Choice of illustrators [WW staff]

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 ? 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

On 8 jul, 14:14, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > 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.

On 8 jul, 14:14, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > 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

On Jul 8, 7:09 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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

>> > 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. 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

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? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 jul, 19:33, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > 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.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:06:57 -0700, Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] He lives and works 3 hous away from the art department.

>> 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. 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

> 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.

In article <1183948824.3...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 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? [ quoted text not captured ]

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?

On 9 juil, 11:57, bodhi <jordi.sam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija ha escrit: > > > In article <4691139d$0$11890$426a7...@news.free.fr>, > > "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.

> > 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. 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

In article <1183980063.1...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

I agree with Orpheus, the illustration mood is really por compare to the role playing game. I wish it llok more gothiy and dark. I heard that a lot from varius players in Geneva.

[ quoted text not captured ] Not nearly as lazy as firing one-line armchair-art-critic artist bashing into a public newsgroup. -Jason

In article <4692266c$0$25849$426a...@news.free.fr>, "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. [ quoted text not captured ]

> 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. As always, I am available by email. Oscar Garza org...@white-wolf.com CCP|White Wolf

>> 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). 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

Peter D Bakija a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] 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.

Peter D Bakija a écrit : > 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... :/

You know, I gotta ask, when is the last time yo saw a vampire card or 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.

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 ? I love you. Would you leave all your girls for me and accept to be my pet zombie ? Orpheus

>> 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. 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

> 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. 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.

In article <46929169$0$23626$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4692921c$0$23626$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, 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? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <46928bc1$0$2774$426a...@news.free.fr>, "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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 jul, 00:18, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > 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 > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html 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.

OrgPlay wrote: > 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)

In article <1184020390....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Not nearly as lazy as firing one-line armchair-art-critic artist > bashing into a public newsgroup. Hello troll!

> 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. :)

In article <1184029621.0...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:03:43 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> 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

> 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" 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 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

> 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/ 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

>> 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. 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

>> 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 ? >> 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

In article <46935d21$0$20749$426a...@news.free.fr>, "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. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1184046246.1...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 10, 5:19 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > > "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!"

In article <optu8gol...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 10, 7:18 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > >> 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

On Jul 10, 6:19 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > 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.

Just to re-cap on my own reasons for disliking photochop, like I 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.

[ quoted text not captured ] 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

I read all posts and I think there is two different issues : 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.

Just to add that I am a player that also care much about the art, and 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!

> 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1184080521.5...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1184079615.8...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, 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... :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 jul, 18:28, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > 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.

Teeka wrote: > -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?

[ quoted text not captured ] 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").

[ quoted text not captured ] ...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

On Jul 10, 1:47 pm, 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? 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

In article <1184089259.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1184092078.8...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, 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.

[ quoted text not captured ] 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.

On 10 jul, 21:22, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > 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.

On Jul 9, 11:19 am, OrgPlay <orgp...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > 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. > > As always, I am available by email. Haha, mystery solved! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e6605138d4034bef best - chris

On 10 jul, 22:33, librarian <inor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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? ;-)

On the art in general, I don't actually pay attention to it much. In 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

>> 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. > > 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

In article <1184099506.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

> 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.

In article <1184115718....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

> 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.

On Jul 10, 10:19 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > 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

[ quoted text not captured ] *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

On 11 jul, 05:37, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > 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.

In article <4694a338$0$22938$426a...@news.free.fr>, "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. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1184125542.0...@p39g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, 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! [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus <orphe...@free.fr> wrote: > 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.

In article <1184125056.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, 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 :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 11, 9:39 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] This thread has lost all credibility. oscar

> 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.

On Jul 11, 3:55 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1184115718.807496.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Prepare to enter: The SCARY DOOR! sorry, I had to. [ quoted text not captured ] > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In message <1184204356....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, 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). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 11, 9:39 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: (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!

> 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...

> (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.

