A New Bicycle? The Art of Monkey Island 2 Special Edition

The other day I was shopping at “Canadian Tire” (a chain of department stores in Canada, like Wal-Mart), and I noticed a father loading a brand new pink bicycle onto his truck. I saw it as a girly bike – the kind with multicoloured tassels flaring from the handle grips, white plastic training wheels haphazardly poking out of the sides, and a bare frame anxiously waiting to have My Little Pony stickers pasted all over it. I smirked a bit, and kept walking. As I passed the man’s truck, I saw his little girl sitting on the passenger seat, peering through the back window as her father loaded the bike. The look on her face – I cannot find the words to express it – was ecstatic! She was bouncing all over the seat, squealing excitedly like only a 4-year-old can. Like the infamous N64 Kids she looked to be in sheer bliss.

I remember that when I was young, getting a new game was about as exciting as my father coming home with a new bicycle. As I’ve mentioned in a prior postMonkey Island 2 has a special place in my heart. It was the first game that my sister and I pooled our money together for, after months of back-breaking work on our farm, feeding horses and mowing acres of lawn. In those days, the recession of the early 1990s was hitting my family pretty hard. My mother was attending university at the time, and my father’s carpentry business was not going well at all; money was a constant problem around the house. While my parents paid my sister and I an allowance for doing chores around the acreage, I knew that an allowance was a frivolity that my parents could barely afford. Buying a new game with months worth of our pooled chore money was a big deal.

I would tear open the box as soon as we had left the store, and start digging into the manual. The 45-minute car ride back to my family’s acreage was like torture. The Monkey Island 2: LeChuck’s Revenge box art (painted by Steve Purcell) became a playground for my imagination; by the time we arrived home I had already created a world and story based on what I saw on the box. My sister and I traded pieces of the game back and forth as we drove home, but inevitably there was something about the box’s front cover art that we both were attracted to. There was something about the cover art that invoked our imaginations. It had horrible tension, an utterly terrifying pirate on the front, and it told a story in one glance: whoever that guy is on the left, he’s in trouble!

So when the new cover art appeared recently for the upcoming release of Monkey Island 2: LeChuck’s Revenge, I could not help but notice a stylistic change in the box art. I could not put my finger on it, but it felt like something was missing in the overall presentation. Fearing that this was mere nostalgia rearing its ugly head, I decided to do a side-by-side comparison of the old and the new box art, as well as some of Steve Purcell’s previously unreleased box art. In this article I borrow some terminology from an art critic by the name of Heinrich Wölfflin to help out in distinguishing between the two styles. Keep in mind that I’m no art historian or critic, so any errors I make are mine alone, and not Wölfflin’s. Thanks to Martyn Zachary of Slowdown.vg for posting his own comparison, and my friend Melinda for letting me know about Wölfflin in the first place.


Left: Steve Purcell’s original box art. Right: the new box art.
(click here to compare the box art at higher resolution)

From Painterly to Linear

Wölfflin wanted to distinguish between artistic styles based on a handful of objective principles. The most important, to me, is his distinction between linear and painterly. Wölfflin himself writes, in a linear style, ”stress is laid on the limits of things; in the other the work tends to look limitless. Seeing by volumes and outlines isolates objects: for the painterly eye, they merge. In [a linear painting] interest lies more in the perception of individual material objects as solid, tangible bodies; in [a painterly painting], in the apprehension of the world as a shifting semblance.” In my own words: linear styles tend to define sharp separations between objects, while painterly styles tend to allow things in the scene to flow into one another. Linear paintings also tend to have “flat” surfaces, make use of photorealism, and are often seen in comic-book style artwork. Painterly works rely upon visible brush strokes that give the piece a “textured” appearance, usually use wider brushes, and mix together uniform colours in the same region for expressive effect.

So how do I see this playing a role in the above paintings? The original Monkey Island 2 box art by Steve Purcell on the left seems to take a more painterly approach, while the new box art on the right takes a more linear approach. Look at LeChuck’s beard in Purcell’s painting: a light source from the mast plays off his beard, creating a strange mix of yellows, browns and oranges. In the new box art, LeChuck’s beard is no longer curly and frazzled, but a series of grey-black blocks. The ropes on Purcell’s work are textured and tactile, while the new artist flattens all texture out of them so they blend into the background. Guybrush goes from a flowing and smooth style in Purcell’s painting, to a series of geometric angles in the new painting (compare the shirt collars and hair for instance).

