.

Spooky crew is also a big part of our community and I’m quite sure they’ve helped fund Pinside over the past eight years unlike…

Oh no, I'm getting red heart shamed. Yawn.

I own a TNA. Great game.
I like Spooky, but being as Halloween and Ultraman are literally the only games you can't make a profit on selling in this ridiculous market says enough.

I thought Ultraman was a beautiful, fun game at last year’s SFGE. I haven’t had much time on it though. I’m lucky to have a few Spooky-lovin’ pals who will buy one.

I appreciate most art, even Genesis
sometimes an art package works, sometimes it doesn't

The only "bad" art is Stern photoshopping movie stills onto the playfield, that was just lazy

The art is great. No complaints there. I have access to one regularly... don't play it. However, I know it's still being worked on, and I'll give it some more plays eventually and reevaluate.

Obviously being a little snarky in my Stern response. I'd probably take it over CSI and WrestleMania. Probably.

I mean there’s games out there that I don’t like but saying they’re “garbage “ when the guys making them are on this forum is just so fucking rude. And your selling for profit reasoning just makes me cringe even harder. But yes, I always like to hear why Pinsiders don’t feel they need to contribute cash to the community.

If anyone wants to give me their Halloween spot for free I’ll gladly take it and pay the rest of the invoice when the game is made. Played Ultraman and I loved the layout.

I'm an artist too and I like the look of Flash. It's got quite few wrong looking bits but it's honest work by the Mitchells who got better the more games they did and i think the overall look is great and quite striking.

Also a quasi-artist here, too. Mainly all digital as a graphic designer, though. Been doing it as a job for the last 10 years or so. I've seen so much stuff over the years that customers want that blows my mind how awful it is, but hey, it's their money so I get the job done how they want. I just make sure no one can associate my name with it.

There's really no way to have everyone align with a single, or even a few, points of view on artwork, especially pinball artwork. Talk to five people about it and you'll get seven opinions. What seems obviously hideous to one, another will find exquisite, and another will be completely indifferent towards it.

When it's all said and done, my main coworker and I have always relied on this saying, "Some people's taste is only in their mouth."

Artist here. I think the art on every pinball machine is wonderful.

There are so many factors that play into commercial artwork—the technology that was available at the time, the timeframe that the artist had for making the artwork, demands/preferences of the company that hired the artist, the additional demands/preferences of Intellectual Property (IP) owners, the stylistic trends in the marketplace etc—that have nothing to do with the actual skill of an artist. One of the best pieces of animation I ever did was rejected by the producer in favor of something that was physically impossible and looked ridiculous on screen. But he preferred the revised version and I was being paid to achieve his goals, not my own.

Do I look at pins and shake my head at some of the creative choices? Sure—I’m human and I at things me or my own team produces too occasionally. But it feels like the exercise of creating a list and debating specific perceived or real shortcomings puts a high level of criticism on one person—the artist—without really acknowledging how commercial artwork results are driven more by all the other factors and stakeholders that I outlined than the artist themself.

I think a more even-handed discussion might be “What artwork choices were clearly driven by the timeframe that would be handled very differently now?” I think the Big Game “bingo cards” fall into that category because at the time the game came out, there was still a lot of general interest in Bingo type games. It would’ve resonated a lot more with consumers at the time than it does now.

I'm sure i'm going to get some heat for the take i'm about to express here about Python's art, so my flame shield is already in place. Honestly I can't stand Python's backglass art on Grand Lizard. In my opinion, Faris' original backglass artwork destroys the final product by Python. It fits the look of the game much better and i'm puzzled that Williams didn't just rework the original backglass to accommodate the alphanumeric displays they decided on since we know it COULD have been done and still look good on the game. Graphically speaking, Paul's offering was a far more cohesive piece and has a more balanced look, while Python's production art has all kinds of wonky character angles and forced perspectives that don't work and just don't look good in 2D. Paul's hand drawn realism fits this game far better than Python's harsh color palette and 6th grade looking hand drawn cartoonish take. Even today, I still kind of shake my head at Williams' creative choice on this backglass art. Eh, I guess that's part of the charm of pre millenium pinball art.

Grand Lizard (resized).png

UM thinks you're garbage too...

Nope. Trust me. I’m an artist. All art is fantastic, because it’s what the artist’s vision was. And I’m not going to take that from them.

Leave it be. But atleast you can add to it if you're inspired enough, like I did.

20220327_081424 (resized).jpg

Cost as well as deadlines usually played a big factor in playfield/backglass art cohesion fails. A perfect example is Paul Faris' Future Spa backglass art vs. Dave Christensen's Future Spa playfield art.

Future Spa (resized).png

Drac's playfield definitely could have used a depiction of old-man with goofy hair Dracula somewhere, rather than shirtless Gary Oldman. That depiction is inseparable from the film yet no where to be found in the game.

Godzilla's artwork is wonderful, but I'd prefer is Godzilla was desaturated a bit. I understand the artistic license and the desire to avoid having your main character the most drab-looking on the playfield, but the bright green Godzilla doesn't look right to my eyes.
godzilla 2 (resized).jpggodzilla 3 (resized).jpg

I beg to differ:
pasted_image (resized).png

As an artist, I respect it.

Almost forgot about this! I actually never noticed until someone pointed it out after I sold mine.

53A5F2FF-BE16-4AF1-AF7E-FE53090D0954 (resized).png

Agreed the pre production glass is awesome. Paul Faris made some incredible art. Just guessing but I think Williams must have wanted the pinball machine to have a stronger connection to the previous appearance of Grand Lizard in their 1984 video game, Inferno which featured the character and used a 3/4 or isometric perspective that the Constantino glass used.

7537402E-FF39-42CE-8290-3F5CB0ADE9C6 (resized).jpeg

Yes, but Tron.

Also Lazy. And not that good.

I think spiderman looks like shit, but Tron is just beautiful. Specially with the lenticular backglass.

TRON's Back Glasses look okay to Exceptionable for the Lenticular one. The Playfield Photoshop fest does not though.

OK, we get it, you have a new Tron and you love it

Better stay away from Christian Marche games

The thingy around her neck is different

I think the specific examples you mention actually have good art. But I’m not an artist, so I guess my opinion counts for less?

It’s easy to pick things apart from a distance of 30-40 years. I’d rather focus on what’s best from that time.

Yeah, pointy people rule! I won’t make the mistake of selling my OXO again.

I bought my Triple Action for this reason alone and it's not leaving. I haven't even plugged it in yet.

I think we need chuckwurt to weigh in. He is an artist.

You posted 2 pictures that look almost identical to me, and I’m viewing them on a large iPad Pro. The ONLY difference I see is in the “after” it looks she doesn’t have a neck, or like she’s ducking.

To suggest art depicting humans must strictly follow the guidelines of anatomy is an incredibly close-minded take. I personally prefer art that warps and blurs reality--it's more creative to me, and lets my mind wander. [FWIW, I prefer the original Cheetah artwork]

And everyone is an artist, will create, and will inspire. Getting paid for artwork or being inherently more creative isn't reason to be on a pedestal--occasionally the least artistic person in the room will amaze you.

While ego may be a necessary evil, it's best to leave it aside and let your work speak for itself.

While I haven't read the whole thread, I'm guessing the animosity here has to do with sensing this negativity early on.

try going to the image view, then click on the "Next" arrow over and over and see how her head is no longer lined up with her neck, the left arm is messed up and her head looks like it got bigger.

BTW, let's look at the uncropped version of the picture:
pasted_image (resized).png

... all in the name of "Art".

edit: "...her head looks like it got bigger"

That was quick!applause2.gif