In article <1184288047....@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, 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 :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 13 jul, 03:13, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > 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!

On Jul 10, 2:21 pm, Robert Goudie <robe...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > 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? > > ...and might I add that the sets that are less concerned with the > 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.

On Jul 13, 11:15 am, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> 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

OrgPlay a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] 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.

nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote in news:1184125056.224508.185700@ 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

In article <469b70ba$0$5090$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1184287622.1...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] 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 ! ;)

Orpheus wrote: > 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

In article <469ecf47$0$9592$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, 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 :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-FE3E72.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D [ quoted text not captured ] 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 18, 9:39 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija a écrit : > > > > > In article <469b70ba$0$5090$79c14...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] > > p...@lightlink.com > >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

James Coupe a écrit : > In message <pdb6-FE3E72.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D > Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: > >>In article <469ecf47$0$9592$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, >>reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>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 :-) > > > 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. come on, can't you read ? I took the steak as an exemple. In this imaginary scene you can easily picture, i am not complaining about the food (which is the main reason you want to eat, and satisfies the imaginary replica of peter) but about the quality of service, and the setting where you eat it. The food -meaning the minimal service, is there. Exactly like on the cards : at least we have pictures on them. Some people may rejoice for this simple fact. That was the whole point. I never said statement such as "people who eat steak are dumb" or something equally stupid. pffff. tired of newsgroups anyway.

XZealot a écrit : > On Jul 18, 9:39 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>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 So come on people, take out the word steak out of the equation. replace it with pancake. everydoby love pancakes, right ? so i am complaining in this imaginary restaurant, and peter is eating the pancakes which are not well cooked. But the point is he is okay as long as he's eating something. Now do i have to drop the english language totally since i am not able to make myself clear ? I repeat, i am not trying to ashame stake lovers, raw food lovers, Swamp lovers ;) man, i need to go on vacation...

On Jul 19, 3:58 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:39 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > Wow. Most of my friends are willing to let the staff show the beef a picture of fire before serving. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

In article <46a0b3d1$0$23286$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > So come on people, take out the word steak out of the equation. > replace it with pancake. > everydoby love pancakes, right ? Mmm! Pamcakes! > so i am complaining in this imaginary restaurant, and peter is eating > the pancakes which are not well cooked. But the point is he is okay as > long as he's eating something. Yeah, see, you keep thinking that I like food (i.e. art) that is badly cooked (i.e. badly done). I don't like art that is badly done. I like are that is well done. And the art in VTES I like is well done (unlike the raw steak). You can keep saying it is badly done (the art, not the steak), but you'd be wrong. See, just 'cause *you* think the art is badly done, doesn't mean that it is badly done. Even if you say over and over again that it is badly done. As "badly done" is totally a subjective viewpoint. And no amount of you saying "But really! Lubomira Hradock is an awful picture!" is going to make it actually the case for other folks in the world. So the problem here is not that other folks like bad art. It is that you seem to misunderstand that other folks might disagree with you about what is or is not bad art. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <46a0b2f6$0$5725$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Exactly like on the cards : at least we have pictures on them. > Some people may rejoice for this simple fact. That was the whole point. > > I never said statement such as "people who eat steak are dumb" or > something equally stupid. No, you didn't. But you suggested that people just like the pictures simply because they are pictures (i.e. they don't care about the quality). Which is not the case (well, certainly not for my case--I can't speak for everyone). I like the pictures that are good. Not the pictures that are bad. Luckily, most of the pictures are good. Which you seem to disagree with. Which is fine. But don't be all like "see--you only like the pictures 'cause you don't care or have bad taste...". Which is what you are basically saying. Which is not the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija a écrit : > Yeah, see, you keep thinking that I like food (i.e. art) that is badly > cooked (i.e. badly done). I don't like art that is badly done. I like > are that is well done. And the art in VTES I like is well done (unlike > the raw steak). You can keep saying it is badly done (the art, not the > steak), but you'd be wrong. See, just 'cause *you* think the art is > badly done, doesn't mean that it is badly done. Even if you say over and > over again that it is badly done. As "badly done" is totally a > subjective viewpoint. And no amount of you saying "But really! Lubomira > Hradock is an awful picture!" is going to make it actually the case for > other folks in the world. > > So the problem here is not that other folks like bad art. It is that you > seem to misunderstand that other folks might disagree with you about > what is or is not bad art. > > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html i am not misunderstood. I realise that what i consider fairly bad, you consider good. I know what "to disagree" mean, and it's actually the case. What you consider well done (no, not the steak, the art) actually may be well done, but subjective as its, it somewhat depends on your expectation. Is it arrogant to say that my level of expectation is higher ? I think not. It is not telling you you don't know anything about art (plus that would be stupid since art seems to be your field), it's just telling "i want better". Call me silly but simply put, i just want, if it's possible, ALL art to be Uber-Over the top Quality. Which, by now, is not the case. is it clear by now or do we need an example with donuts ? :)

