No, I'm not asking if they're sapient - though some have given me cause for concern - but rather sometimes I wonder, when they're drawing/painting/whatever-ing something for publication, if they actually think about the ramifications of what they're drawing, or just saying, "hey, this looks cool."
Advertisement
It's obviously the latter. Think of all the chainmail bikini clad warrior-ettes you've seen in fantasy, big-busted beautiful super heroines, overly-muscled gun clutching vigilantes, and all kinds of simply over the top depictions of the human body you've ever seen in comics, games, or whatever.
But those aren't what's annoying me right now.
(Only right now?! You ask. Yes. Get over it.)
No, this time it was the cover of Game Informer magazine.
You see, Command & Conquer is apparently coming out with a first person shooter called Tiberium. Don't ask me about details, I haven't read the article yet.
But on the front of the magazine is some art for it. The primary action is an armored sci-fi soldier holding a rifle while waving his fellow troops and vehicles forward with what appears to be some sort of military hand motion. (It's been a while since those were drummed into me in Army ROTC so sure, cool, whatever, I guess his super-high-tech armor doesn't have that built in and he has to do a big fancy motion.)
What gets me is that it's a night time scene, in the rain. And his armor has blue glowing highlights, showing, I don't know, power or something. His helmet has little lights that shine forward like mini-flashlights. His rifle has all kinds of lights on it, including what appear to be status lights.
I can't stop thinking: isn't that about the stupidest thing to do to a soldiers' weapons and armor?
He's got lights bracketing his head - you'd give any marksman or sniper a great place to shoot at.
He's got lights all over his body. Hey, don't try to hide! The glow will just give you a way.
His rifle is glowing. It appears to have all kinds of status lights. If soldiers in World War 2 hated the fact that the M1 made a loud "ping" when out of ammo how much better is having a flashing light?
Obviously, I'm making these notes based off the art alone. But that's what gets me: is it worth it just to look cool, or do you want it to be realistic?
Sure, the armor looks cool, at least, for a second. But things like that start to gnaw at me.
There's the whole verisimilitude factor of a game - the ability to suspend disbelief and enjoy the game. Other games can garner that - but when I see stuff like that, it breaks it and I can't stop thinking about it.
It wouldn't bother me so bad if he's supposed to be corporate security or a policeman, something where he's supposed to be seen. And maybe that'll be built into the game. However, it's clearly a military action, and being more visible on the battlefield is never a good thing.
Look at some other games:
Halo: The soldiers are all in dark green, standard kind of military colors. Nothings really flashy/shiny but Master Chief's visor, which you don't actually see in the game - and seems to have gotten less shiny (though more reflective) as time goes on.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat: Obviously, the soldiers are all based off real life. They're careful about what they wear. Look at how much a guy in a tracksuit sticks out...
Warhammer 40,000: Yes, some of the Space Marines specifically do not wear camouflage. However, that's a psuedo-religious/pride&honor kind of thing, so it works out. It's part of the story.
Haze: Look at that tacky yellow helmet every corporate soldier wears in that. To me, it just says "HEY SHOOT ME IN THE HEAD I'M NOT USING IT". Then again, they are corporate sponsored.
But that's just one (of many) of my pet peeves. It just feels like the artist went for "cool" rather than "believable" (to some of us, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who just think "oh cool bad ass!"), but in a way, it feels kind of - I dunno, I don't want to say lazy, but maybe that another setting would've let him show off cool glowing armor without it seeming so out of place.
(And shiny - isn't it raining and muddy in the scene?)
I think what you are failing to factor into the equation is that these designs are typically described by the designers before ever becoming the images you see. Thus the fault lies squarely on what these designers think is "cool".
As for artists in thinking...we don't typically. It's not in our contracts to think about what we are doing. I am the exception as I over think little things like what you are pointing out.
Now for your specific example...maybe the armor has modes. They can trigger a "run black" mode that turns off all the little glowies and lights. I noticed a similar thing in Mass Effect where the guns were attached to the character's back.
Yep, right there with you. We all have different threshholds for the disbelief and mine is pretty low. Many of my friends have learned not to go to action movies with me.
By the by, I never see a time when visual, hand-and-arm, signals won't be used. I certainly find them better than any radio ever made.
Permalink
