* the artist
- Thread starter bootneck
- Start date
- Status
Vector graphics can be embedded into PDF's. I have PDFs with images that can be blown up without pixelation.
As do I. But that concept was completely lost on them.
Oh, I understand what you are saying now. I agree.
Yes, I thought that was out of line too. But then it's not Traveller unless someone's casually flinging around death threats over things they don't like
. As for bad art - the quality of the art in the Mongoose books that I've seen (IMO) is actually generally pretty good, at least since the first printing of the corebook, which did have awful art in it. Yes, in some cases some details have been missed, and the deckplans do have systematic problems with resolution that for some reason they aren't fixing.
If you want bad art though, look at some of the crap in the CT books. The stuff by Paul Jaquays in Supp 9 Fighting Ships makes me want to rip my eyes out*. (then again, some of the other art in CT was really good too. It's always a mixed bag)
Last edited:
dhyden
SOC-8
Sure the art in the CT books are not that good...look at that copyright 1977? What do you want from a book that is 34 years old. Now look at mongoose 2008 til now. Some is crap and some completely stinks.
Thank for the tip on vector graphics in pdf. I'll remember that the next time I do pdf's for my group.
Thank for the tip on vector graphics in pdf. I'll remember that the next time I do pdf's for my group.
Here's a hint: The following common 2D graphics formats are vector capable...
.eps (Encapsulated Post Script)
.png (Cairo Portable Network Graphic)
.svg (Scalable Vector Graphic)
.wmf (windows meta file)
.emf (enhanced meta file)
.ai (adobe illustrator)
The thing is, many word processors, and a couple of low-end page layout programs, render all graphics into rasters... I know word used to do that. And many companies try to use a word processor as a page layout program...
If using adobe creative suite, ai is readily used... but it's expensive.
I use Apple's Pages, myself, and it's right on the border between page layout and word processor (it has a layout mode). In order to get it to not rasterize the svg's, I had to convert them to eps files, and import the eps files. I got some decent results, too... Note that the vector png's got rasterized BY PAGES... and Pages doesn't do SVG, yet.
http://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/94658/broken-starship-missing-manifest
Quality has absolutely nothing to do with age, and I'm tired of hearing the old "it's old, give it some slack" excuse when it comes to CT. CT had some great art, for example the painted work on the covers of later products from the early 80s. It also had some really crap art at the same time (the Jacquays stuff was from 1981)
There's a lot of good shaded pencil-like art in the Mongoose books. There's also some crappy art too. It isn't really any different from CT or any other game in that respect.
And lets not mix up "crappy art" with "inaccurate art". It's one thing to say that artwork is bad quality, it's another to say that it isn't representing something as it's described in the text, they're different issues.
Both, however, indicate an art director who either can't or won't do his/her/its job right.
Then I'd say that there has never been any game company's art director that has been able to do the job right, from what I've seen, imho.
What I'd like to hear as an opinion about it that isn't coming from anyone who already has a pre-conceived notion of how the Traveller setting should look. ( I was never too fond of the Keith brother's sketches and art, myself ).
What I'd like to hear as an opinion about it that isn't coming from anyone who already has a pre-conceived notion of how the Traveller setting should look. ( I was never too fond of the Keith brother's sketches and art, myself ).
Could be the art director, sure. Or it could be that they just want a different look to the setting. Or it could be people making too big a deal out of their own personal preferences.
Personally I don't care at all if a dewclaw is in the wrong place or if Aslan look "too lion-like" or Vargr are "too dog-like" or "not how they're supposed to look" (which in practical terms usually translates to "not what I think they should look like" anyway). I go by the text instead, and use that to imagine the races or whatever in any way that I choose that fits my own preferences. As long as the artwork is close enough (I'm really not going to pore over it with a magnifying glass looking for misplaced claws or whatever) then I just don't care.
Personally I don't care at all if a dewclaw is in the wrong place or if Aslan look "too lion-like" or Vargr are "too dog-like" or "not how they're supposed to look" (which in practical terms usually translates to "not what I think they should look like" anyway). I go by the text instead, and use that to imagine the races or whatever in any way that I choose that fits my own preferences. As long as the artwork is close enough (I'm really not going to pore over it with a magnifying glass looking for misplaced claws or whatever) then I just don't care.
