What do you HATE about CT?

[kafka47]

CG, is just one tool. Don't misunderstand me, it can be just as bad as line art. However, what is new has to really stand out from the rest of the RPGs out there which is why I suggest live models touched up with computers like many SF covers these days.

Inkings using shade and different shadow depth would make it stand out. Bottomline, new art is needed to make a trademark statement. And, yes, Keith art was cutting edge in the 1970s and early 1980s - and I still love it but it wouldn't sell in today's market very well (or at least, not outside the Traveller community of what 6000-9000 people).

I want Traveller to do what it did in the 1970s & 1980s which is to capture the market and imagination of many more.

 

[Stainless]

I've only skimmed through this thread. Looks a little hot.

Although expensive, look at what this program can do. The learning curve is a little steep, but the concept is fabulous and the scifi art potential is great I think;

http://www.sketchup.com/

STOP PRESS!

I've just noticed that they have released a FREE cut-down version called Google SketchUp!!

http://sketchup.google.com/

Woot!

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by kafka47:
[QB] CG, is just one tool. Don't misunderstand me, it can be just as bad as line art. However, what is new has to really stand out from the rest of the RPGs out there which is why I suggest live models touched up with computers like many SF covers these days.

A few companies have tried using photos of people (sometimes touched up by CG) as RPG artwork - it's invariably looked utterly trite and lame.

And, yes, Keith art was cutting edge in the 1970s and early 1980s

What exactly was "cutting edge" about it?

I want Traveller to do what it did in the 1970s & 1980s which is to capture the market and imagination of many more.

Maybe if Traveller had art like the TTA book that Morrigan Press is making, that might happen. But to capture the market and imagination you need a lot more than good art - you need a good game.

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
What exactly was "cutting edge" about it?

I guess what he means is that there was nothing else to better it and in the mid 70's there really wasn't - not on GDW's budget anyways =)

Originally posted by Malenfant:
-you need a good game

 

[kafka47]

Cutting edge question:

One of the Keiths were commercial artists and this was a high industry standard. Remember this was a time when magazines were mainly text and adverts were pictures with few text. Plus, giving 3D depth to particular scenes was relatively new. Plus, it created a consistant universe with relatively high detail. Most art before that time was quite miminalist.

Morrigan Press query.

Can you send me some links. I cannot comment because what I saw was too long ago.

Photorealism question

First, as I said, I base it upon trends in publishing: a) movie posters (you were expecting Jolie to look like Lara Croft, you got it when it fact, she does not) b) Book covers c) Video game design. d) Advert copywriting d) high definition television. These are the media surrounding us, we had best emulate or perish.

Second, I think we need to put the gamer back into the game. Even if it is his/her fantasy avatar, the game needs to reflect all different faces and do so in a realistic manner.

Third, makes copying that much difficult, high end printers are very costly as photocopiers but this would still retain the coolness factor if it came in the form of an eBook.

Fourth, everything can be done back, or it can be done professionally. We still have long time horizons before t5 or its children. The secret, as always, proof, and proof again, do it right. Forums such as this help refine vision.

Fifth, people like looking at people. What is attractive about a painting or photograph. It is people looking at a representation that triggers an emotional response.

Lastly, as I said, we have maybe start the trail in which those who come after might take it to new heights.

 

[Stainless]

Sorry, I'd have to agree, one of the things I hated about Traveller was the lame art. (If we're talking MegaTraveller, those front covers were plain embarassing).

But what really peeved me was the lack of proof reading

 

[kafka47]

Stainless, even this one? All I could think when I bought this the first time was why can't they all look like this inside & outside.

CT covers were a product of their time. Nice then, pretty now. But not eye catching to say, must have a look. But that is because of limitations of the technology, cost and state of design.

This even works for me.

 

[MaineCoon]

Since when does the quality/quantity of artwork reflect upon the utility and function of a game system?

That seems like a fairly shallow form of judgement. I've seen plenty of great games with horrible/no artwork. I've seen some horrible games where it's obvious that most of the budget was on the art and little thought seems to ahve gone into the game itself.

