next »

[Alex May]

It's also pretty much all that you've shown

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I don't what Nikolai is saying about the graphics is the only explanation, because in the mainstream games industry you often have people looking forward to things other than graphics. I was looking forward to the story and innovations of Persona 4, not the graphics. I'm looking forward to the gameplay of Starcraft 2, not the graphics. And I think most people who look forward or looked forward to those two games would say the same.

And that's not all I've shown exactly Alex (saying people's first names is weird!), I even posted the entire design document of the game (Tim W linked to it on his blog once, and it's the first result when you search in google for the game's name): http://studioeres.com/rinku/index.php?title=Saturated_Dreamers&printable=yes -- I also semi-regularly write about it in my LJ: http://rinku.livejournal.com/tag/saturated+dreamers -- although don't read the story/characters part of the design document if you want to avoid spoilers, naturally.

[increpare]

ah, rinku, I hadn't noticed the design docs; I'll check them out

[Alex May]

Nor had I, oops! Yes it is weird using first names. Have to get used to that! I think that visual media like vimeo movies is far easier for people to digest though. If you could convey the elements of the game that matter more to you via vimeo, it might have more of an impact than what you've done so far.

[Craig Stern]

The endless tide of retro platformers are a bit like the rain dance. Old platform games were awesome (sometimes), so people hope that if they make something with lo-fi graphics, they'll get something great too. Except that it wasn't the lo-fi graphics that made the games great (after all, those graphics were usually cutting edge at the time), it was gameplay and fun and the desire to make a well-crafted game.

But for many people it's a crutch. Instead of analysing what makes a game 'good' (for whatever your personal definition of good is), people just adopt the entire mantle of retro platforming, taking both the good and the bad things, and end up with yet another identical game to be thrown on the enormous pile of retro crap. So no one ever expands their horizons, no one ever tries to make the best art they can muster, no one ever really does anything but make the same thing again and again, constantly hoping it will, in a manner of speaking, rain. I don't mind it when someone does a well-thought out, retro styled platformer once in a while, but I do mind it when everyone does poorly planned, hopelessly derivative retro-styled platformers all the time.

Fantastic post. I think you're right, but you could go further. You could say (as Paul was hinting before) the same thing of most indie RPGs. People loved games like Final Fantasy 4/6 and Phantasy Star 4, and there is an absolute glut of games that mimic their gameplay almost exactly.

BTW, Paul, this is the first I've heard about what your game is actually about. Before your last couple of posts, all I saw on TIGS forums was a trailer showing the pretty graphics.

[Fuzz]

I've noticed that myself. When I talk about

, a lot of people don't really care about the parts of the game that matter to me: the basic idea of the game, the premise, the characters, the world, the creature design, that I'm trying to make a Zelda game without violence, or whatever -- instead they care that it has pretty pixel art.

That's because the graphics and animations are what the players are going to be looking at for the entire duration of the game. The characters and actions are temporary, and you can put them aside quickly. For reference, a game with a poor storyline can be handled because you don't have to pay attention to the story, and most games allow you to skip cut scenes anyway. Poor graphics, on the other hand, are something you will always be dealing with throughout the entire game. If the game has atrocious graphics, nothing else matters, because players won't be willing to look at it for more than a few seconds at a time.

Graphics, therefore, are the most important. Even the music can be muted if you really don't like it, but the graphics can't be muted or ignored, like other elements of games can be.

I really disagree with that. I like seeing graphics, but I'm really a lot more interested in the actual story, characters, etc. Maybe this is different for some people, though. Also, I agree that while pixel art can be fantastic, it is overused.

[Gr.Viper]

If the game has atrocious graphics, nothing else matters, because players won't be willing to look at it for more than a few seconds at a time.

Explain roguelikes

[Seth]

To me it's not the pixel art that I think of as fetishizing retro, imo a lot of games are using pixel art more interesting (if less technically well done) aesthetics than we ever saw back in the day, but what bothers me is the intentional imitation of lousy storylines, characters, and settings (also things like the imitation engrish in Fez, etc)

[Soulliard]

I've noticed that myself. When I talk about

, a lot of people don't really care about the parts of the game that matter to me: the basic idea of the game, the premise, the characters, the world, the creature design, that I'm trying to make a Zelda game without violence, or whatever -- instead they care that it has pretty pixel art.

