next »

[tesselode]

Generally, I'm sure people here would shun the idea that a game is bad if it has bad graphics. There are certainly plenty of great games with bad graphics. Really anything on an old video game console could count.

But I think some games really wouldn't be fun if they had bad graphics. For example, how about Geometry Wars? Or shooters in general? The graphics have to be good because the explosions have to be satisfying. Otherwise, why bother shooting stuff?

I'm going to make a proposition. Somebody (maybe me!) should make a clone of Angry Birds, except with much better presentation and less dead space. I think part of the reason why Angry Birds is so bad is because it's obvious how lazy the developers were. With some minor gameplay adjustments and a more energetic, interesting presentation, Angry Birds could actually be decent.

[mooosh]

I know wutchu mean

killer7 and No More Heroes are the first things that come to mind. probably a lot of adventure games (Grim Fandango). Earthworm Jim would maybe be another one.

[eigenbom]

from what i played of it, angry birds seemed to have a nice and consistent style and presentation. its obviously aimed at children though due to the bright graphics, and those toys I see in toys'r'us.

for me, games with guis with thick rounded borders really irk me and get a -1 fun because of it. otoh, dark souls has an awful gui (visually), but it actually adds character and makes the game seem more .. human built?. so i don't know what to think anymore.

"Really anything on an old video game console could count." I disagree, it's relative! My imagination went wild playing things like Future Knight or Wizard of Wor.

[C.A. Sinner]

graphics can be part of the gameplay, yes. this isn't a universal principle though. some games get by just fine without any real visuals (interactive fiction, roguelikes, tbs), while in others they're an integral part of the experience (most action games).

[iffi]

From what little I've seen, Angry Birds looks more unoriginal than straight-up bad. Even if it had the greatest graphics and most satisfying explosions and structure collapses ever, it would still just be shooting objects from a sling/catapult-like thing at pigs hiding in structures made of blocks.

And besides, Angry Birds doesn't look so bad to me in terms of its graphics/presentation, despite being a bit uninspired. I'm not sure what you mean by "much better presentation and less dead space."

[alastair]

some games get by just fine without any real visuals (interactive fiction, roguelikes, tbs)

Yeah they can, but they're so much cooler when do have nice graphics.

For instance, Crawl Stone Soup would look tons more awesome if it had a graphical design like Diablo 3 or Dota 2.

[BlueSweatshirt]

Well, I think for games like Geometry Wars it comes down to "ooooh, that looks cool"; titillating the senses. It's about bringing a sense of satisfaction. 

Games use visuals to communicate what is going on. For a game visuals aren't accessory, they're paramount to understanding what is happening.(without visual context audio would be much less meaningful, I believe they go hand in hand) So a game which communicates well with it's graphics has successful presentation and is ultimately a better experience. Doesn't really matter how many polygons are present or how beautiful your graphics may be, if they don't communicate information to play the game they are essentially bad. I like to approach the visuals in my game like graphic design(rather than a painting or illustration) for this reason, because the fundamental concept of communicating information and ideas is the same.

Anyway I guess that was sort of tangential, but I think it still relates back.

[iffi]

For instance, Crawl Stone Soup would look tons more awesome if it had a graphical design like Diablo 3 or Dota 2.

It would look more awesome, but whether it would actually be more awesome is debatable.

[C.A. Sinner]

some games get by just fine without any real visuals (interactive fiction, roguelikes, tbs)

Yeah they can, but they're so much cooler when do have nice graphics.

For instance, Crawl Stone Soup would look tons more awesome if it had a graphical design like Diablo 3 or Dota 2.

I tend to just ignore the graphics with these kinds of games. After a while they just sort of "fall away" for lack of a better term, no matter how good or bad they are. Probably because visuals are not essential to the gameplay with these genres.

