If you want a radically different style, you have to be ready to invent a new visual language; one which the players might not wish to learn. That's why concepters have to find a way to make a new language that doesn't alienate anyone. And that usually just means it's a cliche with some extra polish on it. That's why the most creative and original art we see doesn't usually find it's way into mass media, instead hanging out in cult classic comics and such.
That. The mass public doesn't know how to relate to a crazy new idea and design until they've experienced it in a setting or story.
Orks and dragons, and space marines, and women with large exposed tits sell because the average person knows what they are and what they're about.
You can't just throw up crazy ideas at people and expect them to sell, unless you got something going for you, or a way to relate them to the average person.
and let's be honest, when looking at other people's work, when you (often) run into strange and new stuff... you're not turned on to it usually. Not until you see it in the context that enables you to relate to it (to 'get it').
I'm pretty sure that artists like H.R. Giger wouldn't be so popular if his art style hadn't been popularized in a story setting. Or games like portal wouldn't have been so successful if all we had seen of it were screenshots, instead of those sweet videos.
Weird ideas and designs, need to be proven to people. Most studios don't even want to try, or lack the resources to.
The way I see it, the cliches are a language that everyone has learned, and everyone can speak. It takes minimal effort to use it again and again, and it delivers the intended message every time.
If you want a radically different style, you have to be ready to invent a new visual language; one which the players might not wish to learn. That's why concepters have to find a way to make a new language that doesn't alienate anyone. And that usually just means it's a cliche with some extra polish on it. That's why the most creative and original art we see doesn't usually find it's way into mass media, instead hanging out in cult classic comics and such.
And that's the root of it right there. Being able to convey complex ideas in an interactive medium requires an established and effective visual vernacular. When you want to rewrite the whole thing in a new, creative way, it takes a LOT of extra work, a lot of extra time, and there's a lot of risk.
You can't just throw up crazy ideas at people and expect them to sell, unless you got something going for you, or a way to relate them to the average person.
And let's face it, not all new, innovative ideas are good ideas. Most of my favorite, and commercially successful, games, have been adaptations or variations of existing gameplay structures that have proven successful over long periods of time.
I think a lot of this boils down to the issue of the general public not viewing games as art (perhaps rightly so...that discussion's a bit of a tangent). Generally, the forum for introducing new styles/cliches/memes/whatever into the public consciousness is movies, TV and books. Fine art and artistic styles inform the artists making the media, not the public. Until video games are viewed as art in the way movies are, art styles and settings outside the norm introduced in games won't enter the public lexicon nearly as quickly or at all. As was mentioned before, games tend to be a commercial product and creating something outside the comfort zone usually only alienates the public. They're just not wired to see video games as a legitimate form of art.
Until video games are viewed as art in the way movies are, art styles and settings outside the norm introduced in games won't enter the public lexicon nearly as quickly or at all. As was mentioned before, games tend to be a commercial product and creating something outside the comfort zone usually only alienates the public.
Yeah, but this could be just as true when talking about movies. Which movies tend to gross the highest box-office returns? It's certainly not the experimental, arthouse flicks - it's the visual effects orgies like 2012 and Avatar, because most people that go to the movies, myself included, want entertainment, not pretentious "art". Why is anything different expected of games?
That's not to say that truly artistic games can't and shouldn't be developed, but cliches sell, and people like 'em.
Anyway I kind of agree that there seems to be a whole load of similarities in games art direction recently, probably has to do with people striving for realism.
I'd personally love some originality in a games art, or perhaps a cool spin on realism (Mirrors Edge).
As for it being a good thing to be original: Most def yes! I mean how the hell can you be an artist if you're not creative enough to come up with something original? Not all jobs will require you to do this, but being able to take a creative spin on something is surely not a bad thing!
Also going to throw in Love as an example for pretty original art:
Rediculously bulky characters are the main thing that bother me with game art lately. UT3, Gears, etc. Maybe i'm just butthurt over everything epic did after the original UT, but i dunno.