If it makes you feel any better, when I first saw a video for Saturated Dreamers, I thought 'meh' and moved on. Then, one day, I was randomly looking through your wiki, and I got really excited about the game's design. Now I'm really looking forward to it. So my experience was about the opposite of what you described.

Graphics, therefore, are the most important. Even the music can be muted if you really don't like it, but the graphics can't be muted or ignored, like other elements of games can be.

Not a big fan of Dwarf Fortress then, I take it.


Back to the topic at hand, I like pixel art quite a bit. It's relatively easy to make attractive pixel art graphics, so I use them to save time and frustration without reducing the quality of the game.

However, I agree that a lot of indie game designers are using retro graphics as a crutch. Nostalgia is no substitute for good design, game balance or innovation. Yet, if someone posts a single screen shot of a retro platformer on the Art & Design forum, without even a sentence describing the gameplay, it will get pages and pages of praise. Retro games have their place, but I think indie developers need to get their priorities straight, and leave their comfort zones.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@Seth's post

That's also an issue, yeah. In general I think the problem for me is that indie games are too referential to earlier games and contain too many in-jokes, which makes them less approachable to people who didn't grow up with an NES.

My writer and artist both want to open Saturated Dreamers with this line:

"In the year 20xx..."

But I was and still am against that, because it feels too referential to retro sci-fi games (Megaman 3 also had an opening that went something like that).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

If it makes you feel any better, when I first saw a video for Saturated Dreamers, I thought 'meh' and moved on. Then, one day, I was randomly looking through your wiki, and I got really excited about the game's design. Now I'm really looking forward to it. So my experience was about the opposite of what you described.

Good to hear, but I didn't mean that *everyone* reacts to the game that way, just many.

[Gnarf]

Graphics, therefore, are the most important. Even the music can be muted if you really don't like it, but the graphics can't be muted or ignored, like other elements of games can be.

In general, it's correct that you pretty much can't ignore the graphics (they are videogames, after all), but then you can't really ignore player actions and so on either (they are videogames, after all). That all the other elements can be ignored doesn't really hold. It just depends on the game. You can mute the sound, but in certain FPSes you'll be screwed if you can't hear enemy footsteps. In some RPGs you can't make sensible dialogue choices without knowing what's going on, and so you need to pay attention to the story. Etc.

Unnecessary and redundant elements can be ignored. But that's kind of obvious. Blanket statements about which elements that'd be won't get us any further.

If the game has atrocious graphics, nothing else matters, because players won't be willing to look at it for more than a few seconds at a time.

Explain roguelikes

They don't look so bad that players can't stand looking at the screen.

It's almost as if the people who designed letters and shit took into account that people would be looking at them a lot

[Gr.Viper]

It's almost as if the people who designed letters and shit took into account that people would be looking at them a lot

What a coincidence! I guess, it's the same phenomenon that saves Interactive Fiction
Still, there are tons of playing folks who can't bear ASCII graphics or don't see them as graphics per se. They don't know what they're missing. :D

[Valter]

Not a big fan of Dwarf Fortress then, I take it.

Ah, but DF does have an excellent graphical component. The untrained eye just isn't prepared to handle it.

You're obviously right about other things mattering as well. I consider music to be the most important and underused part of game design. On the other hand, the first and foremost thing that your games will be judged on are the graphics. Like I said, the music and story of a game can be tuned out entirely, whereas the gameplay and graphics can not be tuned out at all. There are obviously exceptions to this, but even then, most games without graphics rely on a significant gameplay innovation, and games without very detailed gameplay focus heavily on graphics.

You can see it in the Final Fantasy games, especially the most recent ones. Final Fantasy is, all things considered, a story-driven series, as many RPGs are. However, it goes to great lengths to satisfy graphical and (recently) areas as well. The important cut scenes in most Final Fantasy games feature special high definition graphics. Final Fantasy 10 and 12 also feature optional battles of greatly increased difficulty, for the players who want to see what limits they can take their characters and playing skill.

I know that graphics and gameplay aren't the only thing that matters, but they need to be considered seriously, no matter what focus you want your game to be on.

