| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 17:14:11
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/gallery/view/35/11308/2355.5
I like it.... honestly, comes off with the high detail of 4e, but the realism of 2e |
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 02:45:11
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
The ogre was excellent. Looks very much like the work of the artist who drew Kostchtchie on the cover of Dragon #119. God, I'm old ...
-- George Krashos
I knew the orge reminded me of something!
I've got a copy on my library wall from back when Kostchtchie used to feature pretty heavily in my PLANESCAPE campaigns. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 01:09:06
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Silverwolfer - yes, xaeyruudhs answer is correct. Most of my Candlekeep visits are from my Android device, and for some inexplicable reason LG has provided only backwards apostrophes/quotes which most sites (including this one) find frustratingly objectionable. And yet more frustrations from the lack of useful character symbols, the presence of utterly inane emoticons, and some really corny canned text phrases. I shall schedule some time for firmware hacking and remapping the keyboard in the near future, I keep delaying this chore but complaints accumulate.
Armour and colour are spelled correctly! Not my fault that WotC is based in America where these (and many other) words are always shortened. Betcha theyre just doing it to maintain word count yet reduce publishing/printing costs by 0.08%.
You could install a new keyboard. I have Swiftkey on my phone, and I find its niftiness quite handy. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 00:32:30
The ogre was excellent. Looks very much like the work of the artist who drew Kostchtchie on the cover of Dragon #119. God, I'm old ...
-- George Krashos |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 22:42:48
Silverwolfer - yes, xaeyruudhs answer is correct. Most of my Candlekeep visits are from my Android device, and for some inexplicable reason LG has provided only backwards apostrophes/quotes which most sites (including this one) find frustratingly objectionable. And yet more frustrations from the lack of useful character symbols, the presence of utterly inane emoticons, and some really corny canned text phrases. I shall schedule some time for firmware hacking and remapping the keyboard in the near future, I keep delaying this chore but complaints accumulate.
Armour and colour are spelled correctly! Not my fault that WotC is based in America where these (and many other) words are always shortened. Betcha theyre just doing it to maintain word count yet reduce publishing/printing costs by 0.08%. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 21:09:53
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I'm no biologist, but it looks like the artist, to my imagination, gave a lot of thought to the creatures' anatomy, how they work, muscle structure, etc.
And then he forgot everything when finishing the upper part of the ogre and starting with his lower part 
Touché. It could use some work, but I do like the detail. Now if we can find a real ogre and just take photographs, I'd be all in on that.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 19:16:01
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Not the best I've seen, but certainly not the worst.
Final Opinion: Acceptable
That's my thinking, as well. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 17:31:17
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I'm no biologist, but it looks like the artist, to my imagination, gave a lot of thought to the creatures' anatomy, how they work, muscle structure, etc.
And then he forgot everything when finishing the upper part of the ogre and starting with his lower part |
| Plaguescarred |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 17:13:32
I find these pieces of artwork look good! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 14:36:27
Not the best I've seen, but certainly not the worst.
Final Opinion: Acceptable |
| Delwa |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 14:22:00
Really enjoy the artwork there. I'm no biologist, but it looks like the artist, to my imagination, gave a lot of thought to the creatures' anatomy, how they work, muscle structure, etc. Just look at the jaw line on the beholder or the tendons in the ogre's neck muscles. Could make detailing a called shot much simpler and provide vivid visual aids. I like.  |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 10:11:26
Some good art there. Overall I liked most of the pictures. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 07:05:45
I suspect Ayrik is posting from a mobile device, or somesuch, which uses an apostrophe that doesn't translate properly. I chalk it up to the same oddness that puts extra U's in armor and color. 