Yeah, but this could be just as true when talking about movies. Which movies tend to gross the highest box-office returns? It's certainly not the experimental, arthouse flicks - it's the visual effects orgies like 2012 and Avatar, because most people that go to the movies, myself included, want entertainment, not pretentious "art". Why is anything different expected of games?
That's not to say that truly artistic games can't and shouldn't be developed, but cliches sell, and people like 'em.
I wasn't trying to imply that games should be high art or anything, I guess I was just pondering the why of it. I totally agree that people like the entertainment value over art, both in movies and games. I'm wondering how and why something becomes so canonical in the public mind that it's deemed 'safe'. It seems to me that when a new style or setting does move to that side of the fence, it does it through a different form of media than games. Couple that with the fact that the bottom line of people developing games is financial and it doesn't make sense to try and introduce a wholly new style through a video game. I suppose it's a question of slowly evolving designs versus trying to get the public to swallow something out of left field. One makes economic sense and one doesn't.
I mean how the hell can you be an artist if you're not creative enough to come up with something original? Not all jobs will require you to do this, but being able to take a creative spin on something is surely not a bad thing!
True, but genuine artistic license and creativity is not something that very many people get to enjoy on a day-to-day basis in their work. Personally, I think the term 'artist' in the true sense of the word is bandied around way too much within the entertainment industry.
"Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
If it's original and new, it's probably rough, buggy, and sometimes hesitant. If it's not original, then it has examples of how to and not to treat the subject matter, gameplay, etcetera, and can hopefully escape any flaws of the previous version.
Now, this isn't 100% - there have been plenty of games that were both original AND good, but even they often get refined as they either become part of a series, or define a genre, or more. Look at Wolfenstein3D / Doom - completely original, to the point where the genre they spawned has become subdivided into multiple sub-genres. Plus, probably KAZILLIONS of games that retread old ground in art or gameplay that were either boring, or just plain crap.
The problem is, Twain's quote above about "that which is original is not good" is unfortunately right far too often.
My question: is this a healthy activity for us as artists? Should we be trying to be more original? As a side note, for someone who is just starting out (looking for an entry level position) is originality valued? Or is it generally more effective to produce solid work off of someone else's concepts?
not to derail the thread, cause there's some damn good posts in here, but I got the impression you were more interested in why most of the personal work around here is also of the macho-space-marine-demon-babe variety.
I've been told by interviewer's, leads and I think I've seen it around here more than a couple times as well that studio's look for people that will fit with what they're about as well as being talented, and that you should focus your portfolio as much as you can on the job your appling for. And as this thread has prvoen so far, there's a lot of studio's working in similar style's these days. (if that made any sense?)
not to derail the thread, cause there's some damn good posts in here, but I got the impression you were more interested in why most of the personal work around here is also of the macho-space-marine-demon-babe variety.
I've been told by interviewer's, leads and I think I've seen it around here more than a couple times as well that studio's look for people that will fit with what they're about as well as being talented, and that you should focus your portfolio as much as you can on the job your appling for. And as this thread has prvoen so far, there's a lot of studio's working in similar style's these days. (if that made any sense?)
Ya it's been derailed a bit I guess (should have called it "Game Artist Tendencies" or something) but there have been a ton of awesome responses and I think the direction the conversation has gone is very interesting and informative.
My 2 cents on the "new" topic of the thread:
I am definitely a believer that games are an art form. Many people have pointed out in the past that games both share and have different artistic elements from movies, books, music, etc.
This is starting to get into pretty fine detail, but I would say originality/creativity is separate from trends/cliches. To get more specific, I think that VISUALLY, games are not varied as much as other areas of development, and I think the rate at which design and programming are evolving is out pacing the more traditional areas of games, such as the graphics, and storytelling.
We have lots of different design paradigms in games. We have puzzle games, FPS, RPGs, Strategy games (RTS and turn-based), music games, platformers, etc. just as movies have horror, action, romance, etc. As far as visual styles/settings, we have contemporary, fantasy, sci fi, and maybe another that I'm not thinking of. Yes, sometimes there are variations within these, but with games I find that most fantasy games have wizards, orcs, and elves. Most sci fi has a space marine. There is definitely room within these genres to vary it up, but I don't see many games doing that very often.
