Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Arsenal Cover
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
ixombie
Looking at the cover of Arsenal, I'm not surprised. Shadowrun has a history of kinda silly, cartoony art, after all.

What I wonder (and maybe a dev could answer) is whether they use that kind of art on purpose, anymore? Gone are the internet-free days of the late 80's when it might be hard to locate and retain a good artist. There are hundreds of underemployed artists that could do the work, so it's not lack of people. Is the current SR team sticking with the cartoony art just to keep up the Shadowrun tradition of having campy, cartoony art? Or is there some other motive for not updating the art style?
Stahlseele
yeah, kinda wondering about that one myself too . .
the art inside the books has been getting better . . save for Arsenal 2071 as they're pretty much reusing images from Arsenal 2060 to show most of the weapons and other stuff that's been in there . . but the cover art has been bad from the beginning more or less in my eyes x.x . .
knasser

I'm not going to completely slate the cover. But I would describe it as pretty mediocre. One of the things I really didn't like in third edition was the very cartoony artwork. My tastes run more to the impressive stuff like the cover of Shadows of Europe or some of the very excellent work in the sample characters. One of my favourite pieces recently is the cover of Runner Havens which is slightly not my style but just so beautifully done and the troll is great.

I've rambled haven't I? The cover of Arsenal is not this style of artwork - it's more like the cartoon stuff of third edition. I think the tone of it is okay - this is the Book of Loot afterall. It should have a sort of toybox subject matter to it. But it doesn't work for me.

Aside from everything else, the perspective is off in many areas, even if you try to see it as looking down on the scene slightly. The two guns on the upper right are at different angles but both are painted as if they are flush to the wall. Both the wheels on the vehicle and the front windows are slightly out as well, whilst I can only assume that the ammunition to the forefront of the picture is magnetic.

Sorry to the artist aside from the screwy perspective the picture is fine - I just don't like it that much.

-K.
Whipstitch
I love the troll on Runner Havens. I'm pretty sure the gun he's firing weighs as much as your average kindergartener.
Method
Craptastic. Hands down.

I think the cover of SoE is the best SR art I've seen in almost a decade. There's nothing cartoonish or cheesy about it and there's nothing overstated. To quote possibly the greatest band ever "what's become of subtlety"? (karma bonus for naming the band)

I agree with ixombie. Certainly in all the vast internet there have to be some good artists that happen to be SR fans and would love to contribute.
Zen Shooter01
I love the cover. I think it looks great. Usually I don't give a damn about cover art - I'm not buying the book for the cover art. But I loved this cover right away. I love the personality of the ork. I love the composition of the piece. It made me laugh out loud with delight. Best cover since SOE.

The boldness of the composition reminded me of the Cannon Companion cover, but this one is more charming.
Fortune
QUOTE (Method)
To quote possibly the greatest band ever "what's become of subtlety"? (karma bonus for naming the band)

Blanket Music.
Whipstitch
Or else Tool. Not that uncommon of a lyric.

Also, the cover made me wince as if I was trying to pass tacks through my urethra sideways.
Method
And the prize goes to Whipstich, although Fortune could also be correct (I don't know Blanket Music).

The line I was thinking of is "Something kind of sad about the way that things have come to be. Desensitized to everything, what's become of subtlety?"


JonathanC
YOu guys are all wrong. The Arsenal cover is AWESOME. Augmentation sucked, though.
kigmatzomat
I'm on the "suck" side. I can live with cartoony. What gets me is that the perspective is forced, the angles are bogus, the lighting/shadowing makes no sense, and let's not even get into the scale.

IMO, the SR art generally peaked in SR2. SR3's art was generally well done, but I just wasn't quite as fond of it.
ixombie
If Tool had stopped making music about 10 years ago, they'd be the best band ever. They're still good, but they no longer deserve that title.

Back to the topic, the thing I hate most about the Arsenal cover is the knife on the back wall that has a blade which looks like 12" wide and 6" long. Yuck. Also, the rocket thingy the ork is holding looks really stubby and not cool.

To clarify the subheading, crappy vs. craptastic means, in essence, bad vs. intentionally bad which makes it good. I don't think you can argue that the cover is good; it might not be horrible, but they could have done better. But I think it's possible that they're intentionally trying to invoke that kind of late 80's camp that's been with Shadowrun since the beginning, which means that they made the cover sorta cheesy on purpose.
wind_in_the_stones
I like the artist's work a lot, and even like this piece, but not as cover art. The "cartoony" stuff is cool inside, but I prefer the more sophisticated stuff for covers. Zeleznik or Zug, please.
Cardul
Before I give my opinion, let me give something so people can understand what my idea of an aesthetic for a cover is:
My favourite covers have always been: Fields of Fire, Dragons of the 6th World, and the Street Samurai Catalog.

