If I printed out a pamphlet of board game design advice in comic sans, it would be unsurprising if many people threw it away without reading it. To many people, it is an ugly font, not to mention a lazy choice in how to display my information. Yet when some players state that they will not play ugly games, surprise abounds. I am a 'visuals-first' consumer of games and I would like to make my case.
I will not play games that make my eyes bleed. This applies to board and video games. This applies to art, graphics, and layout. If I do not find a game visually appealing, I won't play it; I don't care how good it is. I am not stating this as a virtue, merely as a fact.
Good art reinforces theme and adds to the sense that actions have a purpose beyond getting points to win. Good art reinforces the atmosphere/mood of the game, deepening the experience of gameplay. Good art is a form of (visual) sensory pleasure (one of the 8 types of fun), which adds to the overall fun of playing the game.
Good graphics are also pleasurable to look at. They reduce the mental load of game rules, allowing players to enjoy the dynamics of gameplay more fully. Good graphics and layout can also reinforce theme and prevent a game from feeling like filling in a spreadsheet.
Good visuals are appealing; they draw people in while conveying what the game is about. Bad visuals are off-putting. Bad layout and graphics confuse and obfuscate game rules. Bad art misrepresents otherwise good games. Bad visuals feel cheap and lazy and amateurish.
I experience a game first with my eyes. Ideally, the color palette and art style accurately represent the mood and theme of the game. Ideally, the cover art and the board/card art are in the same universe of tone and theme. I am tired of beautiful box covers hiding hideous-looking games.
I find bad art to be visually distressing. As an artist, I am perhaps excessively sensitive to color combinations and line quality and the emotion that any art, good or bad, can convey. I get overwhelmed by games with lots of tiny boxes of information laid out in grids, the way many heavy euros are laid out. Not only does that visual trigger information overload, but the theme gets lost in the grid. The phrase 'secondary board' makes me shudder. Again, this is not a virtue; this is how I process information.
Good visuals have clear advantages in making games appealing to players. I have never heard someone wish that a game was uglier. Gamers who are not artistically sensitive are not adversely impacted by playing games with good art any more than they are by games with bad art. But just because some players do not need good visuals in order to have fun with a game does not mean that players who are more visually-oriented are wrong. People are how they are and should be allowed to pass on games they won't find fun (for any reason).
Since publishers are embracing games as polished-looking products, this is becoming less of an issue, especially as old games get nicer reprints. But the question still comes up online a lot, presumably from bewildered gamers and designers who don't understand why art is all that important. Hopefully, this is an adequate primer.
I will not play games that make my eyes bleed. This applies to board and video games. This applies to art, graphics, and layout. If I do not find a game visually appealing, I won't play it; I don't care how good it is. I am not stating this as a virtue, merely as a fact.
Good art reinforces theme and adds to the sense that actions have a purpose beyond getting points to win. Good art reinforces the atmosphere/mood of the game, deepening the experience of gameplay. Good art is a form of (visual) sensory pleasure (one of the 8 types of fun), which adds to the overall fun of playing the game.
Good graphics are also pleasurable to look at. They reduce the mental load of game rules, allowing players to enjoy the dynamics of gameplay more fully. Good graphics and layout can also reinforce theme and prevent a game from feeling like filling in a spreadsheet.
Good visuals are appealing; they draw people in while conveying what the game is about. Bad visuals are off-putting. Bad layout and graphics confuse and obfuscate game rules. Bad art misrepresents otherwise good games. Bad visuals feel cheap and lazy and amateurish.
I experience a game first with my eyes. Ideally, the color palette and art style accurately represent the mood and theme of the game. Ideally, the cover art and the board/card art are in the same universe of tone and theme. I am tired of beautiful box covers hiding hideous-looking games.
I find bad art to be visually distressing. As an artist, I am perhaps excessively sensitive to color combinations and line quality and the emotion that any art, good or bad, can convey. I get overwhelmed by games with lots of tiny boxes of information laid out in grids, the way many heavy euros are laid out. Not only does that visual trigger information overload, but the theme gets lost in the grid. The phrase 'secondary board' makes me shudder. Again, this is not a virtue; this is how I process information.
Good visuals have clear advantages in making games appealing to players. I have never heard someone wish that a game was uglier. Gamers who are not artistically sensitive are not adversely impacted by playing games with good art any more than they are by games with bad art. But just because some players do not need good visuals in order to have fun with a game does not mean that players who are more visually-oriented are wrong. People are how they are and should be allowed to pass on games they won't find fun (for any reason).
Since publishers are embracing games as polished-looking products, this is becoming less of an issue, especially as old games get nicer reprints. But the question still comes up online a lot, presumably from bewildered gamers and designers who don't understand why art is all that important. Hopefully, this is an adequate primer.
No comments:
Post a Comment