I’m probably not the only one, but I am ready to throw up. The current generation box-art is computer-assisted, committee-designed, samey samey samey crap. The only exception is the oft-referenced Japanese box for Ico, but other than that, even the “good” stuff isn’t inspiring. It seems that there’s some set of invisible rules, where everything needs to use orange and/or blue in huge quantities, and you need to have an iconic dude on the cover OR a fake-minimalist image (see Skate. cover) and it’s always gotta have either this really on-its-way-out stark coloring or this really photoshoppy blendy brothers Hildebrandt look. It’s excruciatingly boring.

I’ve been looking at 2600 games recently, and there’s a real magic to the package design back then. Maybe it’s because there weren’t unwritten, unbreakable rules set by advertising “gurus” and stiff-collared CEOs. Maybe it’s because the games’ art was intended to describe, not complement, the in-game assets. There was a certain amount of imagination that needed to be had; not simply InDesign wizardry and wads of cash and an “artists’ liaison.” Here are some of my favourites, and current points of comparision (click for full-sized images):

Possibly the /best/ game cover of 2008.

But 25 years before, Enduro.

Take, for example, the covers of these two games: Burnout Paradise and Enduro. Now, don’t get me wrong: Burnout Paradise has one of the most attractive covers in recent memory. It takes some risks: a (relatively) huge amount of whitespace, a rather cartoony drawing of a car, an off-angle shot of a city in the distance. But, in my opinion, that’s where the awesome ends. In the cartoony drawing of a car, you’ve got a screenshot of the gameplay. You’ve got the same blurry, zoomy coloring method that you see on virtually any other console. The box doesn’t tell me what the game’s about in any way; it’s just a piece of (in this case, better than average) corporate art meant to entice. I think it only entices accidentally.

Against it, look at Enduro. This is a fantastic drawing. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Burnout Paradise cover took at least a little bit of inspiration from it. The name alone evokes thoughts of, well, endurance. It doesn’t necessarily tell the viewer that it’s about driving. The image, however, looks at an image of the game (see the four “tracks”), and translates it into a beautiful, fantastic image of a folding journey through night and day. It escapes the box that attempts to contain it, even, and continues right into the bleed.

A modern re-branding of a classic.

A classic cover for an unknown game.

To the left, R-Type Dimensions. It’s not a real box cover, no. It’s also not a new game. However, it falls into all fo the irritating trappings: trading-card shading, mascot worship, no real concept of what’s happening in the game, overuse of orange and blue… it comes off as perhaps mildly related to Halo 3, I suppose, which might stimulate sales, but it doesn’t inspire the imagination.

To the right, Rescue Terra I. Perhaps it’s not a sterling representation of excellence, but I appreciate its use of color and perspective. The game’s title isn’t just crossed thoughtlessly across the top of the image; it adds to the dynamic of the forward-lurching image of the spaceship battling what was probably once an evil alien. Again, it’s maybe not the best, but it’s exciting compared to what’s put on covers these days.

Ubisoft's most transgressive title. That's saying something, huh?

Hey, more rabbits.

Okay, these two have a tenous link: rabbits. But, still: this is about boring vs. exciting cover design. First, Ubisoft’s Rabbids; blueish background, some orangey-yellow mascots, same old shading, no real relevance to gameplay. Just some art loosely based on the game. It implies mischief, I suppose, but not enough to inspire me to buy it for my hypothetical child. Second is Wabbit, which looks like something I really would buy for that child: a dreamlike, pastoral fairy tale of an image that proudly displays a main character who’s some girl who lives on a farm. Content aside, cconsider the design: Avant garde ITC font used somewhere other than a Rock Band game, with angles within the design that compliment such a dramatic font. It’s weird that the company’s name is so much bigger than the game’s name, but I still dig it. A myriad of colors not always seen on covers. Creepy, surreal perspective. I’ve never heard of Wabbit, but I want to play it– or, at the very least, watch a kid play it (not in a creepy way, don’t bother making the joke).

Colorful gem-breaking game 1.

Colorful gem-breaking game 2.