Of the things released for 4th Edition, I find Runner Havens and Augmentation to be "meh", but I like On the Run, Street Magic, and Corporate Enclaves's covers. I also admit that, if not for the dwarf hacker and the human sammie, I would like the main book's cover(the sammie just does not have the Aesthetic I like, and dwarf...just looks kind of out of place in that Gangsta Rapper gear)

Now Arsenal..Arsenal is a strange thing for me.
First, I agree with those who say there is something off with the perspective. Then again, I liked the toybox feel. And, you know, I have to say: I found it infinately better then the Cannon Companion's cover.(Then again..a Cha 1 female troll in a bikini would have been better, so that is not saying much.) I also liked the look of the Ork on the cover. Heck, we got a FEMALE Ork on the cover..I cannot think of the last time we got something like that. Especially a fairly decent looking female ork biggrin.gif I don't think it was really "cartoony", though, I admit, I would have loved something like Street Magic's cover. At least, unlike with Augmentation, I did not look at it and go,"Wow..I have that model, and that model, and that model...and it looks like the guy used PoseWorks shaders." In fact, I kind of liked the style..it had the "Kid in the Candyshop" feel to it. The more exagerated natures of the guns were, though, obviously to try and draw attention away from the Orkess. I think the artist realized too late that he had made the Orkess look too good, and too prominant, and so tried vainly to draw attention away by sprinkling big guns throughout the scene.
JonathanC
How anyone can all this cover crappy when we've got the Augmentation cover staring at us is beyond comprehension. That thing looks like it was slapped together in Poser in like 10 minutes. It's embarrassing. I want to get a slip cover for it.
Cardul
QUOTE (JonathanC)
How anyone can all this cover crappy when we've got the Augmentation cover staring at us is beyond comprehension. That thing looks like it was slapped together in Poser in like 10 minutes. It's embarrassing. I want to get a slip cover for it.

Nah...it probably took them about 45 minutes to do, then a day and a half to render...but, it does look like a quick job(Even the poses are stick poses!)
Blade
Actually I'm ok with each separate elements from Arsenal's cover. The problem is when you put them together with a wrong perspective and absolutely no attention to scale (Sakura Fubuki, the only light pistol as big as an Ares Alpha).
Reminds me of these paintings from the XIIth century, back when painters didn't know how to handle perspective correctly.

If they keep on having such cover art, I'll consider applying as an artist!
Dashifen
QUOTE (JonathanC)
How anyone can all this cover crappy when we've got the Augmentation cover staring at us is beyond comprehension. That thing looks like it was slapped together in Poser in like 10 minutes. It's embarrassing. I want to get a slip cover for it.

It's wacky, though, because I dislike the Arsenal cover but quite like the Augmentation cover. YMMV.
Eryk the Red
I've got some bias. Being an illustrator myself (not-yet-professionally), I understand how difficult it can be to get things exactly the way you want them, and how frustrating it can be, when you worked hard on something, to have your work insulted. I'm not talking about criticism. You gotta be able to handle people's criticism. But to call someone's work 'crappy'? It's needlessly mean.

That said, I actually do like the cover. It's silly. It's exaggerated. The perspective is off. The scale is inconsistent. None of those things are deal-breakers for me. My favorite comic book artists rarely draw realistically, and that same taste extends to this. It has a kind of charm that I like. Like the art embraces its own hokey-ness. That's cool to me.
ixombie
The internets are a mean series of tubes! Deal with it! grinbig.gif

I just wonder what the SR team is thinking, presenting completely different art styles for subsequent releases. Part of it probably has to do with how it went from FanPro to Catalyst, though maybe not since AFAIK the people in charge stayed in charge... It just seems to me that they should maybe pick a style and try to stick with it. There's nothing wrong with the campy cartoonyness, it's just that the book covers all look like they come from a different game these days.
Rotbart van Dainig
Compared to the cover of the main book and Augmentation, the Arsenal cover is great. (The interior art concerning clothing, however...)
(And Street Magic is nice, but pretty bland... that cover would fit pretty much any modern-fantasy system/story/game/whatever)
eidolon
I don't know. The game itself has a different style depending on whose table you sit at, so I don't really have a problem with the art reflecting that.

