A few days ago, I read a post on MTV’s Multiplayer blog that showed what box art would look like if the creators of the game got credit for their work. Judging from the results, some of the box art looked hideously mauled while some were more… tasteful. Regardless, it got me to thinking about box art.
Ask any crusty music buff what they miss the most about the good ol’ days — i.e., any year prior to 1980 — and they’ll likely tell you they miss the days when bands would put a lot of work into their LP album covers. The Beatles had "Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band" while The Rolling Stones had "Sticky Fingers" — most famous because it featured a working "fly". Of course, ask anyone who’s seen a physical copy of Tool’s "AENIMA" and they’ll tell you that CD album covers certainly had their own plethora of gimmicks. Even so, sales of physical media are dwindling as people turn to the convenience of digital distribution. We face not only the potential death of the album but the death of the album cover with it. Except for mp3 players that feature color screens, no one has much use for a tiny JPG version of "Sgt. Pepper’s" famous cover while the gimmick of "Sticky Fingers’" working fly is completely lost in the translation. Now, as gaming stands on the edge of a future where full games can be purchased and downloaded directly to your hardware, I fear that video game box art may be next to fall. Well, maybe "fear" isn’t the right word…
First of all, we aren’t "there" yet — I can still walk to the nearest GameStop and back well within the time required to download most demos from Xbox Live, let alone the days required to download a full game; I don’t even want to think about how long it would take to download something like "Metal Gear Solid 4". So, until the day everyone suddenly finds themselves hooked up to some serious broadband connections, I don’t think physical media will be going anywhere anytime soon. There’s just one other problem with box art, though… I still don’t think we really need it.
As nice as it is to admire box art as it sits on a shelf, collecting dust and taking up space, I don’t pay much attention to it while I’m playing the game. The time it takes me to get the game out of the box and put it into my console is just about all the time I really have to ooh and awe at its brilliant majesty. Computer games, at one time, were even worse; I was actually relieved when I noticed publishers had stopped distributing games in huge cardboard boxes. How many times did I open one of those behemoths only to find nothing more than a jewel case, the disc the game came on, and a stupid warranty card that no one ever filled out, anyway? How wasteful! Not only that, but like most of the people reading this, I grew up in an era when box art either made no sense, was incredibly ugly, or had nothing to do with the game inside. How about the box art for "Adventure" for the Atari 2600? Here, you have box art that looks like every Dungeons & Dragons nerd’s fantasy only to find that your in-game character was a square being chased by a duck. Oh, sure, we all knew better — we all looked at the back of the box to see what the actual, in-game graphics really looked like, but still… doesn’t that kind of prove my point?
Even today, you’ll still find box art that either looks better than the actual game or tells you absolutely nothing about what you’re about to play, so I say give the developers their moment in the sun: put the credits on the box, but maybe move it to the back. Superfluous, irrelevant and, in some cases, terrible box art will be here for a good while yet, so why not? In the meantime, just remember to not judge a game by its cover; like anything, it’s what’s inside that counts.