Basic Action Super Heroes!

So I just bought the old Megapolis during the GM's Day Sale and I'm enjoying it.

It got me thinking more about the art for our upcoming book. I asked if people preferred color or B&W, taking into account time and cost to produce, and the opinion was unanimously for color. So we're doing color.

But I was looking at the more traditional style art in much of Megapolis and was comparing it to the preponderance of "animated" style art in most current publications. Do people have a definite preference for one style over the other? Or is it more, "as long as it's color and good, style doesn't matter?"

Or to put it even more bluntly, would the art style (not quality, but style) affect your interest in a product?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

It depends. I'm into the DCUA style art (as evidenced by the artist I'm going to use, Kris Smith), but I also like stuff like Ade Smith's work. I even like some of the stuff Dan Houser does too.

Ironically, I dislike most of the art in two games I like, G Core and Supers!. G Core uses that poser art, and I'm not that into it. The art in Supers is so-so, but the game is cool.

So I guess it depends. on how well the material is. That's what I mainly buy stuff for anyway

Thanks, urbwar.

drkrash wrote: Or to put it even more bluntly, would the art style (not quality, but style) affect your interest in a product?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

The vaguely Bruce Timm animated style is very * of the style of the way the BASH! rule system plays.

On top of that, who doesn't like the Timm series'???

That said, I get that this art style can seem overused. I also don't like the various character builder image creators - even though the mimic the Timm style well, because they are clearly of a creator. I dig their use for creating images of your PC if you can't draw - that's great. But not for a publication.

Using anything close or similar in style to the Timm style just "fits" the BASH! line, in my humble opinion. (and I am including the Ion Guard, as well as most of the art styles in ICONs supplements in that style).
Personally... I actually don't like the Megaopolis art, and if I didn't really like the setting I would never have bought that book BECAUSE of the art style.

Face facts.... the art of RPGs are probably 75% of the sale. It's what attracts the eyes to GET to the crunch and fluff goodness.
On top of that, superhero games - based on comic books compound that "want" for the cool visuals. So getting your art right is key.


My opinions that I feel "fit" the supers RPG markets:

- Bruce Timm style art, depending on the rule-set and product. 95% of BASH! fits this well.

- For more series rule-sets such as White Wolf's Aberrant or perhaps a module/adventure based on a Watchmen style setting. More realistic art would be good. Or better perhaps - more graphic styles of Frank Miller and Mike Mignolia.

- That said. I love the "generic" but excellent art from the Mutants & Masterminds 1st EDITION art (2nd & 3rd got progressively worse in my opinion). That art is very similar to art I'd suggest similar to John Byrne, Wolfman, Art Adams, John Romotia Jr. or all the excellent art from Villains & Vigilantes.

- lastly.... the art of Mignolia, Miller, and Mike Oeming are excellent graphic art style illustration that fits certain story types.


But if you want "generic cool" supers art, so with the Byrne, Wolfman, Adams, etc... styles.

Just don't "skimp" on art. It's important to comic book RPGs.



zat help?
-kev-

kevperrine wrote: Face facts.... the art of RPGs are probably 75% of the sale. It's what attracts the eyes to GET to the crunch and fluff goodness.
On top of that, superhero games - based on comic books compound that "want" for the cool visuals. So getting your art right is key.

I disagree, Art makes a book significantly easier to read, it breaks up the endless wall of text which would be off-putting. But I have never bought, or not bought a single book, because of the art used. I believe that this is your way, you have said in the past on more than one occasion that you are an extremely visual thinker, and I would say that there are certainly many who share your point of view but I would not put them at such an overwhelming majority. Of the eight or nine people I regularly play assorted games with I know maybe one and a half who share your valuation of the art.
Not trolling just offering a slightly dissenting viewpoint.

BeardedDork wrote: Not trolling just offering a slightly dissenting viewpoint.

This would be easily "tested". Someone with a product to sell build the "art heavy" pretty book with a nice cover in the comic book styles I mentioned for a BASH! supplement.

And also
Produce a "no art" or different (ie. ugly art) with a not as style-thought out cover version of the SAME product.

Then publish both to PDF for sale.
See which one sells better.


Same product. One with less or bad art. Same great crunchy and fluffy goodness. See what wins consumers.


For example.
AslanC has a wonderfully produced better art quality book he just published. I'd bet a big sum the better/more appropriate art wins everytime. Even if he sold the lesser art version for a fraction of the cost.

You wouldn't "lose" anything... If anything sales might bump for having two versions for a bit.


Like you, I am not trolling. I just feel that folks interested in a comic book superhero style RPG are more inclined to seek out things that MATCH their comic book experiences.

-kev-

This is a discussion I've seen waged on other superhero RPG forums, with much the same results.

I think it does come down to personal tastes; some folks are very visual while others feel the content (i.e. the actual text) is more important.