I have favorites, and there's a few pieces I really don't like at all, but overall the SR line still has some of my favorite RPG art.
Eryk the Red
I'm sure the changes in style have a lot to do with the fact that it's all freelance. There's no 'stable of artists'. I'm glad they keep changing it, myself. If they settled on one art style, it might be one that I really don't like. (Though I hate to seem like I'm wagon-jumping, the Augmentation cover qualifies as something I don't like. I just don't like the total computer generated look of it. Not my thing.)
X-Kalibur
I was more disappointed with the internal art really, most of it was copy/pasted out of Fields of Fire and Cannon Companion (and some from Rigger 3 of course).
JonathanC
Street Magic had the highest quality cover, but the style just made it look...well, not very Shadowrun-like. It looked like a White Wolf book or something. Augmentation just looked awful. I'd rather have a blank cover than the crap they put on there. Arsenal actually looks like a Shadowrun book to me.
Raij
I like Runner Havens the best of the 4e covers. I detest Augmentation and Arsenal.. both for different reasons that have already been discussed. My favorites prior to 4e were probably the SOTA covers and SoE.
knasser

I've actually come round slightly to the cover of Augmentation. It looks like a video game, but it at least fits the tone of what I feel Shadowrun should be. What I see as cartoony art grates with me more than the brash ugliness of the Augmentation cover does. I guess for me, the distinguishing characteristic of the art that I like is that it looks more mature than that which I don't like. A more cartoon style looks more juvenile to me. Augmentation may be ugly, but it's not quite juvenile. But even less so would be something like the cover of Shadows of Europe which looks more sophisticated by virtue of the quality of the work alone, let alone before we start considering the subject matter.

I don't want to be too hard on the artist of Arsenal though. The perspective (and magnetic bullets) shows a lack of thoroughness but my main objection is that it doesn't capture the feel of what Shadowrun should be. The technical aspects of the painting are part of that, but not all of it.
Colin Chapman
I like the cover, but then I like Zug's work generally anyway, though this isn't his best work certainly.

I love the fact that SR has always embraced a truly diverse array of artistic styles, including the cartoony stuff. Hell, Laubenstein pretty much defined the look of the game in the past, followed later by Prescott, not to mention the likes of Bonner and Nelson. It's one of SR's great strengths, in my opinion, reflecting the fact that it can be played in any way the GM wants from wahoo to serious, and the fact that the game has always had a very strong sense of humour. Part of SR's success probably owes to the fact that it caters to such a wide range of game styles and preferences, not pigeonholing itself as being solely "wacky and over-the-top", "serious and mature", or whatever other label folks care to apply.

Have I liked all the artists? Heck no, but I wouldn't for a second want Catalyst to start doing artwork, covers, etc. only to fit one style or approach.

Now, as for Zug's Arsenal cover, I think it succeeds. Why?

a) It very clearly illustrates what the book is about.
b) It ties in with SR's long history of diverse artwork, including much done in a cartoony style.
c) It has a sense of humour with its obvious nod towards the kind of "Moe's Militia Store!" advertisement or catalogue you can easily envision.
d) It's bold and eye-catching.
e) It very clearly looks like a Shadowrun cover.

cheers!
Colin
Fortune
QUOTE (Colin Chapman)
I love the fact that SR has always embraced a truly diverse array of artistic styles, including the cartoony stuff. Hell, Laubenstein pretty much defined the look of the game in the past, followed later by Prescott, not to mention the likes of Bonner and Nelson. It's one of SR's great strengths, in my opinion, reflecting the fact that it can be played in any way the GM wants from wahoo to serious, and the fact that the game has always had a very strong sense of humour. Part of SR's success probably owes to the fact that it caters to such a wide range of game styles and preferences, not pigeonholing itself as being solely "wacky and over-the-top", "serious and mature", or whatever other label folks care to apply.

Have I liked all the artists? Heck no, but you won't find me going on about how Larry McDougall's work is "craptastic" or what have you, just because I don't personally enjoy his style.

How can you write a diatribe on the history of art in Shadowrun and not mention Bradstreet even once? eek.gif
Colin Chapman
QUOTE (Fortune @ Jan 28 2008, 05:28 PM)
How can you write a diatribe on the history of art in Shadowrun and not mention Bradstreet even once? eek.gif

Because it was a diatribe about the history of cartoony artists in SR, illustrating how the use of a cartoony style is a strong part of SR's history.

cheers!
Colin
knasser
@Colin: I stand corrected - there's a lot there I agree with.

Perspective is still hideous however.
Colin Chapman
QUOTE (knasser)
@Colin: I stand corrected - there's a lot there I agree with.