 

[Scarecrow]

The question was, 'What do you hate about Classic Traveller?'

I hate William Keith's art.

Crow

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by MaineCoon:
Since when does the quality/quantity of artwork reflect upon the utility and function of a game system?

That seems like a fairly shallow form of judgement. I've seen plenty of great games with horrible/no artwork. I've seen some horrible games where it's obvious that most of the budget was on the art and little thought seems to ahve gone into the game itself.

Speaking personally, I tend to agree, but if a game has really bad artwork (obviously that's a subjective assessment) then that will actually turn me away from the game. I have no problem with adequate/servicable artwork, and I certainly won't necessarily buy a game just because it's got amazing artwork (though that will help to get me to take a look at it in the first place)... but bad artwork always repels me from a game.

But like 'Crow said, it is a perfectly valid thing to hate about a game

 

[robject]

Originally posted by kafka47:
Stainless, even this one?

Ugh. Looks like a reject from Twilight:2000.

 

[Mickazoid]

All I can say is that the reason LBB design is even a discussion now is because, while technically simple, it was a powerful and unique design.

Were I shopping for a new game to join now, I would MUCH more readily buy a game system with LESS gaudy cover art, and more of a focus on typography... it seems to me that the games on the shelves these days all blare with color and flash... which frankly doesn't interest me much.

So I'd say I actually love the LBB design, like an understated and lasting, familiar and beautiful friend.

 

[Malenfant]

Well the good thing about the less 'flashy' games is that they tend to be cheaper - not much reason for full colour glossy hardbacks if the game is all B&W and not a lot of art...

That said, I get the feeling that some people class B&W softbacks as "bad art" because they're not glossy and full colour. That isn't necessarily true at all - you can have B&W softbacks with very good art.

 

[MaineCoon]

Oh I agree that the art is something valid to hate; it just seems that the last page or two has devolved into merits of artwork, rather than the discussion of the game itself.

I personally love the art in the Alien Modules. But... thats about the only REAL art I know of in Classic Traveller

On the flip side, I absolutely HATE GURPS' use of 3D renderings in GURPS Traveller.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by MaineCoon:
On the flip side, I absolutely HATE GURPS' use of 3D renderings in GURPS Traveller.

See, I love those myself. OK, they're not amazingly good 3D art (see Scarecrow for that ), but they're still pretty decent. And IMO miles better than what CT had anyway.

 

[Zob10701]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
The question was, 'What do you hate about Classic Traveller?'

I hate William Keith's art.

Crow

You know, it might be the nostaglia factor, but I actually like Keith's art now. That certainly wasn't the case at the time.

When I first started playing twenty years ago, Keith's art virtually defined the look of Traveller but I hated it for all the reasons you stated later...

...Keith's drawings were poorly executed, badly rendered and had unimaginative and pedestrian pulp sci-fi designs.

Plus, all of his lineart was apparently done in crowquill. I remember having to learn crowqill in my high school cartooning class and absolutely couldn't stand it. It was messy, tore up the paper... I hated it.

Having said all this, now I see Keith artwork and smile. Just like LBB covers make me smile. They're like little windows back to the good old days...

Just call me crazy!

 

[Maladominus]

Is it really from a crow?

 

[Stainless]

OK, we can argue about the merits or lack of for art (one man's food is anothers man's poison), but you can't claim to like the typos! Oh how I hope T5 (if it ever sees daylight) will be professionally proof-read.

 

[Zob10701]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
Is it really from a crow?

Oh, no. It's a type of pen...



The metal tip tended to catch on the tooth of the paper making the inking look very scratchy—if it didn't produce a spatter of ink across the page!

It also tended to tear the paper or board in heavy black spots.

I hated using it. I much preffered Rapidograph pens back in the day, or just a plain old Pilot pen. Those were great, too. They had a nice kind of gray ink that blended well with color.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I like ol' Kieth like I likes me some Old EROL OTUS! Pioneers, I tells ya!

The thing I hate about TRaveller overall is the concept of "Merc as Hero" or "Merc as Good Guy". I do not understand the rationale behind that.

I should probably have started a seperate thread on it...