There are still places that we can go with our styles/settings. As mentioned a few times, westerns are still largely unexplored, and it would fit perfectly with today's design paradigms. Bioshock felt really fresh with it's underwater steam punk stuff. Surreal art could also be an interesting avenue, if used correctly. I think a game with Dali-esque stuff could be pretty cool. There are already surreal elements dripping into games. Eternal Darkness has the insanity effects or whatever, Metal Gear Solid had Psycho Mantis read your memory card (Actually there was a lot of cool surreal stuff going on in Sons of Liberty now that I think of it). So doing more westerns, or a more surreal visual style would not be all that creative, since the visual style is already set up. It's just an under-explored area for visual game art, that AT FIRST would not be cliche at all. Not original/creative, but not cliche either.
Woah, super long post. Anyways, I think there is still a lot of room for visual game art to grow, and it starts here, with everyone talking about it. This is a super cereal conversation, but I think it's important to be serious about games. Not all the time, but sometimes. The medium won't grow if all we keep doing is sci fi corridors and such.
Once again, I bring this all up because I love sci fi and fantasy, and I love all the cliches. But there are more directions that visual art in games can go.
We can always explore protagonists. How many.. "average" girls have we played as. When I say average I mean.. not super sexualized, or have giant boobs, or booty shorts. I tought the character Design for Elena in Uncharted was great. She was attractive without being sexualized. Didn't have to show off cleavage or legs to be intruiging. I feel like we keep seeing the same male characters too to play as. If we are from Japan, it's a late teen, early twenties.. feminine looking guy. And if it's the states it's a super macho tough guy, or a skinny wise cracking short haired brunette. Thats why I loved MGS4. Got to play an older guy. It was different. And it's the same reason why I'm excited for The Last Guardian.
Imagine an adventure game where you played as Steven Hawking, not a buff space marine, but a dude resticted to a wheelchair. It'd be text based and you'd be able to hear your own voice since it can be created on the fly as you interacted with people with text and solve simple physics puzzles with a wheelchair.
Rediculously bulky characters are the main thing that bother me with game art lately. UT3, Gears, etc. Maybe i'm just butthurt over everything epic did after the original UT, but i dunno.
This is the one thing I have noticed more in video games recently is the huge bulky characters. I think though alot of that is to do with programs like zbrush as you can really show off your mad zbrush skills by making those massive characters. Because look around how many guys do you know in the real world that are that toned.
I hate the sexualised female characters more than anything, its stupid, juvenile, and tasteless. I prefer a fully dressed, normal chick any day to an anorectic stripper with retarded cupsize.
I hate the sexualised female characters more than anything, its stupid, juvenile, and tasteless. I prefer a fully dressed, normal chick any day to an anorectic stripper with retarded cupsize.
Interesting thing here is that percentually speaking, among the girls I know who play games, there's probably just as many who like a really sexualised protagonists as among the male counterparts. It probably tips the other way a bit, with us guys getting our underpants in a bunch over it moreso than the girls.
I hate the sexualised female characters more than anything, its stupid, juvenile, and tasteless. I prefer a fully dressed, normal chick any day to an anorectic stripper with retarded cupsize.
I get it, you like tits. Get over it.
Snefer, if I may ask, don't you think that you're employing a vast number of clich
Of course, I blame marketing for a lot of things, so it's not surprising that I went there first. But seriously, Western companies seem to place far too much control in the hands of their marketing departments. It seems to me that Japanese companies seem to put more trust in their creative directors, and let them experiment a bit more. It's not that Western developers aren't creative. It's that the people handing out the money are much more risk-averse.
A game may be going in an interesting direction. And then the marketing suits drop by and inform the developer that they absolutely must have the following bullet list of elements in the game. From there the title is on the fast track to generic-ville.
The way I see it, the cliches are a language that everyone has learned, and everyone can speak. It takes minimal effort to use it again and again, and it delivers the intended message every time.
