I recall reading somewhere (Looooooooong ago) that Liefeld is a big Traveller fan.

If I remember right Liefield did the sketches in the back of T4's Alien Archive.

I like the nostalgia value of old-school art, but it bugs me a bit when modern OSR products try to slavishly reproduce the style.  Note that I'm not talking about intentional high-quality homage like what DCC did, though.

Quote from: Voros;964909I like the Traveller art I've seen but I can't recall what edition it may be for. I'm not a fan of most 3e or 4e era art and most of the 5e covers are too close to that slick style but I find the interior 5e art pretty excellent. Not really interested in debating endlessly, more posting some goofy looking pics.

I'm peverve enough to have picked up a used copy of Cyborg Commando recently and may post a seperate thread for it soon but while most of the art is uninspired it does have a certain comicbookish energy I appreciate, this one though...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1004[/ATTACH]

I remember being perplexed at the time why Cyborgs ate and drank through their noses...

I remember having the MM before the PHB came out, and even when the MM was the only colour-cover hardback around, and nothing to compare it to, I still thought that cover was awkward.

As for the interior art, Trampier definitely seemed to be the more sure-handed consistent artist of the two. And yet, I have this recollection that at the time there was a poll to vote on the best illustration in the book. And the winner? Not one of Trampier's, but Sutherland's night hag. Anybody else remember this? Anyway, Sutherland could be very good at times.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;964898I agree.
I'm not a big fan of his AD&D stuff, but his Tekumel art was really top shelf, IMO.

Totally agree. The same two artists illustrated Legions of the Petal Throne (which Sutherland wrote) and Trampier's woodblock style, although great design, just didn't have the detail to convey the ornate Tekumel style. For me Sutherland's illustrations were more appropriate. Some of his best work.

The quality of Dave Sutherland's artwork varied drastically based on the amount of time he was given to do the piece.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965306I think a lot of it has to do with when and how you first saw the drawings and what sort of reactions they first triggered. Like I know that Rob Liefeld is objectively a bad artist

Anyone who uses the word objectively to describe their own personal tastes is a cunt. Objectively a cunt, that is.

I thought Rob Liefeld did fan art. When he draws a character twice, he ends up with two different looking characters. Maybe he traces his artwork now so that it looks reasonable, if he still does fan art.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965059Because art is a personal thing, and is in no way objective, personally I think Erol Otus was crap.  I never liked his stuff.  I will grant that some of his pieces were 'OK' but no one will convince me his stuff was 'good'.

My first real exposure to RPG art was the cover of the Mentzer Basic set, Larry Elmore's mindblowing (to me) Ancient Red.  A few months later I saw some of the older Otus stuff and thought "what is this crap?"

I have since come to appreciate his style (sue me, I was six when I first saw it), but not nearly as much as Larry's.

Quote from: Thornhammer;966074My first real exposure to RPG art was the cover of the Mentzer Basic set, Larry Elmore's mindblowing (to me) Ancient Red.  A few months later I saw some of the older Otus stuff and thought "what is this crap?"

I have since come to appreciate his style (sue me, I was six when I first saw it), but not nearly as much as Larry's.

I started with Moldvay. No question that Elmore's cover is cooler than Otus', but I think Otus' cover feels more like D&D with a small party working together instead of a lone hero charging in.

The original sketch for Elmore's cover does look much more D&D-like, but the image they went with probably was the right choice to be eye-catching on the shelf.

Quote from: Elfdart;966059Anyone who uses the word objectively to describe their own personal tastes is a cunt. Objectively a cunt, that is.

Anyone who thinks where your muscles attach to your bones is a matter of taste is a retard. Objectively a retard, that is.

Anybody who uses "cunt" as a bad word is objectively a piece of shit.

Cunts are nice.  Cunts are good.  Cunts are friendly.  Cunts are fun.  Cunts are tasty.

Why would anybody use something as wonderful as cunts as a pejorative term?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966124Anyone who thinks where your muscles attach to your bones is a matter of taste is a retard. Objectively a retard, that is.

As someone that runs life drawing sessions with models once a week, I will say that the anatomy in a picture can be objectively correct or incorrect. That doesn't make it objectively bad art. There is plenty of art I don't care for with good anatomy and plenty of art that I find amazing where the anatomy is not correct.

Personally, I am not really into Liefeld's art, but he does have a distinctive style that some people really like.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966124Anyone who thinks where your muscles attach to your bones is a matter of taste is a retard. Objectively a retard, that is.

Like multitudes of other fucktards, you can't distinguish between your own personal likes and dislikes on one hand, and objective facts on the other. Where a muscle attaches to bone (or to ligaments that attach to bone) is a matter of fact. How well an artist depicts something that does not exist, never did exist and never will exist is a matter of opinion. The fact that you can't tell the difference is why you're a retarded cunt.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966154Anybody who uses "cunt" as a bad word is objectively a piece of shit.

Cunts are nice.  Cunts are good.  Cunts are friendly.  Cunts are fun.  Cunts are tasty.

Why would anybody use something as wonderful as cunts as a pejorative term?

Probably the short, sharp staccato effect of the word more than anything else. The word itself sounds harsh and guttural. On the other hand, pussy sounds warm, soft and inviting.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966154Anybody who uses "cunt" as a bad word is objectively a piece of shit.

Cunts are nice.  Cunts are good.  Cunts are friendly.  Cunts are fun.  Cunts are tasty.

Why would anybody use something as wonderful as cunts as a pejorative term?

Brits of course, but they generally don't know what tasty is.  The Irish had to show them beer, the Scots whisky, and the Indians/Pakistanis had to show them food.

I'm with the author of the Vagina Monologues, women should reclaim that term and turn it into a compliment.