[mirosurabu]

Poor graphics, on the other hand, are something you will always be dealing with throughout the entire game. If the game has atrocious graphics, nothing else matters, because players won't be willing to look at it for more than a few seconds at a time.

Graphics, therefore, are the most important. Even the music can be muted if you really don't like it, but the graphics can't be muted or ignored, like other elements of games can be.

Sure, graphical interface is important if developer is planning to provide feedback through visuals. But that does not mean developers should spend a lot of time working on graphical interface in order to follow the "latest trend" or to make it look "cool".

Sure, if one's goal is to make a game where most or great deal of fun comes from graphics, it's reasonable to spend a lot of time working on artwork. But with games which are focusing on logic or emotions that may not be the case.

And when people review such games, they should not criticize the artwork in relation to "latest trend" or what's "artsy"; they should criticize it in relation to whether it's easy-to-use enough.

I also think that the only horrible graphics are those which are hard to "get feedback from". There are many people who would say that graphics are horrible just because they are not photo-realistic or because they are bad pixel-art or whatever the reason they come up with. They tend to underrate the human ability to adopt.

When I talk about the game I'm working on now, a lot of people don't really care about the parts of the game that matter to me: the basic idea of the game, the premise, the characters, the world, the creature design, that I'm trying to make a Zelda game without violence, or whatever -- instead they care that it has pretty pixel art

Fortunately, not everyone cares for graphics that much. Pixel-art screenshot which generates hype on these forums would be ignored on some other places.

[Valter]

Sure, graphical interface is important if developer is planning to provide feedback through visuals. But that does not mean developers should spend a lot of time working on graphical interface in order to follow the "latest trend" or to make it look "cool".

The problem is that graphics will never be a trend in video games. They're an essential part.

And I didn't say that the graphics have to follow any popular trends. Cactus' games have graphics that fit the games very well, and they're very alternative. Same with Iji, and also with Dwarf Fortress.

You can follow any graphical style you want, but if it doesn't suit the game well, it's going to cause trouble.

[Anthony Flack]

I do think that using simple pixel art does help. I should know, because generally I take the complete opposite approach, and it is SLOW and somewhat inflexible. It's a real pleasure to sidestep all the complex art production sometimes and just throw those sprites and tiles up on the screen and start messing with them. It's just so agile; you can make gameplay changes in a snap.

And a character with less animation tends to be a character that is more responsive to player input... that's a generalisation rather than a direct causal relationship, but it is sometimes the case that the simple prototype you knock out somehow ends up being more actual fun than the fully-polished version.

[Fuzz]

I do think that using simple pixel art does help. I should know, because generally I take the complete opposite approach, and it is SLOW and somewhat inflexible. It's a real pleasure to sidestep all the complex art production sometimes and just throw those sprites and tiles up on the screen and start messing with them. It's just so agile; you can make gameplay changes in a snap.

And a character with less animation tends to be a character that is more responsive to player input... that's a generalisation rather than a direct causal relationship, but it is sometimes the case that the simple prototype you knock out somehow ends up being more actual fun than the fully-polished version.

Although sometimes the graphics are too unique for the player to care that much about responsiveness, as is the case in Bert the Barbarian.

[Farbs]

And a character with less animation tends to be a character that is more responsive to player input... that's a generalisation rather than a direct causal relationship, but it is sometimes the case that the simple prototype you knock out somehow ends up being more actual fun than the fully-polished version.

Usually I try to build things like this:

Input -> Movement -> Animation

So player input controls avatar movement, and avatar movement is used to figure out what the animation should be doing. This is what most multiplayer FPS games do, and I'm pretty sure it was the approach used in both Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Sunshine. You get artifacts like foot slipping and unanticipated jumps, and animators tend to cry a little, but the game plays well. In contrast, sometimes people opt for:

Input -> Animation -> Movement

ie root motion animation. There are times when this is useful, especially when you're playing an uninterruptible action (like a fighting game move), but when you take this approach for all your animation you tend to end up with an unresponsive puddle of poop.

[Seth]

I don't think there's any problem with letting animations take priority so long as you design your game around that sense of movement i.e. don't expect to be able to make a game that animates like Flashback play like Nikujin