[baconman]

"Old/New" gfx != "Good/Bad" gfx. There's good and bad ways to do both. And as fundamentally a puzzle game, Angry Birds's simple graphics work for it, just like say, Mr. Driller's. Now if you tried to do a game such as Dark Souls in that kind of cartoony manner, I don't think it would work, nor would "Lego/Minecraft-style WipeOuT HD/F-Zero."

The graphical work is part of what gives games such character; and later-console-life titles (in comparison to earlier console-life titles) make it even more indisputable. Can you imagine Kirby SuperStar or Dream Land 3 being as stellar with the gfx from Kirby's Adventure (NES)? Or Yoshi's Island with... pretty much anything visual before it's time? Chrono Trigger ala Final Fantasy 1? It just wouldn't work.

That said, regardless of whether it's minimalist, pixel art, vector art, or 3D models; good and bad is totally independent of whether it's old or new style. And yeah, bad graphics *CAN* tank a reasonably good game. Just play any early-era PS1 game with polygons today. More often than not, it just doesn't work.

[jotapeh]

OP: in part you are referencing what Universal Principles of Design calls the "Aesthetic-Usability Effect".

In a nutshell - prettier graphics create positive reception and inspire users to work with the game and learn it more than ugly graphics. So the better your graphics, the wider your potential audience.

[DavidCaruso]

It would look more awesome, but whether it would actually be more awesome is debatable.

Doesn't looking and sounding more awesome make a game more awesome, even if only marginally in some cases? I mean, even with something as visually basic as the original Tetris Arika felt the need to ramp up the graphics and effects in their own series, obviously they wouldn't have done so if they didn't think it would improve the overall quality of the game. And then there are some games that would be completely worthless if not for aesthetics, like most modern psuedo-cinematic stuff, or everything Suda51's ever done (yes I went there (but Killer7 is an exception (but only because he brought in a real designer to work with him)))

[rek]

I'm going to make a proposition. Somebody (maybe me!) should make a clone of Angry Birds, except with much better presentation and less dead space. I think part of the reason why Angry Birds is so bad is because it's obvious how lazy the developers were. With some minor gameplay adjustments and a more energetic, interesting presentation, Angry Birds could actually be decent.

I know everyone here loves to hate Angry Birds, but this is straight up nonsense. The "dead space" is part of the framing (you wouldn't want the slingshot or target at the edge of the screen) and allows the distance to the target to vary from level to level and provides space to insert obstacles, so you aren't always firing at the same angle.

None of that has anything to do with "better graphics" though. AB has a cartoony aesthetic that works for the simplistic gameplay; it wouldn't be better served with flashier effects, greater detail, realistic textures, or abstraction.

Think what you will about Rovio failing to reinvent the wheel, but claiming the game is "bad" in the face of overwhelming and sustained popularity means you have an axe to grind, reality be damned.

[C.A. Sinner]

but claiming the game is "bad" in the face of overwhelming and sustained popularity means you have an axe to grind, reality be damned.

not trying to get into the whole angry birds debate again but this statement is wrong on a whole lot of levels. millions of people eat at mcdonalds every day. that doesn't make mcdonalds burgers good food, etc. etc.

i agree angry birds doesn't need different graphics to be more successful though. simple, cartoony 2d graphics is what tends to appeal most to casual gamers, the game's target audience.

[rek]

but claiming the game is "bad" in the face of overwhelming and sustained popularity means you have an axe to grind, reality be damned.

not trying to get into the whole angry birds debate again but this statement is wrong on a whole lot of levels. millions of people eat at mcdonalds every day. that doesn't make mcdonalds burgers good food.

i agree angry birds doesn't need different graphics to be more successful though. simple, cartoony 2d graphics is what tends to appeal most to casual gamers, the game's target audience.

I'm not arguing ad populum, just to be clear. If, as OP asserts, the game was poorly designed, the graphics hard to decipher, it would not be popular to the tune of hundreds of millions of downloads. We aren't comparing filet mignon to McDonald's (which is objectively bad by all nutritional standards) here. Angry Birds isn't the filet mignon of games, but it isn't a slab of rancid skunk meat either.