Bad design is so much more fun.

Bad design is honestly more fun than good design. Good design simply is good; often there is not much to say because just looking at it instills a sense of satisfaction on some level. Bad design, we get to point out just why it is inharmonious.

For this assignment, I figured I'd stick with my modus operendi and do something video game related. In this case, cover art. Once upon a time, we didn't have this new-fangled "Internet" contraption. All we had to go by when it came to picking out if a game was good or bad was the cover art. Surprisingly, the vast majority of it in the late 80s and early 90s was atrociously bad despite the game itself being quite good.

Let's start out with the good design. I present to you the box art for Batman: Arkham City.

I love, love, love this art cover. Ignore the X-Box 360 garish neon green for a moment (Seriously, Microsoft, could you pick a more austentatious ugly color for every game for your system?) and just look at the image itself. It's just well put together and draws your eye. Gestalt principles at work here I believe are the Law of Pragnanz and the Law of Continuity. The entire artwork is in grayscale except for the red of the blood on Batman's fists and under his nose. (The bloody nose is actually foreshadowing, as well. Great job by Rocksteady capturing such an integral moment in the game's plot just in the artwork.) It immediately draws you in. It's incredibly simple from that regard. No one even really notices the Wayne Enterprises building in the background of the image at first glance because the figure and pose of Batman is so striking.

As for continuity, we actually begin this one by looking at the white space between Batman and his logo. While that seems at odds, trying to draw your eye in both directions, it works for this reason: the logo is simple enough it immediately lets you absorb it and then focus on the rest of the image. There's a circular loop one's eye draws, without really causing stress.

Contextually, there's a lot going on here. As I already mentioned, the cover foreshadows a great deal into the game. (I advise anyone to play it, not just Batman fans. It's really quite good.) Second, Batman is a known pop culture entity, and currently relevant. His last movie was a huge success and there is a considerable amount of hype for the next one. This means the art designers can play off public perception: All other Batman related things as of late are dark and gritty. Inside the game, it is that way. However, the art is very light. It's a dark grim city, but the contrast was jacked up so high even the grey sky appears white. It's very opposite of how we think of Gotham and of Batman.

It's also eye-catching on any given game store's wall. It isn't a busy cover, unlike so many other titles, so it actually catches our eyes more. Plus, it is mostly greyscale and light, so it sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the neon green of the physical case of it and every game nearby. If every game used that same color scheme, it obviously wouldn't be as effective. It is highly stylized, a signature feature of the modern Batman brand.

NOW ON TO THE FUN PART: Bad design.

Check out the cover art to the Sega Genesis game, Strider. The original arcade game came out in 1989 and the Sega Genesis release came out just a year later toward the end of 1990, so keep that in mind.

What is going on here? I can't even... what is th-... Wow. I mean wow. It was ugly back then. Looking at it now 20+ years later, it's just a glaring eyesore.

There are so many things wrong with this, most notably the fact the only thing this has to do with the actual game itself is the main character wears purple. Let's talk about gestalt principles.

The Law of Proximity has an effect. Strider's character is leaping out of the box and the bad guys are all in the background, grouped together simply by standing together. The law of continuity is also in effect because we are drawn to what seemingly 3-d object is "closest" to us then we go ahead and look back at the rest. There is at least the left to right flow going on.

The whole 90's art style was ugly. There is no contrast in the image at all. You go from this ugly purple super space man outfit this oddly Russian looking guy is wearing to a floating pink city to more purple jumpsuits, just on bad guys this time. Then, you've got this really cheesy 'motion' effect on the sword, like he's slashing it, but the guy is in such a hero pose it seems odd and out of place. There is no way a guy standing like that making that face is also performing a combat action. It's simply not believable.

The worst part is how it has so very little to do with the game. Part of the coolness factor of the title was the weird tonfa-like plasma saber the Strider in-game used. This guy is wielding a very non-descript broadsword? Weird. He's also blond, instead of Japanese. Again, this is odd. Unlike old NES titles, people had a fair grasp of what Strider was supposed to look like because graphically, the game was ahead of it's time. Let me show you a few screenshots.

He is not some Aryan-looking body builder. Guy is a lithe ninja, with brown hair and his garb is more traditional ninja type affair, not some muscle suit. And again, the sword. (How could they get that wrong when it was such a key feature of the coolness of the game? URHHGGG.) Also, it doesn't look like he's stuck in the Tetris castle.

The worst, worst, worst part of all this is the game already had really good concept/"cover" art for it's initial Arcade launch. Check out this flyer, the type of thing you would have seen on the sides of the Japanese arcade cabinet:

I think given the time period and local (remember, Japanese game) this type of thing worked. Weird, yeah, but at least you got a sense of what the game was about: a ninja killing a bunch of cyborgs. You also had complimenting colors, with the blue suit of the protagonist against the fiery oranges and reds of all the bad guys displayed, so there is a visual pop.