liked art we see on the preview pages.

I find that highly unlikely, but you never know. With that said, I don't think that it's going to change anyone's stance as to whether to buy it or not. Heck, I might just use Photoshop to replace the Lord Flashard Marine with the one from Final Sanction, or at least whenever they get around to releasing the PDF version of the game.

Kage

I actually like the cover. It looks suitably bad arse for DW.

carrotcolossus said:

I guess that makes you the exception that proves the rule in this case.

I s'pose. I like that you can see the Deathwatch shoulder plate. Ever since they released the Deathwatch Captain for =I=, I have loved the detail that is contained on the shoulder plates. I don't see how this cover is any worse than the ones for Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader. The RT is ok, the DH is one is nowhere as good as the one for Disciples of the Dark Gods.

carrotcolossus said:

Thats insanity, the DH cover is amazing, and captures of the feel of the game so perfectly. I have my current group (8 people, about 2 too many in my opinion) drooling over the game and they never even cracked it open. The Final Sanction Quick Start evoke a similar reaction, but none of the other books have. We'll have to wait an see on the DW book, i'm not a huge fan of that image myself, but it will work.

Adam France said:

He's not the only one, I'm fine with it too.

Deathseed said:

Okay, however you'll accept you are both in a clear minority on this one, at least according to the general opinion of posted comments?

I've never seen anything (whether movies, art, literature, tv shows, etc) so absolutely terrible, that it doesn't still have some people online who like it. And this cover art isn't gouge your eyes out apalling, it's just 'not very good' imo, and a bit baffling as to why anyone would choose it over the better pieces of art FFG has showcased for the game.

Look does it really matter how the art looks? Ive seen at least a dozen different styles represent 40k in art and ill admit some of them arent the greatest but for throne's sake quit bitching about it (sorry for the language but this is ridiculous) the art will get better and worse with different people drawing different things...period that's just the way art works...honestly are you really not going to buy the book if you think the art is soooo terrible? if "yeah ill still buy the book regardless" is your answer shut up and sit down quietly and quit annoying the people who want to talk about the game itself not its face...

I like the cover art too.

Honestly, there's only so much you can do with a guy in armor with a gun.

Let it go, 40k artwork has been hit and miss since Rogue Trader (40k, not the RPG), so a few odd apples here and there aren't going to really ruin anything for me.