View Full Version : Warning: Rant [about how shallow people are]
zoombapup
05-29-2006, 04:09 PM
Ok, so dont read this if youre easily worked up.
I'm just going to have a little rant about how shallow people are.
I'm reading some reviews of games from E3 and its winding me up that basically these pre-rendered cutscenes are *STILL* being taken for gameplay. Many years after I thought that idea had been killed off.
Then I look at some reviews and screenshots of various indie games and I see the exact same thing.
Why does EVERYTHING have to have totally perfect graphics before people even give it a fair shake?
It just feels like as a programmer I'm always faced with this lack of eye candy to wow people into actually taking my games seriously? (ok, thats not actually true, we have great art, but from a notional development standpoint if I were just designing my own game).
How annoying is it that you can have a brilliant game with exceptional gameplay and people would STILL dismiss it because it had programmer art.
We are all too freakin fickle, I guess we're bred to be that way, but still, I'm just really annoyed with it.
Ok, rant over :)
:mad:
HairyTroll
05-29-2006, 04:51 PM
How annoying is it that you can have a brilliant game with exceptional gameplay and people would STILL dismiss it because it had programmer art.
We are all too freakin fickle, I guess we're bred to be that way, but still, I'm just really annoyed with it.
Because people like good graphics. Programmer art generally looks like crap, so why shouldn't people dismiss a game when the art is sub-standard? Who wants to play games in 2006 that looks like it was made around 1996?
If it is easier to sell a game with decent graphics then why not release a game with decent graphics?
Ricardo C
05-29-2006, 05:37 PM
Why does EVERYTHING have to have totally perfect graphics before people even give it a fair shake?
Because if you expect people to fork over $20 for the right to play your game, you should give them a quality product in return.
Desktop Gaming
05-29-2006, 06:20 PM
This idea that graphics are not important and its all about gameplay, is a complete myth.
Christian
05-29-2006, 07:02 PM
Im a graphic designer, and i have been taught that people will get a "message" if they see some clues about something, you know, when you see some person with ragged clothes, filthy, you will never think that he is a very rich person, in the same way, if you see a game with bad graphics, then it must mean that its not a very seriously developed game, sorry, but this is like things are :(
But look out, if the game looks terrific, and it ends playing awfully, it will harm your reputation as a game designer, so, good impressions are important to attract customers, and substtance is more important to keep customers.
Bachus
05-29-2006, 07:19 PM
Games are a visual medium. It *isn't* all about the gameplay. Movies can have the best story and acting ever, but if it's directed terribly it's still a bad movie.
Feel free to stay annoyed at people judging games by pre-rendered movies. Though for the most part there wasn't much of that at this year's E3. Also annoying is when someone insults a game that goes the non-realistic route. Games like Katamari Damacy, Wind Waker, and Jet Grind Radio don't look a bit realistic, but they're still great looking games. Though it's usually only idiot 14-year-old who insult games like that, and if you're targeting the idiot 14-year-old market you've already failed.
But take the new Tony Hawk Downhill Jam. It's clearly going for the realistic look, and it looks like crap. Gamers have a right to call them on it.
Anthony Flack
05-30-2006, 04:44 AM
people like good graphics
I'm not sure if they do. People seem to like more realistic graphics, or more detailed graphics, or some other empirical way that they can say that this year's graphics are more impressive than last year's.
Because that's what it seems most of the "hardcore" are actually looking for. Not high-quality art. Just something that offers a concrete (and preferably measurable) improvement over the last thing they saw. They don't want quality; they want to experience progress - the reassurance that the new thing is better than the old.
Good art is far too subjective to drive sales reliably, I guess. Sigh.
princec
05-30-2006, 05:13 AM
Tsk! As you should know there is a gulf between good art and popular art. The same phenomenon exists in music and films and any other endeavour. The trick is to find out how to make both good and popular art at the same time!
Cas :)
cliffski
05-30-2006, 05:18 AM
Im not fussed by modern engines. People say far cry looks amazing, but I didnt bother with it, as from an FPS POV it seemed to be nothing new. ditto WOW.
Im much more interested in interesting gameplay and lots of options, or a great community around a game.
I played Battle for middle earth for 5 minutes. Masters of Defnese, right to the end, and bought it. Im sure BFME has better 3D graphcis than MOD, but I enjoyed MOD.
Call me old fashioned but Im here for fun, not visual effects. No game will likely ever look as awesome as the CG effects in Revenge of the sith, so why try?
Dont let the graphics whores get you down, they are the minority. 90% of the E3 graphics-fest games will lose money, and be in bargin bins this time next year. You can now buy 'Republic the revolution', with its infinite polygon engine, for less than any of my 2D games. These games get a lot of hype, but their shelf life is minimal.
