A Brief Thought on the Artistry of Games

This is most definitely not an "are games art?" piece.

In fact, just take it as presumed that I think video games are art in a very general sense, and realize that whether you agree with me or not, I am operating comfortably from that assumption.

What I want to briefly consider is the evolution of art in games and the net good that brings as a whole.

Since I have no art history background, I am far from equipped to measure the relative qualities of art design in games, but as a consumer I can tell you that while games like The Path or Flower may be a little hoity-toity for my general tastes, I like that they make broad attempts to evolve the medium. I think independent and subversive effort to recast games into something beyond the standards we have become achingly familiar with is a valiant, if occasionally misdirected, effort.

As a result, I genuinely believe that the modern era of games, even the big budget blockbusters, more often operate from a position where a strong visual aesthetic, an artistic vision for a game, is core to production. And, in a visual medium such as this, that can only make games better.

The explicitly artistic indie games that have begun to see exposure within the industry, like Braid or even Love, are rarely up my alley from a gameplay perspective. Like many people I find a lot of what games like these do to be antithetical to my game playing preferences. I fear, however, that by making a statement like that I am giving the impression that I condemn the games as having some kind of negative impact.

The opposite is true. I don’t want to play them, but I like the influence they have on the industry as a whole.

It wasn’t so long ago that I felt like every game was painted in the achingly familiar palettes of earthen colors. The vision of every world seemed to be an endless set of brown hallways cluttered with a preposterous abundance of crates. I realize, of course, that part of the reason for this was technical limitations, but I think writing all advancements in art direction of the past decade away as tied to technology is grossly underestimating the evolution of the way the industry thinks about portraying worlds.

In the same way that I think something like Video Games Live highlights the genius of creativity in the soundtracks of gaming, the same spotlight should begin to fall on the wealth of talent in the visual arts throughout the medium.

I don’t want to belabor the point, it is after all a simple one, and I keep beginning to write paragraphs that wander needlessly into the familiar mire of fiery, self-annihilating debates about the nature of art. Tis a silly place.

My point is simply this. As you are enjoying whatever game you choose to play tonight, tomorrow and in the days to come, be that Starcraft II, Team Fortress II or Mario Galaxy II, take a moment to appreciate how far the visual design of games have come. Look not simply at the technical achievements, but see the artistry of the game as well.

Comments

My point is simply this. As you are enjoying whatever game you choose to play tonight, tomorrow and in the days to come, be that Starcraft II, Team Fortress II or Mario Galaxy II, take a moment to appreciate how far the visual design of games have come. Look not simply at the technical achievements, but see the artistry of the game as well.

That's something that pains me about some games, you have to deliberately stop playing for a moment and change how you look at the screen. There's too many games where you can be intensely looking at the details, is there a guy hiding in those woods, keeping your focus on a distant window down your gun sights for the next time the dumb AI sticks his head out, looking at the ground to navigate your character around the world, that you don't look at the whole scene.

One of the things Cliff Bleszinski said early in the 360's life, probably when talking about Gears1, was that one of the biggest improvements to make this-gen was how they handle the camera. I think it was a very perceptive thing to say, it's no good having the horsepower to drive these visuals, and the tools to make them if they are never seen or just ignored. However it's a tough job showing those visuals in a way that doesn't get in the way of what the player loaded the game up for, a game. It's a thing of great craft when you can get the best of both worlds.

I'd also note it's not just the visual worlds that need to be composed well. When I first saw the trailers for the multiplayer mode of COD:MW2 it was just popping numbers and captions in your face almost constantly, and all that takes mental bandwidth to process. I'd put that in the category of UI which is really can be annoying when done wrong, but when it's done right with not too much information that it's taking up screen space unnecessarily, but not burying any information and keeping you informed of constantly needed information you need it is often simply ignored, but to a certain extent it should be able to be ignored.

Sound is the last part of the 'picture' that really needs care in a game. Like a UI there are plenty of games that will throw too much audio information at a player and it all dissolves together in a mess. Rousing background music, ambient sounds, the sounds of a battle, dialogue, the feedback sounds from using a UI. They all need to be used in the right balance, and that balance may be the different at different points through the game, but they can all be essential and have their place to be used.

I think the main problem with art in games is that it's easy to ignore when it's done well.

My point is simply this. As you are enjoying whatever game you choose to play tonight, tomorrow and in the days to come, be that Starcraft II, Team Fortress II or Mario Galaxy II, take a moment to appreciate how far the visual design of games have come. Look not simply at the technical achievements, but see the artistry of the game as well.

