Evaluating the art in the Core Book

[Ishvar]

Perhaps have I miss some posts but I don't understand how some can figure out that the CT art is considered as being on top on the light of this thread. Though when someone look at David Deitrick's work he sure can mesure the work that is still to be done by Mongoose as far as Traveller is concerned.

Be it true or not is actually pointless, in my opinion, as what we are talking about is the art in Mongoose Traveller. And, in my opinion again, the art in Mongoose Traveller is... largely bad with some too few good surprises.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Yup, CT, MT, and the rest have their share of duffers, so MGT has nowt to be ashamed of. And some of the MGT art is clearly better (more competent, more sophisticated) than most of the stuff in previous editions.

There is nothing in the canon of Traveller more technically accomplished than the work by German Ponce.

Having said that there is some poor work, and some work poorly served by uncoated b/w printing, but it's not like it's because of bad artists; my least favourite work is by a guy(?) who has done some fine work for Conan. I guess some folk are better at lurid fantasy than lurid scifi.

Tho stuff that is just a photo run thru a photoshop filter and a couple of scribbleson top is probably not acceptable.

 

[BP]

As for the great art in previous Traveller editions ...
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/dungeons-and-dragons/traveller-artwork-steve.php?page=1

Thanks rust! :lol:

 

[Daneel Olivaw]

I remember some very nice artwork in some of the LBBs and other CT books. Mercenary Crusier had a great image from within the cockpit of a ship's boat approaching the MC (based on a shot from 2001: A Space Odyssey); The Library Data books had a number of very cool illustrations of ships, aliens, etc. Except for the Traveller Adventure's cover, pretty much everything was B&W, not fancy, but suggested a limitless universe with a sense of wonder and fascinating details.

There may have been some poor illustrations in CT, but I've forgotten them. I agree that MGT, while a decent set of rules and a nice return to the CT "feel", contains a lot of pretty amateurish, easily forgotten artwork.

The GURPS books, on the other hand, seem quite lavish by comparison. I find that this adds to the overall impact of the game itself; it's much more fun to browse and seek inspiration in a well-illustrated book than a poorly-illustrated one.

 

[Ishvar]

... it's much more fun to browse and seek inspiration in a well-illustrated book than a poorly-illustrated one.

I agree with you and this is exactly why I like science-fiction RPGs to have cool pictures. Of course, a good art is not mandatory, Diaspora is a great game with almost no art inside. And no art is better than ugly pictures.

The art inside an RPG is in a large part responsible for the way we perceive the mood of the setting. If we consider Fading Suns, for example, the art was evocative and on par with the setting. The french translation of the rulebook conveyed a very different mood because the french company that translated it decided to change all the art. The game lost a lot of its darker part and technology appeared more prevalent than it was in the original version. Somehow, the art changed all the perception the newcomers had of the setting.

With Traveller, a lot of us are old timer and don't need pictures to figure out what the setting and the mood is about. But it still a shame, IMO.

 

[rust]

If we consider Fading Suns, for example, the art was evocative and on par with the setting.

Which shows once more that art is a matter of personal taste, in my view
the art of Fading Suns was ... [insert remotely polite and exceedingly faint
praise].

 

[Ishvar]

If we consider Fading Suns, for example, the art was evocative and on par with the setting.

Which shows once more that art is a matter of personal taste, in my view
the art of Fading Suns was ... [insert remotely polite and exceedingly faint
praise].

Of course art is a matter of taste... but I still have heard no one telling us the art of Mongoose Traveller was good.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The art of Mongoose Traveller was good. :wink:

 

[Ishvar]

The art of Mongoose Traveller was good. :wink:

I knew at least one would not resist... 8)

 

[AndrewW]

The art of Mongoose Traveller was good. :wink:

I knew at least one would not resist... 8)

Resistance is futile.

 

[rust]

Resistance is futile.

... - You will be assimilated into the Mongoose Traveller fandom. :twisted:

 

[Jame Rowe]

If we consider Fading Suns, for example, the art was evocative and on par with the setting.

Which shows once more that art is a matter of personal taste, in my view
the art of Fading Suns was ... [insert remotely polite and exceedingly faint
praise].

Of course art is a matter of taste... but I still have heard no one telling us the art of Mongoose Traveller was good.

I would like to point out that I have stated in other places that I actually liked the art in the first printing of the TMB.

 

[Baron Sidur Haski]

The last thing longtime Traveller Fans should be are Art Critics. While its true that I have seen a few duffers and clams here and there, its nothing when you look back on some of the downright ridiculous stuff of the past.
I think the guy that had it for the old stuff was Detrick, his stuff not only conveyed competence, but also a sense of continuity, something that many previous versions of Traveller have sorely lacked.

With CT, it was understandable, as there was no real set stuff going on, or actual real reason for a traveller "look" to be established, but later on, in some of the later books by other companies for other versions were pretty bad. I think the problem here is that longtime traveller fans have come to expect bad, and have to get a bit acclimated to "better".

I think that one of the major things that has been a stultifying factor to the Traveller "franchise" is its lack of art direction which seems to be about mostly important stuff like defining alien races and such physiologically, but a great deal of the old stuff seemed to be a lot of game session scribbles stuck here and there. The new stuff, I like, but it needs to improve to compete with some of the truly mind blowing stuff that is out there, like what is being shown on Colin's thread.