Perspective is still hideous however.

Thanks, mate. I do agree on the perspective aspect, btw; Zug is certainly capable of better.

cheers!
Colin
Demonseed Elite
I don't like the Arsenal or Augmentation cover art pieces. I don't have a particular problem with the Arsenal cover other than it doesn't fit what I see as Shadowrun's style. Runner Havens and Street Magic both worked, but I agree that the last cover I felt really jazzed about was Shadows of Europe. That piece bled buckets of mood.
Fortune
QUOTE (Colin Chapman)
Because it was a diatribe about the history of cartoony artists in SR, illustrating how the use of a cartoony style is a strong part of SR's history.

I don't know if I personally would label all of those artists you listed as 'cartoony', but if that was your point then fair enough.

I was just going to edit Elmore's name into my post of mock-outrage. biggrin.gif
Whipstitch
I hold pretty much the exact opposite opinion on every front. I think at least for the front covers that Shadowrun could use a more unified look. The circuit board motif goes a ways towards holding things together, but beyond that it falls apart for me. In all honesty I think what would make me happiest is if they just managed to lock up Klaus Scherwinski in a basement somewhere with a bunch of art supplies and put his ass to work. Also, I actually like Mark Zug, but honestly between the BBB and Arsenal I kinda want him to stay the hell away from Shadowrun.
Colin Chapman
Going slightly Off-Topic for a moment, speaking of Zug does anyone know if there's a decent quality jpg of his 3e Adept archetype anywhere, as one of my players has created a character that the pic would fit to a tee and I'd like to print one out for him.

cheers!
Colin
Colin Chapman
QUOTE (Fortune)
I don't know if I personally would label all of those artists you listed as 'cartoony', but if that was your point then fair enough.

I was just going to edit Elmore's name into my post of mock-outrage. biggrin.gif

Heh. Maybe Elmore should do a new SR cover: semi-naked elf warrior chicks with perms. eek.gif Then again... wink.gif
Fortune
I'd buy it! biggrin.gif

And it would more than likely be much better than any of the cover art that Shadowrun has produced in the past decade.
i101
QUOTE (Colin Chapman)
Now, as for Zug's Arsenal cover, I think it succeeds. Why?

a) It very clearly illustrates what the book is about.
...
b) It ties in with SR's long history of diverse artwork, including much done in a cartoony style.
...
e) It very clearly looks like a Shadowrun cover.
...

a) Really? I think it was not that necessary to spam the cover with so many guns and stuff from the book ... Best example how it also would have worked: Street Samurai Catalog.

b) Sorry, no offense but could you please define this so called long history of diverse artwork, including much done in cartoony style? When i open the 1st edition corebook i cant see that much of this cartoony style, neither inside the 2nd edition. This crap, sorry pplz, starts with the 3rd edition, and looks to be regular artwork for the 4th editon. Sometimes i cant believe how much the game changed, and with this i dont mean the rules itself, glad that the 4th edition came out, its a good improvment. What i mean is the art itself, its the pictures that used to impress me in the old days. Check out 2nd edition, site. 77 (tim bradstreet) or the colourised pics on s. 128+ (favorite: janet aulisio) aso. I could continue this going thru a lot of "old" shadowrun sourcebooks where the pictures somehow catched a moment of shadowrun. If i see moste pics from the 4th edition and of course partly 3rd i ask myself where the hack has that cyberpunk flow gone? It is definitly missing, or at least badly representet by current artist. Is this only me, or are there also others that thinkg the same way.

c) I doubt that ppl could mistake it for a D&D sourcebook if it wouldnt look that cartoonish.
Colin Chapman
Mate, I already defined it, but hey, different strokes/definitions and all that. To you, for instance, Laubenstein may not have been cartoony, but to other folks (including me) he was. Now, sit back, relax, and enjoy the new Elmore cover for Arsenal:

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8991/el...earsenalsx0.jpg


eek.gif rotfl.gif
knasser
QUOTE (Colin Chapman)
Mate, I already defined it, but hey, different strokes/definitions and all that. To you, for instance, Laubenstein may not have been cartoony, but to other folks (including me) he was. Now, sit back, relax, and enjoy the new Elmore cover for Arsenal:

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8991/el...earsenalsx0.jpg


eek.gif rotfl.gif

rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif

Elmore - has talent and a fixation on scanty-women with eighties hair and makeup.

