Spinwhiz said:
I would have to say that "art" depends on the game itself. For example, when I play Castle Crashers I find the fun cartoon feeling to work perfectly with the type of game it is. It's fun, easy to play and doesn't take itself seriously.
However, when I play an RPG or an action/adventure game, I like there to be a lot more environment so I can feel immersed in the game. I thought this was one of the best parts about Batman: Arkham Asylum and it really helped me to enjoy the game that much more. Another game that stands out is Myst. The art was spectacular and I really feel there was no game that could artistically touch it back in '93. Looking back even now I'm still in awe as to what the developers did artistically and the software and hardware they had to use to create it.
Umm...huh, maybe I'm getting confused, but, I would have thought 'how it looks', and anything related to that is what would fall under the 'art' of the game, that is, a dark spooky forest in a game provides atmosphere. At least, in games, there's environment in relation to how the player will navigate this environment, and then there's environment in how it puts across an artistic feel, the look and the mood.
Take for example, the forest in Grim Fandango:
It's a game environment in that: It's a twisting maze of trees that forces players to navigate it and complete it's puzzles in order to escape. There are a number of paths the player may take, but only one exit. The exit stage in this section is a single bridge and puzzle.
It's an artistic environment in that: It's a spooky forest. The trees are all bent and dark, and the whole of it exudes a sense of death and confusion. This is reflected in the denizens too, skeletal spiders and demonic flaming beavers. The last bridge is a dam in a river of tar made of the bones of past travellers.
I don't really know -which- you're referring to when you say you like art in a game when it's fun, but prefer environment, when in a lot of games (if not most) the two go together like peanut-butter and chocolate. I don't really enjoy games for their technical merits. The underlying construction of a game is interesting to be sure, but I'm not really thinking about the rules that hold it together when I'm playing it as long as I'm enjoying it. Important, I'd say it's essential. But, that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be -visual-, text and symbols can be just as good at creating a game's aesthetic as modern graphics.
In closing however: The art needs to serve the needs of the game first and foremost. Not the other way around. As in design, visuals are communicative. Ideally though, gameplay, artistic direction (visuals and sounds) and story should all be made to work together. I'll be honest however , I -prefer- games that focus on the story full-hog, even at the expense of other areas. But that's just me.