I was just watching the Starcraft II story trailer and marveling at how brilliant Blizzard's art direction is. How many movies do you see with that level of art direction and spectacle? I'm glad Blizzard is here, setting the bar.

Likewise, I'm glad Limbo is here, pushing their minimalist boundaries. Games that come out afterwards that aspire to both ideals are going to be better for it.

It wasn’t so long ago that I felt like every game was painted in the achingly familiar palettes of earthen colors. The vision of every world seemed to be an endless set of brown hallways cluttered with a preposterous abundance of crates. I realize, of course, that part of the reason for this was technical limitations, but I think writing all advancements in art direction of the past decade away as tied to technology is grossly underestimating the evolution of the way the industry thinks about portraying worlds.

Hey Big Guy, I think the above is a quote from someone playing way too many FPS'.

I wonder how much cross employment now takes place between visual arts people in the gaming and movie industries? I have no real idea, but I suspect the movie industry is starting to take more notice of the great talent that exists on the gaming side and is looking to hire some of that talent away? Or are the mediums just too different to allow gaming artists to cross that boundary? Or has that boundary been open to traffic regularly already?

Sands continues to milk this niche of sports column style writing of video games that's equally hacky vs. sweet.

The actual NES cartridge of Super Mario 3 is worth ten times more than this article but maybe that was the point.

You do know I can read this stuff, right?

Not that I don't appreciate the "artistry" of the color commentator approach. By all means, discuss my style or lack thereof at will.

The people Blizzard has doing the cut-scenes for StarCarft 2 are producing phenomenal results. My wife and I were talking it over last night - did you know that it's been over 12 years since StarCraft 1 was released and we still remember playing and hoping for another cut-scene after each single player mission was complete. We then talked about Diablo & Diablo 2 and just how well Blizzard has produced these games. She's pretty much all-in for SC2 at this point, and she can't stand RTS's - that must be saying something...

I've been playing Majora's Mask again recently, and I can't stop noticing how ridiculous the animations look now. Just looking at Epona, then at Agro in Shadow of the Colossus, then at the horses in Red Dead Redemption is a perfect example of the evolution of animation in video games.

Gotta admit, I loved Mass Effect 2's visuals.
IMAGE(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4813823869_be52189c3c.jpg)

NotCoffee wrote:

Stuff

Classy.

From a recent thread, DeadEndThrills (flickr sets)deserves including in this thread for examples, as it does highlight the best that's out there in games.

The drive for better artistry has often, over last few years, been conflated with a drive for realism. I don't want to get into that, suffice to say... it's tricky. But when a game nails it, through technology, attention to detail, evocation, or some magic combination, it's unbelievably stunning.

MechaSlinky wrote:

I've been playing Majora's Mask again recently, and I can't stop noticing how ridiculous the animations look now. Just looking at Epona, then at Agro in Shadow of the Colossus, then at the horses in Red Dead Redemption is a perfect example of the evolution of animation in video games.

I only got around to playing Shadow of the Colossus this past year. I was quite impressed with how well Agro animated and controlled on that beautiful PS2 game even today.

I noticed long ago that art direction plays a much more significant role in drawing me in than technical merits. I'd say one of the clearest examples of this is World of Warcraft. That game is going on 6 years old and runs on damn near anything, yet it still looks fantastic due to the stylized, cartoony art direction Blizzard chose to use.

I'd also count Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 among the best looking games of this console generation, despite being on the technically inferior Wii. Clearly, Nintendo has a much firmer grasp on the limitations of their hardware, but it's the art direction and vibrant colors that make Galaxy stand out so clearly from the rest of the pack.

Speaking of colors, why do so many developers seem to hate them? I'm pretty tired of entire games being composed of 15 shades of brown and gray.

Edit:

Gravey wrote:

The drive for better artistry has often, over last few years, been conflated with a drive for realism. I don't want to get into that, suffice to say... it's tricky. But when a game nails it, through technology, attention to detail, evocation, or some magic combination, it's unbelievably stunning.

I guess this kind of answers my question

Gravey wrote:

The drive for better artistry has often, over last few years, been conflated with a drive for realism.

I'm reminded of the phrase "power is nothing without control". You need an overall objective of what you want to impress people with. There's no point having the most beautiful fence post if people just walk straight past it, or you can't show people a view with more than 5 of them on screen. The tech has to serve the art, and the art has to serve the game.

Scratched wrote:

I think the main problem with art in games is that it's easy to ignore when it's done well.

That's a very good point. I think a lot of people (players more than creators) view the visuals/graphics in games in a similar manner to special effects in movies: success is defined by how little you consciously notice them. One of the reasons why I like Mass Effect is because the art is both done well and noticeable (see Quentin_Stone's post). For me, areas like the base on the snow planet from the first game (Noveria, I think) really stood out. All the concrete and the snow blowing outside reminded me of a cross between a bomb shelter, dorms built in the 60s and 70s, and the hotel from The Shining.