Peter D Bakija a écrit : > In article <46a0b2f6$0$5725$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, > reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>Exactly like on the cards : at least we have pictures on them. >>Some people may rejoice for this simple fact. That was the whole point. >> >>I never said statement such as "people who eat steak are dumb" or >>something equally stupid. > > > No, you didn't. But you suggested that people just like the pictures > simply because they are pictures (i.e. they don't care about the > quality). Which is not the case (well, certainly not for my case--I > can't speak for everyone). I like the pictures that are good. Not the > pictures that are bad. Luckily, most of the pictures are good. Which you > seem to disagree with. Which is fine. yes. We can't agree on everything :) > But don't be all like "see--you > only like the pictures 'cause you don't care or have bad taste...". > Which is what you are basically saying. Which is not the case. I think you don't care. Because when you like a game, you want the better for it. But again it's my opinion. Since you seem to like some low, low level illustration like Frantz Litzpar, or Lorrie Dunsirn which in my opinion are bad should NEVER have made it to the printing process, you care less than me. Either that or it's your bad taste. Wait, did i say bad taste ? Yes, but again i'm not a robot, it's my opinion. You can live with it -by it i mean, you can live with the thought that a random guy on the other side of the ocean thinking you have bad taste in TCG illustration. That does not make you less fantastic as a person :D

On Jul 20, 8:06 am, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > XZealot a écrit : > > > On Jul 18, 9:39 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>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. > > So come on people, take out the word steak out of the equation. > replace it with pancake. > everydoby love pancakes, right ? I like steak better than pancakes. :) > so i am complaining in this imaginary restaurant, and peter is eating > the pancakes which are not well cooked. But the point is he is okay as > long as he's eating something. > > Now do i have to drop the english language totally since i am not able > to make myself clear ? I repeat, i am not trying to ashame stake lovers, > raw food lovers, Swamp lovers ;) The point is that steak is a perfect example of how people can take something that is the pinnacle of value to one person, and that same thing be a worthless or even a liability to someone else. One man's trash is another man's treasure. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <46a0e10a$0$12201$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I think you don't care. As I said before, you are incorrect. > Because when you like a game, you want the > better for it. But again it's my opinion. Since you seem to like some > low, low level illustration like Frantz Litzpar, or Lorrie Dunsirn which > in my opinion are bad should NEVER have made it to the printing process, > you care less than me. I think you are incorrect. See--you are trying to argue that your subjective view of what is quality is better than my subjective view of what is quality. Which is never an argument that you are going to win. And it troubles me that you even think it is an argument that has merit. Frank Litzpar isn't the best illustration in the set, no. But he is certainly charming, in his own blue skinned kinda way. And Lorrie Dunsrin is, like Frank, charming and reasonable. Is the content of the art better than the implementation of the art? In both cases, sure. But that doesn't mean that they are bad illustrations. Just ones that are viewed by the narrowminded as "bad", 'cause they can't see past the hard technical aspects. I bet you don't like The Ramones, either... > Either that or it's your bad taste. Wait, did i > say bad taste ? Yes, but again i'm not a robot, it's my opinion. I never said you couldn't have an opinion. Just that you having an opinion does not automatically mean that you are right. > You can > live with it -by it i mean, you can live with the thought that a random > guy on the other side of the ocean thinking you have bad taste in TCG > illustration. That does not make you less fantastic as a person :D You can think whatever you want. No skin off my nose. I'm simply trying to point out that 'cause *you* think something is bad, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually objectively bad. And assuming that it does leads to trouble. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <46a0df11$0$12200$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Is it arrogant to say that my level of expectation is higher ? I think pretty much, by definition, yes, that is arrogant. > I think not. It is not telling you you don't know anything > about art (plus that would be stupid since art seems to be your field), > it's just telling "i want better". Which is fine. You can want better all you want. I'm just pointing out that there are folks out there who think the quality of the art is already above average. > Call me silly but simply put, i just > want, if it's possible, ALL art to be Uber-Over the top Quality. Which, > by now, is not the case. What counts as over the top quality? Really? Give me some examples. What are the best illustrations in the game, in your mind? [ quoted text not captured ]

