Perhaps. But without a note saying "this picture depicts orks according to the theory that female orks are very masculine looking" or "the individual in this picture is atypical due to an abnormal amount of growth hormone", well without such a note it just looks like the artist accidentally drew big hands / other masculine traits.

I don't say it has to be. But if I point out that a painting of a woman makes her look like a man in some ways, because proportions are off, and somebody else replies that I should accept it because their are medical conditions or hormone treatments that can result in such proportions, I think I'm okay to say that some supporting evidence would need to be provided to choose that interpretation over weakness in the artwork. Especially when there is supporting evidence for my opinion in other evidently weak areas in the picture such as screwy perspective (look at those two upper right guns, drawn flush against the same wall yet both at different angles) and floating bullets. Put a ruler on the screen and check out whether the hatch cover would actually fit the hatch itself (it doesn't).

So what is more likely? That in a picture containing numerous errors of proportion and perspective, the artist decided to deliberately draw an atypical woman with masculine dimensions, or that he just didn't do a too good job of these proportions as well?

If you are going to present something that looks off deliberately, you need to reassure people that it's deliberate with higher quality elsewhere. This is not the case with this picture. Besides, can you honestly say, with your bare face hanging out, that you think the artist decided to draw a woman with giant yeti hands because he had decided he wanted to draw someone with an over-active pituitary gland?

Now all of this makes it sound as though I despise the cover. I don't. It's a passable piece, it just doesn't strike me as very impressive and the artist was either lazy in some of the preparation or pushed for time. I can particularly excuse the latter and without seeing more work by this artist I couldn't say how talented I thought he was.

But when I have to keep justifying my mild dislike of something, repetition makes it sound much harsher. It's not an awful picture. I just don't think it's very good, or really good enough for the cover of a book like Arsenal.

Regardless of the orkiness or lack, I think it's first off a great piece of artwork - both the execution and the composition in a limited space. I find her too human looking in some ways, but at least it redresses the balance against all those previous editions where orks were portrayed (despite lack of support in the fluff) as being warty, malformed people. And on the subject, the Gunslinger Adept is both notably muscular and still correctly proportioned for a woman.

Actually, there is no evidence in the picture concerning the intention of the artist whatsoever - neither for, nor against it.

That's knasser's point. If it was a case where the subject is supposed to be an abnormal specimen, then evidence should be present to support that fact. Evidence is not needed if this isn't the case, and the subject is supposed to be an example of a basic, normal specimen.

Exactly that 'necessity' is just created to prove the artist 'wrong', one way or another.

However, in the given context of the picture the deviation from the norm is perfectly plausible: A female ork bodybuilder posing with guns.

Or make them yourself - DAZ is not too difficult to use.

You are maligning me. I did not set about to prove that the cover was imperfect and thus there be a necessity to prove the artist wrong. I looked at a picture with numerous errors of perspective and proportion which cannot be deliberate and concluded that it is most likely the strange proportions of the central figure were not deliberate either.

If either of us is going to extra lengths to prove that the artist is something, it is you trying to prove the artist intended the effect. All I've said is that it seems a lot more likely given the evidence that it was simply badly drawn. And ultimately, intention matters for nothing to we, the audience. If you're going to draw something that runs contrary to what people think something should look like, you need to compensate by making it look as realistic in other ways as you can. I know that. Professional artists know that. Looking at the other work on the artist's website that Ryu linked to, the artist is undoubtedly capable of far superior work so I'm sure he knows that, too.


Having seen the rest of this artist's work, I'm going to put the entire thing hands and all, down to being either rushed / bored with the subject / pissed off with tight specifications or underpaid. He's clearly a talented artist when he applies himself.

Heh! That would be the worst piece of marketing in a decade:

Catalyst: "Hey girls - you could actually be as good as a guy."
Girls: "..."

There's too many technical errors for it to be artistic. And while I believe Mark Zug can do much better than this, that only serves to heighten the fact that it's likely a set of beginner's mistakes. Sure, you can break the rules of the art form, and get away with it if you're good; but this piece isn't good enough for that.

I can see that it's supposed to be cartoony, but it's supposed to be He-Man style, not Tiny Toons: "We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little loony; and with this cartoonie, we'll invade your RPG!"

I doubt it would be the first time a company's used misogynistic lines of thought in their marketing.

And as a disclaimer, yes, I was going out of my way to try to prove the artist wasn't messing up. I have been hypnotized by Shadowrun's charms and want to believe whenever possible that it is infallible; I readily admit to that. Of course, "whenever possible" leaves a lot of holes...

...right on.

@Cain...well at least it isn't like the crap I see on the Cartoon Channel these days. What happened, have animators forgotten how to draw all of a sudden? Even the Hanna-Barbera stuff in the 60s was better.

OK, end of mini-rant

[/Derail]

...They outsourced overseas. Which was my original theory on most of the SR4 cover art.

That's (well SR1 and SR2 were almost identical) my favorite as well.

...the artist was just paying homage to Pablo Picasso...

Seriously I agree that the Fixer illo would have been a very appropriate cover. You don't have to show everything that is inside the book on the cover. If that were the case there should be a BTL junkie zoned out in a corner somewhere and a martial artist going Bruce Lee on someone in the background.

One of my favourite covers was Rigger 2 which featured only Josie Cruze and her flock of drones.

Totally False Statement!

Dolphins are gonna have an undefeated season next year. I can feel it in my gut!


But in all fairness that could be indigestion.

Them's fightin' words!

So, um, Adam..can we take that as you saying that the covers and art are going to be different with stuff made completely in-house by Catalyst when compared to the Legacy Products(like Augmentation, Arsenal, and Unwired)?

Please... no more comic covers.

We don't have "in-house" artists, but aside from the Running Wild cover, all of the Shadowrun art is now stuff that is being handled by Catalyst, not stuff that FanPro had contracted previously. This includes Unwired, which Klaus Scherwinski is working on.

My gratitude to whoever contracted him.

It's OK, it could've done with a bit more work on the perspective certainly, the tranny orc I can deal with. There have been SR books with a lot worse covers than this, FASA published some howlers back in the 1e/2e days, Tir Tairngire springs to mind.

That would make an excellent cover for just about any SR book.

Fuckin' WOOT.