Please keep him away from Shadowrun or else sit him down with a fashion mag published in the last year. smile.gif

-K.
Colin Chapman
So, where do I sign up to become a cover designer? wink.gif BTW, nice to see a fellow Westcountryman hereabouts.

cheers!
Colin
Buster
QUOTE (Colin Chapman)
Mate, I already defined it, but hey, different strokes/definitions and all that. To you, for instance, Laubenstein may not have been cartoony, but to other folks (including me) he was. Now, sit back, relax, and enjoy the new Elmore cover for Arsenal:

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8991/el...earsenalsx0.jpg


eek.gif rotfl.gif

LOL!!

Reminds me of a cartoon in Dragon magazine years ago showing a woman in one of those chainmail bikinis saying "Thank goodness I was wearing my chain mail!" and hundreds of arrows are stuck just in the tiny chainmail patches.

Come to think of it, maybe that's the way it would work in the real world -- you hit what you're looking at... biggrin.gif
Cain
Here's my deal-breaker.

The female ork, which is supposed to be the centerpiece, is drawn like a male. The body shape and lines are basically a male with breasts, instead of a muscular female. Now, this does happen a lot: fashion artists, for example, get so used to drawing females that they forget how to draw males. But it's still a basic, beginner mistake. Add to it the aforementioned perspective issues, and the fact that her arms are done completely wrong, the main focus of the picture completely fails, and takes the rest of the piece with it. These are all *beginner* mistakes, and definitely do not belong on a professional piece.

Fuchs, in the troll thread, drew a much better female ork in action, that was muscular, but still noticeably female. I'd expect something much more like that.
Sponge
The Arsenal cover actually reminds me of Car Wars and the art for the "Uncle Albert's Auto Stop and Gunnery Shop" catalogs ... wink.gif

Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Cain)
Fuchs, in the troll thread, drew a much better female ork in action, that was muscular, but still noticeably female. I'd expect something much more like that.

Actually, they don't really look 'muskular'.
And it's a common problem for females on steroids to start looking 'male'.
Cardul
QUOTE (Cain)
Here's my deal-breaker.

The female ork, which is supposed to be the centerpiece, is drawn like a male. The body shape and lines are basically a male with breasts, instead of a muscular female. Now, this does happen a lot: fashion artists, for example, get so used to drawing females that they forget how to draw males. But it's still a basic, beginner mistake. Add to it the aforementioned perspective issues, and the fact that her arms are done completely wrong, the main focus of the picture completely fails, and takes the rest of the piece with it. These are all *beginner* mistakes, and definitely do not belong on a professional piece.

Fuchs, in the troll thread, drew a much better female ork in action, that was muscular, but still noticeably female. I'd expect something much more like that.

First, Cain: I have MET women who were built like that. Now, you go find one, and tell her "You are just a man with breasts" and see how far she throws you. I do not see where you think she looks like a man with breasts, either. The Yes, she has muscled arms, and since she is wearing long pants, we cannot see how obviously muscled her legs are, but it did look like he had the feminine build in that, to me, anyway, it looks like she has hips. And, pardon me, but..how do you know her arms are done "wrong"? Again, I have met and known women built like her. Heck, my first Shadowrun GM was built like her!(And was a sword and board fighter in the SCA, and wore plate, not the lighter lamellar armour that most people wore)

Second: Fuchs did not draw anything. That picture you linked to was done in either Poser or DAZ Studio. It involved essentially taking a pre-done female model, and injecting pre-done settings to her musculature. I know because I ALSO work with DAZ Studio.
eidolon
QUOTE (Whipstitch)
In all honesty I think what would make me happiest is if they just managed to lock up Klaus Scherwinski in a basement somewhere with a bunch of art supplies and put his ass to work.


rotfl.gif

Klaus is awesome...
Fuchs
QUOTE (Cardul)
Second: Fuchs did not draw anything. That picture you linked to was done in either Poser or DAZ Studio. It involved essentially taking a pre-done female model, and injecting pre-done settings to her musculature. I know because I ALSO work with DAZ Studio.

Never claimed otherwise (it's DAZ). Although "injecting pre-done settings" is not entirely correct, those were built up by mixing a number of settings for body, bodyparts and face, and adding modified stuff (the tusks were horns to start with)until I had the look I wanted. It was not just "inject female ork morph, done".

However, I expect much better from professional artists. I think Catalyst should check out what real artists can do with poser/daz before comissioning more artwork. Most of the stuff one can see in some galeries at Renderosity blows away all SR3/SR4 artwork.
eidolon
Eh, "blows away" is entirely a matter of personal taste, though. Yours might be overly "realistic" 3d art, somebody else's is Luabenstein. That's why I like the mix of art in SR.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012