Theory

[icycalm]

Okay, my last post is giving me a bit of trouble now. I am equating style with stylization, and this is clearly wrong. I think I will have to re-state the premise of this thread in terms of these two concepts, because the distinction is not obvious. Let me think a bit about that. In the meantime, I'll try to summarize the issues I have with Western game artists:


1. They are far less capable than the Japanese in producing aesthetically pleasing work

2. They are far less competent than the Japanese in stylization

3. Even when their work is aesthetically pleasant in some respects, the effect is often muted either by single ugly elements, or by incoherence which is due to the artists' lack of sufficient attention to detail

...


I get the feeling that my problems with style and stylization are due to semantics. It seems the word style has several meanings, and that's probably where my problems stem from. I am going to look into this.

[Recap]

I indeed was just going to say that we can perfectly talk about "realistic style" when referring to video-game aesthetics. But yeah; it's just because of the multiple meaning. One thing is having [good] style (= "being stylish"), another different thing is beloging to a particular style.

[RemyC]

What balances the scale of, "Good style, Bad Style"?

[icycalm]

What balances the scale of, "Good style, Bad Style"?

Your question is hideously phrased to the point of meaninglessness. And it's all because of a metaphor (the balanced scale) shoved in there for no apparent reason. So this is what you are basically asking:

"What is it that makes something have equal amounts of good and bad style?"

But no answer can be given to this question, since style is, by definition, something comprehensive, not fragmentary. Of course I understand what you are asking, but the way you asked it was terrible. So this is what you meant to ask:

"How can we distinguish between good and bad style?"

So please, and this goes to everyone else in this forum, take great care with your phrasing, ESPECIALLY in threads like this. Threads like this are in any case not for everyone: if you have trouble expressing yourself clearly, and using words with care and precision, it's best to just sit back and read.

As for the question itself, it is an ancient one which, as far as I know, no one has yet managed to adequately answer. I have a few ideas, but nothing conclusive. The question is "Do aesthetic rules exist? -- even if we are not, or cannot, always be aware of them -- or is aesthetic sense something completely random?" My initial answer would be that they exist, because everything in the universe seems to be governed by rules, so I cannot see why aesthetics should be an exception. The only problem is that these rules seem to be incredibly difficult to discover. See also what Schopenhauer has said on the matter:

When we speak of taste—an expression not chosen with any regard for it—we mean the discovery, or, it may be only the recognition, of what is right aesthetically, apart from the guidance of any rule; and this, either because no rule has as yet been extended to the matter in question, or else because, if existing, it is unknown to the artist, or the critic, as the case may be. Instead of taste, we might use the expression aesthetic sense, if this were not tautological.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_criticism/

So, in the example Recap gave above, in that screenshot where the background was gorgeous but the character design crap, Recap cannot explain to you why the design is crap. Indeed, many people would assert the exact opposite: that the character design is awesome, and far better than the kind of design perhaps that Recap values. Then the forumroids and blogoroids would pipe in that aesthetics is subjective and everyone is welcome to their opinion, and that all opinions are equally valid. To which Susan Sontag would reply:

Most people think of sensibility or taste as the realm of purely subjective preferences... But this attitude is naïve. And even worse. To patronize the faculty of taste is to patronize oneself. For taste governs every free -- as opposed to rote -- human response. Nothing is more decisive. There is taste in people, visual taste, taste in emotion - and there is taste in acts, taste in morality. Intelligence, as well, is really a kind of taste: taste in ideas.

http://interglacial.com/~sburke/pub/pro ... _Camp.html

So yes, this is a very difficult question to answer, RemyC. I am working on it though. I'll say this much for now: the answer is probably somewhere in quantum mechanics. I know it sounds funny, but it's probably true.

EDIT:

And this is exactly what Wittgenstein meant when he said that "ethics and aesthetics cannot be put into words". If Recap tried to justify why he thinks that the character in that screenshot has "bad" design, he would end up saying nonsense, the same kind of nonsense people say when they try to explain why, for example, killing or stealing are "bad".

It is an extremely complicated subject! Unfortunately, it is closely related to the subject of this thread, and it seems that solving the latter without first having solved the former might be impossible.

[mees]

I think that aesthetic rules signify extremely subtle physical characteristics in a person. The more sophisticated the "aesthetic sense," of an individual, the more subtle the physical cause. For example, it's easy to see how a blind man would be more fascinated with a pre-schooler's clay sculpture than he would a Titian, which would only seem to him a plain rectangle of paper.

But it's nearly impossible to understand the aesthetic sense of highly experienced art critics (or whomever) and, undoubtedly the physical structure of their bodies would reveal the nature of this sense only under extreme (and at this point--or perhaps any point--impossible) scrutiny. Of course, the mind will try to explain itself and thus we get volumes of nonsense for the sake of self-justification.