If you want a radically different style, you have to be ready to invent a new visual language; one which the players might not wish to learn. That's why concepters have to find a way to make a new language that doesn't alienate anyone. And that usually just means it's a cliche with some extra polish on it. That's why the most creative and original art we see doesn't usually find it's way into mass media, instead hanging out in cult classic comics and such.
Thank you for getting me out of the trouble to write about this and saved people here from yet another long post
I hate the sexualised female characters more than anything, its stupid, juvenile, and tasteless. I prefer a fully dressed, normal chick any day to an anorectic stripper with retarded cupsize.
Replies
That. The mass public doesn't know how to relate to a crazy new idea and design until they've experienced it in a setting or story.
Orks and dragons, and space marines, and women with large exposed tits sell because the average person knows what they are and what they're about.
You can't just throw up crazy ideas at people and expect them to sell, unless you got something going for you, or a way to relate them to the average person.
and let's be honest, when looking at other people's work, when you (often) run into strange and new stuff... you're not turned on to it usually. Not until you see it in the context that enables you to relate to it (to 'get it').
I'm pretty sure that artists like H.R. Giger wouldn't be so popular if his art style hadn't been popularized in a story setting. Or games like portal wouldn't have been so successful if all we had seen of it were screenshots, instead of those sweet videos.
Weird ideas and designs, need to be proven to people. Most studios don't even want to try, or lack the resources to.
And that's the root of it right there. Being able to convey complex ideas in an interactive medium requires an established and effective visual vernacular. When you want to rewrite the whole thing in a new, creative way, it takes a LOT of extra work, a lot of extra time, and there's a lot of risk.
And let's face it, not all new, innovative ideas are good ideas. Most of my favorite, and commercially successful, games, have been adaptations or variations of existing gameplay structures that have proven successful over long periods of time.
Yeah, but this could be just as true when talking about movies. Which movies tend to gross the highest box-office returns? It's certainly not the experimental, arthouse flicks - it's the visual effects orgies like 2012 and Avatar, because most people that go to the movies, myself included, want entertainment, not pretentious "art". Why is anything different expected of games?
That's not to say that truly artistic games can't and shouldn't be developed, but cliches sell, and people like 'em.
Anyway I kind of agree that there seems to be a whole load of similarities in games art direction recently, probably has to do with people striving for realism.
I'd personally love some originality in a games art, or perhaps a cool spin on realism (Mirrors Edge).
As for it being a good thing to be original: Most def yes! I mean how the hell can you be an artist if you're not creative enough to come up with something original? Not all jobs will require you to do this, but being able to take a creative spin on something is surely not a bad thing!
Also going to throw in Love as an example for pretty original art:
I wasn't trying to imply that games should be high art or anything, I guess I was just pondering the why of it. I totally agree that people like the entertainment value over art, both in movies and games. I'm wondering how and why something becomes so canonical in the public mind that it's deemed 'safe'. It seems to me that when a new style or setting does move to that side of the fence, it does it through a different form of media than games. Couple that with the fact that the bottom line of people developing games is financial and it doesn't make sense to try and introduce a wholly new style through a video game. I suppose it's a question of slowly evolving designs versus trying to get the public to swallow something out of left field. One makes economic sense and one doesn't.
True, but genuine artistic license and creativity is not something that very many people get to enjoy on a day-to-day basis in their work. Personally, I think the term 'artist' in the true sense of the word is bandied around way too much within the entertainment industry.
"Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
If it's original and new, it's probably rough, buggy, and sometimes hesitant. If it's not original, then it has examples of how to and not to treat the subject matter, gameplay, etcetera, and can hopefully escape any flaws of the previous version.
Now, this isn't 100% - there have been plenty of games that were both original AND good, but even they often get refined as they either become part of a series, or define a genre, or more. Look at Wolfenstein3D / Doom - completely original, to the point where the genre they spawned has become subdivided into multiple sub-genres. Plus, probably KAZILLIONS of games that retread old ground in art or gameplay that were either boring, or just plain crap.
