next »

[eyeliner]

Right, I'm making a marble game, mostly I've been scheming the controls up until now, setting up the camera, using only general "art" as placeholder, like simple planes, primitives and textures.

I usually, for a quick test, make a track to roll on, never feeling happy with it. Good thing: I can cook up a track real quick, with the amount of tracks I've created and discarded. Basically anything my brain can think of, I can make it fairly quickly.

Thing is, I'm having a really hard time finding out the setting of the game, if I should go towards a more organic setting (with grass, rock, wood textures, for instance) something abstract, using mainly colors and weird textures.

But one of the other issues is the inability to find/make tracks that are (for me, at least) worthy of being called a level.

Now I'm thinking of using pencil and paper a make a few scribbles (I'm terrible at that) and brainstorm, but I'm not sure if that will help me any.

How much help would I get from putting the pen to paper, make an item, and redo it until I'm happy with it and then put it up in my game?

I've even got a few blank sheets of paper and lots of IKEA pencils to spend.

Most art I see are character mock-ups, level parts, but because I'm planning something simple I'm not sure drawing would help me much.

Any advice?

[Sam]

It sounds like you have two separate problems:

How to design a good quality level on a gameplay level for your game.
How to decide on a visual aesthetic for your game.

Making a good level for your game of course depends hugely on how the game works, what you want the challenge to be, the feel, all that game deisgn stuff. I don't know your game so don't think I have much useful to say on that.

For aesthetics I find it very useful to trawl through images and build a collection that appeals to me. http://ffffound.com/ is pretty good for that, although you tend to see a lot of similar styles there. Add some paintings or sculpture for instant class. Just a couple of images can be enough to give the foundation for the look of a game.

[sublinimal]

Level design, for me, relies mostly on playtesting. Drawing just helps organize my thoughts when I already know what I want to add.

Code:

def create_level():
    level = get_concept()

    while level.length < LONG_ENOUGH or level.size < BIG_ENOUGH:
        new_ideas = play(level)
        level.append(new_ideas)

    return level

[eyeliner]

It sounds like you have two separate problems:

How to design a good quality level on a gameplay level for your game.
How to decide on a visual aesthetic for your game.

Making a good level for your game of course depends hugely on how the game works, what you want the challenge to be, the feel, all that game deisgn stuff. I don't know your game so don't think I have much useful to say on that.

For aesthetics I find it very useful to trawl through images and build a collection that appeals to me. http://ffffound.com/ is pretty good for that, although you tend to see a lot of similar styles there. Add some paintings or sculpture for instant class. Just a couple of images can be enough to give the foundation for the look of a game.

Good call on the image browsing. My game is (hope will be) something along the lines of Ballance (gameplay) with a bit of Marble Blast (objective).

And yes, my main problem is the visual aesthetics. I keep hopping through styles, so your advice might just be what I need.

Level design, for me, relies mostly on playtesting. Drawing just helps organize my thoughts when I already know what I want to add.

Code:

def create_level():
    level = get_concept()

    while level.length < LONG_ENOUGH or level.size < BIG_ENOUGH:
        new_ideas = play(level)
        level.append(new_ideas)

    return level

So, you just make whatever you want and then play it to see if it fits? I'm also trying that, but not much success is coming this way. :p

[sublinimal]

So, you just make whatever you want and then play it to see if it fits? I'm also trying that, but not much success is coming this way. :p

Usually I either have a concept in mind or it pops up early in the process. It helps my creativity to limit myself to a small pond of mechanics in a given area and force myself to squeeze all the juice out of their combinations.

[eyeliner]

That is exactly what I'm trying to do.
Trying and testing continuously.

[Zip]

Atmosphere enhances design: focusing on the aesthetics first would be my advice. Once you figure out how you want it to look and implement at least a semblance of that appearance, the tracks you thought weren't level-worthy might feel a lot more complete.

I had several "mock-up" levels for a recent game, but once I got the game's visuals closer to their final appearance those mock-ups became actual levels after just a tiny bit of tweaking.

[Stwelin]

Artwork in games is important to me, because I am interested in games that depict certain moods and feelings. Artwork certainly plays a role in conveying these.

There are games that are fun regardless of their artwork, however. Quake III would be fun to play, for me, even if the artwork was not present. The driving force behind playing is in the competitiveness. A game like NetHack is very graphically minimal, but fun to play because of it's expansiveness.

Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favorite games. It's fun to play, but I probably would not have been compelled to beat it if the game were all textureless polygons. (I would also say that I would not play it if the audio was terrible or non-existant). The art and sound are integral because they give mood and atmosphere to what to player is experiencing on the gameplay-level.

Video games are unique in that they combine input from the player, but can also use different media such art and sound to create a "whole" experience. I used to play Tribes II a lot, and the artwork wasn't really important. The hours that I poured into Tribes II were not as valuable as the hours I poured into Shadow of the Colossus.

