The Wizard in question has normal-sized eyes and a detailed nose, compared to some common generalizations about "anime art" I don't know where "anime art" comes from.
A lot of 3E's art was, and I feel like as someone who has done a lot of art, I should recall the proper term for this (!!!), "floaty" art, i.e. figures/creatures/beings/objects who are full-colour and full detail but just on a white or pale blank background, and it's like, there are times that works, but 3E pushed it far, far beyond the bounds of "what works" into being basically the dominant art style of 3E and becoming quite annoying, frankly.
5E does it much less, but I still does a sort of less-extreme form of it a lot, where there's a segment of background (sometimes faded-out) behind a figure or monster, and it's like, no, please, please stop that, do like, actual full pieces! Or use it really selectively and consistently - also it works a lot better with black and white pieces than colour ones.
I know some people like it and great for them, but, for me, just less of that, or only use it non-full-colour pieces at least. That's another thing I miss though - non-full-colour pieces. I love a bit of black-and-white or similar similar monotonal or near-monotonal art, some of the most effect RPG art I've seen is that (I loved some of the moody blue on white pieces in 2E, for example), but unfortunately it seems like WotC feel like that's maybe... beneath them? Or that their audience would see it as cheap. Meh. I'd much rather than a really cool B&W piece than a mid or only ok colour one, but I think many people would disagree.
All the stuff I've seen so far for 2024, with no exceptions, has been an actual, full piece at least.
A few, but why stoke the flames?Did I miss any?
I think this is a way of saying “not grounded” or too bright or something. My kid is into anime—I sit down and watch it with her. This is not like any anime I have seen.Not everyone can achieve that level of genius...but rhe genetic relationship is clear.
"This art looks anime" = "I don't like it" for some people.
Well, lessee what the criticisms seem to be shall we? A quick recap:
1. This is a fantasy version of Storm from Marvel. Well, she does have white eyes and she is flying... and... well... she's black. Other than that?
2. This is too superhero because of the pose. Again, how many different ways do we show someone without wings flying? This is pretty much the standard pose for anyone depicted flying in any genre.
3. She's "hypersexualized". That's a fun one. Fully clothed is hypersexualized?
4. Too anachronistic.
5. Too clean.
Did I miss any?
I think so too, from what I have seen I cannot really complain about competency in the 2024 books. I tend to like oil paintings better than digital, this also holds true for the same artist using both mediums.I think the art is going to be the most “competent” in aggregate of any edition to date
Yeah—-I really enjoy paintings…really love Brom. I also liked Lockwood.I think so too, from what I have seen I cannot really complain about competency in the 2024 books. I tend to like oil paintings better than digital, this also holds true for the same artist using both mediums.
I liked the old art by Elmore, Parkinson, Caldwell, and Brom a lot and it was and competent as well. In 3e the same is true for Lockwood. Where 2024 has the edge is that they mostly painted title pages for the adventures, and there was not much interior art of that quality in the core books, so 2024 is bound to beat the old core books