Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For me, one of the biggest let-downs of the modern, ultra belt-tightened GW hasn't been the price increases, or the failing to update armies. It may seem only a small thing, but for me it's been the replacement of artwork on the boxsets with photoshopped (sometimes) pictures of the models.

When playing a game I have always pictured that the models are only representative of something far greater happening - of troops stumbling forward and firing, tanks rocking backwards with a tremendous noise when they fire, smoke and cordite covering the battlefield, and of dwarves cursing, belching and playing with their beards as they prepare to fight.

The artwork was in many ways always a reflection of that, an acknowledgement that the game relies heavily on its imagery, and to move beyond it simply being plastic men on a piece of MDF and a competition of dice throwing, to something which would really capture the imagination. What may seem like a small thing to many people was for me a bridge between the evocative background imagery in the book and the final placing of a painted miniature on the tabletop. Not to mention of course that the artwork was often incredible in its own right!

But now, I think the low-point was the release of a certain Imperial Guard tank with its heavy bolter upside down. Although I know that was something that was funny to a lot of people (myself included), really it serves to highlight exactly what importance GW gives to the presentation of its miniatures, and how much time is spent on it.

So, this is just a quick poll to think what other people's thoughts are on the matter. Do you also think that a return to artwork would be better, or do you actually prefer photos of the miniatures? As a final option, do you not care?

++ EDIT: Noting of course that there would be a photo of the miniatures on the rear of the box. ++

I have more to comment on the subject, but will leave it to see what people say first.

Funny enough, I was just pondering this on Saturday. I was looking at the wood elf boxes, and thinking how much they got my imagination going... So I definitely like artwork, but it should be consistent in style for the army and reflect the aesthetic.

If I want to see the painted models, I can look on the back!

But worst of all, I really, truly, dislike the images that use photos of the models and add photoshop effects. Even with my IA8 (which I read and re-read constantly), I cringe when I see the models with the effects around them! They don't do anything I want the image to do- can't see the model or painting details, but there is not any real innovation in imagery that art would add. Ugh

Edit- because words have meanings

I voted for photos because I want to see what the model actually looks like. I remember when catalouges were simply lists and numbers with an occasional line drawing thrown in and you had to buy on blind faith that what you got looked similar to the breif description.
That being said, I think splash art on the boxcover is awesome, it can be downright inspirational. But please, make sure there are photos on the back of the box.

I like artwork on the box... so long as there are also pictures of the actual models on there somewhere.

At least the battleforce boxes still have artwork on the front. I will parrot the sentiment about photos for the sake of being forthright with what is in the box.

I'm pretty sure everybody wants photos on the back of the box - that's not really the question here.

I really, really miss the old artwork on the boxes. I wish I could find it, but the old box art for Leman Russes was incredible. It had a Leman Russ rolling over some trenches, shooting guns in every direction, while Valhallans charged around it. On top was a Valhallan blazing away with the pintle mounted stormbolter at something offscreen.

I will take the Photoshopped photographs over some of the older box photography though. I have 2nd edition boxes, where the imagery is just the kit on a green mat against a blue gradient. It's the most boring boxart I can imagine. At least they try to contextualize the current Photoshopped images.

Long story short, I'd take this over a photograph any day:

I'll always love artwork, as the art on the Dark Elf warriors box is what led me to create my Druchii Army, and still inspires me to this day.



However, I voted for "photos of the minis", as the current 'shopped images deliver a picture of the actual product but in a gritty, dirty context that just feels "right" to me. It works much better for 40k than it does for Fantasy, though. Plus it probably saves GW some $$$ in production costs. I assume it's easier to have a couple Photoshop gurus edit photos than to pay artists to create unique works.

I perfer the artwork in which to draw insperation form when painting my mini's

Brother SRM wrote:I'm pretty sure everybody wants photos on the back of the box - that's not really the question here.

Thanks Brother SRM, I should have stated that in the OP. Of course, choosing artwork means art on the front, and pictures on the back.

Considering there´re allways actual pictures of the models on the back of the box I prefer artwork on the front.

Artwork is simply better for capturing the feeling the unit and army it belongs to represent. And it´s better for drawing inspiration for your own minis than simple picture of the models in a set color scheme.

@SRM

This isn't the box art you were referring to, was it?



Either way, while I prefer the artwork on the boxes (I actually voted photos, but that was before having a serious think on it =/) I think that if the photos were more like this one, it'd be much better.