Games like ours have shelf lives of 5+ years or more. So dont worry :D
Anthony Flack
05-30-2006, 06:48 AM
Tsk! As you should know there is a gulf between good art and popular art. The same phenomenon exists in music and films and any other endeavour. The trick is to find out how to make both good and popular art at the same time!
Yes. But, refer to my main point: my contention is that these people aren't interested in good art, or popular art. They are interested in whatever you can give them that shows a measurable improvement over last year's version. In recent years, that has been more polygons, better physics, higher-res textures, bump-mapping etc etc but it's not about graphics; it's about being sold on the idea of moving forward.
Obviously that's not 100% true, because I get more attention than I deserve on account of my art style, which is perversely low-tech. So I know that there is a population of people that like pretty things, bless 'em.
I think (hope) the pre-rendered thing is still on the way out. It's just taking longer to die than it should have.
There was a significant geek backlash this year against Sony for clearly using pre-rendered scenes. Remember all the drool-worthy footage from E3 2005? Sony showed some actual game footage this year that doesn't even come close to what they showed last year and people (rightfully) called them on it.
Although I find it hilarious that the "graphics are overrated" post comes not long after the "originality is overrated" one. It says a lot about the indiegamer mindset.
Then I look at some reviews and screenshots of various indie games and I see the exact same thing.
Really? Who in the indie world is doing that? I think I've bemoaned the fact that just about nobody ever posts dev shots these days due to cloning worries, but that aside, I can't think of anyone trying to pull the wool over our eyes with pre-rendered stuff.
I completely understand the issue- there's loads of programmers who want to work on small games in their spare time, or even full time, but there's a drought of artists - why is that? Sometimes I think I'm just an anomaly in this business; you'd think artists would be the ones who want to break free of the shackles of mainstream development and have the freedom to express themselves however they like, but no, it seems programmers were gifted with all the motivation.
Poor showing really for artists in the indie community.
Speckled Jim
05-30-2006, 09:30 AM
Call me old fashioned but Im here for fun, not visual effects. No game will likely ever look as awesome as the CG effects in Revenge of the sith, so why try?
A very apt example, fantastic visuals, yet a lousy overall product.
Savant
05-30-2006, 09:38 AM
A very apt example, fantastic visuals, yet a lousy overall product.
Yet a product that made millions for it's developer much to the chagrin of other developers around the world proclaiming it to be crap.
dmikesell
05-30-2006, 10:09 AM
Uh, more people voted for the American Idol than in the last general election in the US. You're not really surprised that people are shallow, are you?
But I'm with cliff. I'm not upgrading my video card/computer every year to keep up with the latest in 3D technology. I still play Mario Brothers on the SNES. Because it's fun.
Savant
05-30-2006, 10:33 AM
I still play Mario Brothers on the SNES. Because it's fun.
Modern games with glitzy 3D graphics are fun too.
princec
05-30-2006, 10:51 AM
it seems programmers were gifted with all the motivation.
Poor showing really for artists in the indie community.
Couple of possible reasons for that:
1) IT is ranked the worst possible job for satisfaction. Most of us hate our day-jobs coding for the Man.
2) There are just as many crap artists as crap programmers, just the crap results are usually far more obvious.
Cas :)
Jason Chong
05-30-2006, 11:13 AM
Couple of possible reasons for that:
1) IT is ranked the worst possible job for satisfaction. Most of us hate our day-jobs coding for the Man.
2) There are just as many crap artists as crap programmers, just the crap results are usually far more obvious.
Cas :)
IT is cool if you're in charge of marketing/biz/dev.
You've got to be your own man who can influence decisions on what tech/platform to develop on and what the client would need if they don't have a specific platform requirement.
It's working for the crap managers that gets you. Of course, the marketroid or big mouth salesmen who promised the clients heaven and earth of features and ridiculous timelines and tables all that pressure to achieve them on YOU without consulting you first.
The problem with these salesgoons and marketroids is that they want to get the projects in *any* way possible so they can reach their 'quotas' and then let the manager shaft the problems on you when you can't deliver, since they've already satisfied their quotas.
Tom Cain
05-30-2006, 11:36 AM
I've always thought that the push toward photorealism in games is a natural evolution of marketing them. We live in a world of sound bites, not complex presentations. Ideas need to be presented quickly to move through media. For products that are difficult to explain quickly, markets evolve "shorthand" systems to describe them.
Movies have done this -- the genre and list of actors is all many people need to decide if a movie is worth watching. For those that need a little more, there are the 1-sentence printed synopsis and the 30-second trailer,which highlights the tone and showcases the actors. A few directors and writers fit into this system as well.