Artwork is not a necessity, but I think that games which ignore artwork (and sound) cannot give the same "experience" as those that use them to their advantage.

Here is a good book for you to read: http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Theory-Video-Graeme-Kirkpatrick/dp/0719077176

[maetheec]

I'm not sure how I can help your brainstorm... but I can tell you this

Art Work isn't a necessity, but Art Style is definitely required.

[Richard Kain]

Is illustrated artwork necessary? No. Are the principles of artistic design and layout necessary? Yes.

"Programmer Art" is a valid approach to game design. You don't need to be a painter or sculptor in order to make an appealing game. What you DO need is an understanding of visual fundamentals. Composition, layout, color theory, etc... You don't have to be a fine artist in order to learn, and use these design principles. They can help you to improve the look and flow of your GUI, your levels, even any programmer art assets you cook up.

The most important thing is to stop and think about your graphics. Step back and try to place yourself outside of your own game development, and look at your graphics with an impartial eye. Try to imagine how everyone else will view and be affected by your graphics.

[eyeliner]

I decided to find a theme to my thing: Azulejos.

I can't draw worth a damn, so I'd better spend some time "concepting" with my  graphic table.
I'll try to use it wisely and not insult the art.

[VortexCortex]

What you DO need is an understanding of visual fundamentals. Composition, layout, color theory, etc...

Sounds a little close minded.  I say screw all that. Just imagine all the samey "art" in the world due to following your advice.  Instead, just practice in whatever medium you like a lot -- If you're trying to emulate reality, examine it; If not: Don't.

All I need to know about Art, I learned from neuroscience and observing the world around me.

What if my primary vision range is Ultra Violet, or just north of Infra Red?  Or Microwave even?  Yeah, I'm not talking "abstract art", I'm saying that those "visual fundamentals" aren't actually... You just don't know it because you've only ever had a human mind and body.  Following predefined formulas for art causes one to follow a predefined formula... in art?  Scientists believe there are usually many formulae that achieve a given result.

Following an art lesson where you block in the shapes of a subject is fine, but so is filling in a silhouette with base colors, subtracting form by filling in the surrounding area, and then detailing the subject.  How many humans are there again?  There's at least a hundred times that many ways for humans to make art...  And that's just counting one species!

You've never truly seen flowers unless you've seen them as they appear to their target audience. Try sampling the world through a Bee's hemispheric stereoscopic UV sensitive compound vision, then we'll talk about "composition" or "color theory"... Your race does have the technology, does it not?

Edit: Here we have Angelica Sylvestris in Human visible light (damn plain whitish), and a couple of UV ranges as seen by some insects -- Not in stereoscopic compound vision, but you get the point.

You see not the Universe with your gods damned eyes, but only the smallest sliver!

[eyeliner]

Thank you, VortexCortex.

You posted exactly what goes through my mind often, and that is to think outside the box. It backlashes and I tend to follow the boring path those before have trailed.

You gave a very insightful perspective and that might quickly change my opinion on the look of the game. I might even add some stuff for the fun factor.

This forum is filled with very intelligent people that give great input. One of the best corners of the web.

You guys are great.

[Richard Kain]

Sounds a little close minded.  I say screw all that. Just imagine all the samey "art" in the world due to following your advice.  Instead, just practice in whatever medium you like a lot -- If you're trying to emulate reality, examine it; If not: Don't.

All I need to know about Art, I learned from neuroscience and observing the world around me.

While I applaud your desire to pursue originality and out-of-the-box thinking, I would caution you against going too far afield, especially for the purpose of creating video game graphics.

Video games are a very different medium to painting, reading, or even video. At its core, it is an interactive experience. While a painting or visual composition can be purely self-indulgent, one of the primary purposes of video game graphics are providing visual feedback to the player. I mention the fundamentals of visual design in order to provide a context for learning how to use video game graphics effectively.

Look at basic pixel art. One of the challenges of that style is differentiating interactive elements from the background. A proper understanding of color theory can help a designer in this respect. Tying your interactive elements to a specific color palette, and then tying your background elements to a contrasting palette, is a common technique for separating the two. This is a fundamental of visual design, and speaks directly to how an audience relates to a visual experience.

Another example would be site lines, and their effect on drawing the human eye in a certain direction. There are subconscious reactions in humanity to given compositions, and the sight lines created from how visual elements are arranged. These principles are often applied to GUI design, where the designer has a greater degree of control over the visual elements.

I'm not saying that you need to make your game look like every other game. I am saying that it is important to know these visual fundamentals, so that you can better anticipate how your audience will react to the experience you are presenting them with. It is a toolbox of techniques, and will help you to craft the experience you want the audience to have. How you actually use them is up to you, but knowing about them ahead of time is definitely significant, and will help.

[sigfarter]

just use ms paint and the spray paint tool, drag it around randomly, congratulations on graphics