next »

[1982]

Nowadays, when playing a game, I hardly even notice or care about the graphics and focus on the gameplay. Like other people said, you truly recognize the problem when people start doing it wrongly, making bad pixel art.

This is exactly what I have been experiencing as well. Why? I don't now, maybe because in the end games for me are about mechanics, controls, logic challenges, and reaction stimulus. I also keep sounds in bigger value than graphics.

[threesided]

Nowadays, when playing a game, I hardly even notice or care about the graphics and focus on the gameplay. Like other people said, you truly recognize the problem when people start doing it wrongly, making bad pixel art.

This is exactly what I have been experiencing as well. Why? I don't now, maybe because in the end games for me are about mechanics, controls, logic challenges, and reaction stimulus. I also keep sounds in bigger value than graphics.

It's all well and good to focus on gameplay, and obviously you have to have this, but that shouldn't be a legitimate reason for diminishing what should be a collective pursuit of better holistic gaming experiences. If we're constantly striving for more complex and unique games, why should the art play second fiddle? I've seen a wealth of information on making superb graphics and assets with free software. Pixel and otherwise.

I'm going back a way, but elk's original point (the one that sparked Kramlack's response) is one with serious merit, and wasn't an entitled pompous remark at all. He was talking about quality in the art that is produced for a game. To follow this just look at Derek's post about Konjak's game/ that mugen fighting game/ Owl Boy. Those are games that have managed to use pixel art effectively while still retaining great mechanics. As a game designer, you should always strive to push the medium forward, in all fields. If you're going to use "lofi" or retro art, it should be done with intention and not as a crutch, because you've deemed it easiest.

If you're a designer and you're someone who doesn't care about how a game looks, go find someone who does, and convince them to help you. Just look at the art forums and see the staggeringly impressive gamut of work that could be put to really good use, in all mediums. And they're just as passionate about good games.


Game designers should be just as concerned with the quality of the art (pixel or otherwise) as the artists should be concerned with good game mechanics. 

[st33d]

Graphics is gameplay.

Try closing your eyes and playing most games. Even with crummily drawn or basic looking graphics you still have a responsibility to communicate with the player.

It's like the issue of having background elements that look like you can interact with them or collectables that look like they will kill you.

Pictures can be confusing. Games can't unless they're playing with the rules.

[Diablohaze]

What would really nice to see is other things other than pixel graphics. Something more cartoon like.

[1982]

Nowadays, when playing a game, I hardly even notice or care about the graphics and focus on the gameplay. Like other people said, you truly recognize the problem when people start doing it wrongly, making bad pixel art.

This is exactly what I have been experiencing as well. Why? I don't now, maybe because in the end games for me are about mechanics, controls, logic challenges, and reaction stimulus. I also keep sounds in bigger value than graphics.

It's all well and good to focus on gameplay, and obviously you have to have this, but that shouldn't be a legitimate reason for diminishing what should be a collective pursuit of better holistic gaming experiences. If we're constantly striving for more complex and unique games, why should the art play second fiddle? I've seen a wealth of information on making superb graphics and assets with free software. Pixel and otherwise.

I'm going back a way, but elk's original point (the one that sparked Kramlack's response) is one with serious merit, and wasn't an entitled pompous remark at all. He was talking about quality in the art that is produced for a game. To follow this just look at Derek's post about Konjak's game/ that mugen fighting game/ Owl Boy. Those are games that have managed to use pixel art effectively while still retaining great mechanics. As a game designer, you should always strive to push the medium forward, in all fields. If you're going to use "lofi" or retro art, it should be done with intention and not as a crutch, because you've deemed it easiest.

If you're a designer and you're someone who doesn't care about how a game looks, go find someone who does, and convince them to help you. Just look at the art forums and see the staggeringly impressive gamut of work that could be put to really good use, in all mediums. And they're just as passionate about good games.

Game designers should be just as concerned with the quality of the art (pixel or otherwise) as the artists should be concerned with good game mechanics. 

You just lost too much time to explain the most obvious, but I'll say this:

Graphics should serve the purpose that game has. Those are good graphics. Bad graphics don't serve the purpose and or they distract from the actual game. Yes there are genres like graphic novel games, where obviously graphics has quite a important part, and also should be artistically high quality. But at least games I usually play, graphics dont play big role. As what I originally said while replying to vinheim3.

Having good graphics, is always matter of time and money. Like everything is. Frankly, not every indie production can possibly excel in all areas of game development. It is lot more acceptable to sacrifice graphics and sound/music, than good gameplay mechanics. But still, graphics whatever they are, should serve the purpose as well as possible.

[1982]

Try closing your eyes and playing most games. Even with crummily drawn or basic looking graphics you still have a responsibility to communicate with the player.

