next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

there's also flywrench

[Theophilus]

Communicating with the player is a part of gameplay, but I don't think graphics necessarily are.

You can have bland rectangles as graphics. They're not good graphics, but they certainly do communicate.

[Nix]

But they communicate something different than other graphics would. Pixel art communicates something different from painted art and from 3D art. Games are all about communication, and changing the graphics changes the message.

For example: Guitar Hero is basically just Canabalt x 5 (a game of Canabalt for each button) if you look at nothing but the gameplay mechanics. The graphics are what make them completely different games. Of course, this extends beyond simply deciding how the graphics are rendered, but even a choice between pixel art and vector art has an impact on how the game is perceived by the player.

[Theophilus]

I don't think atmosphere falls under gameplay. I think of gameplay as the mechanics of the game, how it works, and why it is fun (or not). I don't want to argue semantics. I was thinking communication in feedback (movement, walking, dying, etc.) rather than communication of the world.

[mirosurabu]

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.

That school of thought has absolutely nothing to do with "retro" phenomenon and it's in fact rather old as it can be traced back to Championship Manager/Football Manager games (which started back in 1992), and I'm sure you can also trace it back to Chris Crawford and other developers too.

The thing is that some video games simply don't get better with better art. And in fact, most video games have a limit up to which better art makes any difference. But most importantly, here is the thing that most people miss, good gameplay can make up for bad art, but good art can't make up for bad gameplay. So if you had to choose between the two, which one would you choose?

I also understand that some pedants argue that games are holistic and should get better in all areas. While it's nice to see games get better in all areas, I think this is both bad and boring advice. Boring, because this means that derivative works are better than works that innovated the things these derivative works use. And when you look at what the makers of derivative works do, that is, that they are people who are simply in a better position to employ basic marketing efforts to exploit previously discovered formulas in an effort to make an ultimate mix, a predictable mix that will please ultimate criticism pedants but mostly those who never played those original video games before, you can realize it's a rather boring advice.

Not saying that video games aren't better if they are communicating better. If this better art communicates things better, great! Not saying that a video game with bad art is better than the same video game with great art. If you are in a position to do it, then by all means do it! Just saying that a video game with bad art that was released before a similar video game with better art is the one which is better.

But it's also a bad advice; bad because we don't really only care about what makes a video game better, we also care about what makes a progress, and when you compare the holistic approach to the focused, systematic one where you focus on one thing at a time, it's clear that the holistic approach is a bad one.

So, yeah, folks, you don't have to bother with art. At least not before you can show your game has any merit and any success on its own; you know, as a game. And onlythen should you decide to upgrade the graphics i.e. milk the original discovery. And then, some people will adore you and others will be bored by your output, but at least, you did come up with your own formula.

[dustin]

Guitar Hero is basically just Canabalt x 5

... did everyone but me realize this already...

[rek]

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

Whatever happened to cell-shaded games? Wind Waker was like playing a cartoon, it was fantastic.

[DavidCaruso]

(snip)

I agree with most of this, but in my experience bad art/sound can definitely bring a potentially good game down, and most of my favorite games would be quite a bit more boring if their graphics were replaced with programmer art even if the mechanics and design were kept untouched. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to hold games that refined a formula as better than the games that originally innovated it either as long as you acknowledge the importance of the original game (many of the best games ever are sequels for example), it's only really a problem when you get bad attempts at furthering an idea which get praised mainly for good aesthetics (e.g. God of War.)

[Derek]

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)...

I agree completely that graphics are very important to games. That said, I think you're basically saying the same thing as the "retro-fetishists", but framing them in a bad light.

You're saying: "The best old games had great, non-minimalist graphics for their time."

The key is "for their time". The other side of that coin is the best old games have minimalist graphics relative to today's graphics. If you still enjoy those graphics, you are essentially a retro lover.

Like, you obviously still enjoy NES Batman even though Metal Slug exists and the gap in pixel art advancement between the two is enormous. You think NES Batman still looks fine, or even great... well, a lot of people think even earlier games still look fine, or even great.

IMO, it's much more important that graphics are applied thoughtfully, consistently, and with personal style than how complex they are. Complex art that's well-done will always garner the lion's share of praise (see: Metal Slug or whatever the hottest new graphics are), but you can capture people's imagination much more easily using thoughtful, simple art. And sometimes it's more fitting, anyway. (Not to mention you can still advance minimalist graphics, as is the case with e.g. Geometry Wars, Pac-Man CE, and cactus's games.)

The same is true of comics. You should read this little article about Al Capp/Charles Schultz:

http://kmunson-mac.blogspot.com/2010/11/al-capp-charles-schulz-clash-of-titans.html

I think there's a lot that you and Al Capp could agree on (maybe especially with regards to his tactics). Both Capp/Schultz are extremely good, though, despite the latter having a much simpler art style than the former.

[cynicalsandel]

After finally finishing my college Intro to 3D animation class, I have realized that I just don't enjoy making 3D art. I don't know if this is the case with anyone else, but I just don't find the process fun. Sure, the end result is nice, but there is no point in spending large amounts of time on something I don't enjoy.

However, when I make 2D vector art and pixel art, I actually want to spend time working on things, even if they they don't look good.

[Mauris]

Because pixel art is quick and easy.
It isn't done to try and milk nostalgia, it is done to accommodation small teams, sometimes of one person. Otherwise the poor artist drive themselves insane

[Delicious]

Because pixel art is quick and easy.
It isn't done to try and milk nostalgia, it is done to accommodation small teams, sometimes of one person. Otherwise the poor artist drive themselves insane

Since when is pixel art quick? Vector or rector is significantly quicker, and perhaps even easier than pixel art is. I think this comment can only refer to large pieces of work or 3D graphics. Or maybe you're assuming that every pixel art is those 16x16 super low-res sprites? Otherwise, yea.

I think pixel art is favored primarily for it's history as the first graphic-type art for early video games. Many companies for systems like the Nintendo (DS specifically) still release games having pixel art as it's more nostalgic compared to the games out today. Pixel art can probably be the most respected work for digital art to many artists as it's done completely under your control. Perhaps that is the reason pixel art is more common for indie developers, as they respect older games and thus respect the older art?

I do agree that recently, many games have been looking very similar to each other. Especially the ones displayed at 2x or 3x with very simplistic sprites, however the case is is if pixel art was done correctly, as in original, it should also be inspiring for those who don't praise or like past games and are completely into the modern way of graphics.  

[Mauris]

Well to be honest the only games I have ever worked on were made of those 16 by 16 sprites, or some what larger, but not huge graphical displays of Robertson proportion.
Making worlds out of tile maps is a some what practical way of doing things, and the tiles themselves aren't rather big.

Much easier to draw a 16*16 tile for grass, blow it up to double the size, and use that for the ground, then draw a long sprawling yard.

[baconman]

I think the concept of tiling plays quite heavily into this decision, especially on the design end of the game. If a developer wants to stylize their game using tiles and grids, pixel art is about the only really logical way of doing so; since pixels are what tilegrids are measured in.

And the flipside of it being more accessible has nothing to do with it. 3D art and vector/rector art is every bit as simple/complex, they're just different beasts. But how many tile/grid-based games do you see developed with 3D or vector assets?

You know what I think is more overdone that pixel art? Stickmen. Tell me it ain't so.


That said, I do notice a trend towards both extremes - minimalist and superartistic. Because art talent is generally a "you got it (and the time for it) or you don't" kind of thing.