27
« on: November 12, 2008, 01:02:01 PM »
I have problems with this argument, the division between artistic style and photorealism. As many of you are probably aware, I'm an avid supporter of interesting and radical artistic styles in games. Aside from merely liking them, aesthetically, I think they're philosophically integral to the art or style of gaming: games are, in large part, a visual medium and I think varied and dynamic art styles are essential to fully exploring the possibilities of the medium. I've been outspoken about Wind Waker since its visual design was revealed, and I still feel the same way: it's one of the most visually inventive, fluid, fun, interesting, and overall appealing experiences I've had SEEING a game (that is, the part of playing a game which consists of seeing it). The game was great but artistic design managed to elevate the game. This applies to many other games, and I think it's interesting that people are pointing toward retro games: they're a magnificent example of a distinctive art form that developed as a result of limited technology -- and I wouldn't have it any other way. Those games mean worlds to me, and a large part of that is the visual sense I associate with them.
At the same time, I think those technological efforts which press toward photorealism and expanding the possibilities (in a purely technical sense) of graphics are also admirable. As dated as some games may look, they were essential stepping stones to where we are now (and where we'll be in the future). I think some people take these things too seriously, and rely too heavily on mere technical specs, but these games have opened up new possibilities in gaming and the ways games are played and seen. And the technical achievements in turn help those productions which may not be as technically/financially savvy, but which have an artistic vision which will be broadened by the technical possibilities introduced by more mainstream games. Of course, I really admire games that push the technical qualities of a system but which also have a great visual design/art direction.
I think a good example of that might be Twilight Princess. The game adopts a much more realistic style than Wind Waker (akin to OoT), where the color scheme, proportions, and movement roughly reflect those of reality. At the same time, though, it does have many visual flourishes and shows a clear influence from Wind Waker: caricatured characters, exaggerated movements, some purely unrealistic elements (for instance the walking cannon), and many distinctive details. These traits have long been a staple of the Zelda series, a certain visual leniency and charm (which could be attributed to the childhood exploration/fantasy element of the game; it has storybook elements). It's an admirable balance of the two styles, and while I prefer the bolder, more radical style of Wind Waker, both appeal to me very much and their visual styles very much compliment the atmospheres they develop as individual games within the same series.
Art direction in games can be traced along a lengthy timeline of artistic achievement. For a long time, visual artists (painters, sculptors, filmmakers, etc) have tried various styles and have gone through various movements in accordance to these styles. They are often split between more realistic depictions and expressionistic depictions. For instance, the Impressionist painters were very much concerned with the dynamics of light and how it shone on things, reflected off of surfaces, the shadows it made; this is not so different from game designers nowadays, trying to make the lighting effects as realistic and interesting as possible. On the other hand, you have surrealism, or expressionism, or any number of artistic styles, which present things as exaggerated or altered forms, reality filtered through some level of the artist's perception. Surrealism is meant to evoke the images from dreams and they are not realistic, but strange, elongated, morphed, or logistically incoherent. If a game strives for the same effect, why should its visual style be realistic? Isn't that counter-productive?
I am drawn to stop-motion animation, illustration, puppetry and make-up effects, rather than 3D modeling and CGI. Even if those things show their artifice sometimes, they are more interesting, more dynamic and unusual, than the "flawless" efforts of computer generated images. They are visceral and unique.
Miyamoto once said something I agree with wholeheartedly. He talked about puppetry and how the heart of something lies not in how it looks, but in how it moves -- how it expresses itself. It is not so important, I think, that a game mirrors reality as closely as possible. What is important is that a game is expressive of reality, or some version of reality, or of an idea or a mood, and by expressing that it draws us into its world and makes us a part of the game.
Show Posts