Games have had a hard time developing a marketing shorthand. Gameplay is difficult to describe in words and pictures, most need to be played to be understood. If you don't have an established brand or a license, genre + screenshot has emerged as the best tool for communicating games as quick sound bites. In the marketing fight to be seen as better when all you have is what your art looks like, companies have pushed hard to look the "best". Photorealism is the art style most people understand, it's the lowest common denominator. Unlike other styles it isn't as subjective: it either looks like a photo or it doesn't. Thus "best" has become "more like a photo than everyone else" in an effort to capture the widest audience.
I'm not sure it's "shallowness" of the audience, it's a lack of vocabulary to fully describe games in markets and media that demand quick sound bites. That's just my opinion on how it's evolved -- I could be completely wrong.
Uh, more people voted for the American Idol than in the last general election in the US. You're not really surprised that people are shallow, are you?I've read this elsewhere and I don't believe this is a fair indicator of "shallowness". Many of the people voting for American Idol aren't old enough to vote in US elections. Also, American Idol has no requirement for registration, citizenship, or even how many times you can vote. And you just phone or message your vote in. If US elections were held with these rules, I assure you there'd be more votes cast than there are citizens to cast them. :)
berserker
05-30-2006, 12:32 PM
I absolutely loved FarCry mainly because it's atmosfere that was made because of it's mesmerizing graphics. I felt I was on tropical vacation. OTOH I didn't care about Half-Life 2 at all. It's too grim to my tastes.
dmikesell
05-30-2006, 01:47 PM
How many of those Idol voters can name the three branches of government I wonder?
dmikesell
05-30-2006, 01:51 PM
Modern games with glitzy 3D graphics are fun too.
Sure, and I like some of them. Others won't run on my PC and I'm not upgrading just to play a game.
Speckled Jim
05-30-2006, 02:35 PM
Yet a product that made millions for it's developer much to the chagrin of other developers around the world proclaiming it to be crap.
What's your point? Mine is that great looking visuals don't make up for other deficiencies. You just get a well polished turd.
If your point is that crap sells, then I already know.
When I read these arguments it tends to amount to an either/or argument concerning graphics and also includes another fallacy - a stereotyped player demographic - i.e. all game players want outstanding graphics.
1 - Either/or
I don't think the issue is whether or not to focus on graphics, I think the issue is "How much should I focus on graphics for my core audience?" To me, it is a range rather than a black and white issue.
2 - Stereotyped Player demographic
Which leads into the second point - not all players care as much as others about graphical quality as you might (or as little). I think most of us come out of the hard core gaming mentality where either graphics make or break it for us (that is just how we are) or we have been trained to evaluate games based on visual excellence.
I think it would be wrong to assume that all players - both casual and hard core - care as much as you or the gaming press about visual excellence. I am not sure what percentage of players value graphics and to what degree (again a question of range rather than absolute) but I know for one that if I had to choose between excellent playability and excellent visuals, I would take excellent playability every time.
For me I feel the same way with movies, I would take excellent story every time. I also know that other people feel the opposite. Yet some others feel a blend of both.
I also believe I am not alone in my game preferences - look at the clamor about wanting better/more story and depth in games - but again, I don't know exactly what percentage of players feel like I do.
Now the common response to my assertion is usually - "Why can't you have both? Great story, playability, and visuals?". The answer is you can - if you have a huge bank account, incredible talent, and all the time in the world to develop such a product. However, considering this is an indie audience and none of those things probably apply, choices must be made.
So I think the question needs to be "What does my target audience value the most and to what degree?"
There is really no room for assumptions here. Choices must be made where to spend your time and money and it must always center on what your audience values - not what the hard core audience, the gamer press, or even you yourself value.
None of us can do it all - we can't have everything. Saying yes to one thing means saying no to another.
Just a few thoughts.
Savant
05-30-2006, 03:23 PM
What's your point? Mine is that great looking visuals don't make up for other deficiencies. You just get a well polished turd.
If your point is that crap sells, then I already know.
You missed several subtleties but it's no biggie. Rage on.
There are plenty of examples out there demonstrating that "all people care about is graphics" being flat out untrue.
Blizzard games are low tech but are pleasing to the eye and sell like crazy.
Compare reviews (and most likely, sales) of Half Life 2 vs. Doom 3. Was the pivotal point graphics, or gameplay?
The Wii is the darling of the next gen press these days, and it's the graphical underperformer by quite a large margin.
The Nintendo DS is the bare minimal hardware required for a 3D game, yet a stylus + proper marketing = profit. One could argue that the real shallow and stupid people are all these idiots who can't see that a stylus = a goddam mouse. INNOVATION, MAN! I guess the PC is innovative, too!
People gravitate towards what they know about. If the press says something is super cool, gamers will regurgitate that. It doesn't have to be about graphics.
HairyTroll
05-30-2006, 06:57 PM
There are plenty of examples out there demonstrating that "all people care about is graphics" being flat out untrue.
Blizzard games....
Half Life 2 vs. Doom 3....
The Wii is the darling....