What does this ACTUALLY mean for a player?

The overall effect is that the second work is presented in a much more linear manner than Purcell’s original (more painterly) work. While the depicted content of the two paintings are almost identical (they both have the same objects), the expressive qualities are certainly different. The new painting “flattens” out all features for an overall balance between each element of the scene; in particular the bodies of LeChuck, the voodoo doll, and Guybrush are “equally important” to the scene. My eye is caught by the pin in LeChuck’s hand, but afterwards I find myself struggling to follow the action of the scene. Guybrush might either be playing Hide-and-Go-Seek, listening to an iPod, or in actual physical pain. I can’t tell, given the (lack of) expression on his face. LeChuck looks non-human, comic bookish, and a hobbyist evil-doer. The monkey on the mast is either whistling or leering. Because nothing is textured or exaggerated for expressive effect, I don’t have much of an emotional “grip” on the scene.

In Purcell’s painting, he is clearly playing favourites: my eye immediately goes to LeChuck’s face, then to what he is staring at (the voodoo doll), then to the threatening hand, and finally to Guybrush’s agonized face. Purcell wants to tell the story of Monkey Island in one glance, and he excels at it. My emotional grip is set up by the kind of story that Purcell is trying to tell, where there is explicit tension between the characters. Guybrush isn’t just in pain, he is in agony as LeChuck tortures him. LeChuck isn’t just a goofy villain with an obsession for voodoo dolls, but a human being-truly-gone-bad, evidenced in his “undead” look. The monkey on the mast looks truly concerned, mirroring our own horror at the sight of LeChuck.

In the end, the new cover art loses all of its dramatic tension, giving way to Monkey Island’s lighter comedic side. The new cover art belongs to a generation of gamers, in my opinion, that welcome flat representation over painterly expression. As photorealism and linear comic book artwork become increasingly popular among gamers, I suspect that we will see less of Purcell’s painterly style, and more linear and representational art styles. Given the differences in how I understand the narrative (see above) through the cover art, a move to linear styles might be to our detriment as gamers who want a good yarn.

At the same time, Wölfflin’s point was there neither linear nor painterly styles are “better” than one another, they just express different things. Ultimately however, this depends on how you see each art style. Which of the above appeals to you more? Why?

Finally, here are some original unreleased paintings that Steve Purcell did for Monkey Island 2. Note that these are even more painterly in style than the final box art:

Post to Twitter

  1. Bpy6’s avatar

    Thanks for an interesting article.
    In my opinion the change in popularity from painterly art style to linear style is very natural, it’s influenced mainly by technological advancement. When the graphics in games were only or mainly in 2d, it attracted conventional artists. An artist experienced in painting could work equally both on traditional art and on art for games. With the ascension of 3d the whole nature of art in games changed. Early 3d games required very linear approach from the artist’s point so a whole new field appeared. To build 3d models and to fill them with textures was a very different task than just animating 2d characters and showing picturesque backgrounds.
    Additionally, with advancements of 3d tech the games started to become increasingly realistic. And this advancing realism was very much demanded. Just notice, at the end of XX century the graphical realism became a very important thing, people demanded it, so linear arts dominated.
    It’s still like this today, but as it seems to me, 3d tech is approaching its final states of realism and people will become increasingly interested in more stylized design and painterly art in games will return eventually.
    Personally, I always liked 2d environments because they can deliver much much more artistic expression (at least it was like it in XX cent.), so I vote for painterly pics of course. An artist should not make any accents on all the details on a painting, it’s better to accent only the important details: a voodoo doll, a LeChuck’s face expression, a knife in a hand, and Guybrush’s agony.
    Excuse me for my English, it might be not very good :)

    Reply

  2. chris’s avatar

    @Bpy6 – I think that you’re right on the dot with the history of art in gaming. I’ve always had the suspicion that early artists were “traditional” artists in the sense of using traditional mediums and content in their works, and then later moved into computer games. I’m thinking here of people like Denis Loubet of the Ultima series fame, whose artwork is “traditional” insofar as it is fairly painterly compared to the linear stuff we see today. I hope you’re right that linear will give way to more painterly approaches and dump the whole obsession with photorealism. I completely agree that “an artist should not make any accents on all the details in a painting” – absolutely! The whole point of “expressive” art is to select only the important details and decorate/expose those, compared to less important parts of the painting. Guybrush’s agony is a great example of that indeed.
    And for what it’s worth, your english is excellent :)

    Thanks for the response – you’ve definitely given me some hope with future artists!