[Nix]

the goal of most games is to impart some sort of feeling onto the player, and atmosphere often plays as big of a role in creating that feeling as gameplay mechanics. graphics in graphical games create atmosphere (just as room descriptions create atmosphere in text games). to day that games serve no purpose outside of game mechanics and that graphics must serve mechanics and solely mechanics is naive and really misses the point of modern games

[mirosurabu]

it does not pay off to make better art

[DavidCaruso]

The "graphics and sounds don't matter if u hav gud gamplay" school of thought just seems to be a recent development arising out of the "retro" phenomenon which also manages to completely misrepresent old games. Almost all of the best games in the past not only played well but also had great graphics/sounds for their time (many still do today, actually) and tried to take full advantage of what the programmers and artists knew about the systems (including the "imperfections" of the TV displays of the time, e.g. dithering or Vectorman NTSC-blur transparency), the designers didn't just cover their awesome stages in minimalistic programmer art (there are some exceptions e.g. roguelikes and ASCII tiles but they're uncommon.) Obviously the actual interactions the player has with the game's systems take precedence in most games but saying they're all that's important is pretty dumb, graphics have always been a major part of videogames (and sound too, after the very early stages of the artform.) You can argue that they're just window dressing, which they are in the end, but they're pretty important window dressing that can make a huge difference to the game's overall quality. I can't really relate to the people saying they don't care about aesthetics, and I'm not sure I even really believe what they're saying is true for them.

[Zack Bell]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but aren't some developers limited to only using pixel art because of the engine that they happen to be using?

For example, I'm a programmer, but I'm in school and would prefer to make smaller projects and not have to worry about all of the low-level code (like I do in school), so I use Game Maker. There isn't much that you can do with Game Maker outside of pixel art.

[ink.inc]

For example, I'm a programmer, but I'm in school and would prefer to make smaller projects and not have to worry about all of the low-level code (like I do in school), so I use Game Maker. There isn't much that you can do with Game Maker outside of pixel art.

um

thats some misinformation right there

you do realize that gm has png support right

[ink.inc]

it does not pay off to make better art

dum

[Zack Bell]

um

thats some misinformation right there

you do realize that gm has png support right

Ok, I guess that's true. I just haven't seen anything finished in GM that has had something that "looks" different than most pixel art.

I mean I haven't seen anything hand-painted or anything with vectors (vectors aren't supported).

[Nix]

you wouldn't usually do vectors in real time anyway. you would bake them and then used the rendered images

[Zack Bell]

hey, stop making good points! I came up with a decent excuse to use pixel art 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Graphics is gameplay.

Try closing your eyes and playing most games. Even with crummily drawn or basic looking graphics you still have a responsibility to communicate with the player.

It's like the issue of having background elements that look like you can interact with them or collectables that look like they will kill you.

Pictures can be confusing. Games can't unless they're playing with the rules.

while i strongly agree that graphics are gameplay (the undervaluing of anything but gameplay and treating it as somehow separate from the rest of the game is one of my pet peeves) i disagree that games can't be visually confusing. most games, to people who don't play games or to people unfamiliar with a genre, are visually confusing. look at the world of warcraft GUI for instance, or the GUI for alpha centauri; both pretty confusing. but players get used to it, and after playing the games for a while and getting used to how that game works, it's not visually confusing *to that player* anymore

so i'd amend what you said into something like: visually, a game has to be able to be understood, even though it can be confusing at first glance

[Zack Bell]

Saw that Paul posted...

Remembered this video...





First game in vid doesn't "look" like pixel art.

My point is now invalid, haha.

[ink.inc]

Saw that Paul posted...

Remembered this video...





First game in vid doesn't "look" like pixel art.

My point is now invalid, haha.

Look up Ninjammin Beatjutsu for further evidence.

[1982]

The "graphics and sounds don't matter if u hav gud gamplay" school of thought just seems to be a recent development arising out of the "retro" phenomenon which also manages to completely misrepresent old games. Almost all of the best games in the past not only played well but also had great graphics/sounds for their time (many still do today, actually) and tried to take full advantage of what the programmers and artists knew about the systems (including the imperfections of the TV displays of the time, e.g. dithering or Vectorman NTSC-blur transparency), the designers didn't just cover their awesome stages in minimalistic programmer art (there are some exceptions e.g. roguelikes and ASCII tiles but they're uncommon.) Obviously the actual interactions the player has with the game's systems take precedence in most games but saying they're all that's important is pretty dumb, graphics have always been a major part of videogames (and sound too, after the very early stages of the artform.) You can argue that they're just window dressing, which they are in the end, but they're pretty important window dressing that can make a huge difference to the game's overall quality. I can't really relate to the people saying they don't care about aesthetics, and I'm not sure I even really believe what they're saying is true for them.

Used to be like that, but then I got old.

[Zack Bell]

Look up Ninjammin Beatjutsu for further evidence.

What 

How...what...cool...Haha

Maybe I'm just not creative.