The Nintendo DS ....
None of these use 'programmer art'. Unless the programmer happens to be a damn fine artist.
I'm making more of a general statement. I think trying to narrow the whole thing down to just graphics is a bad idea.
I'm sure people can find games with programmer art that get press and/or sell. In these cases the art usually has some weird catch or gimmick to it, or is just plain good.
Again, the general point is that if you do something the press (and ultimately, gamers) find refreshing, cool, or charming, IMHO it will be received well regardless of the production value.
Jason Chong
05-30-2006, 08:16 PM
I'm making more of a general statement. I think trying to narrow the whole thing down to just graphics is a bad idea.
I'm sure people can find games with programmer art that get press and/or sell. In these cases the art usually has some weird catch or gimmick to it, or is just plain good.
Again, the general point is that if you do something the press (and ultimately, gamers) find refreshing, cool, or charming, IMHO it will be received well regardless of the production value.
Snood anyone ?
yanuart
05-30-2006, 11:39 PM
I said it once and I say it again. If game is like a woman then graphics is hotness (imagine big boobs, tight ass and blonde) and gameplay is what people like to call inner beauty (wit, kindness, etc)
Now, of course when looking for a woman people will say : look for the inner beauty. Eventhough it's a wise statement.. Come on now.. get real!
Anthony Flack
05-31-2006, 01:12 AM
Couple of possible reasons for that:
1) IT is ranked the worst possible job for satisfaction. Most of us hate our day-jobs coding for the Man.
2) There are just as many crap artists as crap programmers, just the crap results are usually far more obvious.
Another possible reason - most indie programmers are looking for artists that they can buy IP outright from, for a flat fee. A very small flat fee. Joy! Where do I sign up?
Games have had a hard time developing a marketing shorthand.
It's not helped by the fact that publishers have always done everything they could to obscure the actual authors. If game authors had the freedom to call the shots, and put their names on the top of everything they made, there's your shorthand right there.
princec
05-31-2006, 02:08 AM
I'm already at the top of my game and still find it deeply dissatisfying :( Hence, writing games...
Cas :)
princec
05-31-2006, 02:17 AM
It's not helped by the fact that publishers have always done everything they could to obscure the actual authors. If game authors had the freedom to call the shots, and put their names on the top of everything they made, there's your shorthand right there.
That's exactly what we're doing :)
Cas :)
I said it once and I say it again. If game is like a woman then graphics is hotness (imagine big boobs, tight ass and blonde) and gameplay is what people like to call inner beauty (wit, kindness, etc)
Now, of course when looking for a woman people will say : look for the inner beauty. Eventhough it's a wise statement.. Come on now.. get real!
I like to use this analogy too, though as I've gotten older I've begun to expand on it a little more.
Games, like women, don't always have to fit the mainstream media's templates to be appreciate by the public. Just as there are women with natural looks and bodies who are preferred for those reasons, or women with inherent sexiness or charm, there are games that look good and have an addictive quality without needing the proverbial fake boobs. You don't hear the Diane Lanes, Rene Russos, and Monica Belluccis out there complaining that "guys only want fake tits", because they've found the right combination of looks/demeanor/charm/talent that works for them. There are many people in everyday life who have no trouble meeting someone for those very same reasons.
I humbly believe that the same applies to games.
If anything, now is a better time than ever; what with all the raving Nintendo fanbois and old fogey elitists practically begging for game graphics to get worse :mad:
IT is cool if you're in charge of marketing...
Yes, but you will eventually end up in the eighth level of hell for your sins.
Oh, and being in marketing is not cool, it's just that people in marketing like to think it is.
Savant
05-31-2006, 03:26 AM
Snood anyone ?
Try releasing Snood in today's market. I dare you.
Speckled Jim
05-31-2006, 03:35 AM
You missed several subtleties but it's no biggie. Rage on.
Doesn't look like it to me, so feel free to point them out.
Savant
05-31-2006, 04:06 AM
Doesn't look like it to me, so feel free to point them out.
If I point them out, they're no longer subtle.
Jason Chong
05-31-2006, 04:30 AM
I said it once and I say it again. If game is like a woman then graphics is hotness (imagine big boobs, tight ass and blonde) and gameplay is what people like to call inner beauty (wit, kindness, etc)
Now, of course when looking for a woman people will say : look for the inner beauty. Eventhough it's a wise statement.. Come on now.. get real!
You're damn right, you'll never catch me dating a tub of lard. Shallow Hal I am and damn proud to be one.
Speckled Jim
05-31-2006, 04:59 AM
If I point them out, they're no longer subtle.
So there weren't any, that's OK, just wanted to clear that up.
stanchat
05-31-2006, 05:10 AM
Try releasing Snood in today's market. I dare you.
