So what happened to the multiplayer game book?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
alexokai said:
I don't understand: why do you think that??? Chalk is a good artist, but no more than this and his books are less than Brian Williams' ones. The fact that GC did his job with Dever approval, doesn't make him part of LW...
Then, in example, his characters are deformed, unreal, grotesque: I think they are not good for LW.
I sincerely hope no. Chalk's artwork is not good for a new version... it sounds so 80s for me.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
I was Gary Chalk's artwork that was the basis for the original LW miniatures. He is an important (although not essential) part of LW.
alexokai said:
I know it is your opinion and I respect it. But you cannot say that LW without Gary Chalk would not have been LW, because it's objectively false.
LW fitted good (and for the most part of the saga) also with Brian Williams artwork, IMO, but i will not affirm that LW without Brian Williams is not really LW: it's just an artist, like others.
Think about books (not gamebooks): the most are essentially without pictures inside, maybe just the cover: so don't you buy it if the cover was bad? or viceversa (buy a good cover)?
This is just to say: the TEXT is the most important thing in a book (and in a gamebook). IMHO.
If Lone Wolf were released without art, then of course our imaginations would be given free reign to enjoy the text.
However, the artwork does impact the books and give it a certain feeling. GC's artwork, at the start of the series, gave LW an epic and fantasy feel. It amazingly felt real without realistic art, sicne the artwork was very evocative.
I have no problem with Brian William's artwork, there are fantastic character and especially villain pieces. I just find it too literal, and that there is nothing that actually evokes a feeling of the fantasy world as a whole.
Richard Longmore's artwork isn't literal all the time, so does invoke a mood, I'm just used to the GC start and so don't react to it as part of Lone Wolf. At the moment, I can't think of a GC picture I didn't like, that I would liek to see the RL equivalent
However, the artwork does impact the books and give it a certain feeling. GC's artwork, at the start of the series, gave LW an epic and fantasy feel. It amazingly felt real without realistic art, sicne the artwork was very evocative.
I have no problem with Brian William's artwork, there are fantastic character and especially villain pieces. I just find it too literal, and that there is nothing that actually evokes a feeling of the fantasy world as a whole.
Richard Longmore's artwork isn't literal all the time, so does invoke a mood, I'm just used to the GC start and so don't react to it as part of Lone Wolf. At the moment, I can't think of a GC picture I didn't like, that I would liek to see the RL equivalent
Balgin Stondraeg
Mongoose
fly80 said:
And yet the covers on the american (Red Fox) editions looked absolutely rubbish (if you've ever seen the awful yet similar covers that were forced on the american editions of the early Fighting Fantasy books you'll see why they didn't sell so well over there).
I would no say that the world of Lone Wolf could not exist without the artwork of Gary Chalk and Brian Williams but without their pictures it would have been a different place. They helped to form it's image in our minds and the new Mongoose artwork is just very different (and I generaly don't like the new pictures that much but that conversation's already been had elsewhere).
I couldn't agree more. I don't like the Lone Wolf d20 illustrations (too cartoony) and unfortunately the new republished series seems to be going with the same art style (when the other lines get better pictures
). It's too late to change it now 'though because I'd rather the series kept a consistent art style all the way through than changed through two or three or four artists.Balgin Stondraeg
Mongoose
Sabbak said:Balgin Stondraeg said:
Excuse me!
That's exactly what I mean: what I wanted to say is that I find the interior artwork of the D20 LW rulebook "not good" (to say the least...). Sorry if I haven't been very explicit...
We had a four or five page art thread over at TOTS where qwe discussed the various merrits (if any) of the new artwork and my feelings and thoughts on the matter were made quite clear there. I like the new Ralph Horsley/ Alberto Del Lago covers but prefer Gary Chalk's maps and as for interior illustrations I prefer a mixture of the art from the original books but leaning slightly towards the later illustrater (can't remember his name) when it comes to generic creatures (Giaks, Drakkarim etc) but prefer Gary's art with it's impressionistic "what it feels like to be there rather than how it actualy looks and is" style for the single creatures (big giant spiders, Akraa Neonor etc).
I love the new Baknar pictures 'though
.Balgin Stondraeg
Mongoose
I prefer Brian Williams' giaks, drakkarim and similar "normal" monsters but I think I prefer Gary's "monstery" monsters (you know, the really bizarre stuff).
I think Gnaag in book 12 (not book 8) and the chaos master are both good -uber villains[ that aren't normal monsters, but otherwise while brian william's artwork is more realistic, and has some good posed action scenes, the creepy monsters usually don't do it for me, and GC always wins for me with the feel his art gave the books
Similar threads
