What happened to a generation of colorless classics

Technology improved. The same thing happened with film. The reason these black and white classics were black and white was because, well, devs didn't have any other choice.

I think there still is a place for black and white games, but it will probably be regulated to niche stuff (as with film).

EA I believe is actually making a Black and White game in which you play as a resistence fighter in France during WWII.

Can we still appreciate a color-less medium, or have we as gamers come to expect certain things out of our games?

It irks me to say this, but the majority of people would probably perfer color over black and white when playing a game. I mean just look at all the complaints currently out there with Devs not using 'enough' color and overusing brown/grey/black.

Heya!

SeijiTataki wrote:

Or is this all really all just an ideal in the past, and have we just reached the point where looks govern our actions, before we are willing to invest time?

Well, for me, I don't think more options is a bad thing (I know that's not what your implying), but overall, I'm of two minds about it.
1) The whole realm of computer game art is still building in it's vocablary. By that I don't mean words, but associations. Associations that both the people who 'consume' the art (the players) and the people who make it (who often are players, too). So, over the years everybody starts building up these resonances (like black & white used for cliched memory scenes, art films, or period pieces) that happen when we associate a given visual clue with a certain agreed upon message.
That's when it starts getting interesting. You get films like Schindler's list that, using the period piece to monochrome association, plays with it by adding bits of color.
You might even say that game art is going through movements (largely because of technology - but doesn't that figure in an artform where expression meets computers): the text movement, the 1 bit movement, the low color icon movement, the sprite and tile movement, the wireframe, the 3d, etc.
I think it'll take time before the old limitations start really becoming associated and become means of expression we can play with. Already, tho, a few games are purposely using pixel art instead of 3D to get a 'pixelly' feeling.

So I guess the real question is whether or not we've lost touch, to a certain extent, with our efforts with art.

I like to think that the art is nothing more than an additional bit of polish onto a well made base product - that how colorful, or lack of color, the graphical end is, the game itself is what draws us to play.

This is where I'd disagree with ya, the art is part of the game. I'm not talking about everything being pixel-perfect, full-color, high-polygon, etc. I'm speaking mainly as to how art is information that you're presenting to the viewer. Every sprite is information: the size can indicate power - like a boss monster, the color can indicate a side, the shape (or clothing) can indicate class, the placement indicate position, the animation - what it's doing, many other art details can signal background information about setting or story. You get the point :). If, like I'm thinkin, those sprites and tiles are information, then the way we make those pieces really counts towards gameplay and are part of the game play.

Where I agree with you is that part of our 'good' art should be presenting good, clear, reliable (and visually pleasing) information. Color can be really superfluous (sometimes). Most detail is often superfluous. We can't just load a sprite up with fancy just because we need to prove we can. Hell, look at Dwarf Fortress making a successful 21st century text mode game.

On a side note: sometimes the art is the game! There are some people out there that play a game just to see the art on the next level (like Gabriel on PennyArcade). Not that they're the majority, but it's something to consider.

BTW, I've seen some of your posts on the Creations forum of Dream Makers. You show a lot of patience and thoroughness with giving good advice. Nice ta have ya here and Cheers!

A bit of elaboration, I suppose.

It's not so much that I think art is necessarily just for show , or even maybe potentially interpreted as extraneous (though I will always argue the point that a game can be graphic-less and still enjoyable; take for example text based games). In fact, nothing bothers me more than when people seem to think that coding is superior to 'iconing' in the BYOND community - without proper experience in either field, the end result is a product that is just asking for a plethora of problems.

I think you put it best with the following:

Most detail is often superfluous. We can't just load a sprite up with fancy just because we need to prove we can.

At the same time, I think that the art somewhat be treated as superfluous. A game is a game because it's enjoyable - and while enjoyment can be derived from a game through the system, the community, or the art, it's still a game - that is to say, that the game is what is important.

This isn't so much to say that the art isn't relevant - it can still make or break a game. IE; poorly place or design art can still break immersion. Rather, that, in terms of a *game* environment, sometimes focus on the graphics can be distracting from what's important - what the art is trying to support.

(I'll take a moment to digress, here - Pixel Art is art. I'll never argue against it, and good Pixel Art is good pixel art. For the sake of this 'thought', though, I'm referring more to things in the video game experience.)

What started this entire thing, though, boils down to the game concept. The theory of balance in design - that is, from observation, I noticed many people focus on looks. Pretty, fancy, shiny. While they're not bad things to have, people often associate pretty, fancy and shiny with quality - which more often than not, is far from the truth. Many times, pretty, fancy and shiny is used to try to mask a lacking somewhere else.

So the whole idea of grayscale game art evolved sort of a counterpoint; a proof of concept, or, perhaps, a counter point to the expected norm. Forsake the pretty, the shiny, and the fancy, and delve back to the roots of gaming. Can we still make a game that's graphically limited, and enjoyable? I sometimes worry that as a result of the evolution of gaming technologies, we may have become focused too much on one single thing, and not enough on an entire package.