next »

[InkBlotBunny]

I'm still pretty new to to this whole graphic design thing so I figured I'd find out other peoples opinions on the subject.

Here are a few simple questions to help start the discussion:
Do you believe that a games graphics can take away from the gameplay and if so how?
Are there any games that come to mind that you felt suffer from this?
Can you play it safe by using a simplistic style or does that make the game feel shallow?

[Theophilus]

Absolutely I do believe game graphics can take away from the gameplay. They can distract. If they're done poorly, the can interrupt the flow and thus the player's experience.

Things that use a lot of glitzy glamorey stuff (Lens flares, particles all over the place) are the main culprit. These things are good but I feel some games do abuse them.

Simplistic design does not mean sloppy, so I don't think it would.

(psst, you might find this thread interesting: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=21477.0)

[DavidCaruso]

Yes, of course a game having bad graphics can take away from the overall experience, assuming that's what you mean by "gameplay" here. If you mean "gameplay" as in just mechanics, systems, etc. then I don't think it can take away too much, unless it obscures visiblity or something (e.g. having a 2D shooter where the bullets are hard to tell apart from everything else while in motion (hi Battle Garegga)). Whether or not you want a simplistic style depends on the type of game you're making, simpler aesthetics are better suited to simpler games.

[Belimoth]

Do you believe that a games graphics can take away from the gameplay and if so how?

Yes; they can take away FPS.

Really the player should already know where they are on the screen if they are any good. Any sort of graphics is hand-holding that's why my games don't have any.

[Uykered]

Bad graphics usually make a game less enjoyable to play.

[Core Xii]

Mandatory mention: Team Fortress 2. Both as an example of it's visual brilliance in its conception and as an example of a game that was ruined by the constant inclusion of more and more visual clutter up to its current state.

Before



After




Makes me sad.

[Nix]

Really? I don't feel that way at all. I guess this sort of thing is all pretty subjective.

[moi]

I agree, I feel bothered with all the things that surround TF2. All the bells and whistles and constant references.

[JoGribbs]

Really the player should already know where they are on the screen if they are any good. Any sort of graphics is hand-holding that's why my games don't have any.

The game you're working on looks (as in looks) pretty great so I'll assume this was a joke.

My advice: don't think 'graphics' and 'gameplay', think 'game'.

A good game has a synthesis between the two elements. A game that played like Resident Evil but looked like Katamari Damacy would be dumb because the graphics go for one tone and the gameplay goes for another. For example: Alan Wake is supposed to be a scary game but it just played like a shooter tho. The gameplay is all about being powerful and shooting things until they are dead, but the rest of the game tries to enforce a sense of powerlessness. The game tries to create a tone with it's aesthetics (and narrative) tha's undercut by it's mechanics.

That's kind of my answer: graphics ruin a game when the designer uses them to create a tone without considering the mechanics. It's a design thing.

Also when a game prevents you from playing it (like things aren't readable etc.). I can play a 'bad' looking game as long as it's readable.

[SplinterOfChaos]

Mandatory mention: Team Fortress 2. Both as an example of it's visual brilliance in its conception and as an example of a game that was ruined by the constant inclusion of more and more visual clutter up to its current state.

They started sacrificing gameplay with unlockable weapons before that happened. But yeah, this only makes it worse.

IMO, most mainstream games sacrifice gameplay for the kind of AAA graphics required to meet consumer demands. For example, one of the reasons designers love linear level designs is because it limits the number of polygons on screen. I'm borrowing this from another discussion on this site. I'd have to imagine that were this not the case, the industry would put a better emphasis on non-linear design.

Here's an example of--what i think is--too much graphics in an indie game:


At times, it can be hard to see clearly what is going on because the random effects on the screen (mostly particles) are at times much louder than enemy positions. But i'm not much one to speak; the game in my sig has been criticized for death animations being "distracting".

On the other hand, it's a really subjective thing. Scoregasm has a lot of chaotic graphics, but it also creates a feeling of excitement. Gameplay isn't all games are about.

So i don't think the question is when is gameplay sacrificed, but when do gameplay and graphics work against each other. May often be that they're the same thing, but not in all cases.

"Can you play it safe by using a simplistic style or does that make the game feel shallow?"
I'm a minimalist. I think that a simplistic style (as apposed to limitation) is a really good thing. It's easier to talk to the user, and for the user to understand using simple-but-effective graphics than complex-and-detailed. That's why FPSs use numerical readouts to tell you how many shots you have left instead of an inside-view of the loading chamber. But communicating health to the user in these games is often imprecise because they've abandoned health points for filling the screen with blood.

