next »

[RichMakeGame!]

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.

this statement confuses me a little. It sounds kind of like the logic- one woman takes 9 months to have a baby, so 2 women should take 4.5 months.

it depends what budget you're talking about and what team size though. If you mean time budget and you're a team of 1, then maybe you're right. otherwise, it's quite possible to work on both at once without one detracting from the other.


anyway, lets say you take 'gameplay' to mean the overall enjoyment of a game, not just the mechanics. You can spent a ton of time making a really fun mechanic which is fun to play. Now spend 2 minutes on some really shit looking artwork. it looks like a 5 year old was let loose in ms paint.

now compare this to the same game with lush beautiful artwork, particle effects and all.

which game has the better game experience? clearly the second one, because you're sucked into the experience, and not constantly wondering what the hell the green pixely squiggle is supposed to be

my point being, NOT spending time on the graphics can detract from the gameplay.

[Core Xii]

this statement confuses me a little. It sounds kind of like the logic- one woman takes 9 months to have a baby, so 2 women should take 4.5 months.

it depends what budget you're talking about and what team size though. If you mean time budget and you're a team of 1, then maybe you're right. otherwise, it's quite possible to work on both at once without one detracting from the other.

If you assume that you already have the resources to do both, then sure. But why would you? Gameplay people and graphics people both have to get paid, and the company assigns a certain amount of budget to both. Any budget spent on graphics is therefore directly budget not spent on gameplay, and a lot of companies seem to put an excessive emphasis on graphics leaving poor gameplay which didn't have enough time and money to polish before the product was rushed off to the shelves.

[RichMakeGame!]

I'm still not convinced..

but maybe we need some definitions. What is a 'gameplay person'? and is that pure game mechanics we're talking about (because as I say, to my understanding gameplay encapsulates the 'game experience' and there is no one role which does all the elements of that)

even then the mechanics of a game (I'm not talking about a 1 person team here) usually come down to at least 2 people, a designer and a programmer.

[Core Xii]

but maybe we need some definitions. What is a 'gameplay person'? and is that pure game mechanics we're talking about (because as I say, to my understanding gameplay encapsulates the 'game experience' and there is no one role which does all the elements of that)

Right; Designers, programmers... people responsible for making the game fun and smooth, as opposed to artists responsible for making it look good. Physics, level design, controls, quality assurance, and so on.

Once again, unless you're Valve, and make the game perfect first, a product second.

[RichMakeGame!]

but maybe we need some definitions. What is a 'gameplay person'? and is that pure game mechanics we're talking about (because as I say, to my understanding gameplay encapsulates the 'game experience' and there is no one role which does all the elements of that)

Right; Designers, programmers... people responsible for making the game fun and smooth, as opposed to artists responsible for making it look good. Physics, level design, controls, quality assurance, and so on.

Once again, unless you're Valve, and make the game perfect first, a product second.

do you agree or disagree with the idea that graphics are a part of what makes gameplay? What about the statement I would make, which is: good graphics add to gameplay and bad graphics detract from it?

if I take your argument to the logical extreme, a team with no artists but full of level designers, programmers and game designers should make a game with the best gameplay. This doesn't ring true to me.

If no-one designs good graphics for a game, you get programmer art. And do programmers think about how to draw the users eye to an area using hue, saturation, value? do they make sure all game elements occupy distinct spaces in the visual spectrum to make sure everything is legible even at a glance? Without artists and graphics can you create a feeling of existing in a well-worn place which existed before you and will continue to long after you've left?

maybe you can do all those things without artists but will it be *as good*? I say, no. Graphics are an integral part of gameplay, and you can't just chop them out without losing something very important. Look at Flower and Journey, and tell me the gameplay *game experience* would be better if they had a few more programmers instead of the artists on the team

[1982]

do you agree or disagree with the idea that graphics are a part of what makes gameplay? What about the statement I would make, which is: good graphics add to gameplay and bad graphics detract from it?

if I take your argument to the logical extreme, a team with no artists but full of level designers, programmers and game designers should make a game with the best gameplay. This doesn't ring true to me.