Someone took U up on dat dare.
http://ds.ign.com/articles/674/674237p1.html
Savant
05-31-2006, 06:30 AM
Mmm, and a 4.5/10 review. It's ALL about the gameplay!
Someone took U up on dat dare.
http://ds.ign.com/articles/674/674237p1.html
Shocking how they weight the graphics for that score, though it is a commercial game so there is no real excuse?
This argument actually reminds me of those cack old FMV games, visually they were almost as good as movies (at the time :P), but did you ever play them? ;)
What's funny is that those graphics are light years better than the original Snood's - and they still aren't good enough. Of course, maybe a solid game would make up for that but they had nothing new to offer there either.
MiceHead
05-31-2006, 08:35 AM
There are games with non-photorealistic (http://www.darwinia.co.uk/) but stylish (http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/) graphics (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~cs8k-cyu/index_e.html) -- Some (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/geometrywarsretroevolved/index.html)of them sell well (http://www.namco.com/games/katamari_damacy/).
I'd argue, as have others in this thread, that independents should be working towards making their games look like they've been polished, if not photorealistic. Games such as Democracy (http://www.democracygame.com/)and Titan Attacks (http://www.puppygames.net/titan-attacks/index.php) don't have a realistic aesthetic, but (IMO) they have a nice "finish" to them.
It may not require that much to turn programmer art into something attractive. In another thread, DayDream did a draw-over (http://www.spriteattack.com/images/GalaxyOne_moodscreen.jpg) on someone's programmer-art user-interface. It was a quick and simple job, but it made the thing look significantly better.
Savant
05-31-2006, 08:53 AM
So there weren't any, that's OK, just wanted to clear that up.
Reply With Quote
Whatever allows you to sleep at night. Sure, there weren't any. It's all good, bra.
Speckled Jim
05-31-2006, 11:22 AM
Whatever allows you to sleep at night. Sure, there weren't any. It's all good, bra.
It may have escaped your notice, but this is a forum where we discuss things. There are no prizes for being wilfully obscure. You stated there were subtle points that I had missed in your reply. Since you declined to point them out when I stated I couldn't see them, I can only conclude you are unable to do so.
yanuart
05-31-2006, 12:01 PM
Back to the topic about the rant :
In the case of flashy demo at E3, it's a simple fact that graphics are the easiest thing to sell or brag without further explanations that's why publishers tend to push that. The other thing is : most of the games on that event aren't even existed/finished yet!
So yes we'll see alot of unplayable movie/real time demo because that's the only thing they can show.
The problem is misrepresenting pre-rendered footage as real-time game graphics. It was an interesting shell game Sony played in 2005 they confirmed "Yes, this is running in real-time". Which is technically true, the cut scene video was running in real time. They just didn't bother correcting people who thought "real-time" meant "in-game".
Savant
05-31-2006, 01:38 PM
It may have escaped your notice, but this is a forum where we discuss things. There are no prizes for being wilfully obscure. You stated there were subtle points that I had missed in your reply. Since you declined to point them out when I stated I couldn't see them, I can only conclude you are unable to do so.
Sleep tight!
Back to the topic about the rant :
In the case of flashy demo at E3, it's a simple fact that graphics are the easiest thing to sell or brag without further explanations that's why publishers tend to push that. The other thing is : most of the games on that event aren't even existed/finished yet!
So yes we'll see alot of unplayable movie/real time demo because that's the only thing they can show.
Yep exactly. As I said, if you give the press something interesting to talk about, you will get press.
Another example of a game that probably has an art budget of about $200 yet gets an 8 out of 10 for graphics and 9.2 over on Gamespot (where 9s aren't easy to come by):
http://www.gamespot.com/ds/strategy/advancewarsds/review.html
I don't mean to come off as a dick but I just don't buy into the argument of blaming the customer. Yes they can be irrational, ignorant, and shallow, but there are positives to those aspects as well.
Think about it: No one is complaining that Advance Wars DS is only 2D.
Speckled Jim
05-31-2006, 02:06 PM
Sleep tight!
You really don't have a better answer than that? Oh dear.
Zbigniew
06-01-2006, 10:47 AM
This is a very important topic and should be made a sticky. Programmers treat their program as if it was their child. You want it to be great and refuse to see any faults with it. Might take a while to change your mind. You work with it day after day and you get used to it's defects or explain to yourself that all the great things about it will counter anything that might be wrong with it. Finally you might decide that you lack the resources to improve it and it will just have to be the way it is now.
Nauris
06-01-2006, 11:48 AM
Yep exactly. As I said, if you give the press something interesting to talk about, you will get press.
Another example of a game that probably has an art budget of about $200 yet gets an 8 out of 10 for graphics and 9.2 over on Gamespot (where 9s aren't easy to come by):
http://www.gamespot.com/ds/strategy/advancewarsds/review.html
Surely you jest, good sire. There simply is no way that Advance Wars had art budget in three digits. Such stylish stuff and so detailed in such a low res.. there`s LOTS of work poured in. Buckets of sweat and blood, mixed with used up whips, man.