[Belimoth]

The game you're working on looks (as in looks) pretty great so I'll assume this was a joke.

Stall tactics while I thought of something relevant to add to the conversation.

For me I think graphics are all about player expectations. First impressions are derived mostly from a game's graphics so if they suggest a scope or tone that differs from the actual content, you're not going to enjoy the experience as much.

[Farfin]

A game that played like Resident Evil but looked like Katamari Damacy would be dumb

Unrelated, but I kind of really like the sound of that actually. Maybe not an exact fusion but a cute and colourful survival horror seems neat.

[Bree]

What everyone seems to be getting at is the concept of visual clarity. From what I understand, the main reason why Core Xii finds vanilla TF2 more appealing than current hat-infested TF2 is that the former is much easier to 'read' than the latter.

Here's another good example, from Jeff Smith's most excellent comic Bone. Page is really huge, so just click the link to see it for yourself.

Take a look first at that first panel. The reader can very clearly tell what the action is for the panel: the flimsy branch that Bone and the two rat creatures were clinging onto has snapped. The reader can also tell who and what is in the frame- Bone is clearly separate from the rat creatures and background, and it is easy to tell which rat creature is in the foreground and which is in the background. The near-silhouette Smith uses in this panel is common of his style, and is seen in a lot of American comic art. Even if you weren't familiar with this style of drawing, based on the context of the previous pages you'd know what that blobby shape behind the first rat creature was supposed to be.

Going back to the original question, the point at which graphics start taking away from gameplay is the moment that it interferes with the actual functioning game. Most often this is due to a loss in visual clarity: the player can't tell what is a teammate or an enemy, or there's too many blinking numbers and flashy effects filling up the screen, or the player is stuck trying to figure out which of ten identical doors in a hallway actually has a room behind it, and which are just for decoration.

A desire for visual clarity is what was behind the still-recent movement for game developers to use minimal HUDs, or else foregoing them entirely. They may claim it's for immersion's sake, but if there's any real reason behind their popularity, it's because it gets rid of the clutter on the screen and allows the player to focus on the gameplay itself.

[1982]

For me it is more important to think does graphics represent satisfactory art style, rather than are they good or bad in gameplay sense. If they do not represent the art style I prefer they turn otherwise good game bad one. Most modern titles suffer from bad art styles, thus making the games lousy. Game art is combination of 1. looks, 2. functionalism, 3. setting/theme, 4. technical aspects in some cases. I loved Explorer (C64) and that is quite unplayable game in the end.

Some good games in this sense:
Virus
Just Cause 2
Civ 2
Megaman
Sim City 4
Contra
Arma2
Wolfenstein 3D
Prey
Grand Prix Manager 2

...And I'd say Civilization 4-5 are most horrible examples of everything going wrong. No other game in history has surpassed that multi-fail. Somehow they manage to fail all the four categories except setting/theme. It is hard to accept this because I am big fan of the game series.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

there's a link between animation and controls; animation has to work well for a game to feel responsive

there's also a link between graphical representation of hitboxes and how collisions work; the two should usually coincide as much as possible

[Core Xii]

Then there's of course the simple fact that all budget spent on graphics is budget away from gameplay. So no matter how you look at it - unless you're Valve - graphics always take away from gameplay.

[SolarLune]

Yeah, graphics can take away from gameplay. I'm thinking more along the lines of old-school graphics - anything before NES (Atari, for example) is really difficult to get into for me. I guess it's the low resolution. I'm a fan of retro graphics, though, so I think it's the point where the graphics become indistinct that the game suffers (the duck, er, dragon from Adventure, anyone?).

[SP9000]

SolarLune, I partly agree with you.  Graphics as limiting as the 2600 certainly restrict the genre of game you can make.  Adventure, as you pointed out, is a good example of a game that did not age well.  It requires a good imagination to actually imagine what the duc- I MEAN DRAGON might look like.
But, as was mentioned, I don't think graphics detract from games that revolve around specific mechanics as long as the graphics convey what is happening in game properly.  In the early days, there were many attempts at "fake 3D", where what was displayed on screen might be totally unrepresentative of what was going on under the hood.  The enemy might be far away, and you will still take damage, or facing the opposite direction yet attacking you.

[Bree]

On that note, I always thought it looked more like an angry seahorse.

[Belimoth]

On that note, I always thought it looked more like an angry seahorse.

An adventure at the bottom of a fish tank? This makes a lot of sense.