What is the purpose of art in games?

[cocosmonster]

So, what is the point really? What function does game art have in a game? It is not just there to make all the gameplay features look pretty, is it.

I think game art contributes quite a lot to the game experience. It is used to instruct, to teach the player how to play. It is used to attract, to grab the players attention and intrest. And it is used to communicate, to present visual narratives, provide a context and an atmosphere, just to mention some. Art is there to help the player engage in a meaningful enjoyable experience. What do you think?

I'm somewhat new to the industry so I really don't know how it's like on other studios. But I'm getting a feeling that art is constantly being brushed aside by other members of the multi-disciplinary cooperation that is a game production.

Do you feel that game art is undervalued? Is it treated like something that is smeared ontop of game mechanics to make it pretty? I can see that a lot of consideration and thought has been put into the decisions made concerning the art in a lot of great games, and that is why they even had a chance of being great I suppose.

Does art come second to design? Should it? Or should the two merge in to a beautiful symbiosis that allows for the design to be visualized in the best of ways, and the art is put forward and letting it work it's magic on the player as the design conforms around it.
Is there a hierarchy in which art is at the bottom? Please, say it is not so, and ease my troubled mind.

So then,

• Purpose?
• Hierarchy?

Discuss!!

[megalmn2000]

IMO, gameplay more important than the visual. So I would say it second to design. A game is a game = it's about to play. All the old games (Pong, Tetris, etc...) didn't have a stunning visual, but the gameplay was fun as we remember. And yes, art can be really important too. If there's 2 games with the same gameplay, the other factor that's gonna influence the choice of the player is the visual quality.

[Amsterdam Hilton Hotel]

Originally Posted by cocosmonster

Does art come second to design? Should it? Or should the two merge in to a beautiful symbiosis that allows for the design to be visualized in the best of ways, and the art is put forward and letting it work it's magic on the player as the design conforms around it.

Games are an interactive medium, and the interacting parts - the mechanics - are far more important than the static parts - the art, the story. The latter provide context to the events going on, but the mechanics are the most important part of the game, because interacting with them is what constitutes playing the game. Art should bolster the mechanics, but the mechanics should always dictate what is needed from the art, not vice versa. Can you think of an example in a game where it would be a good idea for design to take a subordinate role to art?

[kanga]

Yes its difficult to judge because of being a bit of a one eyed supporter of game art. I have seen games that have used just flat out bad art. I took one back to the shop not so long ago. It was a new game but it was terrible to look at. How that happens is just bad art direction, bad budget allocation, who knows could be a million and one reasons for it. There are also bad music albums, bad films etc. there must also be bad games.

I can think of a game where the art was more important than the game mechanics and that was Myst. The game mechanic was simple point and shoot coupled with puzzles. All the puzzles were visual I think and the art made the game. You just wanted to get through those puzzles so you could see (and hear) what amazing environment you would end up in next.

My personal belief is that all the elements of a great game are well integrated. I don't believe that the design is more important than the art, than the mechanic, than any of the other elements because they are all telling the story.

my belief.

[cocosmonster]

IMO. Whether if gameplay is more important that the visuals depends on the games. Gameplay may not always be the most important thing. What matters is really the user experience. There is no interactivity in movies, yet the creators manages to deliver good entertainment to the viewers satisfaction. But when we move to digital games, the gameplay is prioretized often at the expence of aesthetics.
To make the most of a game, all aspects that is included in the user experience must be taken into account, and balanced according to what we want the player to feel.

Pong tetris, etc. did not have stunning visuals at all, but they had good instructive visuals. But those where games that relied heavily on tactical/strategic immersion. And as long as the visuals fills it purpose averything is well.
But in other games that relies on narrative immersion and spatial presence bad design can ruin everything. Don't throw a stupid popup in my face to tell me something. Tell me the story through cleaver environment art instead. A story does not need to be static, with visual storytelling we can provide the player with suggestions, then she can connect the dots and make her own conclusions. By transferring the control from the author to the player we can make a more "interactive" experience.

It's not about making design subordinate to art either. It's about letting art do its job. From a gameplay perspective it is ill advised to let Marcus phoenix take his sweet time to cut up the aliens with his chainsaw gun. It does not give the player any advantages. It is purely good-looking artwork that has a great impact on the player’s enjoyment. That is a good example of art being allowed to attract.

[Buscat]

Interesting question.

I've been a gamer my whole life, and my two most memorable gaming moments have both been art related, now that I think about it.

The first was in about 1992 when I put "The Legend of Zelda" into my SuperNintendo. In the opening sequence, it rains. It was the first time I'd ever seen it rain in a game, and i was entranced. Did it need to rain for the storyline or gameplay? No. But it was amazing.

The second was at least fifteen years later when i first hopped on a Gryphon in World of Warcraft, and flew from Sentinel Hill to Stormwind. The mountains, the rivers, the forests, the city - the sheer vastness of it all was incredible, and here I was flying above it! Another OMG moment.

I'm sorry, but you just don't get that with Tetris.

[vivianny]

make the screen more beautdful Eden Eternal and Core Blaze .

[clodiaW]

I do agree that the process of making a game is an art-form. But that does not make games art. It's the same thing as playing game. There could be an artistic quality to the way the person plays a game, but that does not make the game an art. I could be wrong though.

[self-epidemic]

If you arent interested in the game aesthetically I doubt you would go, hmm.. the arts crap. but Ill buy it anyway.