Surely you jest, good sire. There simply is no way that Advance Wars had art budget in three digits. Such stylish stuff and so detailed in such a low res.. there`s LOTS of work poured in. Buckets of sweat and blood, mixed with used up whips, man.
Yeah, I'm just exaggerating to make a point :D While I'm sure the art was actually quite costly to build (both in terms of time and salaries), anything not 3D is typically viewed as being obselete or cheap by the "average" gamer.
The fact that games like AW can prosper in this environment shows that success doesn't necessarily ride on any one factor (e.g. graphics).
BarrySlisk
06-02-2006, 12:13 AM
Speckled Jim and Savant! Go to your rooms!!
Anthony Flack
06-02-2006, 01:49 AM
Programmers treat their program as if it was their child. You want it to be great and refuse to see any faults with it. Might take a while to change your mind. You work with it day after day and you get used to it's defects or explain to yourself that all the great things about it will counter anything that might be wrong with it. Finally you might decide that you lack the resources to improve it and it will just have to be the way it is now.
I feel like I can't finish a game until I hate its digital guts. Until that point, I'll want to improve it more. After I'm completely, unequivocally sick of it, then I might decide it's good enough.
And I remember being very impressed about how well Advance Wars used its simple graphics set. The battle scenes look brilliant, yet they're so economical. Look and learn - these guys really know what they're doing.
Not to start a fanboy war but I often wonder if Advance Wars graphics would be so "drool worthy" were they not Nintendo's. If the identitcal product had been released for the PSP would the graphics still be considered an 8 out of 10? Or would they have been called for what they are - 16bit throwbacks, on par with NeoGeo 6+ years ago.
I might just be a 2D art whore, but Disgaea for PS2 (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/disgaeahourofdarkness/review.html) was a reasonably successfull title for a seemingly nameless (at the time) developer. It's maybe a bad example, 'cause it has otaku potential in it, but that's an issue all by itself. But it did well enough the developer opened a publishing branch in North America for their future titles, and to take advantage of other smaller time Japanese titles with similar otaku potential.
Speckled Jim
06-02-2006, 12:34 PM
Speckled Jim and Savant! Go to your rooms!!
I was politely asking for an answer in my replies to Savant. Quite why he chose the childish responses remains a mystery.
Savant
06-02-2006, 12:53 PM
I had a clever reply written up for you but a moderater deleted it. PM me if you'd like to hear it.
Anthony Flack
06-02-2006, 05:07 PM
Not to start a fanboy war but I often wonder if Advance Wars graphics would be so "drool worthy" were they not Nintendo's. If the identitcal product had been released for the PSP would the graphics still be considered an 8 out of 10? Or would they have been called for what they are - 16bit throwbacks, on par with NeoGeo 6+ years ago.
Hm, I don't know about the new one; I was talking about the original Advance Wars. It's the perfect example of using very few art assets to maximum effect.
Not to start a fanboy war but I often wonder if Advance Wars graphics would be so "drool worthy" were they not Nintendo's. If the identitcal product had been released for the PSP would the graphics still be considered an 8 out of 10? Or would they have been called for what they are - 16bit throwbacks, on par with NeoGeo 6+ years ago.
Not sure if you realize it, but we are in complete agreement. There are positive aspects to customer irrationality and AW is a perfect example of one such benefit (fanboyism).
Would Advance Wars on PSP with a different name not score as well? Of course!
http://www.gamespot.com/psp/strategy/fieldcommander/review.html
Exact same freaking gameplay and 3D graphics (not to mention AWESOME multiplayer), yet a lower score. Granted, I personally feel that AW's 2D graphics look better than FC's 3D graphics, but that's just talent. FC with different technical staff could look better than it does. But what's really ironic is that the DS is a 3D system!!! Does anyone honestly believe that FC would have been accepted if it had 2D graphics? I seriously doubt it.
Regardless, the point remains: Customer irrationality extends far beyond just wanting better graphics. The way I see it, if people won't buy your game for XYZ reasons, the real reason is because they haven't fallen in love with anything in your game.
DangerCode
06-02-2006, 10:11 PM
Not to start a fanboy war but I often wonder if Advance Wars graphics would be so "drool worthy" were they not Nintendo's. If the identitcal product had been released for the PSP would the graphics still be considered an 8 out of 10? Or would they have been called for what they are - 16bit throwbacks, on par with NeoGeo 6+ years ago.
The technology is old but the art/design style is classic.