Even for staple stuff, like a scout courier, you got several different incarnations and interpretations of it. Something like that makes Traveller hard to brand, and only a fringe few in the know can really say "Oh, that's a scout courier", but its not comparable to "Cool! it's an X-Wing!"

I think you guys are on the right track overall, and you're producing books, which is always a plus! But i certainly recommend paging thru some older stuff the next time anyone feels critical, and you'll see there's a mix of excellent and downright funky (in a bad way) art attributed to Traveller. It's only a universe that is trying to be portrayed...

 

[BP]

...Even for staple stuff, like a scout courier, you got several different incarnations and interpretations of it. Something like that makes Traveller hard to brand, and only a fringe few in the know can really say "Oh, that's a scout courier", but its not comparable to "Cool! it's an X-Wing!"...

That is the Traveller branding - if anything. There is no set vision - no one single visual theatrical production it hangs its hat on.

In this sense, it truly depends on individual imaginations - which is very much part of its allure. Like reading a good book and then seeing the movie - even if it is great, the vision will never truly match your own - and in some way the feel becomes stilted - tied to a set of actors and effects that limit your own imagination.

Having mediocre and inconsistent art is actually a blessing in this way - it allows me to 'visuallize' My Traveller Universe without biasing or restricting me in any way. Whereas, if it was really excellent and consistent it might be nice for a viewing - but never match the unlimited depths of one's own imagination.

I believe this is one of the fundamental keys to why D&D and Traveller have been such a success over the decades. (D&D has had a whole range of artwork - and much of it was pretty good - even some movies - but I do not believe it is the reasons for its longevity - the diversity of art has perhaps helped it to conform to a greater number of expectations.)

(Sorry rambling - good rum has an effect...)

 

[Treebore]

That is true for me too. Traveller never had "a look" in my minds eye, for me it was all about a huge variety of stuff from human and zhodani to vargyr to aslani to hiver to droyne.

So I have never thought there should be one look that defines Traveller. I think there should be a look that defines the Solamani, and one that defines the Zhodani, and one for the vargyr, then aslan, and so on, but never one that defines "Traveller". Largely I think I got the variety of looks that are fitting to Traveller. If it became one universally defined look I think it would become bland and boring.

 

[rust]

If it became one universally defined look I think it would become bland and boring.

Besides, one look for 11,000 + worlds would be highly implausible.

Things like architecture, fashion, haircuts, equipment design styles, and
so on, would probably be different even from one planet to the next.

The idea of one specific Traveller look would not enrich the setting and
make it easier to "get into" for me, in my view it would ruin the setting
by taking away the diversity that makes it interesting.

 

[GypsyComet]

...and one that defines the Zhodani...

Many of the races had distinctive looks back in the day. Mongoose's drive to re-invent those looks even when they don't need to is one of the few downsides *I* see happening.

That said, every edition that has taken on the challenge of detailed alien races has produce different results. Those differences are sometimes minor, and sometimes quite striking. The GURPS version of the Zhodani is subtly disappointing, for example, while the TNE take on the Hivers and their "hired guns" the Ithklur is idiosyncratic at best and irreverent at worst, and the MT version of the Aslan is too far in the direction of "Samurai Cat".

By comparison, the MGT version of the Aslan departs from previous coverage in two ways, both cosmetic but still important, especially in the discussion of "distinctive looks". One of the changes, the departure from very rounded ship designs almost devoid of straight lines, is disappointing but understandable; deckplans are challenging enough WITH straight lines. The other change is the thumb and finger (and dewclaw) arrangement that made, as a side effect, Aslan hand-held equipment quite distinctive looking in previous editions.

I haven't looked at the Vargr book yet, but if they've lost the "carnivorous and sleek" ship design look, I would strongly recommend Mongoose find someone else to handle their more alien deckplans. If everything looks the same regardless of who built it, the setting DOES lose some of its flavor, and the deckplans we've seen so far tell me the setting is already throwing challenges at the regular deckplan wrangler that are beyond him.

The Zhodani have, from the earliest products, three distinct starship architectural styles. One of them is easy to work in for both exterior art and deckplans. The other two represent challenges Mongoose has failed at before.

 

[Treebore]

I get what your saying but personally I like the new looks of the Aslan and Vargyr.

Over all I have liked the new art, its just some has been very disappointing. The vehicle/equipment/ship art has been over all the most disappointing area of Mongoose art, the rest had been largely "OK" with some exceptionally good pieces.

So I would like to see an over all improvement in the art, and I agree a lot of the stuff from the CT and MegaTraveller days, etc... does look better than what Mongoose is doing most of the time.

So would it be better if Mongoose made efforts to have better art across the board? You bet ya! Is the art a "deal breaker", no.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

It is chiefly a question of money.

As has been said by Mongoose several times, they don't pay much per piece (and to be fair most games companies—or at least the profitable ones—don't either), so a good illustrator has to be very rapid to turn out enough to make money.

So, largely one gets what one pays for.

 

[Treebore]

It is chiefly a question of money.

As has been said by Mongoose several times, they don't pay much per piece (and to be fair most games companies—or at least the profitable ones—don't either), so a good illustrator has to be very rapid to turn out enough to make money.

So, largely one gets what one pays for.

Believe me, I know! Two guys I game with do art for RPG companies, and yet have done any for any of the big guys (WOTC, Paizo, FFG, Mongoose, etc...) and I hear about the pay issues all the time. Plus my daughter has art published in a couple of Necromancer Games modules, so I know.

Artists get paid crap.