    Reply

  3. gnome’s avatar

    Absolutely brilliant article!

    Reply

    1. chris’s avatar

      Thanks for the encouragement my friend :) I’ve been off the horse so long that I can barely remember what a readable article looks like.

      Reply

      1. Gnome’s avatar

        Well, something like this. I love it when I read my vague, not particularly defined thoughts expressed with such clarity. It’s like having something you know explained.

        Reply

        1. chris’s avatar

          High praise from the king! Thank you :)

          Reply

  4. Arthur’s avatar

    I was a late-comer to the series, even though I’d been playing point-and-click adventure games since I was a kid, I just got around to playing it recently. Even though the newer version was far more interesting to play with the enhanced visuals, I definitely think it was a mistake to use that style on the cover.

    I still remember old games always having such wonderfully illustrated boxes that in no way reflected what the actual game looked like. I actually kinda miss that.

    Reply

    1. chris’s avatar

      Hi Arthur,

      Interesting perspective, in particular that you miss the old covers. Many players point out that they were inevitably “disappointed” with the in-game graphics when the cover seemed to promise so much more. I too appreciated the old illustrated boxes/covers – while they were obviously made to market the game and make it appear flashy, I now realize that they also served to invite the player into the world via rich illustration. Take the cover of BioForge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioForge)… it made wild promises about a biomechanical world where man and machine were intertwined. While the in-game graphics were of course a different story, the cover always gave me that “wow! I want to live in that world!” feeling.

      Thanks for your thoughts!
      - Chris

      Reply

      1. J. Daniels’s avatar

        I think that this gets a bit at the issue more than just the move away from realism. There is a frustration in the representation of the product.

        While I absolutely agree that the original box cover is more striking and artistically nuanced, it is also a poor representation of the game. Not only does the game look like that, but it does not play like the that. The game is a light, whimsical farce whereas the cover seems to dwell on horror and suffering. The newer picture, while flatter and less interesting, also better demonstrates the games visual style (being very nearly what the game looks like), but also it’s aesthetic sense–in that it deals with suffering and horror on some level, but it is lighthearted and not to worry about. So in the end, the original painting fails to capture, really, what Monkey Island is about, and while it is much more interesting as a stand-alone piece, it is less successful as coverart.

        Which isn’t to say that there should be a drift to the more linear (and I think your article does a great job of defining and representing the two), but that a more painterly representation isn’t necessarily a “better” or more fitting one.

        Reply

        1. chris’s avatar

          @J. Daniels – That is a very important point that I indeed glossed over in the article. Many people were frustrated and disappointed in ye olde days, when their favourite game did not look anything in-game than it did on the box cover. I had not even thought of the relationship between the new box art and the new in-game experience – they are (almost) identical!

          You bring up something really important, that I’ve covered in another article – http://www.artfulgamer.com/2008/01/19/inviting-the-imagination-the-power-of-words/
          I see another parallel aesthetic movement in games that has become extremely important in the way we experience them. Today game designers (and players) value “representational realism” or pure representation over emotional or aesthetic realism. We see the cover/box art as a representation of what’s inside (perhaps gamers have always been like this), rather than an expression or idealization of the game’s meaning. The end result is that many games have moved toward a representational/photorealistic realism that values high res pixels over emotional expression.

          If I play with the terms a bit, the move from painterly (literally: ‘paint!’) to linear (pixels) has been accompanied by a move from the imagination (all those old abstract blocks/symbols in Atari games) to representational realism (the perfect skin and lighting of Heavy Rain). Computer artists tend to use pixels to “represent” things rather than express things, and I think part of the reason is because gamers demand games that push their new video card hardware to the limit. But that’s a whole other conversation – I just found it interesting that you noticed the link between linear and representational, which is another strong part of modern aesthetic theory.

          (btw – I think that Wölfflin never intended to use the painterly vs. linear distinction to make any better-or-worse claim, so I’ve definitely bended his original usage a bit here.)

