Fable 2 art director wants players to appreciate the big picture
Lovett explains himself, saying, "I want [players] to be drawn in, and that's more than the sum of the parts. Nobody's going to look at this and go, 'what amazing normal mapping on that! I'm so glad they did that!'" Really, Ian? We hear what you're getting at, but we have, oh, an entire internet full of gamers we're pretty sure will pick every itsy-bitsy last facet of your game engine apart, count the polygons, then email us a picture of an improperly applied tessellation and ask for a free car.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Arnon @ Sep 30th 2008 7:45PM
Pretty random article lol.
Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 30th 2008 11:03PM
Pretty stupid comment to make. It's simply stating the obvious. There might be a small segment of gamers who are also in the industry and can appreciate what specific type of mapping, lighting effect or particle is used but for the most part we all just want to be engaged into an experience.
I appreciate his sentiment but I think it's already the way most of us view a game.
This game will have to be a huge success and praised from the media and joystiq readers for me to give it a shot. I was let down with the first iteration so I am a bit skeptical. I have a similar feeling with Killzone 2. But, in all fairness after I replayed the original Killzone I did enjoy it much more than when I first played the "Halo Killer". I should probably go back and play the original Fable without all of the hype and empty promises so I can enjoy it for what it is.
Arnon @ Sep 30th 2008 11:31PM
I said it was random, not stupid =P... because I agree with the man that people don't take in the level of detail games give off these days.
Arnon @ Sep 30th 2008 11:34PM
and the reason I think it's random, is because I wouldn't see Lionhead saying something like this..
Well actually no.. I take the first comment back.. I do see them saying this lol.
Azriim @ Oct 1st 2008 12:44AM
Theres nothing wrong with his comment. Generaly I don't think about the technical aspect of a game until I've been playing it for a long time. Example, when I played Oblivion I thought wow this looks great and is realy damn fun. Now after having played it off and on since it came out, I think about how there engine works or its presentation.
BananaBoat @ Oct 1st 2008 1:06AM
10 years or however long into the 3D era, and I can absolutely pick out when things are heavily aliased, or when low resolution textures have been used, or the difference between HDR and Bloom etc. I do agree with him when he says that most gamers don't notice though.
For me it's all about muddiness or blurriness. As long as the textures are properly anti-aliased, they aren't muddy (see: Twilight Princess) and they aren't blurry (see: Grand Theft Auto 4, while some may not agree) I'm fine. Playing the Little Big Planet beta (or Crysis, I guess) you realize how amazing textures can be. The only problem is that LBP can only do it because it's 2D (and thus not heavy on resources) and Crysis can only do it on an expensive computer. I'm excited for the next gen, if only because we'll FINALLY be able to say goodbye to jaggies (for good. yes I know some games this-gen have AA, but I'm talking ALL games) and hello to high res textures that look realistic.
Yeah who am I kidding. They'll opt instead to make everything 1080p @ 60 FPS without sexy Hi-Res textures.
sinai @ Sep 30th 2008 7:46PM
i haven't read the linked article, but if what you say is true, then this guy is a total asshat.
the point of an artist or an art director (especially for things meant to be consumed by the public) is to convey art in a way that can be easily "read" by the public. so to call your constituents "illiterate" is nothing more than a failure of your own art direction.
anonim1979 @ Sep 30th 2008 8:38PM
He's not an asshat.
Most people simply don't care:
For example
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/6/1/0/7/8/Euro9.jpg.jpg
Some will be ROTFL at "true next gen grass ans AA" but most won't even see diference.
wiredknight @ Sep 30th 2008 8:55PM
That's not what he's getting at. It doesn't take much for someone to realize that the masterpieces of the renaissance are great works of art, but they might not understand the exact techniques behind them.
When the general public plays games, they can appreciate the visuals. But not everyone is going to be saying wow, that parallax mapping is fantastic, or, I love how well the subsurface scattering was baked into the materials, or, it's good to see how they implemented ray tracing and still got a proper shadow bias.
Perhaps "illiterate" wasn't the best word to use, as many people with even a small amount of technical skill will understand or at least recognize these terms. But I agree, for the most part the general public simply won't understand the kind of technical skill and engineering that goes into making games look as good as they do.
Jon2309 @ Sep 30th 2008 7:51PM
Uhhh, what? This article sooo serves a point.
Dirty @ Sep 30th 2008 7:56PM
Thats bullshit, I want a free car!
mr nimblewick @ Sep 30th 2008 8:03PM
"we have, oh, an entire internet full of gamers we're pretty sure will pick every itsy-bitsy last facet of your game engine apart, count the polygons, then email us a picture of an improperly applied tessellation"
And he's saying these people are stupid.
