A commentator has reigned in as follows:
I hope [...] lessons in typography [carry] over to your games. So many games use such horrendous custom-made typefaces. The counters are too small, the kerning sucks, tails are added or omitted that obscure the glyph and make it look too much like others... I usually find myself going, "just use Univers and get it over with." Unless you want serifs, then just stick with Garamond. Though I personally prefer Cheltenham.
I couldn't agree more with the root of that commentator's highly-specialized sentiments.
Maybe I'm a pessimist but I think one end result of game design programs will be game designers who know even *less* about the world, but who know more technical things about making games. I didn't think of typography, but I did think of everything else. It seems to me that when games try to "deal" with drama, or with science, or with political intrigue, or with history, or with tragedy, or with philosophy-- I could go on and on-- a very half-ass and high-schoolish understanding of these domains comes across. Yet the graphics are pretty good. (You could say that these factors are direct results of the market. But I would argue that low production values limits the size and diversity of the market.)
The Benefits of Non-game-specific Disiciplines
When we see printed typgraphy out there in the real world, in books or in magazines or ads on television, it's delicately crafted by experts. But in games, it's usually made by programmers or whoever. Years ago, the result was password systems that used highly ambiguous fonts. Password systems have since been abolished, but we still have inefficient and poorly presented graphical interfaces, menu systems, and sometimes hard-to-read text.
Considering the amount of game developers that very obviously want to achieve "cinematic" things in their games, but end up doing it (editing, camerawork, voicing/direction, writing) like inept amateurs without even realizing it, a good education in filmmaking could be pretty useful.
Speaking generally, better education in design could lead to better games too. A good designer strives for simplicity. The good designer tears down inefficient functionality and puts some magically seamless blend of form and function in its place. More talented designers would give us better interfaces, better stage design, better control schemes, and smoother game mechanics.
The over-arching problem is that game developers and publishers don't have a budget to make great cinema or typography or anything. They don't have staff who are gifted in those specialties. They get paid to make a passably-programmed game with good graphics. Film-making is one of the most hugely collaborative arts to ever emerge-- simply watch the credits rolling to see how many very different skills it took to make the movie. The diversity of talent required to make a good modern game is somewhat similar to that, but the division of labor and expertise does not appear to be similar at all. (Example: Grand Theft Auto IV was an enjoyable game, and had a gigantic production staff. But the onscreen text was too small, the controls were syrupy and sloppy, the map/radar systems did not use enough color contrast, the menu system was terrible, the checkpoint system was punishing, the plot had no development, the story was preachy, the multiplayer interface was frustrating and cumbersome. To complement my criticism with some praise: Call of Duty 4 had superb design in almost every facet of the game, and had fewer obnoxious flaws than almost any recent game I can think of.)
Here's the optimistic angle: digital games are a young industry, compared to the highly evolved cultures of advertising or film-making. Maybe one day game developers will be able to live up to the responsibility of using typgraphy, of using 3D cinematic camera-work, of using live voice actors, and of using careful plotting and pacing. I just don't happen to know how degree programs in game development will affect that.
No comments:
Post a Comment