The problem is, Twain's quote above about "that which is original is not good" is unfortunately right far too often.
not to derail the thread, cause there's some damn good posts in here, but I got the impression you were more interested in why most of the personal work around here is also of the macho-space-marine-demon-babe variety.
I've been told by interviewer's, leads and I think I've seen it around here more than a couple times as well that studio's look for people that will fit with what they're about as well as being talented, and that you should focus your portfolio as much as you can on the job your appling for. And as this thread has prvoen so far, there's a lot of studio's working in similar style's these days. (if that made any sense?)
Ya it's been derailed a bit I guess (should have called it "Game Artist Tendencies" or something) but there have been a ton of awesome responses and I think the direction the conversation has gone is very interesting and informative.
My 2 cents on the "new" topic of the thread:
I am definitely a believer that games are an art form. Many people have pointed out in the past that games both share and have different artistic elements from movies, books, music, etc.
This is starting to get into pretty fine detail, but I would say originality/creativity is separate from trends/cliches. To get more specific, I think that VISUALLY, games are not varied as much as other areas of development, and I think the rate at which design and programming are evolving is out pacing the more traditional areas of games, such as the graphics, and storytelling.
We have lots of different design paradigms in games. We have puzzle games, FPS, RPGs, Strategy games (RTS and turn-based), music games, platformers, etc. just as movies have horror, action, romance, etc. As far as visual styles/settings, we have contemporary, fantasy, sci fi, and maybe another that I'm not thinking of. Yes, sometimes there are variations within these, but with games I find that most fantasy games have wizards, orcs, and elves. Most sci fi has a space marine. There is definitely room within these genres to vary it up, but I don't see many games doing that very often.
There are still places that we can go with our styles/settings. As mentioned a few times, westerns are still largely unexplored, and it would fit perfectly with today's design paradigms. Bioshock felt really fresh with it's underwater steam punk stuff. Surreal art could also be an interesting avenue, if used correctly. I think a game with Dali-esque stuff could be pretty cool. There are already surreal elements dripping into games. Eternal Darkness has the insanity effects or whatever, Metal Gear Solid had Psycho Mantis read your memory card (Actually there was a lot of cool surreal stuff going on in Sons of Liberty now that I think of it). So doing more westerns, or a more surreal visual style would not be all that creative, since the visual style is already set up. It's just an under-explored area for visual game art, that AT FIRST would not be cliche at all. Not original/creative, but not cliche either.
Woah, super long post. Anyways, I think there is still a lot of room for visual game art to grow, and it starts here, with everyone talking about it. This is a super cereal conversation, but I think it's important to be serious about games. Not all the time, but sometimes. The medium won't grow if all we keep doing is sci fi corridors and such.
Once again, I bring this all up because I love sci fi and fantasy, and I love all the cliches. But there are more directions that visual art in games can go.
heres my favorite , quoted from my old boss word for word
- when we were in the design faze of a new woman character for a iphone game. I suggest.
"Hey lets make a cute girl, (Just thinking a average girl nothing fancy"
My boss responds
"yea only if she has big tits"
I died a little bit that day when I started a series of 10 low poly character girls that had more geo in there boobs then in there entire body.
http://timelol.ytmnd.com/
This is the one thing I have noticed more in video games recently is the huge bulky characters. I think though alot of that is to do with programs like zbrush as you can really show off your mad zbrush skills by making those massive characters. Because look around how many guys do you know in the real world that are that toned.
I get it, you like tits. Get over it.
Of course, I blame marketing for a lot of things, so it's not surprising that I went there first. But seriously, Western companies seem to place far too much control in the hands of their marketing departments. It seems to me that Japanese companies seem to put more trust in their creative directors, and let them experiment a bit more. It's not that Western developers aren't creative. It's that the people handing out the money are much more risk-averse.
A game may be going in an interesting direction. And then the marketing suits drop by and inform the developer that they absolutely must have the following bullet list of elements in the game. From there the title is on the fast track to generic-ville.
Thank you for getting me out of the trouble to write about this and saved people here from yet another long post
+1