Practicality vs Aesthetics
Hi guys, which of the two do you give more emphasis when designing? Which approach do you use i.e. have something that's practical then 'garnish' it, or build it from the word go just too look cool? Or is the illusion of practicality enough?
For instance, though it may look cool, it's hard to imagine anything more uncomfortable than the metal thong worn by Shadhee of Prince of Persia, yet the character is supposed to jump around and fight. My personal opinion is that practicality adds depth and believability to a design even though the aesthetics might take a hit. Whats your opinion?
For instance, though it may look cool, it's hard to imagine anything more uncomfortable than the metal thong worn by Shadhee of Prince of Persia, yet the character is supposed to jump around and fight. My personal opinion is that practicality adds depth and believability to a design even though the aesthetics might take a hit. Whats your opinion?
Replies
I agree with you on your points; if I can believe something when I see it I enjoy it more.
If you're looking at it from a standpoint of actual working practicality, i.e. animation, rigging, in-engine problems, then practicality will always win out. Frequently concept artists produce something that will need substantial tweaking to get it into engine in 3D, at a reasonable tri-count, with no issues.
The most important thing is that the designs all work together.
Practical and aesthetic are not mutually exclusive. But just make sure you keep it consistent within the game universe and you should all be good.
Believability is all about consistency. Having every person in a war fully clothed and armored, then having the main character just wear a g-string and band-aids is not believable, it's a completely different story if everyone is wearing that though.
It also makes me research a lot about how things works, for example, at the moment I'm looking into a sci. fi. version of a forklift, but with a grib instead of just lifting, and trying to figure out how the system works and how to make it without its unrealistic (like for example its suppose to lift very heavy objects, but the pully system is thin chains, that isn't realistic).
Is it though? Whenever I see an anime clip featuring 20 thong and bikini wearing ninjas battling to the death in the bounciest way possible, I still find my eyes rolling up to heaven.
We are not not talking about aesthetic consistency, we are talking about aesthetic justifiability.
Look, I know you've been on a crusade against sexism lately and I can appreciate that. I'm just saying that, in this case, in the context of this discussion, that's not really relevant.
That's all.
Obviously in some cases practicality takes front and center -- if your game is a hyper realistic mech simulation and you design a joint that can't articulate properly, it is going to ruin it for a lot of your audience. In most cases, imo, aesthetics take front and center -- in real life and in art, most practical tools and costumes have a lot of aesthetic concerns in their design.
Andreas I think that 'justifiability' argument is pretty weird. Justifiable is an awfully strong word. What's unjustifiable, exactly, about fighting eachother in bikinis? If the game/film/anime is supposed to be a true to life historic account of medieval finland than yeah, sure, that sounds pretty unjustifiable, but a fictional world where combat is fashionable and sexualized doesn't sound unjustifiable to me. Whether it's appealing to an audience is purely a matter of aesthetic taste, and while some people (including me) would like to see tastes change, it's not relevant to one's job as a designer persay. Design is about solving immediate problems, and if the immediate problem is "how should this kung fu biki babe look?" you can't in good faith answer with "She should not exist at all."
In regards to OP:
I felt her design was pretty consistent with the rest of the game, which was all metal cover pageantry. Her characterization was that of a confident, vain, hyper-sexual, evil woman (yuck, pop writers), and she dressed accordingly.
Absolutely not the same thing, I recommend you seek out a dictionary immediately.
Well no, you're muddling the point; it's unjustifiable because they should be wearing armour because they are firing at each other with guns and trying to slit each other up with samurai swords. Adding to this fact is that everyone knows this happens not for some important story or design element, but simply to cater for a pervy audience.
I'd play it.
Bikini valcano jumper. sounds fun.
The same pretty much applies for every game, designers overuse plate to the point where characters should basically be immobile yet they're just as agile and nimble as everybody else. This doesn't even touch of the problems of wearing an overly asymmetrical outfit, loose fitting clothing, the weird ways people hold and use their weapons, the ridonkulous designs of the weapons themselves...
