Jump to content

Is anyone else unimpressed with GW's artwork lately?


Avindskjold

Recommended Posts

I haven't looked through each and every GA book or Battletome, so I can't speak for all of them, but from what I've seen of much of the recent AoS art, I'm not too impressed - particularly when compared to older work in WHFB books. To me, some of the art just lacks any detail that make sit interesting to look at; I could spend hours marveling at the work in the old Warrior of Chaos books, but opening up the Bloodbound tome, the illustrations really don't do much for me. Another thing I miss is imagination. In AoS books, every model/unit is clearly represented and identifiable - often identical to the miniatures. There are little to no illustrations that portray individuals differently, and so there's a feeling of seeing it all before. 

A case in point; here's a the cover from the latest Warriors of Chaos army book by Adrian Smith:

adrian-smith-cover-drawing3fin.jpg?14439 

It's totally badass; Smith uses shadow to create a grim atmosphere; we can see it in the recesses of the armor, the bodies and the other warriors. The lord stands at the forefront, and thanks to the depth created by difference in size and shadow on the other warriors, the viewer can feel a sense of authority that he commands.  The centerpiece figure is sharply detailed and rightly menacing looking. He doesn't have an exact miniature representation, but this encourages hobbyists to use imagination and convert. The pose of the lord is not terribly dynamic, but it is natural - it conveys a sense of dead, as if he has just finished off the slaughter of men beneath him, and is looming over a new target. He's in mid-stride, preparing his axes for another combat. 

Contrast that with an image like this one:

AoS%20Khorne%20Bloodbound%20EPUB%20Table

In my opinion, this one's absolutely boring. Yes, there's a smidgen of depth created by the warriors in the fog, but hardly the same scale as Smith's piece. We aren't looking at an army, just a handful of warriors at most. There is some neat detail in the scratches and dents in the armor, however there is little shadow play, and therefore no sense of illusion or mystery. The detail is sharp, but uninteresting - nothing is left to the imagination. It is not dark or grim in the same way as Smith's lord; it just comes off feeling bland and bombastic. It is an exact representation of the blood warrior model; we've seen it all before, nothing new. The pose is just like any other we've seen on a cover or on a model - rather than run with his men, he's facing the opposite way, waving an arm to urge them on, as if they need his guidance. It looks forced; Smith's lord is in the middle of picking out new prey as he stalks forward- scary. This warrior is screaming his head off while posing for a wartime journalist's camera as the action happens without his participation. The colors are bright everywhere, creating a cartoony effect, while Smith's piece is more subdued and dark - the only brightness really comes from the flames of the axes and volcano, which creates an interesting contrast.

 

I won't clog up one post with other examples I wanted to use, but this here is just one case of many. Maybe I'm being overly critical; different artists have different styles, and GW probably gave a lot of direction to the artists working on AoS books. However, I'm still of the opinion that much of the new art comes off as bland and not as interesting to admire as it has been in the past.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall is have to agree with you.

I have the Ironjawz, Sylvaneth and the Beastclaw tomes. Ironjawz was not very impressive at all, outside of a few, while the other two had quite a few really good pieces.

To me alot of it seemed very cartoonish.

This is just my opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with your evaluation on the details of the art, if not your final opinions

I don't really dislike either type of art.  I like them both for different reasons, and I feel like both styles do a good job of representing their games.

I think the old art better fits the Old World, which was a bleak, stagnant setting.  It was sort of low fantasy....  I mean in comparison to AoS anyway.  Battles were grinding tactical matches (and represented a form of combat, that historically is about who can push harder, so nothing wrong here).  Also, the old world is a mock up of the real world.  It's races roughly approximate or represent real cultures in many cases, if only in an asthetic sense.  So realistic-ish art is good at represnting this.  The biggest problem with the art from WHFB, was that it was sometimes a bit too static.  Looked too posed, the image in the op, despite being awesome, is a perfect example of that.  Of course, the setting was like that two, so this might be intentional.

AoS is very high Fantasy.  It's dynamic and vibrant. Battles are entirely different, with units flowing quickly around the board. The realms contain things like floating islands, godbeasts, and rivers of quicksilver.  The design of the world specifically does everything it can to avoid real world analogs.  As for faction culture, well... you can only expect so much divergence from human cultures, we are constrained in some ways by our perspective.  That said, it does seem like the newer models are making an attempt to step further away from visual design references to actual cultures.  I.e., no more TK, no more Brets, No new Seraphon Models (obviously mezo-american in style, and of course dinos) released with the tome, but we did get new Oruuks with the Ironjaws, and new Sylvaneth, neither of which have super obvious real world analogs.  Not that they don't exist, just that they are less apparent.    I feel the more cartoonish art is better at representing this world.  But as you say, it's weakness is a lack of depth or anything like a realistic feel.

Anyway, just my two cents.  So far, I've really enjoyed the art.  But I liked a lot of the old art as well.

 

TLDR: The art of both games is an excellent representation of those games play style and setting, and I like both types of art pretty equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops.... I did miss two points... 

I really do talk (type) to much.

The one thing I really can't agree with you enough on, is that I wish they would give more conversion fodder, rather than images of characters that are exact duplicates of the model....  I know why they do it.  They want anyone who's inspired by the art, to be able to make their mini match it exactly.  I suppose they expect that those who like to convert, will do so no matter what.  But inspiration in the books themselves, can't be undervalued.

And, especially in your example, I think you do see some of the cost of the blistering pace that the release schedule has set.  The art is mass produced. I'm not sure what their graphic design team is like, in terms of staffing, but I can't imagine it's been easy on them to produce so much in such a short time.  That will always cause quality to fall a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel it's more simplistic in some ways, as art of the old world changed through time (art before sixth edition ). I enjoy it greatly tho.