This is an interesting call to arms. It's so easy to just go with the flow of a game if you've been following games for so many years and as closely as many of us here have and do. But it's a wholly different experience to tell yourself to take a second and look around. Really look at what's around you in a game.

Your post, Elysium, didn't take much to remind me of that, even though it's a bit on the shorter side. Sometimes we don't need long articles, just the lite toll of a bell to remind us to be mindful.

achingly familiar is achingly familiar.

I guess my response would be, what impact has Flower and Braid actually had on the industry? Are the big developers looking at these and thinking, hmm, we need more whimsy! Increase the whimsy! I remain skeptical.

What I hope does happen, however, is that more people get interested in playing these games, which in turn supports their small developer teams to grow and create more of these interesting games that employ their peculiar artistic vision. I liked Flower very much, if only because my real world really is filled with hazy, drab grays and browns, and the gameplay + music is soothing. I look forward to thatgamecompany's next title Journey, which has an equally intriguing design, albeit taken in a completely different direction. In this way, the games really will have an impact on the industry.

Your post, Elysium, didn't take much to remind me of that, even though it's a bit on the shorter side. Sometimes we don't need long articles, just the lite toll of a bell to remind us to be mindful.

That was kind of the intent. I kept trying to overwrite what I wanted to say. Instead I just eventually realized that it was a much more simple statement. This wasn't meant to be some grand pronouncement of insight.

I guess my response would be, what impact has Flower and Braid actually had on the industry? Are the big developers looking at these and thinking, hmm, we need more whimsy! Increase the whimsy! I remain skeptical.

I would say that games like these are legitimizing a more visually diverse approach. I think when you have EA making games like Mirror's Edge for example, you can see some evidence of recognition that visuals matter beyond poly counts.

Dyni wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:

I've been playing Majora's Mask again recently, and I can't stop noticing how ridiculous the animations look now. Just looking at Epona, then at Agro in Shadow of the Colossus, then at the horses in Red Dead Redemption is a perfect example of the evolution of animation in video games.

I only got around to playing Shadow of the Colossus this past year. I was quite impressed with how well Agro animated and controlled on that beautiful PS2 game even today.

Definitely, the animation in that game is mostly brilliant. But, especially with Agro, there are times when the animation mildly sh*ts the bed. It seems more to do with the technology behind the animation having a little hissy fit, though.

It's just weird to go back to these old games that used to look so amazing and start noticing all these problems that are only noticeable because games of this generation have advanced so far. Makes me wonder if today's games' animations will look rather silly in 10 years.

Animation should probably get more respect, or at least more attention. I remember Naughty Dog released a PSN video about how they created animations for Uncharted 2 that could be combined on the fly so you don't see so much of those odd transitions that occur when actions are performed that have no corresponding scripted animation. The ability to animate well, especially with human characters, goes a long way regardless of how realistic the game is trying to look.

Gravey wrote:

But when a game nails it, through technology, attention to detail, evocation, or some magic combination, it's unbelievably stunning.

Beat me to it.

For someone who began playing video games on the Odyssey 2, I am continually amazed at how far the industry has come in such a short time, not only in realism, but artistry as Elysium reminds us to be aware of. Recent examples for me are RDR for beatiful, immersive realism and DeathSpank for brilliant artistic use of a spherical world that unfolds like a slow motion pop-up book.

I like the short little thought pieces, although Maximum Verbosity may not be the right name.

I do think that in a lot of ways game art is a bit of a waste of effort. For all I know graphics could have stalled at the Half Life 2 level, I'm usually far too busy to look at what happening, but those moments where you can stop and look around make it worth it.

I do prefer a defined art-style to realism. PoP 2008, Mirror's Edge, even as maligned as it is Gears of War are games that have a style, but are not at all realistic. Gears treads a fine line though.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I like the short little thought pieces, although Maximum Verbosity may not be the right name. ;)

Maximum Taciturnosity?

Maximum Laconicosity?

When it comes to top-notch visuals, it is hard to beat Luigi's super-fast leg kick jump from Super Mario Bros. 2.

So, last night I fired up the Disciples III demo. I'm a fan of Disciples 2, especially its art style. You don't see Gothic fantasy all that much, so while I know that DIII has had a poor reception, I was at the least interested in checking out the nice 3d art in the game.