People however by and large never raise issue with these things. Practicality is typically only brought up in the context of under-dressed women such as both your examples.. which to me suggests that the issue has less to do with practicality and more to do with the problem of sexual objectification in games which is a point better made on its own in my opinion.
http://platinumgames.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/e6b1bae5ae9ae7a8bf5.jpg
http://platinumgames.com/2012/12/27/staying-true-to-metal-gear/
The only time you will really run into problems is when you're designing something that has to move, that is impractical to the point of mechanical failure. Chainmail bikinis are fine - you can rig a model to still move correctly like that. Making a single-hinged joint on a piece of shoulder armor is going to keep it from functioning in basic ways, and no amount of rig creativity is going to fix that.
I'd argue that the loose fitting belts designers frequently use to get them set at an angle or hang around the waist are pretty bad though.
for example:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61306-armour-weapon-designs-a-plea-part-ii/
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60115-armour-and-weapon-designs-a-plea/
over 50 pages of discussion about fantasy armour and weaponry vs. historical armour and weaponry, in the context of practicality and visual coolness.
not every fanbase is the same and fortunately there are studios out there that don't assume they can or should use ridiculously exaggerated designs just because players supposedly don't give a shit.
and sure, probably every game features some illogical, impractical, unrealistic stuff. but things like chainmail bikini or huge swords with overly complex blades are way more in yo face than wearing hood in combat. it's easier to care about them.
I chose the hood in Assassins Creed because of the context of this thread, it's one of the best examples of a thing that is hugely impractical in a fight but adds a *LOT* to the games mood. The question of this thread was does practicality improve a design and I would argue that the choice to include the hood over something more practical enhanced the designs significantly rather than hindered it.
Regardless you've basically sidestepped my entire point which is that complaints of practicality are usually just offered as an alternative route to attack sexualized designs. Which of these two things do you think gets more attention?
An over armored character with no mobility penalty
An under armored character with no damage penalty
The latter usually always gets more attention. Not because it "makes less sense", because you could make a pretty strong case that being under armored and able to move is a lot better than being over armored and immobile. But because sexualization is a hugely contentious issue.
I'm sure there are many people out there with armor compendiums who are legitimately upset about how impractical fantasy outfits are. But I think its fairly obvious when one type of design is constantly singled out that the issue is really not about the practicality of it.
It feels like the majority of games artists design things out of context of the story or premise of a game. Like every character has to be the most awesome thing ever made, and thus everyone need to be a bad-ass fighter, or a malevolent bad guy.
Almost like the only driving forces behind a lot of these decisions are how fucking cool can i make everything.
In a lot of ways as game artists we have more in common with actors than we do with traditional illustrators, our job is to play a part in making a cohesive and immerse experience, and sell people on the universe that you are trying to make.
Illustrators make one off pieces to sell an idea and usually need to be punchy in a lot of ways. If you have an actor try and do that in a movie it stands out, people hate the fucking guy and the movie is made the worse for it.
context is literally the most important aspect to design. Without context your design is a free floating idea, it doesn't strengthen other ideas, or expand anything.
Ie, dont make a space marine goon or a bikini bandit just because you like tits and guns, or you will end up with a super shallow experience.
Like Muzz said, 'dont make a space marine goon or a bikini bandit just because you like tits and guns, or you will end up with a super shallow experience.'
After I figure out who the character is and the world they live in, I ask what their function in game is. What type of animations does this guy need to do. How close to the screen is this character?
After I get those questions answered, I design. I go for function first, then I let form follow and mold around the function. As I model, game limitations kick in and guide the form and function. I make sacrifices in form and function in order to have a character that is an efficient game model.
In the end, this process usually leads to a very solid design. You must balance everything if you want that memorable character. Too much function and you have a very bland character. Too much form and you have a ridiculous character. Too much game limitation and you have an overly simple character.
Just my 2 cents.
I prefer Skankers method, which is the opposite.
'Cool' comes from a design that is so well thought out that there are many interesting things featured or even hidden away. If a character design can impress you with how clever it is, that beats strapping 20 meaningless glowy bits (or belts, if it's a JRPG design) on to a character anyday.
Example, from deviantArt:
http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=teenage+mutant+ninja+turtles#/d5ort3j
Check out the guys description. You may not like his interpretation, and I only like a few of them myself, but you can't deny that they are far more intriguing because he thought about his characters.
I reckon this says a lot about the sorry state the industry is in... I mean just WTF. A little NSFW.
but yeah, this is veering away from practicality vs asthetics
It would still be very fucking weird.
