In short: Fuck you.
For a lengthier explanation, read on.
I am tired of looking on gaming sites for indie game news ans seeing a repeated trend of people making games that supposedly have excellent gameplay and musical scores but have rectangles and default MS Paint colors for an art direction. While "some people" might find that to be acceptable, I am not "some people," my definition of "some people" being people that know absolute jack about what excellent art direction actually is.
And before someone leaps for the comments section bawling about how I don't respect pixel artists, about how I hate chiptunes, and how I have something against retro titles, I don't have a problem with any of the three.
I have a problem with people that do them BADLY.
Despite what I am led to believe is a common belief in the indie scene, it is not enough to draw pixel art and make some chiptune music in PXTone for your game to be considered a "retro" title. There are other things to consider, such as the limitations of the older systems and technology in general at the time. This is something that is frequently overlooked but is continuously grating on my nerves. Instead of so-called "retro" indies considering the available options of gaming platforms at the time and working within those limitations, they create limitations of their own and consider that to be "retro." (By the way, "create" isn't the same as "emulate," just so everyone is clear.)
And then they take it a step further by marketing their game as a "retro" title. I probably wouldn't have such a huge problem with "retro" if it weren't used as a buzzword to generate funds. Yes, I said "generate funds" as in "make money." What? You don't think indie devs are susceptible to the same evils that claim major corporations? If they weren't, they wouldn't follow trends to make money. Oh don't give me that look. If SEGA or Nintendo makes a retro title, it's considered milking the nostalgia crowd, but if an indie dev does it, it's considered homage to their childhood. Gimme a break, they're just as bad about it as triple-A companies. The indie label does not exempt them from the same criticism when they're doing the same damn thing.
If you want an example, look at Offspring Fling - it markets itself as an SNES title, has an interesting art direction, clearly has talented people behind it...but markets itself as a retro title. What makes it NOT a retro title? For one, the lighting. That could not be accomplished on an SNES. Not to mention (and this was pointed out to me by W.A.C. who also has a blog here) the game's resolution is too high for retro systems to achieve. (Their highest was 360p, the game is in 480p.) They were not mindful of the system limitations at all, there really was never a reason to market it as a retro title.
An example of a game that does Retro well would be Noitu Love 2, in fact, Konjack seems genuinely aware of the staples of the retro console, because everything he does is very reminiscent of SNES/Genesis games. (Apparently, I'm not the only one who's ever made a Gunstar Heroes comparison.) I'm throwing this in here to explain that I do think there are good retro titles - when people are doing them properly.
And as for pixel art? It suffers from surrealism-syndrome in that, while it is an accepted art form, it is often misused so that terrible artists can categorize their "art" as something other than unicorn shit* and pretend they know what they're doing.
*Unicorn shit: Art that is generally crap with no regard for color theory or excessive use of MS Paint's default colors. (See: Rage Comics and "retro" games)
But the marketing isn't the only thing that I find offensive. Look at Super retro Squad, or, hell, look at half the entries on the IndieGames blog, look at some of the games people sell on the App Store or XBLIG, look at some of the games featured on Desura, even. Many, many, many indie games have one sad, depressing, infuriating thing in common: They all have half-assed art. Sometimes it's classified as "retro" by the developers or sometimes the fans are defending the excessive use of bright colors and simple shapes as "retro" but whatever the source of the classification, it doesn't change one thing: They half-assed the art.
Why does this bother me so much? Maybe it's because I have a bias, being that drawing is one of the few things I'm proficient in, and maybe it's because I feel that it is a thorough insult to my craft, but for whatever reason, a good majority of indie devs do not seem to care one inkling for their art direction - or the potential livelihood they might be endorsing by giving a proper artist a place on the development of a game. Yes, I feel that this lack of concern for art in games is a direct blow to indie artists.
I have several theories about why this is so. The biggest one is that it's probably part of the "Gameplay, not graphics" attitude that has plagued gaming communities for years now. This trend came about because various triple-A titles were concerned with cutscenes, flashy effects and stunning visuals over properly tested and enjoyable gameplay. People felt that not enough time was spent on bug testing, building on core gameplay elements, or adjusting aspects of the game for the sake of balance (Or, in Sonic '06's case, all of the above) in favor of making SHINY-SHINY EPICNESS graphics that were pretty and larger-than-life and involving - until you glitched through them, that is.
And I'm not saying they're wrong, in fact, to an extent, I agree - or, I did, before the definition degraded into "OMG ART DOESNT MATTUR GAME DONT NEED ART" and now we have this lovely situation where artists are not being properly respected in the indie community.
The second theory, which I am not so certain of but which seems likely nonetheless, is that programmers, and many other people, believe that art is easy or doable by everyone. Think about it; art tools are readily available and every Windows OS comes with one pre-packaged. You can't say that about music composition software. I'm of the opinion that some people believe that all you need to make "proper" game graphics is to open up MS Paint and make some Microsoft Pixel Art* that you can then import to GameMaker or Multimedia Fusion 2 and say job well done.