reyda wrote: > > man, i need to go on vacation... Might I suggest Los Angeles around the 20th of September? best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:46a0e10a$0$12201$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net: > Peter D Bakija a écrit : > > But don't be all like "see--you >> only like the pictures 'cause you don't care or have bad taste...". >> Which is what you are basically saying. Which is not the case. > > I think you don't care. Because when you like a game, you want the > better for it. But again it's my opinion. Since you seem to like some > low, low level illustration like Frantz Litzpar, or Lorrie Dunsirn > which in my opinion are bad should NEVER have made it to the printing > process, you care less than me. Either that or it's your bad taste. > Wait, did i say bad taste ? Yes, but again i'm not a robot, it's my > opinion. You can live with it -by it i mean, you can live with the > thought that a random guy on the other side of the ocean thinking you > have bad taste in TCG illustration. That does not make you less > fantastic as a person :D A relatively unanswered question from the last time artwork quality was raised; What's your price-point for superior product? Would you mind if VTES' costs increased by +30%, if the artwork reflected an improvment that made you happy? +50%? Do you think the rest of us would be similarly happy with the increased cost for better art, especially if we weren't particularly dissatisfied with the art quality in the first place? Likewise, if instead of filling in missed artwork deadlines with fast- acting solutions, that the next set was delayed a month or more for the artwork to "catch up", would that be a satisfactory response by WW, in your opinion? How happy do you think most other players would be with such an arrangement? DaveZ

In message <46a0df11$0$12200$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >Is it arrogant to say that my level of expectation is higher ? Yes. You like some sorts of art. Other people like other sorts of art. Asserting that your expectations are "higher" and, implicitly, better is *precisely* arrogance. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1184875083....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >....but I like my steak rare, like knock off the horns and wipe its >ass rare. My mother would happily have it still mooing, which is slightly odd given how she destroys vegetables by overcooking them. Me, I get slightly twitchy if it looks too pink on the inside. Moist and tender, good. Bits of pink, okay. Too pink... erm... Blood... *exits stage left* [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy, > >Is it arrogant to say that my level of expectation is higher ? > > Yes. > > You like some sorts of art. Other people like other sorts of art. > Asserting that your expectations are "higher" and, implicitly, better is > *precisely* arrogance. Quibble: Imagine two people who have exactly the same standards for (subjective) quality in art. Now imagine that one of them expects all of the cards in Sword of Caine to be at the top end of that standard, while the other expects them to span the gamut, though with an above average quality overall. I think it is reasonable to call the former person's expectations 'higher' than the latter's. I don't think it's necessarily an assertion that his taste is better, which would be arrogance - just that he expects greater conformance to his taste. Which is probably better characterized as 'delusional', unless he has some reason to believe that the designers also share his standards and expectations. Alex