Last edited:
Could be. But in this particular case it isn't.
The principal use I have for illustrations is to show them to my players and tell them "That's how Captain Wois looks like." And I much prefer not having to add "...except the hands are wrong" or "...except he doesn't look nearly as much like a lion as that". I don't really care where the dewclaw is located, but I do care that it's located in the same place on all my illustrations. And the best way to achieve that is to pick one and stick to it. And unless there's a good sound reason to change things, stick to canon. It's the same here as with every other part of canon: If it's not broken, don't change it (And if it IS broken, do change it to something that isn't). Changing things gratuiously is Bad.
You mean like the text that explains that an Aslan's hands are configured differently from human and Vargr hands, or text that describes Aslans as "Vaguely lion-like, but not really"? Well, I agree with you 100%. That's why I object to pictures that show them with anthropomorphic hands or make them "extremely lion-like". Some of the early art hit that 'reminiscent of lions, but not upon closer inspection' look very well. (Though admittedly the very first picture of an Aslan was very lion-like).
I, for one, am not asking you to care. I just want you to allow me to care.
Hans
Last edited:
In general I agree, but imagine if you will seeing Flash Gordon style rocketships in a Star Trek source book, or nothing but Tyrannosaurus Rex and Utah Raptor pictures illustrating a book about Chinese Dragons. Images and text must work together.
I don't think the OP is wrong to be disappointed by all of the illustrations directly contradicting the text. I personally don't mind my Aslan being lion-men (I ignore the text, not the illo), but I know it bothers some people quite a lot.
In a similar way, I don't mind the "anime makeover" the Darrians got from their CT supplement appearance (esp. in the "Darrians v. Solomani" lineup). I never thought the original pictures matched the text very well.
It seems like most of the star ship art work is done by people who have NO idea of Trav ship design rules. I don't know if that would be the responsibility of the Art Director or what.
Sure, but I don't think this is anywhere near that scale of screw-up. Nobody's drawing reptilian Aslan or feline Vargr here. I just don't see a cause to complain about 'lion-like aliens looking too lion-like', or 'creatures evolved from dogs looking too dog-like' or whatever (they're evolved from canines, what do you expect?!). I don't really care about the minutiae of alien anatomy in my games.
But I'm sure someone will come along soon to tell me I'm wrong not to care about that.
Then to be fair, should we "shoot" the editors and art directors of GDW, Imperium Games, FFE and others?
Most of their art was 'bad' and their editing issues and errata are legendary.
Given the problems with scans and missing pages and errata, should we all say,
"Come on FFE*, sort it out!.....or me and my (insert gun name here) will sort for you." ?
or are only mongoose art directors/editors singled out for such 'emotional' criticisms.
*the present publisher of those older materials
Most of their art was 'bad' and their editing issues and errata are legendary.
Given the problems with scans and missing pages and errata, should we all say,
"Come on FFE*, sort it out!.....or me and my (insert gun name here) will sort for you." ?
or are only mongoose art directors/editors singled out for such 'emotional' criticisms.
*the present publisher of those older materials
It's not lion-like aliens. It's vaguely lion-like aliens. You really can't see the discrepancy with vaguely lionesque aliens from another world being depicted as anthropomorphic lions?
As long as you don't come along and tell me that I'm wrong to care, I'm good.
Hans
Last edited:
Nightwind1
SOC-12
You DO realize that this was an adaptation of one of the very first Traveller adventures from one of the very first Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society, don't you?
I have that S&P, and it looks nearly identical to the original Annic Nova.
By the way, it's "pinnace", not penance...
Last edited:
I don't care for that term, even though I felt that the best thing to do was to ignore it rather than make a big fuss over it, but leaving that aside, it's a bit late for that, isn't it?
Is it the violent expression of the criticism that bothers you (in which case I completely sympathises with you) or is it the criticism in itself? Because in the second case, earlier versions have actually come in for a goodly share of criticism over the years. But that was then, this is now. Those earlier versions are the past; Mongoose's version is the present. See the difference?
Hans
- Status