*Microsoft Pixel Art: A genre of pixel art often created in MS Paint. See note at Unicorn Shit.
I'm not trying to say that all programmers are bereft of artistic sense but it's hard to believe the guys who made Thomas Was Alone had any. (Three people working on a game and not a single one could draw more than rectangles?) Or VVVVVV, for that matter. Even 1000 Amps tried harder. (It was made using vectors and Flash.) Excuse me, but you people wouldn't half-ass your music, yet it's respectable for you to half-ass your art?
There are good pixel artists in this world, you can find some of them on PixelJoint or Pixelation, and I have to wonder what they think of the unicorn shit trends in indie gaming lately. I know what I'd be thinking. "Why do we even have standards for good pixel art, or art in general, when this is perfectly acceptable?" It demeans the entire art community.
And one thing I have noticed is that an artist on an indie dev team is usually doing something else as well. They might also be the programmer, or the writer, or the guy who brings everyone coffee, you see what I'm getting at here? Is it unacceptable for a person on a dev team to be "the artist" without having some other special skillset? Do you also expect the musician to do trigonometry or your voice actors to do cartwheels while reading their lines? Yes, I'm being hyperbolic here, but I hope you see my point.
Or maybe part of the problem is the general art community (meaning, everyone on the internet who has ever had a dA account) in that there are some people who consider themselves artists, but are only capable of drawing Sonic recolors with crayons and no sense of anatomy. This behavior isn't inherent to CWC, it's existed for years and a large portion of the internet does it. Maybe it's these people who have given art a bad name; to be more specific, I'm not hating on fan artists, I'm hating on people who will not grow up, never try to improve, draw like 5 year old kids where the only thing separating their characters from stick figures is a set of badly-drawn quills or a fox tail, get pissy when you try to give them the slightest bit of advice, have no idea what shading or a lightsource actually is, trace screenshots of Naruto in MS Paint and call it art that somehow evades being torn down by the admins by some vile dark sorcery, need I go on?
And, unfortunately, many people like this also dream of making a game, and have been known to annoy the hell out of anyone with the slightest bit of ability with programming. This has probably given programmers the idea that artists are leeches that are only interested in making their fan character appear in a game, and while that is true for some people, I have to wonder if it's translated into "All artists are leeches, their job is easier than mine, why should I give someone a free ride?" That might seem far-fetched, and admittedly, I've never seen anyone outright say this (that wasn't met with instant and total resistance, anyway) but in certain programming communities, it seems as if there is an unspoken chillness toward artists.
Speaking from personal observation, a programmer with an engine lacking in assets will get a lot more notice than an artist who has drawn numerous detailed concepts. I'm not saying programming is easy, but neither is art, especially animation, so why is it that, in some instances, concepts for a game are usually met with something along the lines of "You want someone else to do the work for you?" That's what most of the rebuffs seem to translate as. Some quotes from what I've seen on forums are "Well, there's this guide that would be an excellent start for you!" "Your idea might be more believable if we could see a tech demo." "How much work has gone into the gameplay?"
So how does all that translate into minimalist tenancies? Well, it seems to me that even when someone needs an artist, they aren't willing to ask for one for whatever reason. I actually think that, part of the reason "retro" and "minimalist" are so big now is so that programmers can somehow justify their reluctance to work with an artist or their lack of art talent.
Which actually brings up another point: "Retro" seems to be an excuse for people to draw badly, but why can't they just admit that they can't draw? What would be wrong with that? If someone says they're terrible at math and programming, everyone acts like it's some achievement (Similar to how people brag about how many years they spent in prison) but if a programmer admits they can't draw, somehow, they believe this is taboo, and I even know some techy people who are completely ashamed of themselves for that lacking. You have nothing to be ashamed of if you're a one-man team making your first game and working with your limited skillset. You have a lot to be ashamed of if you're making excuses for yourself by calling your unicorn shit "retro" instead of just being honest and admitting "I draw unicorn shit" or actually asking for an artist to help you? Really, what would be so embarrassing about that? I code like shit, I can't do trig, I can barely multiply in my head above a hundred, but I don't act like I'm proud of it either, and make up some pretentious excuses about my ineptitude for math.
And don't shrug it off as a taste thing, that's complete bullshit and you know it. If I got my tone-deaf friend to make something in MarioPaint Composer and published it in a game, would that be a taste thing too? Maybe it would, but it would more likely be unanimously viewed as shit with no talent or skill put behind it. You know you wouldn't let a horrible composition slide by, so don't make excuses for the art.
Which is all the "retro" thing is anyway, a big fat shit bag of excuses. Well, excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and they all stink. Stop making the indie scene rancid with yours, I'm tired of breathing in the foul air.
No comments:
Post a Comment