But the fact that they strapped boobies onto it makes it even weirder.
If you're against the game too, well, that's a different situation.
It's not like it's, I dunno, a new Mario game and you get a special edition corpse in the box.
I don't know what makes you think for a second that he didn't follow Skullface's method.
I'm not saying he did (there's no way to know unless you ask him, and it doesnt matter at all either way) but you can DEFINITELY come up with a functional, well thought out design using the approach of 'make it cool > make it work'.
I've never really spoken to a concept artist who couldn't write me an essay on each brush-stroke if they wanted to. Obviously your ENTIRE JOB as a concept artist is to design function and tell a story -- it's just how you get to that functionality and storytelling that's up for grabs.
I've been told this before, but I still follow my method. When dealing with people like that, all that really matters is that you deliver something that looks cool (cool dynamic pose in the concept, or fully rendered concept painting).
In the end, as a concept artist, you should not only be thinking about your client, but also about the people building your concept. Being a character modeler gives me a huge advantage since i can red flag issues in my 2d before they ever become a problem in my 3d. Some people think that may limit my concepts, but what good is a 'cool looking' concept if it's just not going to function in 3d?
*edit*
for the record, I'm a firm believer in letting concept artists explore and be creative. It's just that some people don't believe about being creative within set rules and guidelines. I actually think that most of the time restrictions can lead to a more creative design.
[ame="
The girl here wears a flat colored bikini, in some dark beige ish tint. Not a union jack. Furthermore if you're in a gas explosion like they insinuate in the trailer - you'll end up as pulp, or at least crispy chunks. Not clean pink skin. For the same reasons (not tying in, wrong depiction, etc.) a male torso would be a shit idea too.
Why not a head, or a hand? A rising hand is a very well known symbol for zombies:
Or why not use something closer related to the brand? A semi-submersed head for instance?
in short: there is no reason why this torso SHOULD be used, so by default you SHOULDN'T. Don't do things that don't have a goal.
Secondary issue is that it focuses on boobs. There are lots of wounds, heck it's completely de-limbed, but the boobs are perfectly intact. And of course sexism being a explosive subject in general, and it would be wise to treat it with care - which they are not doing.
ANYWAY! THERE IS AN ENTIRE THREAD ABOUT WOMEN IN GAMES SO LETS GET BACK TO AESTHETICS VS PRACTICALITY.
There is no versus. They can both exist - to a degree at last. Take 'commander vanderhuge' for example. I have no trouble believing this is a very practical outfit (since, hey it's from a real squad) but it's still aesthetically pleasing and it does a great job exuding strength and force.
I'm personally a believer that if you make something super functional, it usually leads to a very strong aesthetic, too. There are several ways to approach this - here's three: brutalism, jugaad or mimimalism.
Brutalism create a coolness because it apparently does not give a fuck about looks - it just works. This aesthetic is often employed in dystopian futures where everything is concrete and emotionless. Blocky strong forms.
Then there is jugaad, quick-fixes, jury-rigging or whatever you feel like calling it. Postapocalyptic, third-world, shit-hit-the-fan style. It's simple in the sense that it's the best possible solution given the circumstances. Often this gives an opportunity for lots of small details.
Lastly there's minimalism. Sleek, clean, expensive and using as few visual details as possible. This is a very strong trend in electronics these days: bezel-less TV's, buttonless phones, macbook style laptops. Can be combined with brutalism fairly well.
Those are three different kinds of 'as little as possible' with a lot of functionality, yet they have very different and very powerful aesthetics. Aesthetics does not necessarily mean pretty or decorated or sexy.
And would you have approved of it if it were not pink and therefore zombie colored and more relevant? (Tons of zombies everywhere, lots of them missing limbs, maybe someone chopped its head off to kill it?)
Furthermore does the trailer even have anything to do with the game? I remember when the first games trailer came out people were excited about it and then it turned out it was basically just a CGI one off. I never played this game so I have no idea what is really relevant to the plot or not.
Is this your opinion or are you laying down the artistic law? The caps, bold text and lack of any uncertain terms makes you look like you're issuing a declaration that everyone should fall in line behind.
Edit: Fixed a major misunderstanding my part, sorry
I agree with everything you say. I'm a firm believer of finding that balance to make a memorable character.