28 minutes ago, MechaBriZilla said:

 As for faction culture, well... you can only expect so much divergence from human cultures, we are constrained in some ways by our perspective.  That said, it does seem like the newer models are making an attempt to step further away from visual design references to actual cultures.

It made me happy to see GW named one of the SE characters Perun. It's always more enjoyable to create a story about your guys and feel it's at least somewhat plausible, rather than feeling they're from the unknown part of the Old world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I rather like the art.image.pngThe Bloodbound cover you posted isn't very good but there's some seriously nice stuff inside the book. I also like how it represents the models it's always jarred with me a bit that a lot of the WFB art wasn't really representative of what was on the table.  Apologies for the slightly peculiar photos I have the digital Battletomeimage.png

image.png

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree to an extent. 

The old eighth edition army books had some amazing covers, especially some of the paul dainton stuff - he really managed to capture a feeling of imminent violence in his poses. E.g below

I love the artwork in most of the books, but I find that in most cases the artwork from inside the book is more interesting than the cover art. 

I think the new covers are good at what're they're meant for - attracting the eye with distinctive colors and showcasing the look of the army. If you line them up on a store shelf each one is distinct and stands out well. 

The artwork inside the new books has really blown me away though: it has so much vibrancy and movement compared to some of the old art.

 

 

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. Speaking as an Ogre/Ogor fan, the art in the Beastclaw Raiders battletome genuinely blew me away and it was a huge step up from the disappointment of the art in the last Ogre Kingdoms army book (which relied heavily on lots of recoloured art from the first book to give the Ogres pink skin instead of grey, and had a lot of quite odd-looking messy new art too).

There are significantly more stand-out awesome looking pieces in the Beastclaw book IMO, and I echo the opinion that the Bonesplitterz book has some great pieces too.

Beastclaw_vs_Morghast.JPG

art.png.22f7d70d07a139c17be16d5bf00597b9

igor-sid-06-berzerker-vs-beastclaw.jpg?1

82e6761c88066a9fd592b80d36aa1237.jpg

warhammer+age+of+sigmar+ogors+thundertus

billy-christian-mournfangvspinkhorrors-r

Close-ups of that last one: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/qNGzD

That's only a fraction of the new art from the book too! Honestly, I feel spoilt!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quality is certainly hit and miss at the moment, though improving. Some is stunning, some not so much. I suspect all this is a function of taking in art from freelancers. There is now less of an opportunity for consistent art direction and fixing "problem" pieces during the production process as the artists are not resident in the studio. Now they get what they get and sometimes if its no good deadline pressures mean it gets used anyway. In time we should see some of the artists being weeded out and more work being given to the better guys. The art in the Beastclaws book is much better than that in the Bloodbound book as an example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where you're coming from, some of the art in the first few months of AoS releases wasn't quite at the same level as some of the old artwork.  I've a feeling it may be more to do with the quantity of artwork required and that GW will have got artwork commissioned outside of their normal range of artists.

One comment I will make too is a lot of the artwork pre-AoS didn't have supporting models, pretty much all of the new art (that I've seen at least) can be purchased in miniature form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bowlzee said:

You've picked one of the worst pieces of art from the release so far and judged them all by that, as you can see from what others have posted these are some of the best art to come out of GW for a long time.

To who are you replaying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bowlzee said:

I'm absolutely loving the art work from Age of Sigmar. @Aristo You've picked one of the worst pieces of art from the release so far and judged them all by that, as you can see from what others have posted these are some of the best art to come out of GW for a long time.

I won't disagree; as I said, I haven't had the chance to look at every book. However, within the AoS work there are inconsistencies; take these for example:

a65af6f4281a237d5d923c08063c464e.jpg

godbeasts.jpg

Screen-Shot-2015-09-05-at-11.33.53-PM.pn

The first one on top is actually really neat. The armies are in grips with each other, and there's multiple dimensions to the battle. There's a lot of cool detail and contrast in the color that make it fun to look at. I actually really like this picture.

The second picture is a step down; It's more boring, since the armies are at opposite ends of the picture and not actually mixed. The details are more amateurish and cartoony, but this just might be a case of artist style. The colors are slightly less vibrant and striking. 

The last picture is definitely the bottom of the barrel. There are a bunch of Stormcasts and only two visible enemies; the skeleton is falling, but there's hardly any movement to the other poses. The sense of depth is poor, and the colors are so saturated, the contrast is minimal, compared to the other art. There is minimal detail in the armor; it is very basic compared to the first or even second picture.   

 

In all, AoS art is hit or miss, when it's good it's quite good, and when it's bad, you get the idea. Say I opened up a book and these pictures were in it. I might spend 5 minutes picking out all the detail and action in the first one, maybe 1 minute in the second, and the last wouldn't get 10 seconds. Of course, this is based on my opinions and preferences - I like artwork more 'realistic' and less cartoony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GW commissions different artists to work on artwork for the books. That's why there are differences, and looking at all the different books you get to see the same artist's work on different subjects.

Likewise different art will appeal to different people so I like that there are many styles in the books. Like you, I lean towards certain styles, but overall the artwork has been fantastic and there is so much more in these books compared to books in the past.

[Edit]

You will also find that not all are done with traditional brush work, some are computer generated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the difference in quality is really big. There are great pieces, but also a lot more really bad pieces than we saw in earlier editions of warhammer.

what I miss most is that we hardly ever see a depictionnof warriors that don't look exactly like the models. There isn't much to inspire conversions and such. The pieces don't add a lot, they are just pictures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...