If no-one designs good graphics for a game, you get programmer art. And do programmers think about how to draw the users eye to an area using hue, saturation, value? do they make sure all game elements occupy distinct spaces in the visual spectrum to make sure everything is legible even at a glance? Without artists and graphics can you create a feeling of existing in a well-worn place which existed before you and will continue to long after you've left?

maybe you can do all those things without artists but will it be *as good*? I say, no. Graphics are an integral part of gameplay, and you can't just chop them out without losing something very important. Look at Flower and Journey, and tell me the gameplay *game experience* would be better if they had a few more programmers instead of the artists on the team

Back in days it was not uncommon for programmers making games from start to finish. Sure, some of them looked like that, some were better, some masterpieces. But had there being artists or not, the games were just as good they were. It is hard to draw line between coders graphic execution and artists graphic execution. Having artist, doesn't automatically mean it makes games any better. What you actually need, is superior lead designer who can hold all strings and hopefully also involves in actual making of the game. Like said, back in old days "lead designer" usually made all by himself. So I disagree, bunch of coders and designers can make good game without any assistance from "artists". How about original roguelikes? Text adventures? Older vector/polygonal games? They are as much art as anything else. Actually bad results come when coders/designers TRY to be artists or artistic. Sure it doesn't mean that good programmer cant be also good artist - Another World.

Also I'd like to draw a line between artists and graphic developers. So are you actually referring to artists or graphic developers? Many AAA shooters for example are made by graphic developers, when more obscure games like Rez or many indie games are clearly made by artists. I appreciate the craftsmanship skills of gfx developers imitating reality in restricted technical platform, but there is not much meaningful art there. Even bad art is more interesting than standard gfx.

Please define "good graphics". If this is matter of taste, as it usually is, then there is not much point of argue if Crysis is better looking than Zarch / Virus.

I know Flower and Journey, and from these experiences I still say that I prefer programmers point-of-view in game design more than artists. And we have to remember, that good game can be made without artistic support, but a no any video game cannot be made without programmer support... In games which most of rely quite a lot still in technical execution, controls, functions and so on, I'd more willingly trust programmers than artist. And this is coming from 99% artist and 1% scripting dude.

But the actually God in game development is lead designer who hopefully is keeping all the strings in his hands. He also ought to know how much to balance between programmers and artists.

Lastly, when you say that artists are required for good game - it is a quite bad game idea to start with.

[eld]

RichMakeGame was pointing towards the equally important parts of a game, while you can make a game with just a programmer, you can't deny that the game does lack one part that could've essentially made it a better game.

And as he mentioned with certain games, they just wouldn't be possible without the art direction and artists involved.

But yeah, graphics are visually important for gameplay and many other things, and not always in the terms of how high-end they are, but how good they read, how they fit into the design, and how well they portray the world and make you feel like it is real.

Dwarf fortress is an excellent game, even so much that it even overshadows the parts that suffers due to lack of graphics, it's a hard to read game, hard to use, hard to visualize.

[Bree]

If we're going to discuss quality of graphics, we're not going to get very far until we separate technical fidelity and artistic direction. Ex. Crysis 2 has very detailed and realistic-looking graphics but kinda boring art direction, while Cave Story has low-fidelity graphics that are aesthetically pleasing. Both are my own opinions, of course, but you get the idea.

As for how they relate to the game, I would argue that they are in fact important. Graphics offer context to the items on-screen- rather than just being a mess of blocks or pixels, they are distinguished objects.This doesn't mean that they have to look like real-world objects- Rez does a darn good job at creating enemies that have no real-world counterpart, but  you can still tell one type from another.

Through context, the game can create a specific type of setting and mood which can also enhance the player's experience. Yes, Super Mario World would probably still be fun if it was just solid squares, but I argue that it wouldn't be as fun because it'd be lacking the colorful characters that make the Mario universe so iconic.

Because of this, I would argue that a game should have artists, even if it is the programmers themselves. Certainly, you can create games that don't need art assets like a text adventure, but unfortunately you're limiting yourself to a niche audience. People prefer pictures, after all.

[1982]

Okay... maybe I just started disliking those games which started to seek status/acceptance as being artistic pieces (not that games have always been anyway). Something in that thought process makes it feel fundamentally wrong. Same applies to more traditional arts as well. "Look at this, I painted this, it is art" "Yes that is art, good!"