Fabio
06-02-2006, 11:22 PM
I was politely asking for an answer in my replies to Savant. Quite why he chose the childish responses remains a mystery. You didn't really know Savant yet, did you? Welcome to the club! We're all very depressed. but amused at least. :D
Sakura Games
06-03-2006, 03:56 AM
Don't read Savant posts, Jim, total waste of time. Is still a mystery why the moderators didn't ban him permanently from those forums.
jefferytitan
06-03-2006, 05:54 AM
There are people who are stuck on photorealistic graphics.
Personally I think the general problem is that people dislike the graphics if they don't look like they were what the game designer was aiming for. It's a flaw, just like spelling mistakes or bad gameplay. Now if you intentionally aim for simple or abstract (as various games do) and make that an obvious style, you'll probably be okay.
Of course you shouldn't trust my opinion, as I know nothing. ;)
Anthony Flack
06-03-2006, 08:06 AM
I've been playing Zelda: Wind Waker today.
I can't believe people knocked it for its graphics. It's gorgeous. And a perfect example of a game pulling off a stylised look flawlessly. And yet, people objected. Man!
electronicStar
06-03-2006, 03:44 PM
Don't read Savant posts, Jim, total waste of time. Is still a mystery why the moderators didn't ban him permanently from those forums.
You constantly following and making negative comments about him isn't particularly pleasant either. If you chose to ignore him, just ignore him.
Savant
06-03-2006, 03:48 PM
I can't believe people knocked it for its graphics.
There were people knocking it? I remember it being pretty much universally heralded for it's awesome style (which I agree with - amazing art direction).
Anthony Flack
06-03-2006, 04:15 PM
Apparently a lot of fans didn't like the "kiddie" style blah blah blah. And I see that Twilight Princess, while using the same game engine, has reverted to a less "controversial" visual design. A shame.
Apparently a lot of fans didn't like the "kiddie" style blah blah blah. And I see that Twilight Princess, while using the same game engine, has reverted to a less "controversial" visual design. A shame.
Yep, there was a huge fan backlash against "Cellda" :)
I personally thought the game looked cool, but I think the lesson learned here is to avoid dramatic changes in asthetics to firmly established brands. A better idea would have been to do it as a spin-off brand (like Majora's Mask, or the Metal Gear Acid titles).
While Twilight Princess has gone back to the old art style, the DS Zelda is retaining the cell shaded look and looks awesome. I'm looking forward to that game.
Anthony Flack
06-05-2006, 03:46 AM
The strange thing is that I don't really think it was that much of a departure from Ocarina of Time. It's not like Ocarina was realistic-looking; it was equally cartoony. Wind Waker just asserted its style more confidently.
Speckled Jim
06-05-2006, 04:21 AM
As I recall, Nintendo showed a tech demo for the Gamecube showing Link fighting some other Zelda character, done in a more "realistic" style. This was before the news was released that it would actually be cel shaded. You could argue it was partly their fault for setting up an expectation for a realistic look.
delsydsoftware
06-08-2006, 02:01 PM
It's working for the crap managers that gets you. Of course, the marketroid or big mouth salesmen who promised the clients heaven and earth of features and ridiculous timelines and tables all that pressure to achieve them on YOU without consulting you first.
The problem with these salesgoons and marketroids is that they want to get the projects in *any* way possible so they can reach their 'quotas' and then let the manager shaft the problems on you when you can't deliver, since they've already satisfied their quotas.
You've worked for IBM before too, haven't you? :)
impossible
06-09-2006, 12:23 PM
There are plenty of examples out there demonstrating that "all people care about is graphics" being flat out untrue.
Blizzard games are low tech but are pleasing to the eye and sell like crazy.
Compare reviews (and most likely, sales) of Half Life 2 vs. Doom 3. Was the pivotal point graphics, or gameplay?
I think these are bad examples, and if anything prove that graphics are more important than you would think. Anthony Flack has been hitting on the point that there is a big disconnect between "good graphics" and "good art."
Although I see good graphics as a combination of technical quality (whatever that means...) and art direction, most hardcore gamers, game journalists and developers seem to refer to how technically advanced the graphics are (usually this just means level of detail, although it can be specific effects also) and how photorealistic they look. This automatically makes a lot of nonphotorealistic art styles "bad" or "simple."
If you look at Doom 3 vs. HL2, in terms of technology they focus on different things. The games have very different art direction and technical design, but I'm not sure if one is significantly graphically better than the other. Some people like Doom 3 more, some people like HL2 more, but in terms of gameplay and graphics.
I don't really get the idea that "Blizzard games are low tech and have crappy graphics," with the exception of Diablo 2, which was pretty backwards for a game released in 2000. Blizzard games have always had much better art direction than most games out there. They've always targetted relatively low end machines, but I don't see how WoW's graphics are significantly less technically advanced than most other MMOs released in 2004, besides them being more cartoony looking.
I think these are bad examples...