In message <1184967698.8...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, wumpus <wum...@comcast.net> writes: >Howdy, > >> >Is it arrogant to say that my level of expectation is higher ? >> >> Yes. >> >> You like some sorts of art. Other people like other sorts of art. >> Asserting that your expectations are "higher" and, implicitly, better is >> *precisely* arrogance. > >Quibble: Imagine two people who have exactly the same standards for >(subjective) quality in art. That's not a quibble. That's a different situation entirely. The point here is that some people do actually like art that reyda thinks is "just protein". [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:7CGRK5Uw...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <1184875083....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >>....but I like my steak rare, like knock off the horns and wipe its >>ass rare. > > My mother would happily have it still mooing, which is slightly odd > given how she destroys vegetables by overcooking them. > > Me, I get slightly twitchy if it looks too pink on the inside. Moist > and tender, good. Bits of pink, okay. Too pink... erm... Blood... > *exits stage left* > Yeah, I agree about Blood, despite being an avid rare to medium-rare steak eater (depends on the cut). I'm told that mostly the Blood Issue in the UK is just 'cause Brits don't adequately age their beef. Do what we did, and learn how from the Argentines (they're not famous for an awful lot, but *man* do they know beef...) DZ AW

In message <Xns99765F322A...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >Yeah, I agree about Blood, despite being an avid rare to medium-rare steak >eater (depends on the cut). I'm told that mostly the Blood Issue in the UK >is just 'cause Brits don't adequately age their beef. Do what we did, and >learn how from the Argentines (they're not famous for an awful lot, but >*man* do they know beef...) We have plenty of good beef around the place. Scottish beef can be particularly good, the Aberdeen Angus probably being the best known. We (collectively, as a nation) just have a tendency to buy cheap stuff. Food tends to be just stuff to eat, rather than really good food being an end in itself. This is slowly changing over time but... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 24, 6:11 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > We have plenty of good beef around the place. Scottish beef can be > particularly good, the Aberdeen Angus probably being the best known. In fairness, the Scottish beef is pretty good yes, not as good as New Zealand beef naturally but pretty good ;-) The British beef, well not so much... > We (collectively, as a nation) just have a tendency to buy cheap stuff. I must say it's really cheap to get food in the UK (unless you get the organic stuff and then it's more in pounds than it is in dollars!) I'm not really sure how it works that it's cheaper to buy New Zealand lamb at a UK super market than at a New Zealand one, but that's how it was. I guess shipping stuff doesn't really cost too much and all but still it was kind of weird. Sorry for the slightly off topic discussion there but I like food :-) Simon

"Shade" <sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1185240302.2...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > I'm not really sure how it works that it's cheaper to buy New Zealand > lamb at a UK super market than at a New Zealand one, but that's how it > was. I guess shipping stuff doesn't really cost too much and all but > still it was kind of weird. I have no idea what the cost of shipping beef is in comparison to the cost of the beef itself but I suspect the culprit you're looking for has to do with exchange rates and balance of trade issues. Of course, I'm assuming you meant that the imported beef was cheaper to buy in Great Britain relative to other costs, like gas and hotel room and so forth. On the other hand, if you meant New Zealand beef is cheaper to buy in Great Britain on a New-Zealand-dollar-for-New-Zealand-dollar basis, taking the exchange rate into consideration, then I don't know. That wouldn't make any sense unless, say, it was paid for previously and some extreme currency fluctuations had recently taken place. Or maybe the New Zealand beef you bought in Britain was not subject to the same restrictions or was of a different grade than what you're comparing it to at home. Or maybe they just froze the beef and used it as refrigerating material to keep, say, imported yogurt cool - then the Brits were dumping it in their supermarkets for whatever they could get. (JOKE...really, just a JOKE! ;-) ) > Sorry for the slightly off topic discussion there but I like food :-) Same. Except in my case, I like the intriquing mystery. If unsolved, it would raise the possibility that REimporting New Zealand beef from Britain back into New Zealand would become commercial viable... Fred

