I think that will be one of the more successful predictions of your career, Eric.  Oh dear…

Divisive… or derisive?

Wow!  I certainly hope the game components will be easier on the eyes than this creepy thing…

It is different...but I kind of like it.  I can’t quite put my finger on what the style reminds me of… That front face has this weird geometric feel to me.

Not that I ever try to judge a book/game by its cover, but let’s see.  What’s the word I’m looking for?  Um . . . Oh, yeah.
Hideous.

I like it quite a lot. It’s got the feel of Modigliani, only less impressionistic than his work. I think Mr. Doyle has made things difficult on himself by having his work highlighted so much. So many box covers are boring to me, and even worse start to look alike, so it’s nice to have something completely different.

Of course, it’s still art, and therefore still subject to personal opinion (as we’ve seen already in these comments). I’ve bought games because of art I’ve liked, but never refused a game because of art that I didn’t, so ultimately I think it’s a bit of a moot point.

I’m on the like side....  I find it pretty striking.

I respect Mike as an artist.  I really do.  And I think he puts a great deal of care into his work.  That being said, I think it important for board games to appear accessible and fun.

But if Mike is going for an elegance in boardgames to match “Chess” or “Go”, I think he is spot on. 

For my tastes, however, his work oftentimes comes off as “hoity toity”. 

Mike’s exceptional talent as an artist and his eye for graphic design cannot be denied, however. 

I think it is very tasteful work.... but just not my taste.

Ryan B.

I would have preferred Mike go further in a cubist direction, or a more medieval approach as done in Scripts & Scribes.  But, I applaud him for his daring to be different.  The big deal is if the game is any good.

I don’t understand.  Mike is on record elsewhere as complaining that the artwork in games generally isn’t evocative or classy enough for his art scene friends, but then produces something that, regardless of the amount of forethought that went into it (and I fully acknowledge that Mike’s work is anything but slapped together quickly), looks like something you might find in a Grade 8 art exhibition.

This one is a miss for me - the guy in the foreground looks like a tarted up transvestite, and that’s not the look I usually prefer.

Sure hope the gameplay’s better.

pk

Patrick,

I’m drinking a milkshake and I swear I about spit that up through my nose reading your comments. (LOL)

Ryan B.

I think he was doing OK until he put in the close-up of the guy. The faces of both guys in the foreground just look more like zombies or something. The colors just seem wrong.

I think the theory was solid. I totally buy what he was trying to do. I just think the execution leaves a lot to be desired; it’s like maybe he wanted to do this modern abstract thing, but the publisher said “great, but we need a closeup of a person on the box to humanize it”, and in trying to meet these conflicting goals this is what we end up with. I think the Justinian box is sort of a similar concept, but much more effective.

I agree, Chris.  As we all know, when viewing a picture, one’s eyes are usually drawn to one feature.  As a result, I will always think of this as the “Nose Game”.

"I totally buy what he was trying to do”
So do I, and while I respect that, I sometimes wish that Mike wouldn’t be so afraid to do more conventional style covers, thus making the games more accessible to the the uninitiated. I do in this case, sorry Mike.

What I really like about where Mike is going with this is it reinforces the idea that games are “created” as objects of art—and not “designed” as projects of science by some formulaic process.  (I’m all for abolishing the term game designer and instead using the term game creator.) Since as objects of art each and every aspect of them (including having a wide range in artistic styles and not some repetitive in house art shop) is critical for their mood and presentation and yet being subjective about what is beauty.

As for this particular cover I liked it (yet would like it more if it looked like http://www.accd.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/Byz2a.jpg )—but the real test comes with the balance of function and style on the board.

The picture does look reasonably like period Roman murals, to Mike’s credit.

But in practice, the image’s hideousness is kind of a throwback to Cannes by Splotter.