In a way, I like the philosophy behind modern brown shooters which tries NOT to be "artistic pieces". They are honest straightforward games for gamers. I just wish they'd be better games thou.

There has always been something fishy with art...

[Core Xii]

do you agree or disagree with the idea that graphics are a part of what makes gameplay? What about the statement I would make, which is: good graphics add to gameplay and bad graphics detract from it?

Oh I agree. While graphics take away from gameplay, that's not mutually exclusive to also benefiting gameplay. The trick is to hit the sweet spot where graphics add as much as they can and not an inch too much, after which they become a detriment to the experience.

If no-one designs good graphics for a game, you get programmer art. And do programmers think about how to draw the users eye to an area using hue, saturation, value? do they make sure all game elements occupy distinct spaces in the visual spectrum to make sure everything is legible even at a glance? Without artists and graphics can you create a feeling of existing in a well-worn place which existed before you and will continue to long after you've left?

Note, however, that you said design. Visual design is just part of how the game communicates information to the player. While visual design and the art itself are closely linked subjects, the distinction is important. Designing how the game presents the game world to the player is design, not art. Art just makes that design as pleasant as possible while (hopefully) conforming to it. (and not overstepping its boundaries, leading to exactly what I'm talking about; The point at which the art no longer respects the design, and becomes a burden)

Gameplay > Visual design > Actual art

For example, developers frequently add bloom filters to their games to make them look more artistic or whatever, without actually considering the implications to the visual design of it all. This is art superseding design, which is bad.

[gimymblert]

Everything Core XIII just said!

[Mittens]

when you can no longer tell what the hell is going on due to all the "sweet graphics" it makes the game a whole lot less fun,

[baconman]

So maybe a game like Super Mario World could be just as fun if everything were colored squares. But what about a really breathtaking game like Earthworm Jim, Aquaria, or Castlevania SotN?

[1982]

So maybe a game like Super Mario World could be just as fun if everything were colored squares. But what about a really breathtaking game like Earthworm Jim, Aquaria, or Castlevania SotN?

Well 'breathtaking' is matter of taste. When they have good game mechanics and fun action etc, they will work great with colored squares. And when talking about Jim and Aquaria, I'd take colored squares anytime over that annoying childish disney look. But again, this is matter of taste. When other kids loved Lion King, I got boners from Heavy Metal and Transformers animated movie.

Castlevania however looks great as is, but I don't think there is much extra value in those graphics compared to Castlevanias on NES anyway.

Annoying graphics are much more worse than only bad graphics. Yes, and they surely distract from actual game. I wasn't able to play Aquaria more than 2 minutes. It was just audiovisual rape. So I never know if it was actually a good game.

[Nix]

So maybe a game like Super Mario World could be just as fun if everything were colored squares. But what about a really breathtaking game like Earthworm Jim, Aquaria, or Castlevania SotN?

A distinction needs to be made between beautiful graphics and cluttered graphics. I don't think anyone is claiming that good graphics detract from gameplay (or if they are, stfu haters); It's when graphics become so cluttered and active that the game itself is drowned beneath a sea of particle effects and shaders that something ought to change.

[DavidCaruso]

So maybe a game like Super Mario World could be just as fun if everything were colored squares. But what about a really breathtaking game like Earthworm Jim, Aquaria, or Castlevania SotN?

No. Almost no game would be as fun if everything was just colored squares (except for games which had literally eye-blinding graphics in the first place). Similar situation with audio too.

[Core Xii]

Everything Core XIII just said!

Man would you please spell my name right for change?

[im9today]

one time i was looking at the cloud graphics in mario and i fell in a pit

[Plasticware]

one time i was looking at the cloud graphics in mario and i fell in a pit

http://www.coryarcangel.com/things-i-made/supermarioclouds/

but is it art

[HöllenKobold]

SoTN is pretty dependent on its aesthetics. There's a lot of composition, architecture, harmony, and etc involved in the rooms rather than traditional level design; which is why you could actually criticize its level design. Since it's also based on exploration, I would say fresh and interesting graphics and etc are encouraged in making it a more successful game.

The Castlevanias on NES would probably be funner with colored squares than SoTN since their gameplay is more linked to things where aesthetic doesn't matter.