          Many thanks for such a thought-provoking comment!
          - Chris

          Reply

  5. Sven’s avatar

    Ok, i’ll try to get my thoughts “on paper”, which, i guess, is one of the points i want to mention.
    Back in the days Worlds were still created on paper, unlike today, where worlds are created within a 3rd party 3D engine. Just look back to the days of 8Bit where Cover of gameboxes were truly artistic and made you think “damn, that looks awesome!”. Well, just until you turned the box around and saw those screenshots of the ingame footage ;)
    So, i really think the approach to creating games changed a lot, as did the technical development. Remember when cut-scenes where fmv? Theyre ingame graphics now, it’s cheaper.

    I really dont like the style of the new versions, they look shallow. Oh, and am i the only one who thinks that “A graphic adventure by Ron Gilbert” really adds some depth? Could also say “graphic novel” while the new version screams “GET THE CULT CLASSIC ON YOUR IPAD NOW!”. But, maybe its just me getting old, i prefer old gameboxes like these:
    http://thalion.exotica.org.uk/games/ambermoon/ambermoon.html

    I think the new, can you say box art when its a downloadable?, cover appears pretty soulless to me. Well, could be worse, they could have done closeups of the main protagonists whith a witty tagline in Helvetica.

    P.S. i think artistic approach to graphics never looks dated…even a rather 3Dish game like Okami still looks brilliant.

    Reply

    1. chris’s avatar

      Hi Sven – thanks for your thoughts. I too crave the old-style painted game box art, and I see it so rarely these days. The Ambermoon box art you refer to is a perfect example of old-style sci-fi artwork, that you’d most likely see on a sci-fi novel.

      You bring up something I had not thought of much: what does ‘box art’ mean when it’s just another cover in your iTunes folder? I doubt people spend much time looking at covers when they’re digital. I remember staring (for minutes) at my boxes when I first bought boxed games. That is no longer done, I suspect.
      You might enjoy this article, where I take a look at digital downloads:
      http://www.artfulgamer.com/2008/09/02/the-lost-art-of-game-packaging-and-the-digital-only-turning-point/

      Reply

      1. Sven’s avatar

        Thx for the link, just discovered this nice blog. BTW, just recommended these articles to the creator of cad-comic.com as he’s just written something about Collectors Editions of modern games.

        Maybe it’s just my age (30) but i really like the idea of actually owning a game and having some sort of box. I could go on about how digital distribution changed how we consume games, but i guess the line between grumpy old guy complaining about how everythings been better in the past, and really philosophising about how much everythings changed in the last 20 years since i started as a gamer would become pretty blurry. ;)

        But, to contradict myself (a bit), i spent a lot of time getting my Boxer library looking pretty sweet. (Boxer is a Mac frontend for dosbox)

        This brings me back to this topic: I really like looking at the digitized version of the, say, Ultima 6 cover. I really see it as a cover, whereas i see the MI2 SE “cover” more as an icon for the game (on the ipad for example) to quickly browse throug your app list and find the game you were looking for. I dont wanna discredit the artist of the new style cover, but Purcell’s original (and knowing what “paintings” didnt make it and how much work went into it) just sums up what an epic adventure MI 2 really is (that’s Monkey Island 2, not Mission Impossible 2, thats just a dull movie ;) . Yeah, the SE “cover” just says “heres your MI2 app”.

        Oh god, i really sound like a grumpy old gamer! ;)

        Reply

        1. chris’s avatar

          Hi again Sven,

          I’m the same age as you, and I still find myself disappointed with digital versions of games. The tactility of boxed games means a lot to me.

          Interesting that you are customizing/beautifying your Boxer library. I think you’ve just convinced me to switch from vanilla Dosbox for mac to Boxer :D

          I had not thought of comparing digital covers themselves – that is fascinating that MI2:SE looks icon-like while U6 looks ‘cover-like’. The U6 cover was painted by the wonderful Denis Loubet, and I think he’s just operating at a different level of expression than the in-house MI2:SE artist is. ALL of Denis Loubet’s Ultima game covers are fantastic; I’m thinking of U7 and U8 in particular.

          I don’t think we’re wrong to be grumpy about this – no one (even folks younger than us) seem too happy about the new MI2:SE cover art. And it’s not really the cover art that is the problem, but more that gaming is moving in a new direction and we’re all just trying to keep up.