Me, I've been guilty of picking up a game book solely because of the artwork and finding myself disappointed by the rules that came with it. Then again, I'm a compulsive shopper when it comes to game books.

Bruce Timm-style artwork has become strongly identified with superheroes (although to be honest, I preferred his earlier work, from the first seasons of Batman:TAS, to the current, more stylized lines). In any case, associating a superhero RPG to artwork of that type wouldn't be a bad thing.

I agree with Kevin about using creator art. It is a wonderful tool for us unable to draw a straight line, but using it for published works makes it look cheap and unprofessional (sorry).

First of all, thanks to everyone for participating in this conversation.

Second, this isn’t really a question about the importance of art or whether or not there should be art in the book. I know the answers to these and yes, of course the book will be illustrated.

The main issue was a question of preference: “Timm-style” vs. “traditional comic book art-style.” Here’s my reason for asking.

My artist can do either, but he definitely prefers traditional-style (for perspective, he’s a great lover of Walt Simonson’s work, among others). If he did a more animated style, he’d likely be less enthused and more critical of his own work. And I’d rather not put him through that on a project that’s supposed to be fun for him too.

Add to that that the world we’re publishing was one that actually lent itself to more “live action” aesthetics in actual play. I can’t imagine some of these plot points and characters living in an “animated” universe.

So I was asking mostly to see: will people groove to this artwork we’re producing? Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem I necessarily got the most favorable answer to that from this (admittedly very limited) survey. I hope you’ll be impressed just the same!

I think you answered your own question. if the artist can do both, but will be less enthused at doing the animated style, I don't see that as a viable option. If his normal style produces great results, go with that. Honestly, just because it might "fit" with the game doesn't mean it has to.

Go with the artist's strength, not with what you think might work better. His normal style might actually impress people better, and more than likely, he will produce better pieces for you.

For instance: I love the art in BASH UE. However, I found the art in 5 Minutes to Midnight (done by Ade Smith) to be much better. Granted, it fit the setting better, but the stuff he's been doing for the Comic Cavalcade has been some good work. If my situation straightens out, I hope to possibly contact him about doing some stuff for a future book. His style fits some of the ideas I have perfectly; more than Kris or Dan would. That's not a knock on Kris or Dan; some artists just visually capture specific ideas better than others.

So imho, let him do the art in the style he's better at. I suspect it will come out better in the long run.

It's an awful long way around from "art doesn't sell the book to an overwhelming majority of customers" to "no art". Like I said art is important, but I don't think it's what most people buy a book for. Bear in mind that in many game-shops and most on line distributors there is no way to even see the art before purchasing the book. I bought almost the entire run of WOTC's Star Wars Saga edition, sight unseen They where ordered on-line from Amazon or Buy.com. I also got quite a few of the original V:tM clanbooks and other source materials as well as Trinity (Aeon when I bought it), a game called Noir and a few others from a gamestore that shrink wrapped everything. Most of my favorite games are chock full of art I actually dislike (Changeling the Dreaming, Shadowrun 3, the Entire Vampire the Masquerade line excepting work done by Timothy Bradstreet to name a few in specific).

Again Art Is Important, but not what I buy a book for. I often do not have the ability to even see a book before buying it. I will buy a book with art I actively dislike if I like the game. I don't think either of our viewpoints is unique and it would be wrong to discount the other viewpoint just because we don't happen to share it.

I'm with urbwar there. Trust the artist to portray the concepts you give him.

For my two cents, I really like the BASH style of art but my personal preference is for the more traditional comic art.

This is just my opinion but I feel that BASH:UE lost out on possible sales because many felt that it was a supers game for kids based upon the art style. The release of ICONS helped to boost BASH's image by showing an even simpler art style.

BASH would have been taken way more serious as a supers game with serious, traditional supers art. I think this game is as good as, maybe even better than, Mutants & Masterminds.

But that's just my opinion, I'm probably waaaaay wrong with this assertion anyhow.

You can't really be wrong about an expression of your own preferences.

I grew up on 70's Spiderman and other Marvel 'street level' heroes, and I know that introduces bias into my present likes and dislikes.

I have often been swayed from purcahsing games and books based on their covers, so I know I am a visual person, more than looking into the 'meat'of the product.

For example, I remember not being interested in "Traveller", because I did not like the small books and b&w only graphics. I went for "Universe", instead.

For me, being a newbie to BASH!, and superhero RPGing in general, I picked up BASH! more for its mention of being a quick going game, than I did for its graphics.

If the pdf had been all b&w however, I probably would have spent more time looking at other products, than purchasing BASH!.

In the end, the graphics might get me to buy something, even if it isn't the best product for me.

Lucky for me, I think I picked well, picking this RPG up.

Yes you did cangames_2011.

Bravo!