For instance, 'commander vanderhuge'. His outfit is very functional and aesthetically pleasing. My main issue with him is that if you put him into a group with his men, you will lose him in the crowd. This is a case where you've figured out the function of the outfit, now it's time to jazz him up a little to make him stand out. Be it through facial hair, scars, maybe a little more adornment, etc. Figure out his story and overlay it on your design.
But the important thing is that I can look at that outfit, build it in 3d and make it work.
I think another good example of form before function vs function before form is Street Fighter vs King of Fighters. With both of these examples, I'm referring to their earlier games as both franchises have found a better balance as they have transitioned over to 3d.
Early SF had what I consider form before function. They set out to make very iconic characters with little regard to function while KoF set out to make functional, more real world outfits. SFs transition to 3d and KoFs drive to compete has caused both franchises to balance out over the years with SF characters having their outfits adjusted and KoF characters becoming a bit more jazzed up.
I never had to think this much about a character wow. lol
I love you Jesse, but damn my man, ^_^
Aestethic, practical. If it looks cool I reckon its practical for my use. I guess common sense help? If i think this uge ass armor on is shoulder looks So great even if in the real world that shit be heavy.. ill make it anyway..
But im pretty sure i wont give him a pouch around the head.. ( unless it does look great,,)
And id much rather a client tell me about them big breast, then that the character is the sister of the white queen of the north west.
^_^
Also whats with all the breast and ass issue on polycount. Man, you guys are gay, cant people do whatever they fucking like on their own art. Please bitches.
Im done for 2013!
Like it was stated earlier, it's all about context. This shit doesn't matter unless you have the greater context of the world for the character to fit into.
Lately I've been working with lots of transforming armor that have to work across different combinations, so making something look cool for the sake of it looking cool really is not the best approach. As stated above, something functional can look cool.
Most of my workflow in the design process has nothing to do with it's application in the real world. It all has to work within the confines of it's own world. Functionality to me means that it will animate and deform well.
Hell, I'm the last one that should be talking about designs that translate over to the real world.
In his description he states that he worked with the turtles for a time before starting this piece, and that this helped him to think and get to know the characters.
Nail on the head.
If the point of your art is simply 'tits & ass', it's tacky. It's one step up from Poser Art. Which is fucking tragic because of the hundreds of hours hard graft an artist puts in becoming an actual artist instead of learning how to use the boob/muscle slider in Poser.
How ridiculously immature.
Agreed. I find myself saddened when playing Arkham City, for example. Every opportunity for a camera shot of a female characters perfect ass is taken. Especially if they're doing a bubblegum walk, which they all do! And of course they all have perfect double D's. And their faces are covered in slap; the spec maps just make them look revolting, not appealing.
It's a really bad direction to be heading in. Give me real women like those we see in Uncharted. Give me more games like Journey, Shadow of Collosus, The Last of Us! Leave this teenage hormonal bullshit behind.
I might also add; I think that in games, especially where you don't have much character development, when someone has to immediately gravitate to like/dislike a character, aesthetics trump practicality. Simple visual language, strong silhouette, stereotypes, tropes. If there is more time to dwell on the character then give their design more room to breath, subdue some of that crazyness and focus on making them relate-able.
Having said that though, some practical things are their own kind of aesthetic... ^_^
Warning: Massive Cop-Out Ahead.
I'm inclined to agree with both skanker and skullface, and I believe that both methods/ideologies have their own practical applications.
Skanker's method works especially well when all of those questions have answers. When you know exactly what you're looking for, and form follows function, it makes sense. It also means that it becomes a bit easier to zero-in on exactly what you want. I've come up with some pretty cool characters that way.
I also find merit in the method mentioned by Skullface. Sometimes, you have no idea what you want until you see something you've just made. Then, when you're looking at it, suddenly ideas start popping in your head ranging from "how it moves" to "what it's about". They start to take on a creative life of their own, and as you're finding the answers to those questions, you kinda get the feeling that you're exploring yourself in the process. Some of my favorite characters that I've designed have come from that method.
So, yeah. I can see utility in both approaches.
I think most people can, of course there are merits to both methodoligies. Some times we just gotta sketch things out in Alchemy to get the juices flowing. :thumbup: It's not as completely black and white as what is the right and wrong way to do something.