Thomas @ Sep 30th 2008 8:15PM
That man's pinky finger is out of proportion to the rest of his hand; I want a free car.
Titanium_Orchid @ Sep 30th 2008 8:35PM
I'm going to try and day this before a flood of "this guys is stupid comments."
What he is saying is spot on, the majority of game players have no concept of what kind of technology goes into making a game environment.
As time goes on, and we play more sophisticated games, we will take for granted all the little lighting or physics effects. Its just like anything else in life, the more we are exposed to things, the less likely we are to pay attention to them.
Case in point: When I was playing the Fracture demo, I didn't even stop to think about the destructible environment until a chunk of concrete bounced off my character. Then I though "hey, this game has destructible environments." I just took it for granted that when I shot a rocket at a wall, it would explode.
wiredknight @ Sep 30th 2008 8:56PM
Word.
Good to see someone gets it.
brian @ Sep 30th 2008 10:31PM
i'm not going to lie, but i love just spending time looking for wonderfully rendered scenes in the games i play.
i can't tell you how much times i got shot in the face in cod4 because i was like "wow, look at the dust particles" or some shit like that.
same in bioshock, i just loved looking in every room to check out the designs etc.
those are the reasons i enjoy games with good graphics, not to flex my e-peen that my pc can run these at high settings, but that i can spend time enjoying my experience that much more.
Arnon @ Sep 30th 2008 11:12PM
brian, I am right beside you..
One of the main things I love to do in games is admire the detail of the work put into them.. when GTA IV came out.. I would admire all the little things like how the water physics took effect.
I just got done playing Halo: CE a few days ago, and never noticed that the game has great dynamic lighting.. and when I saw it, I actually said "wow.. that looks really well done for it's time."
Even on Bioshock.. I would 'awe' at the effects that you would see such as when a beam of light would shine through and would cause the dust particles to reflect in it.
Though this article was somewhat blah.. and the guy sounds somewhat mean.. he is 100% correct.. and that people just don't admire the work put into the games that come out these days.
BigD145 @ Sep 30th 2008 8:44PM
If you have to explain your game in any way shape or form, you're doing it wrong.
Batzarro @ Sep 30th 2008 8:45PM
I dunno. As game art becomes more complicated, simpler, what used to be amazing becomes dissmissable and is taken for granted.
But hang in there, baby!
uberartist @ Sep 30th 2008 9:05PM
What I find ironic here is that the piece of art featured in the article is not his I am 99% sure. As with the original Fable, the key box and promo art was done by a famous Korean artist.
(can I get a +informative?)
ExMachina @ Oct 1st 2008 12:42AM
Actually, she's a famous Taiwanese artist named Jo Chen...
http://jo-chen.com/cgi-bin/main/nicky.cgi?ctgry=4
Though there were a ton of concept artists/designers with that very painterly style coming out of Korea.
eleefece @ Sep 30th 2008 9:10PM
ôkami and Ico/SotC sends you a message Mr. Lovett. It says: LOL WUT!!!
GD86 @ Sep 30th 2008 9:13PM
I don't know. I think I get it. I'm not a graphics programer so I don't see all the stuff they do. I don't grasp it. I just mostly go "Oh Pretty." It's like art classes people talk about the brush strokes and I only see the picture.
duckhunt8 @ Sep 30th 2008 9:31PM
I'm offended!
Jacksons @ Sep 30th 2008 9:58PM
...but on the flip side, some of the little stuff is the most memorable. Ratchet and Clank bobbing their heads to the music when you toss a groovitron is still my favorite minor detail ever. Not sure why, it just seemed awesome.
Actually, I don't agree with any of that. I specifically remember walking up to some wet rocks in Uncharted and staring at them in awe. Minor details rule.
aaronx_x @ Sep 30th 2008 10:47PM
ha
Marty @ Sep 30th 2008 10:57PM
Gamers won't just comment on the quality of the normal mapping, they'll count every pixel on the screen just to make sure the game's running at the resolution they want it to. Some gamers will, anyway.
ZaxCG2 @ Oct 1st 2008 8:41AM
The best kind of graphics is 8-Bit my friend.
Antagonist @ Oct 1st 2008 8:57AM
You mean I don't have to know what anti-aliasing is to be able to appreciate the graphics in a video game? There isn't a quiz on texture mapping at the end of Fable 2? Oh frabjuous day!
Now if only I didn't have to be a mechanic in order to drive a car...