Basing your purchase of a game on its cover art is idiotic. You should get a game based on recommendations from friends, reviews from trusted sources, and your own experience (playing a demo). It may be cliche, but "don't judge a book by its cover" is particularly apt in this case.
Not to shut you down, because I do agree that the cover art alone wouldn't justify a purchase of a game, (Even as awesome as Borderlands' cover is.) but A LOT of people browsing Best Buy/Wal-Mart/Gamestop are gonna see a cover that grabs their eye and if they think it looks awesome, there's a chance they might nab that game without "researching" it.
Personally I like the cover. However it's kind of silly to base your purchase entirely on the cover. I mean, I don't know about you, but I look at the cover, put the game in the console and the box on my shelf and I won't see the cover again until I beat the game and put the disc away.
I didnt't realize that a game's overall rating had it's box art taken into consideration. All i thought that got rated was gameplay, graphics, replay value, hell even the soundtrack can be used to rate it. Really, the box art is going to stop you from buying a game? If the only way to get a copy of Halo3 was to buy the case with a picture of a penis on it. Pretty much everyone would still buy the game, they would just throw away the case.
I agree the box art is ugly! Having this guy on the cover is like having one of the sand people on the cover of a Star Wars movie, or having the waterboy on the cover of Madden. This guy looks like an extra, and there so much more to the game than what the cover art lets on.
If I were designing the box art it would be rows and rows of guns that stretched off into the horizon, or just a cryptic symbol like Obvlivion.
I'm not going to cancel my pre-order based on ugly cover art, but it won't be a game that I proudly display.
I think that the idea of based a game purchase decission on cover art is quite silly. A game is $60 u.s. / $70 canadian. I wouldn't choose a CD for $15-20 that way, so why on earth would I do that with a game?
No, the art is not "pretty". It uses bold strong colors and yet is very stark in its stylization. If you have actually looked at any of the design for the game it actually carries the game's theme very well. Also, it is one of those covers that I will not have trouble spotting when I do go to pick the game up which is a definite plus.
For the company making the game changing this to appease someone might be profitable (I honestly do not think it would be though -- there are as many on the other side who would probably argue *for* this cover due to its originality) and for them that could be beneficial. But if you go onto IGN you will see an article talking with them and they are proud of the uniqueness and originality of the cover design.
On the other hand, from a gamer's poiint of view, if someone is silly enough to dismiss a game based on the cover art then that is one less person I will meet that I likely would not have wanted to anyway. We would not have gotten along. I do not feel that the cover is "pretty", but I do feel that it is "original" and "fresh" and "distinct" which in the gaming industry, and based on the premises and promises of the game, is a far more important type of distinction.
As someone who cares about art a great deal I think the cover art has a lot of imagination put into it and it's brilliant choice of colors separates it from the dull gray box art of something like fallout 3, Cod 4 or Halo ODST. Not that those are bad games, this game just has a much more imaginative cover than just having a super soldier on the cover and nothing else.