[BlackerOmegalon]

Outside of the games Josh mentioned, and a number of point and click adventures (like Day of the Tentacle), I struggled to come up with any games (especially with regard to games released during this generation). The best I could do was XIII, and I don't even like that game.



One thing that I thought was funny, while I was trying to recall stylized western games, is how the best representation of Marvel characters was done by a Japanese company.

[JoshF]

Not just Marvel characters but Western art themes and aesthetics. Captain Commando, Metal Slug, Revenge of Death Adder, etc.

[icycalm]

The entire Western approach to artwork in videogames, summarized in a few screenshots:

http://videogamerx.gamedonga.co.kr/zbxe/1086393

I think I am going to go vomit now.

[JoshF]

Some footage of The Neverhood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgk5tElytXU

One of the most ambitious games stylistically, technically (took a couple tons to sculpt IIRC), and definitely one of the most unique to this day. Also has the only avant-garde game soundtrack I can think of (kinda folk/jazz/blues with intoxicated scatting, but I'm not a music critic). Actually it's more of a digital comic than a game, but still.

[Warden]

It is far harder to find samples of cool art in western games than it should be. However, I found Castle Crashers very visually appealing:




I also thought Dead Space had amazing art direction as well. The expert use of color and lighting in the environment set the game apart from many recent games, eastern or western. The design of Isaac's suit and weaponry were also an interesting change of pace from the typical space marine motif most sci-fi games fall into.

[Dead Space illustration removed because I can't stand to look at it. Note that we are talking about in-game art here, not promotional illustrations. --icy]

[BlackerOmegalon]

Here's David Jaffe's "painting come to life".

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352302

[Worm]

Just saw this one on Rock Paper Shotgun: "Merchants of Brooklyn;" still in development.
http://www.paleoent.com/visuals.html

[MjFrancis]

The picture of Castle Crashers in Warden's post is also promotional. This picture gives a better impression of the game:



The artist Dan Paladin provides a unique style. Alien Hominid, Dad 'n Me and Castle Crashers are examples of his work maintaining an instantly recognizable appearance.

I'll try to summarize the issues I have with Western game artists:

1. They are far less capable than the Japanese in producing aesthetically pleasing work

2. They are far less competent than the Japanese in stylization

Certainly, Western developer's attempts at stylization are infrequent. They prove incompetent in stylization because they attempt photorealism.

Within the sliding scale of stylization and realism, Killer 7, Mad World, Okami and No More Heroes are tilting towards stylization, while Condemned, Mirror's Edge and Tomb Raider are trumpeting realism. Gears of War has more stylization than any of the realistic examples mentioned, but when compared to the initial examples of Japanese stylization, it doesn't resemble any of the aesthetics presented in those games. Despite the fantastic settings in Gears of War, it was still created with environments and textures that emphasize realism. The isolated textures of a chainsaw bayonet would yield recognizable efforts at realism, while the isolated Amaterasu would still look like a brush-painted wolf. It is not photorealistic, but Gears of War is a compromise between the two extremes.

Western developers overwhelmingly opt for realism over stylization - Team Fortress 2 being a notable exception of late. Two dimensional games are also exceptional, but even then we have examples such as Gameloft's Prince of Persia remake which replaced the textures and models of the 1989 original with more realistic selections. Western developers have a propensity towards realism, rather than incompetent stylization. Competence, while technically applicable, implies effort.

3. Even when their work is aesthetically pleasant in some respects, the effect is often muted either by single ugly elements, or by incoherence which is due to the artists' lack of sufficient attention to detail

What games did you have in mind?

[Recap]

Certainly, Western developer's attempts at stylization are infrequent. They prove incompetent in stylization because they attempt photorealism.

I think that this thread, with the examples you're picturing and all, proves indeed that Western devs "attempt photo-realism" because they're incompetent at stylization.

You people just need to know a bit better what the Japanese have really been doing all these years.

[icycalm]

Photo-realism is the poor artist's "art". Hey look, I can't draw for shit, so here, have a digitized photograph instead.

What games did you have in mind?

I wouldn't know where to begin. I don't think I've played a single western game in the last decade which did not include at least some elements that looked completely jarring/out-of-place compared to the whole package. Gears of War is an exception, which is why I brought it up in my first post. Not that I think it is as good-looking as the best Japanese examples, but at least there's nothing jarring in it -- in other words, attention has been paid even to all the details.


EDIT: Note that I am getting very close to explaining why style=stylization. I think I'll nail it if I spend just a bit more time thinking about it.

[MjFrancis]

Hey look, I can't draw for shit, so here, have a digitized photograph instead.

Western "art direction" summed up.