I know I railed on orange and blue, but LOOK AT THE SHADING ON THAT DUDE. He looks like he’s made of a blob of sentient mercury. Again, the realer-than-real-in-a-Surrealist-way thing is going on here, and Ram It rocks it. Peggle’s box is one of the most boring, uninspired, lazy bits of box art I’ve seen in ages. I suppose I shouldn’t expect more considering the art IN the game. At least the ball is the “mascot” and not that stupid unicorn. The latter dude, though? He looks insane. I love it. Based on box art alone, the second I would play sooner than the first.

That is, if I were interested in breaking gems. Which i’m not right now.

Space! Again!

Spa--whaaaaaat?

Mass Effect: Blue. Orange. Some people. Space-ness. “Sci-fi” font. Game name at top. This looks like everything ever. EVER. Earth Dies Screaming isn’t much better but let’s tlak about HOW AWESOME THAT FONT IS. It’s called “Shatter,” it’s an ITC font, and it looks insane. It’s my favourite font of the moment– I even put it in my new site banner. The picture’s got wicked grids and crazy perspective and all that, but the name? Wow. That’s important. Mass Effect doesn’t mean anything. It’s like the name and the box were afterthoughts. “I dunno, make it look… spacey. Make it sound… spacey?” The Earth Dies Screaming, though… that’s a name that makes you think someone over at 20th Century Fox found someone on the street and gave him a nickel to name their game. Luckily, he was already yelling “THE EARTH DIES! SCREAMING!!!” as they asked him, so he didn’t even have to think about it or hear that it’s a sci-fi game. Apparently there’s a movie of the same name from the olden days. Who cares, though? That game looks awesome. Mass Effect? If I didn’t know I wanted the game already, I would’ve skipped it based on the box art alone.

Mascot party!

Holy awesome.

Here are two games for kids with “adorable” main characters. The former has the excruciating committee-built feel all over it. I mean, really? Why not just “Boom Blocks?” Or, even better, why not any other name in the universe? Something like “I Want My Mommy.” OH WAIT THAT’S TAKEN. By the GREAT looking game on the right. Huge, unhappy teddy bear takes up the whole image, as if it were some sort of insane portrait, ONLY OF A TEDDY BEAR. HE’S CRYING. But seriously, look at the design. The rainbow? The off-center, off-angle title in a very attractive san-serif font against the black background. It commands your attention; Boom Blox’s cheesy title demands it. Boom Blox’s characters are an embarrassment to an amazing game. Mommy’s teddy bear, if anything, makes the game look better than it inevitably is.

Look, I get that the other game is weird. But, the thing is, the design is spot on. I’d go so far as to say it’s Swiss-inspired (aside from the image, which creates an interesting juxtaposition between adorable and streamlined). The former is from the Videogame School Of Boring Case Design. With Capital Letters. Seriously.

Yuck.

I can get behind THAT flying saucer.

Mid-budget current-gen games are the worst for it. You know that they do it to look like the big guys, but they can’t quite do is AS well. They also don’t want to put too much thought into it for fear of not selling like the also-rans they want to be (note: the also-rans that their investors and marketing teams want them to be: obviously the design and programmers and such would love it to be the best it could be). Here’s a poem to describe this cover: I see orange, I see blue, I see mascot, hey, eff you. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “But the latter is boring too! It has lots of orange and blue too!” Well, you know what else it has? It has the cover of Independence Day. A DECADE BEFORE INDEPENDENCE DAY HAD IT. It also uses the orange and blue differently; not to create “Coooool” blending effects, but to create stark contrast. It has the kinds of sci-fi art I can get behind– takes itself seriously, but has a flying saucer. It also has a Futura stencil font, which is awesome on anything. Also, what’s it shooting? A crazy wall? Probably something that is represented in-game because it has the extra duty of EXPLAINING THE GAME (there’s probably… a blue wall, or something). Whatever, I like looking at it. I HATE looking at the other one.

————————————

So, what’s my point? My point is, the homogeneity in designs these days is excruciating. I didn’t pick these 360 titles just to prove a point: I just picked a few RANDOM 2600 covers, and tried to pick games that were somehow tangentially related to them in modern releases. I am REALLY not trying to “game” your opinion. I am just showing you some observations. And, yeah, a lot of these old games looked like each other. But, they don’t look like anything now– so using their design motifs, however retro, will make you stand out. Actually, no. It wouldn’t even be “retro” if you did it right. They use timeless, Swiss-inspired (I said it… AGAIN!) design rules. And those parts, at least, will stand the test of time.