On the other front, I'm also against stupid hair and rubbery green pigfaced orcs, be they warlords or otherwise.
|
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 03:42:09
Ayrik, why do you have a bunch of weird symbols in your post?
it†|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 03:39:16
At a glance, it does seem cartoony. I kinda prefer dark, neutral-toned, gritty, dirty, worn-looking stuff. Like some 2E art - from Planescape and Dark Sun, mostly. But remember that 2E spanned a lot of growth and change in terms of style, some 2E art went far too far with tongue-in-cheek, garish colours, unrealistic realism, or plain page-fillling uninspirations. I like to see leather straps, brass buckles, bits of rusty chain, raggedly worn and torn and dirty gear which has seen better days. I don‘t like seeing glowing, shifting glyph-tattoos, radiantly burning eyes, Bulldozer-sized melee weapons, and Yu-Gi-Oh hairdoes sticking out of Terran Marine Power Assault armour. Especially on big rubbery green pigfaced orc warlords.
But it‘s a matter of personal style and preference. Honestly, I don‘t really care all that much as long as it‘s visually engaging and the game is still fun. Plus, I‘m with Sage on this one - it‘s really too early to tell, and this particular sampling is probably not large enough to be properly representative of the overall tone. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 02:19:31
Very interesting.
Though I'd need to see more before I could determine what this may all bring to my gaming table. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 21 Apr 2014 : 01:38:04
Just my 2 coppers.
1. Beholder: 2/5. The central eye is decent but the mouth doesn't look like a believable mouth and two of those eyestalks have elbows. They have a pile of beholder artwork from previous editions, and a couple of them are better than this. I do like new art, but this isn't an across-the-board upgrade.
2. Xorn: 2/5. Uninspired, but acceptable. The dagger-like teeth don't look strong enough to chew through stone. No musculature is apparent in/around the mouth, making the mouth look like the hole in a sock puppet rather than a dangerous maw. The blade-like ridges on the arms are good, but there should be a few more of them all over the body.
3. Carrion crawler: 4/5. Polished, believable... but maybe a little too thick around the middle. Carrion crawlers should always be voraciously hungry, with extremely high metabolisms... without these things, they're just fat disgusting worms waiting to be stabbed. Slim it down, make it look dangerous. The side details do their job (rather better than those on the xorn). Thumbs up.
4. Cloaker: 3/5. More inspiration here than in the xorn, and I think it's at least a nominal improvement over the 3.5e cloaker. I like the underside and upperside being different colors --it makes the top look like a cloak, which is evocative of the name-- but I don't think I'd go with tan for the underside. Unfortunately the effect is not quite achieved; I'd prefer more of a "cowl" or "hood" protecting the head, rather than the bolted-on look here. Also, the jaw isn't believable and therefore inspires no fear. Finally, it needs more claws; one of the detail sketches features claws at the furthest extents of the "wings" which are missing from the main drawing; claws are important for clinging to stalactites and for grabbing prey. No harm would be done by giving it a couple more joints along the front span. The silhouette, like the one on the xorn, is useless and distracting.
5. Mimic: 4/5. Cartoony. However, it looks like an action shot caught in the midst of a shapechange. In this regard it mimics previous artwork, but it adds color and that tongue has some serious ew-factor. Unlike the beholder, the mimic --which doesn't even need to chew-- has a believable jaw. Win.
6. Ogre: 5/5. This one has it all. Inspiration: it's loads better than any previous D&D ogre artwork I can recall offhand. It's got believable musculature, while being very mmo-ish, which is a good thing in some eyes and bad in plenty of others. This ogre looks different enough from humans to warrant being a different species, even without a banana for scale, and yet it's still clearly humanoid. Before this ogre, ogres have been big dumb monsters for level 3-4 characters to mow down. Now, they're big dumb monsters to scare little kids (of all ages) with. I deduct a point for the stupid silhouette. The original score was 6/5.
|
| Caolin |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 19:59:27
I could do with some less saturated colors. But overall I like it. The Beholder and the Ogre are really cool. They have a sense of realism. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 19:22:04
Well, at least it doesn't consist of porn faces and fluo-snot... oh, right, those are not "characters".  |
| Clegane |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 18:48:52
They look pretty good so far. I agree on the CGI art, it takes some of the fantasy out of it. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 18:17:27
-Can't complain. I'm just happy they're not computer CGI. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 17:17:07
The only one I like is the Xorn. The others don't look right to me. |
|
|