Both. Together. At the same time. In the same image. I like pics of the models in high quality DISPLAY terrain. Then photoshopped to appear to be an image of a real world display. See images in Imperial Armour books for further reference. If you don't have access to those:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/232004.page

Maybe it's just because I used to use Photoshop a lot, but I love the photo box covers, especially when they apply Photoshop effects well to try and make it look like a RL scene. I say "well", because slapping a lense flare on there just doesn't cover it.

That said, I must be a total hypocrite because the Infinity minis with hacker models surrounded by glowing holographs kinda irk me. I think it's because I want those glowing effects to be transparent green plastic add-ons.

I miss the old artwork, which really drew me into buying boxed sets more than pictures of the product for some odd reason. That and it's always fun to guess who did the art by looking at the faces.

That leman russ boxset was the first memorable first instance of that awful practise. What annoys me is that fantasy has a load of art work they could just re-use, yet still they have started doing the crap photoshop. Games workshop's major asset is it's amazing artists, no wonder some of the old faves are doing less and less (The lack of a kopinski artwork on the new guard codex worries me). The artwork always made me feel like i was buying into a universe, Now i feel like i am buying toys when i look at toy advert style photoshop (you know the ones when the camera was in close to make you think the micro-machines were real cars!). I mean look in your average model shop, what's on the front of the 1:72 sherman tank/whatever kit? A crudely photoshopped picture of the model or a nice piece of evocative artwork? Oh wait i forget other smaller mini manufacterers, by all means put a painted model on the front, just dont photoshop it, it looks woeful.

I guess it depends on the target audience a bit. Italeri has for the most part nice painted pieces of art, but for their wargame sets they use actual pictures of the product.

The photoshopped stuff has grown on me over the last while.
I actually love the LR MkVII pic

ExarchCain wrote:@SRM

This isn't the box art you were referring to, was it?



Either way, while I prefer the artwork on the boxes (I actually voted photos, but that was before having a serious think on it =/) I think that if the photos were more like this one, it'd be much better.

I actually think this one is pretty cool, but no, it's not the one I was thinking of. The one I'm thinking of is Valhallans, and it's a painting.

artwork on the front... pictures on the back

I miss this vintage of boxes.

Artwork by a clear mile. Specifically, decent artwork- the front of the BA codex is far too cartooney. Bring back classic artwork!
http://www.adriansmith.co.uk/colour.html

I prefer model pictures but not the new style. I like them shown as you would see them on the table not photoshoped. I much prefer the old style.

I like seeing a photo of the actual model, but not photoshoped explosions and stuff. What I'd rather see is GOOD artwork on the front (as in, anything better than the IG codex cover), and pics of the models in different color schemes on the back and sides.

CadianXV wrote:Artwork by a clear mile. Specifically, decent artwork- the front of the BA codex is far too cartooney. Bring back classic artwork!
http://www.adriansmith.co.uk/colour.html

Thank you for this site

I LOVE GW artwork :3

Have to say the results of this thread have been a bit of a surprise for me.

Even if you take account of the 3-4 (more?) people who voted for 'pictures', mistakingly thinking that the 'artwork' option did not include model photos on the back of the box, and the soulless narcissists who voted 'don't care', before going home to look at the drab-grey painted walls of their houses, and stare out of the sole 12"x12" window in the room and watch the gathering condensation (joke), it still isn't the result I had expected.

Perhaps photos along with the poll options would have made the result a little different?

And I suppose the relative decline in quality of artwork over the past couple of years (or rather, pieces getting into prominent positions when they shouldn't do) as some have mentioned in this thread is an entire topic in of itself.

Definately artwork, especially the artwork they used on the gaurd boxes

look at this, how is that not cool, I don't even like catachans but it brings them to life

Photos for me, what you see is what you get and all that.

i like photos on the bigger boxes, but like the box of 12 fw i like artwork, gives me cool ideas.

anything better than the IG codex cover

I hate that picture. Not realistic at all, seriously, you have tanks driving over guys who are still charging. I mean you can do that in-game, put a leman russ on top of 5 guardsmen (if you arrange them nicely), but this isn't something that should be put on the codex cover.

I hate the new codex cover. It does show a certain aspect of the Guard, but the style bothers me. The old codex cover though, now that was a great one:


Really emphasized the grizzled veteran angle rather than the hordes of crap with some weird guys on top angle.