          Thanks again for your thoughts.
          - Chris

          Reply

  6. Steven’s avatar

    I strongly agree that the new cover art doesn’t do justice to this awesome game when I first saw the cover! But I also agree that the stylistic choice should be done with full consideration of the content of the game. It can be either a complementary representation or a direct representation of one game. It’s equally essential, however, to treat a game cover art as a piece of art, carefully designed so that it should be able to tell a story clearly by itself.

    Anyway just wanna say that your articles are awesome! It’s very encouraging to find a like-minded person who have done a lot of in-depth analysis on these things. =)

    I’m currently doing a thorough research on storytelling and narratives in game aesthetics (or so I named it) for my undergrad final project and your articles have strong and valid perspectives that help me a lot in my research. They got me thinking on things that I so often took for granted. So thank you!

    Hope you don’t mind that I quoted some of your articles in my personal blog (and ultimately in my report). =) I’ll give the credits accordingly!

    Reply

    1. chris’s avatar

      Hi Steven,

      Thanks so much for your encouragement. And I’m especially glad that this is helpful with your final project – feel free to quote whatever you’d like from these pages. I’d like to hear more about your project some time, as my doctoral work is on the same topics of narratives/storytelling/aesthetics in games!

      Good luck with the project – stay inspired.
      - Chris

      Reply

  7. elfinke’s avatar

    Hi chris,

    First time post to your blog – I have thoroughly enjoyed playing catch-up and reading them! Your comments are marvelously insightful and not afflicted by any verbal diarrhea (though verbal diarrhea is not an altogether bad thing!).

    I don’t want to veer too far from your point of painterly vs linear in the artistic styles of recent games, but may I suggest that since the industry is largely built upon successful metacritic scores that it has thusly cornered itself into having to employing ‘linear graphic designers’, as opposed to ‘painterly artists’ in (western) development teams (I am aware of the dangerous waters I tread when making a distinction between artists and designers there, but bear with me for the sake of hypothetical discussion!)?

    It is a fair bet that Crysis 2 and Gears of War 3 will both have scores printed on their respective retail boxes for their releases proclaiming “10/10 – The best lighting/particles/shaders we have ever seen!” or some such hyperbole.

    The kryptonite to this point is that games like Okami, Machinarium and Ico did review extremely well, regardless of (or perhaps because of) their art styles.

    For anecdotal evidence of the metacritic effect, google no further than ‘games metacritic important’ and take in Peter Moore et al view points, and have a glance at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1588303/20080529/story.jhtml.

    Nonetheless, the next few years and certainly the next console generation will be interesting, as we have surely almost reached the summit of graphic fidelity with full-HD 60fps gaming, so a new frontier must be found (3D?).

    Well, I’ve waffled on for far longer than I intended – keep up the wonderful blogging, I look forward to reading many more!

    Reply

    1. Sven’s avatar

      Interesting point on the future…saw a video some time ago where Jimmy Fallon was playin the upcoming Resistance title in 3D. All i saw was a generic FPS…and yeah, you’re shootin stuff.

      I think Videogaming is going too much in the direction of the movie industry. Yeah it’s 3D, yeah it looks realistic…but i dont care how you did it, it’s what you do with it. I mean, we’ve reached a point in computer technology that games are not limited by it, unlike 20 years ago. And if it’s used to create a wonderful 2D game, why not? If it fits the purpose, then yeah!

      Reply

    2. chris’s avatar

      @elfinke,

      Thanks for the encouragement! I do, in fact, tend to suffer from bouts of verbal diarrhea – but thankfully those can be edited out after the fact :D

      I completely agree with you regarding the economic factors that drive much of game development. For the last several years publishers have completely depended on metacritic to drive their sales. Designers have a certain ‘look’ that they’ve already decided will sell, and boost metacritic scores. According to a few artists I’ve spoken with, many are instructed that “we want to see a certain [linear] look in your work”.. artists themselves don’t have much agency in bringing a unique look to the game. Rather than detracting from your point, the fact that Okami, Machinarium and Ico did so well suggests more to me that they stood out precisely because they tried something new when every other game looked exactly the same.

      Thanks for pointing the conversation in the direction of materiality/economics – that of course is a major issue at the background of this linear/painterly debate. Glad you stopped by!

      - Chris

      Reply