Let's compare covers

[Morgenstern]

Ben has gone on to do the majority of our interior pieces and the unifying effect on the look of the book has been very impressive.

[Crafty_Pat]

Not just the interior illustrations, but also the interior template art, which is so fantabulously old school that my dice fingers twitch just thinkin' about it. 

[famine]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned how the 4.0 cover looks a lot like the pose from a certain SP book...

[Nepenthe]

A dragonish guy and a semi-dressed chick. Groundbreaking, Wizards, groundbreaking. 

[Valentina]

A dragonish guy and a semi-dressed chick. Groundbreaking, Wizards, groundbreaking. 

Neglect not the titanic and artistic sword being wielded by said dragon guy.

[Morgenstern]

The weapons are always oversized in miniture games.

...Oh, wait.

[Valentina]

The weapons are always oversized in miniture games.

...Oh, wait.

When I say that's wrong, I don't mean incorrect. 

[Number Three]

[sigh]  You guys are going to make me be the downer, aren't you?   As Famine... already pointed out

A trenchcoated guy and a chick in a skin-tight bodysuit. Groundbreaking, Crafty, groundbreaking.

I showed the Fantasycraft cover to some of my coworkers.  There response was, "it's too busy."  The 4E cover may not scream "fantasy roleplaying" to us, but we already know what fantasy roleplaying is.  That cover has to say "Dungeons & Dragons" to people who have no concept of what Dungeons & Dragons is.  Yeah, it's pretty lame, but it will cut through the fog for a mundane, and the DMG and the Monster Manual covers don't fall so short for the regulars.

I love Spycraft as much as the next guy on this board, but in a year it will still be a magnitude easier finding a D&D game (3E or 4) than a Fantasycraft game.  There will be no overnight revolution, and among the actual D&D players I've been around, I've heard just has much positivity about 4E than gripes and shaken heads.  These are pretty much the exact same ratios I heard on the cusp of 3E, and most of the guys that swore like Heston they'd never put down their 2nd Ed books folded in less than six months.  Yes, we've found a fine 70's muscle car of a ruleset.  We are enthusiasts, and we regularly go beyond the norm.  Most people just want to friggin' play, and D&D will always be the Rosetta Stone of gaming.

Me, I'm looking forward to borrowing other people's books for another two years* and having another d20 system where 1st level character's aren't frakkin' useless.

*I play 3E, but for ages I refused to buy a book for it.  I bummed off others to build a character, constantly forgot to level, and steadfastly denied giving WotC money for a system that falls far below what I'm willing to pay for**.  I happily sell it because it's the only thing that sells consistently around here, and I'm paid to make a hobby game department produce a profit.  I am lucky enough to have GMs that run games that make it worth me putting up with the ruleset, but it wasn't until last year that a friend bought the latest basic game box just to give me the softcover PHB that I had a 3E book.

**And I was ticked at the SRD for razing to the ground all the system variety I was enjoying. ¬_¬

[Valentina]

It's not hypocrisy if I don't care.

But true. Still, c'mon. WotC wasn't coming off a Veronica Jones high. Scaleface and Leatherlass there are an upgrade from the faux-folio school of illustrating.

[Mister Andersen]

Yeah, the 4E covers are kinda drek

That's mainly a layout issue - I'm not a fan of the way the covers are structured or composed, even though that chick is quite hot in a delightfully ethnically unspecific sort of way.

Howefer, I definitely continue to loathe the cover of the core Spycraft book and how it looks like a uninspired knock-off of D20 Modern.

[Morgenstern]

I think it will help if people are realistic in their expectations. Fantasy Crafty isn't going to come out and be some cosmic force on the gaming landscape in terms of sales. It's "just" going to be a good game that you can have fun with - and will hopefully sell reasonably well to offset the costs that went into it. If you want other folks to read it, you're going to have to show it to them. Thats true of most games other than the 900-pound gorilla and its true here.

In regards to the art (both cover and interior) this will be the first time people see Crafty Games firing on all cylinders with the time and money to do the entire graphic presentation Alex, Pat, and I want, not what was handed to us by upper management. Not surprisingly, we have desires and goals for the book's look that are a little different.

And I have to say 'Too busy'? *snort* I'm ecstatic we got a piece of art that has something to offer after the first 3.2 seconds you look at it. We sort of expect the book will be in your hands for a while and you might enjoy a little more luxurious image to examine and explore rather than the visual equivalent of a 10 second sound bite. Maybe people have had their expectations beaten out of them, but it is possible to get cover art that has more substance than optical cotton candy. I guess it just doesn't look enough like a comercial .

[Morgenstern]

[sigh]  You guys are going to make me be the downer, aren't you?   As Famine... already pointed out

A trenchcoated guy and a chick in a skin-tight bodysuit. Groundbreaking, Crafty, groundbreaking.

Oh, it still makes me sad how hard I fought for the cover to include the BACKGROUND imagery that goes with those figures  . SO much cooler as a complete scene rather than isolated figures.

[Mister Andersen]

Ben has gone on to do the majority of our interior pieces and the unifying effect on the look of the book has been very impressive.

A unified artistic aspect to a gamebook is a truely great thing (unless like the original B5 RPG it sucks which happily is far from the case here). Most books can't manage it, and many of those who do only go so far as a house style (D20 Modern again springs to mind).

The cover art for Fantasycraft isn't busy, it's dynamic, something that the art of the core D&D books lack. Not only does the D&D art come across as posed, the artist's style tends to blur the focal point (the characters) into the background, and are generally murkily coloured.

[Krensky]

It's only anecdotal, but I showed this thread to my mostly friendly neighborhood art snob/critic gamer (she's been known to refuse to play systems or settings because of the art in the book) and asked her which she would buy if they were sitting on the shelf in her FLGS with exactly the same context. (As I said, Art snob/critic).

To summarize the art critic rant that followed:

"I'd buy the Spycraft book."

[NezMaster]

And I have to say 'Too busy'? *snort* I'm ecstatic we got a piece of art that has something to offer after the first 3.2 seconds you look at it. We sort of expect the book will be in your hands for a while and you might enjoy a little more luxurious image to examine and explore rather than the visual equivalent of a 10 second sound bite. Maybe people have had their expectations beaten out of them, but it is possible to get cover art that has more substance than optical cotton candy. I guess it just doesn't look enough like a comercial .

Goal of a commercial: Get people to buy product or at least look at it.
Goal of your cover: Get people to buy the product or at least pick it up.

So that being said your cover SHOULD look like a commercial.

I'm not much of an art connisieur either way. I go the same impression from the crafty cover. Not from a me standpoint but basically "I'm betting most people think it's too busy". No it doesn't look enough like what it is..a commercial. Yes, Your cover art is in fact a comercial, as it should be.

 That being said, I think your probably targetting the niche market, and in doing that in succeeds. From this board and other comments probably rather well. Commercials can be busy too, it depends on your market. But you really shouldn't downplay what it is.