Well, it's hard to see. Except for when I'm looking at menus (stats, inventory, building menu) I'm fighting the camera the whole time to get a good look at anything. I should have plenty of time to sit around enjoying the scenery seeing as it's a turn based strategy game, but on the overland map while I'm able to zoom in and out, I can't zoom all the way in and it's stuck on a fixed plane, so I can't rotate the camera to whatever angle I want.

Cliff's comment about the camera is spot on. It may look pretty, but without the ability to really see it, well, it's a waste. Dammit.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I do prefer a defined art-style to realism. PoP 2008, Mirror's Edge, even as maligned as it is Gears of War are games that have a style, but are not at all realistic. Gears treads a fine line though.

Team Fortress 2.

Heh, of course. I've barely played TF2 so it didn't occur to me, definitely a good example.

NotCoffee wrote:

Sands continues to milk this niche of sports column style writing of video games that's equally hacky vs. sweet.

The actual NES cartridge of Super Mario 3 is worth ten times more than this article but maybe that was the point.

Even when you don't agree with someone, you don't act like a [Expletive which doubles for a vaginal cleansing device].

Elysium wrote:

I would say that games like these are legitimizing a more visually diverse approach. I think when you have EA making games like Mirror's Edge for example, you can see some evidence of recognition that visuals matter beyond poly counts.

Sort of like how you don't have to be a fan of art house films to be glad they exist to influence the directors of films you are a fan of.

Funny you should mention Mirror's Edge: saw a dev diary for the upcoming game Brink, and not only does it take place in a location that looks a lot like a run down version of the city from Mirror's Edge, it has an 'action' button that allows you to vault over or slide under obstacles.

'Aritstry of Games'? That seems a contradiction in terms. Just sayin'...

It's funny to me when people interchange the words 'art' and 'design'. They're not the same--Not even close. But I agree with you on one thing; Such a discussion "tis a silly place."

I also don't think that subverting your own industry is an accomplishment. Subvert the entirety of you civilization and you've actually done something.

PS: I also find it funny when people discuss the lifespan of the industry (A key word worth acknowledging when discussing 'Art') as though it's something that's been around for ages. It's only been 30 years. Historically speaking, that's a relative blink of the eye.

CapnDorry wrote:

'Aritstry of Games'? That seems a contradiction in terms. Just sayin'...

How so? a little clarification would interest me. However, if the intent of your comment was to fall on either side of the "games are/are not art" discussion that has been ridden into the ground around here, beaten profusely, and then ridden around some more, please send me a PM with details. I'd hate to subvert yet another thread to this old argument. I'd enjoy the conversation, but community fall-out not so much. : )

Since the premise of the article is that games are art as the basis of this thought exercise, going over that whole games: art or not-art argument is just a thread derail.

It's funny to me when people interchange the words 'art' and 'design'. They're not the same--Not even close. But I agree with you on one thing; Such a discussion "tis a silly place."

Semantics? You'll fit right in around here! : D
If it's "a silly place" to discuss it I'm curious as to why you felt the need to point it out. (Also, I think the description of "silly place" was in regards to the nature of contemplating "is this subject art," not the terms used to describe the process). I think most of us are of the understanding that they're not synonymous. That one may consider the other in execution, but that they're not two words for the same thing.

Seriously, though, pm me. Let's chat. I'm curious.

Scratched wrote:

That's something that pains me about some games, you have to deliberately stop playing for a moment and change how you look at the screen. There's too many games where you can be intensely looking at the details, is there a guy hiding in those woods, keeping your focus on a distant window down your gun sights for the next time the dumb AI sticks his head out, looking at the ground to navigate your character around the world, that you don't look at the whole scene.

This is exactly why, after hitting level 50 the first time (or two) playing Borderlands that I went strictly into single-player mode so I could actually take in the visual aspect of the game instead of racing headlong into mission completion. I found the game so stunning that I wanted to stop and smell the roses. Lollygagged, even. Tried to find weird and wonderful ways to play in the world. I really, really wished it to be the game experience of Fallout 3 with that cell-shaded art style.

I think the main problem with art in games is that it's easy to ignore when it's done well.

I can kind of see where you're coming from here. Especially when you're getting hit with, say, a gripping story, an intense fight scene, or immersive scores that it becomes a sort of whitewash experience for the average person. In the onslaught of that kind of near-sensory overload, you're focusing on putting one foot in front of the other, the task at hand, eyes on the next goal because trying to absorb every little detail that's being put into the game is just too much. With complex and interesting visuals in the mix, we have to kind of pick and choose which aspects to invest our attention.

I think, though, that some people are more visually oriented than others, and the ability to notice or appreciate well done artistic elements in a game can hinge upon this. When it is done well, some will have a hard time noticing anything else.