Really, Western video games have been attempting to simulate reality as much as visually possible for years. Gears of War is a collection of photo-realistic textures merged together to create a coherent style. If Epic could make it look as good as a movie, they would.

Even Okami was once envisioned as a photo-realistic endeavor, and the developers were intelligent enough to figure that it would not work. The visual beauty of the game was entirely accidental!

Anything less than a convincing simulation of reality fails, so the Japanese have wisely opted for stylization.

[icycalm]

The photographic image is the purest because it simulates neither time nor movement and confines itself to the most rigorous unreality. All the other forms (cinema, video, computer-generated images) are merely attenuated forms of the pure image and its rupture with the real.

The intensity of the image is equal to its denial of the real, to the invention of another scene. To turn an object into an image is to strip it of all its dimensions one by one: weight, relief, aroma, depth, time, continuity and, of course, meaning. It is by dint of this disembodiment that the image assumes this power of fascination, that it becomes a medium of pure objectality, that it becomes transparent to a form of more subtle seduction.

To add back all these dimensions one by one -- movement, ideas, meaning, desire -- to multi-mediatize the image so as to make things more real, that is to say, better simulated, is a total misconception. And technology itself is caught in its own trap here.

To conceive an image in the pure state, we have come back to a radically self-evident fact: it is a two-dimensional universe that has its entire perfection in itself and is in no way inferior to the three-dimensional universe of the real and representation or, in some way, the uncompleted phase of that universe.

It is a parallel universe, a depthless other scene, and it is this one dimension fewer that constitutes its specific charm, its genius.

Everything that adds a third dimension to the image, whether it be the dimension of relief, of time and history, of sound and movement, or of ideas and signification; everything that is added to the image, the better to approximate to the real and to representation, is a violence that destroys it as parallel universe.

Each supplementary dimension cancels out the preceding ones. The third dimension cancels out the second. As for the fourth dimension, that of the Virtual and the digital, and of Integral Reality, it cancels out all the others -- it is a dimensionless hyperspace. It is the hyperspace of our screens where, strictly speaking, the image no longer exists (but the universe of the real and representation no longer exist either).

We must, then, strip away, always strip away, to get back to the image in the pure state. Stripping away brings out the essential point: namely, that the image is more important than what it speaks of, just as language is more important than what it signifies.

From The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact (2005)

[icycalm]

Like I agree that SFIIHD has some holy-god-what-the-fuck spritework (Hi, Chun-Li) and that it's wildly inconsistent with itself. SF4 does not strike me as having anywhere near the same problem?

http://forums.insertcredit.com/viewtopi ... 444#288444

Because SFIV is made in Japan, where people pay attention to detail, which is why the consistency.

[lock]

Western developers tends to photorealistic graphics because it's cheaper, faster and easier. The japanese developers graphical art is mainly based in a insane capacity of working.

Also, almost all japaneses can somehow draw at least with some stylization. This could be a consequence of their writing systems, which probably confers them a special drawing balance.

[Recap]

In the end, it's a matter of respect, dedication and professionalism combined with a culture where aesthetics is extremely important.

= Western developers are incompetent.

Let's try to move on.

Like I agree that SFIIHD has some holy-god-what-the-fuck spritework (Hi, Chun-Li) and that it's wildly inconsistent with itself. SF4 does not strike me as having anywhere near the same problem?

http://forums.insertcredit.com/viewtopi ... 444#288444

Because SFIV is made in Japan, where people pay attention to detail, which is why the consistency.

SSFIITHDR's art may be holy-god-what-the-fuck. SFIV art is plain awful.

[BlackerOmegalon]

I recall SFIV's producer saying the character's were buffed-up to appeal to Western audience.

[Recap]

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/143/14326534/imgs_1.html

Mejesco/Way Forward's next Wii project. Not perfect, but could stand for the exception confirming the rule. A shame it seems sooo boring.

[zinger]

lol @ character design, shamelessly uninspired. Forground and background don't mix very well and the tile work is only slightly better than some of the better looking flash games at Newgrounds. I can't seem to agree with any of the posts in this thread, that game looks freaking drab!

[Recap]

lol @ character design, shamelessly uninspired.

Sure it is uninspired, but that doesn't make of it "lol" material.

Forground and background don't mix very well

Can't see a problem there. They both have different treatments in order to make the distinction. Backgrounds look better than similar Japanese stuff indeed.

and the tile work is only slightly better than some of the better looking flash games at Newgrounds.

Oh, come on.

that game looks freaking drab!

It's not Oboro Muramasa. It's far from Metal Slug or even Super Mario World art quality. But if you're putting it in the very same bag as all the other Western examples illustrated here, you just need to check it again. Definitely.

[Recap]

http://wii.ign.com/articles/959/959250p1.html

Lame mechanics indeed.