|
Personal spaces -- that makes me think of Heavy Rain. Did you play Heavy Rain?
JJ: You know what? My Heavy Rain is still wrapped!
That's a shame; you should play it.
JJ: I know!
I mean, it's not exactly subtle. Let me go back: It is not subtle at all. But the beginning of the game is very happy, and then the game takes a dark turn.
The first environment is the personal living space of the family, and it's bright, airy, cheerful, colorful, precise, and modern; and the second environment -- the reason I thought of it is that their boxes are still packed. They just moved to this crappy house: crappy wallpaper, gray, bleak, sad.
JJ: So there's like a narrative of the moods of the characters and what they're living through...
...being portrayed through the environmental design.
JJ: Yeah, yeah. I think -- probably unconsciously -- whatever environment that we design for a character or situation probably reflects a bit of those things. Yeah, maybe not as strong as I could have done.
But I think that that's something that's not really common in games, period. As you get through a game, particularly very linear games, environments get more and more wowing. The goal is usually to have this environment be cooler than the last.
JJ: And we have less and less of even that in games, I find. It's still there, but not all games do this as much anymore.
Well, they're not as linear and can't guarantee that you're going to see environments in progression. I don't know if it's due to production changes in terms of how art's created, but there's more consistency, maybe.
JJ: Yeah. It also has to do with the production stuff. But I think that's it; that's why there's an art director. That's his job.
But I think true art direction is misunderstood in our industry still. I think we still see it as... "Just make it look very, very shiny; shinier than the next game." But that's not art direction. Art direction has to be about meanings, it has to be about metaphors, it has to be about visually communicating stuff -- all of this stuff you've been talking about. And you just said it yourself: there are very few games that do that.

Gaming is an intensely visual medium, and the player is intently concentrating on these visuals for a long period of time, and probably more intently concentrating on them than in any other medium. So we've got to communicate meaning more directly to the player using visuals.
JJ: Absolutely. A lot of the answers are in movies or TV shows or books. They just need to be adapted because, obviously, our medium is interactive. Most games are 3D where you can look all around, so it changes how those things need to be implemented, but the solutions are the same. I think there's an education that needs to be done.
Do you encourage the members of your team to look afield? That's something we touched on earlier.
JJ: I do, but it's really hard because they're so not used to doing those things. That's the thing. It's a hard education. It's funny because -- I don't know if you've ever read Disney's biography. It's very interesting because, when he started in the '20s and early '30s, animation was really considered nothing. There had never been a movie made. It was always the little minute-long things that were between big movies. He's the first one to have that vision that, "Hey, I can make a long movie with that."
Animators were just kind of weird people doing stuff that created moving things, and he's the one that had this vision: "No, no! This is just like movies. Really, let's get trained." He would get industrial designers to come over and teach the animators about industrial design; architects... The animators were obligated to attend those classes.
For animation today, it seems very obvious, almost a hundred years later, that you go outside and to the zoo and draw animals and learn your anatomy and learn about architecture. But back then, it was unheard of. He was known to be almost crazy to push all that stuff, but he was the one who created and started what animation became.
I think that this still hasn't happened in whatever form that it has to happen in the video games industry. We're still too much stuck into what we know as just games, and we need to get more people that have other artistic perspectives. We need to bring these people in and teach us stuff and do stuff with us and things like that. We're professionals about -- like I said -- funneling these things back to games. That's what we know, but there's a lot of stuff out there that we don't know. We need people for that or need to educate ourselves.
People have been struggling with the fact that the ground keeps shifting technologically every few years, and I think that maybe, this generation, we're getting our longest time to sort of be robustly focused on one set of problems to solve with less ground shifting.
JJ: That's why I hope that this generation is still going to keep on going for awhile. I think it still has a lot to give.
Especially if you're not concerned with the fact that tech is not the answer to aesthetic concern, I can't see why you'd really care for the generation to push forward.
JJ: Well, I do care! I want to have the latest bells and whistles, but they're not a crutch. Fair enough if I have them, and I do want to have them. I see that as being mandatory. But, to me, it's just one part of the equation.
If I have the same tech -- the same super high-tech thing as the super high-tech games out there -- and I have an edge on the vision, then I consider that we have the superior product. I'm not saying that this is what we have now, but I'm saying this as a theory. It's not up to me to say if we succeeded at that, but, as a theory, I see this being stronger. If you have the same tech -- all the bells and whistles -- but you really have a real art direction, then you have a winner. This is what BioShock did with the Unreal 2 engine.
It wasn't even Unreal 3.
JJ: Or Mirror's Edge -- Mirror's Edge is Unreal. It looks nothing like other Unreal games, and that's what it's all about. To me, that game beats them visually by miles because they said, "Okay, we have all the bells and whistles, but we have our own visual direction or visual communication."
"We'll go in the opposite direction."
JJ: Yeah, and then it stands out. Then, is the game good? Was it a success because it made money? I'm not talking about this right now; that's not necessarily my job, and it's probably not because of that that Mirror's Edge did this or that. But at least the art director did exactly what he had to do; that's your job.
|
I see the point being made here, and I don't diagree entirely. But isn't there a danger of taking it too far -- of so strongly emphasizing form over function that "real art direction" is used to paper over a lack of depth in the gameplay?
To reference a well-known game design model, if art direction satisfies the need for Aesthetics, doesn't a great game still need significant attention paid to Mechanics and Dynamics?
I would make an analogy of the fun factor of a supposedly perfect VR apparatus, what I mean by this would be to consider the most realistic representation of vision, audio and perhaps data glove hardware setup, but, in this context, all the player can do is explore the environment, there is no story, no other characters or players, just the player and the "realistic"environment... Soon, maybe after 15-30 minutes, the player/user would probably be bored since there is no objective, no story, no goals, no conflict, thus no defined intention but wonder about... Like: "Wow, this is beautiful... So what?" There is no fun.
And that's where I think the subtleness of art direction comes in, like mentioned in this interview... Good art direction is not only about visual, or sound, it's about creating the mood, giving a slight enlightenment of the world the player finds himself in and *suggest* things that should or would happen, and when this is well done, the sense of "danger" eminent, or conflict about to happen, this adds up the player expectation, thus intention and willingness to take action... And a good art director will be able to grab all those references from the past, movies, paintings, stories, tales, mythology, comic books, street art and reality, bring some of that background and feeling, that players somehow will identify (some of them called clichés), even though they might not be conscious about it, for that moment in the game. Take all of that and add in all of the variances of culture and subjectiveness of individuals... This should be very difficult to achieve!
also, I would like to mention, of course, one could consider that if interactiveness is also an art form, as about the endless discussions of games as a whole being an "art form", then game mechanics would be part of this too, part of aesthetics (aesthetics is not only about visual), the dynamics and the harmony of temporal connections of events, like hard paced deathmatch frenzy or just a zen fly through...
So, this is what I think is meant to differentiate art from tech.
Just my opinion though.
This is the kind of design consciousness I can get behind.
Great interview!
I too am awaiting the arrival of Mr Postman.