It sounds like you haven't read the rest of the thread, as these points have been made already and my argument has been refined as a result.
The point is whether or not good graphics are out of reach of indie developers, and whether or not gamers just care about graphics. I disagree with both for reasons already stated in prior posts.
I'm not sure how some of these other tertiary points got pulled into it (e.g. how did "low tech but pleasing to the eye" get interpreted as "crappy"?!), but I'm not going to retype what I've already said :D
impossible
06-09-2006, 07:39 PM
It sounds like you haven't read the rest of the thread, as these points have been made already and my argument has been refined as a result.
The point is whether or not good graphics are out of reach of indie developers, and whether or not gamers just care about graphics. I disagree with both for reasons already stated in prior posts.
I've read the entire thread. I mentioned that other people have said some of the same general points I brought up and was just reiterating them. No one specifically mentioned Doom 3, HL2 or Blizzard.
I'm not sure how some of these other tertiary points got pulled into it (e.g. how did "low tech but pleasing to the eye" get interpreted as "crappy"?!), but I'm not going to retype what I've already said :D
I didn't say you said Blizzard graphics were "crappy." That was a general statement targetted at the general public. Sorry if you thought I was specifically talking about you. But you did say "low tech" and my argument was against that. I did mention that Blizzard has great art direction, and that is actually in agreement with you. I guess I shouldn't have quoted you but I wanted some context. I think you thinking I misintrepreted your post is a misintrepretation of my post.
I think you thinking I misintrepreted your post is a misintrepretation of my post.
Right on, that appears to be what happened :D No disrespect intended (or received, I hope!).
Anthony Flack
06-09-2006, 10:07 PM
This automatically makes a lot of nonphotorealistic art styles "bad" or "simple."
Crucially, stylised graphics can be "proven" to be "good graphics" if they can also be shown to be technically advanced. You could get away with cartoony graphics once you point out that the models are all self-shadowing. The most important point appears to be that you must push the hardware to its limits, or else.
gpetersz
06-27-2006, 05:06 AM
Because people like good graphics. Programmer art generally looks like crap, so why shouldn't people dismiss a game when the art is sub-standard? Who wants to play games in 2006 that looks like it was made around 1996?
If it is easier to sell a game with decent graphics then why not release a game with decent graphics?
Oh, come on, the date of an artwork does not tells anything about the quality. Yes, the possibilities were different (resolution, depth, poly-count etc) but for example Fantasy General still has GREAT unit portrait images, and even it is 10 years old they are just still great. (and I could even go forther back like golbiiins (and gobliins and goblins etc.) they are pure 256 MCGA but GREAT!
:) I didn't want attack anybody!
To the main topic: these are for marketing, and many times when you see a movie trailer you've seen the whole movie... it is eye candy, cheating.
But we can't help it.
:(
zoombapup
06-28-2006, 05:07 AM
Well, this discussion seems to have kicked off and boiled over quite nicely :)
I've calmed down a bit since my original post.
But I'm still in a situation where to be taken seriously we are in a state of development where we have to pander to the graphical whims first and to the gameplay second.
I dont like that mainly because we are programmer-heavy :)
I think it will shape our decisions on games and the things we do quite heavily over the coming years. Unless we find that mythical "artist partner" who actually wants to take on the art director role. I'm not holding my breath though, it doesnt seem so common in indie circles as I'd imagined it would.
It not really a biggie, we can always buy in art, but still, its a strange state of affairs.
EJSainz
07-06-2006, 08:42 AM
I've calmed down a bit since my original post.
But I'm still in a situation where to be taken seriously we are in a state of development where we have to pander to the graphical whims first and to the gameplay second.
I dont like that mainly because we are programmer-heavy :)
I think it will shape our decisions on games and the things we do quite heavily over the coming years. Unless we find that mythical "artist partner" who actually wants to take on the art director role. I'm not holding my breath though, it doesnt seem so common in indie circles as I'd imagined it would.
It not really a biggie, we can always buy in art, but still, its a strange state of affairs.
Hello!
I haven't read all the messages, I just stopped after the 10th. I just wanted to say that, in my opinion, like many things in live, the success of a game is determined by many facts that not add, but multiply.
That is, if the facts for gaming were graphics, programming and designing, a game with (10, 10, 0) on each fact would end up with an overal score of 10x10x0 = 0!!! points - total disaster, wether a (5, 5, 5) game would score 125 - much far from a perfect 1000, but also quite far from 0, even if the graphics or the programming aren't good enough.
Which are the facts for indie games? Well, Pavlina started a nice discussion about this on his web page :D , but the visual fact is probably one of the most relevant of them. So, you either find a good artist (either $$$ || !$$$), or learn some graphics skills ;) . As for myself, I do both things (and sometimes a bit of sound and very-very-very little music). Took me 30 years, but there I am :D .
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.