Oops. Substitute lamb for beef in the following post. Whatever. "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:Q7dpi.15911$6K3....@newsfe10.phx... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1185240302.2...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Shade <sha...@gmail.com> writes: >On Jul 24, 6:11 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> We have plenty of good beef around the place. Scottish beef can be >> particularly good, the Aberdeen Angus probably being the best known. > >In fairness, the Scottish beef is pretty good yes, not as good as New >Zealand beef naturally but pretty good ;-) The British beef, well not >so much... Scottish is a subset of British, what with Scotland being a part of Great Britain. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 24, 7:40 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Scottish is a subset of British, what with Scotland being a part of > Great Britain. Details details, replace British with English and you get my meaning :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] Sigh..... British, whatever, you guys have not had beef till you have had a decent aged South African steak. Trusdt me. I have eaten steak in just about every country in the world, and for some reason South African steak is just tastier. Think it mihgt be the fatct that the plants they eat grow in a ceratin kind of soil with sopecific amounts of sunlight yadda yadda yadda, but there really is nothing that beats a decent sirloin steak, hung for about 6-12 days, depending on taste, cooked over coals from a thorn tree. The best

[ quoted text not captured ] Wow this thread is really on topic!

On 25 jul, 11:31, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > cooked over coals from a thorn tree. That's it. Cooking on coals does wonders for the taste of any kind of meat. ... On 25 jul, 11:36, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > Wow this thread is really on topic! > Lol. Yet no one seems to feel the need to change the topic name (including you and me). All those poor illustrators, checking this thread daily to see if something's been said about them... :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] Done right, yes :) Many a great steak has been ruined by the infidels and turned into shoe leather however (bad art?)

[ quoted text not captured ] You must be an art critic. :P Comment Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp Waging a war of meat!

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1185363356.415636.50040@ 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > On 25 jul, 11:31, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > cooked over coals from a thorn tree. > > That's it. Cooking on coals does wonders for the taste of any kind of > meat. > Ever do a steak Tuscan-grill style (In direct contact with the coals)? Mmm. Good sear, lotsa flavor. Gotta know what you're doing though, and pay attention. There's only about 30-45 seconds between 'just right' and 'just plain ruined'. > ... > > On 25 jul, 11:36, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > >> Wow this thread is really on topic! >> > > Lol. Yet no one seems to feel the need to change the topic name > (including you and me). Done. > All those poor illustrators, checking this > thread daily to see if something's been said about them... :-) > The current topic is far more worthy ;-) DZ

On Jul 25, 2:44 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1185363356.415636.50040@ [ quoted text not captured ] Personal fave is the classic Pepper Fillet, its awesome. My dad kinda perfected this one, but what you do is take a whole fillet, rub with olive oilo, rolled in coarse crushed pepper corns (mixed, but black will do) and braai (BBQ if you have ;) till about medium rare. Yummies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Meat tip of the day: take steak medallions, marinate for 30-120 minutes in thick running cream. Tenderises steak like nobodies business. Especially a good sirloin, medallion style, over coals with honey and mustard basting. The bomb!

On Jul 26, 8:44 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Personal fave is the classic Pepper Fillet, its awesome. > My dad kinda perfected this one, but what you do is take a whole > fillet, rub with olive oilo, rolled in coarse crushed pepper corns > (mixed, but black will do) and braai (BBQ if you have ;) till about > medium rare. Yummies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 The best steak is almost always cooked on the barbie and served with an appropriate liquid refreshment, hopefully while seated outside in the sun :-) I'm hungry now...