next »

[Squiggly_P]

You see more color creeping into games lately. Just go through IGN's previews page and you can find some pretty colorful stuff: new Bioshock, Brink and probably lots more. They still look like shit to me, even with the added color. It just means that they're trying to ape the Hollywood obsession with orange/teal instead of the typical brown/gray game look.

When I was a teenager I spent hours every day working on 3D models and animation and texturing and all that good shit. I so badly wanted to get a job making stuff for games. Today, tho, most game studios are just obsessed with this realism crap. Even a lot of the smaller teams are doing this. I tried working on some next-gen assets and characters a while back and it's the most soulless, energy-draining bullshit I've ever forced myself to work on. I dunno how so many people can sit around all day making that shit 'cause I wanted to eat a shotgun the whole time. I'm working on another portfolio approach right now, because I'm never going to do another gun-toting normal-mapped high-poly sci-fi post-apocalyptic grizzled warrior dude ever again. I don't care if you can make good money doing it.

We finally have a couple of systems that will allow developers to do whatever the hell they want artistically. On the older systems they had to stylize shit to make it work with few polygons and small textures. You could look at a screenshot and tell what game or series it was. Now they don't really have any limitations. Ultimate freedom to do whatever they want, and they all just do the exact same thing. Pretty ironic, really.

[Melly]

Don't quote me on this, but I believe that limitations and freedom do the opposite of what people's first instinct is. People believe that in a limited environment creativity can't flourish, and in a free environment the mind can cook up infinitely creative concepts.

Instead what happens is that limitations force artists to think outside the box. They have to stylize, to really make their few resources count. It pushes the brain artistically and gives it a workout.

With freedom, you get the opposite. People's brains seem to clam up, unable to deal with all those possibilities. They aren't as able to focus their creative juices. They feel they have to live up to sky-high graphical standards in terms of using the technology. So they take the easy route and use all that graphical power to try and mimic boring reality, and somehow make it look even more boring.

At least that's my theory.

[eva]

most of the "stylish" things look the same to me
no substance at all

[Melly]

Stylish is a very broad word. You need to be a bit more specific.

And if what you saw had no substance, then the style sucked.

[eva]

by stylish i mean the word that many of you happen to use to refer to whatever "non-brown" games (and no i dont like using it this way but whatever)

by substance i mean quality, the little things that matter, the actual content, architecture, props, textures, -- not random scattered tiles supposedly representing a boring forest or a town with some pretty color scheme as an excuse

[C.A. Silbereisen]

Yeah, but I don't think graphics have to be abstract or highly stylized to look good. And as someone else already said, relying mostly on shades of grey and brown isn't a requirement for "realism".

Just look at Castlevania: Lords of Shadow for instance. That's a game with great-looking non-abstract graphics and lots of "substance" that still manages to be colorful. Like, it has lush green forests, snowy mountains, decrepit medieval villages, menacing gothic castles etc. and not the same ugly, murky wasteland for 80% of its levels.

[eva]

yes but if the art directors want that kind of gloomy wasteland look, its their artistic decision
and who says they're going for realism all the time?


the only problem i guess its that theres a lot of games with that look, and it could be tiring to see so many BUT there's enough of games with "color" that it isnt really a problem at all for both and between to exist

i can call out all the stage-based platformers that all had the same worlds since super mario bros but theres other platformers too

its good to hav a choice

[C.A. Silbereisen]

and who says they're going for realism all the time?

A lot of the time, they are. "Gritty realism" is a term you see thrown around a lot. I mean, Borderlands is one wasteland game that doesn't try to be realistic, but it uses generic cel shading instead which I guess isn't much better. Darksiders is does it better. And Bioshock if you count that as a "wasteland".

Also, I actually like the wasteland look, it's just that:

theres a lot of games with that look, and it could be tiring to see so many

It's the same with generic platformers for me, BTW. Don't go assuming that just cuz I'm on TIGS I put platformers on some kinda pedestal.   

BUT there's enough of games with "color" that it isnt really a problem at all for both and between to exist

Yeah, I agree. I even made a post a page or so back where I said pretty much exactly that.

[saibot216]

having a mac because ironically it's required for my major which is game design...

Hahahah, what?

Yeah. What the fuck? Nothing against macs, but basically 99% of everything is developed on pcs.

Macs arn't for games! They're for...GarageBand or something...and OS'es named after great cats.

Maybe Microsoft should start naming windows versions off of birds, it's windows: hummingbird edition! Hey, yeah, I'm a genius.

Mac actually has great audio programs and movie editing programs, but of course most of those are compatible with both OS's. And I have no idea why the department at my college has Macs as a requirement, but I saw games ACTUALLY being made and played on them last year when I came for a visit so.... we'll see. But again my games will eye rape you will all the glorious colors.