next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think it is.
Anyway that's what I say now.

i agree with moi although i don't think blueberry garden is too ugly to play. it has its nice points. it is clearly made by someone who isn't an visual artist by trade however -- someone who knew how to use that to his advantage perhaps by keeping it minimalist, but still someone without very much experience/skill in visual art, and just feels lazy

it's hard to tell though. people sometimes accuse vector art (like jeff minter's stuff or immortal defense) of being an excuse not to use real art too and being lazy, but sometimes it can just be an aesthetic and an intentional choice even though you have the traditional skills too

i don't think this movement towards high art is necessarily responsible though. i think it's more that there are a lot of indie developers who are programmers first and foremost, and not only don't care about visual art but are sometimes antagonistic toward it. so i blame (if anything is really to blame) the philosophy of 'gameplay is everything, graphics and story don't matter as long as it plays well'

[Anthony Flack]

i don't think the general quality has improved, but rather the number of indie games has gone up drastically -- typically back in the days of the dexterity forums you'd see a new game released once every few weeks, now you see several indie games released per day, even if you don't count freeware (which is easily a dozen a day or more)

Yeah, the number has gone up drastically, but that means we now get quite a few pretty decent games coming out, instead of practically none. I mean, look at the games that Dexterity was built on; fucking atrocious quality that would be utterly ignored these days.

Yeah it's nice, it reminds me of 1970s soviet cartoons, which is nice but it doesn't make a very attractive game.

And that's the thing about subjective opinions, because now *I* think you're nuts. Anyway, I'll just say there's a big difference between a lack of style, and a very coherent style that you happen not to like.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'll just say there's a big difference between a lack of style, and a very coherent style that you happen not to like.

even ignoring the style, there's a lack of variety. i mean, if it were just a different style you'd expect to see variations within that style, many different types of flowers for example. instead the resource count feels very low, as if he did like four flowers, a few grass bits, one basic floor, and so on. it's as if all the graphics for that game were done in the span of an hour.

[aeiowu]

if he did different styles of the same flower then wouldn't that signify to the player that they would behave differently?

you assume _far_ too much.

a large part of creating something is editing. some would even say it's everything. It just feels like your p.o.v. on graphics has more to do with how much an artist shows off rather than the quality of the art itself within the context of the game.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

not different styles of the same flower, but different flowers. besides, aren't the flowers just decoration?

and i'm not saying he should show off, just that some variety is good, and that looking at the same few set of graphics over and over is less interesting than when there's variation. like imagine if an rpg used a single tileset for every dungeon, town, and so on in a game. or one sprite for every npc. that's less interesting than if there is more than one tileset or more than one sprite. of course the game is pretty short, but so was knytt, and knytt had a lot of variety in its visual art (even though it too was minimalist)

[poorwill]

Blueberry Garden takes half an hour to play through on your first time.

[Guillaume]

Blueberry Garden takes half an hour to play through on your first time.

This.

I think most of the guys here are complaining because they feel their doing a better job at graphical design but they receive less credit than blueberry garden, for example.

I thjnk you guys should just stop debating and play games instead and see if the are good as a whole.

I know a bit about animation movies, and i could have dozens of example where rhe visual style could be called "horrid" by many, but it is still coherent and fits the movue greatly, achieving a solid creation.

I love both knytt  and oblivion for exploring around, and they both have very diferent art styles. That doesn't change anything about how much i like both games.

[Corpus]

I have yet to see a dev claim their minimalist graphics a refinement of games as an art form.

For various words to a similar (but, thankfully, not too closely similar) effect, see: Jason Rohrer. He's said on a number of occasions that he doesn't bother with graphics simply because they can get in the way of the game, or its message, or the art of it, or whatever. Personally, I have other suspicions.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

as i mentioned, i know blueberry garden is short. but i still think there's a lack of variety even on a single screen.

and of course i'm not criticizing because i feel they're overhyped, i think they're great games, that's a ridiculous accusation. i just want them to be better games, and more fun to play, by focusing more on polish. blueberry garden did well, but it would have done *even better* if it had a good artist instead of programmer art. as i said before, my intention is to help game developers get better, to have their games have a wider audience, not to drag down the ones who don't do as good as a job as i think they should do.

[team_q]

Does better graphics make the game better? Of course.

Is it a better use of your time tooling up the graphics or polishing up gameplay/ adding new interesting game play features? I dunno, but I tend to fall into the latter.

Still, putting food on two plates is twice as hard as putting it on one.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

well, case example this may be, but braid probably sold at least twice as well as blueberry garden, and has 2 people (a programmer and an artist) working on it rather than one -- so it's possible that having an artist vs having programmer art can more than double a game's sales

[moi]

Yeah it's nice, it reminds me of 1970s soviet cartoons, which is nice but it doesn't make a very attractive game.

And that's the thing about subjective opinions, because now *I* think you're nuts. Anyway, I'll just say there's a big difference between a lack of style, and a very coherent style that you happen not to like.

I never said it lacked style, it definintely has style. But I think that style is ugly and a step backward in the domain of videogames.

[Jrsquee]

do children care

[Eclipse]

Does better graphics make the game better? Of course.

Is it a better use of your time tooling up the graphics or polishing up gameplay/ adding new interesting game play features? I dunno, but I tend to fall into the latter.

Still, putting food on two plates is twice as hard as putting it on one.

adding new interesting game play features means that your game isn't complete, a game can have a single gameplay feature as the core one and be better than an overly designed one.
tooling up the graphics leads to a better gameplay, having a small effect when the character double jump, or smoother animations, or better tiles: it helps the gameplay, makes the game feel sweet and fluid.

If the game already feels complete i'm all for the graphics, adding gameplay gimmicks doesn't make it better if the game isn't polished.

Also if your game looks very good you'll sell a lot more.
For example take the game Trine, it looks gorgeous. And it's a simple platformer with a single type of enemy (skeleton with sword, skeleton with bow and so on) and very clichèd characters, but it's simply great to look. It makes want to play it to see every location. It's also a game published both in retail and via steam, and it's having very good sales, without the graphics it would be blasted to oblivion in no time by everyone.


Also Braid without that graphic and the dreamy backgrounds would have sucked hairy balls, totally missing the atmosphere and the success the game has.

[poorwill]

Does better graphics make the game better? Of course.

Is it a better use of your time tooling up the graphics or polishing up gameplay/ adding new interesting game play features? I dunno, but I tend to fall into the latter.

Still, putting food on two plates is twice as hard as putting it on one.

adding new interesting game play features means that your game isn't complete, a game can have a single gameplay feature as the core one and be better than an overly designed one.

This applies to graphics as well ie. Minimalism.  Bear in mind that nobody here is defending bad graphics, but only that a couple of people here seem to have a weird, arbitrary idea of what 'bad' graphics are.

About indie game graphics in general:  A lot of the stuff you see around the net is just people putting stuff out there to have stuff out there.  People just running tests, looking for feedback.  The indie game scene is very much a demo scene - people trading their tapes around to see if other people think it is rad.  A lot of people will shine their stuff up as they mature as designers - that is inevitable and it is not worth fretting about or looking down your nose at people who don't measure up to misapplied standards.  What we are seeing around is a necessary stage of development for a lot of people, and because this is the internet, the demo scene is totally intermingled with the pros, and I think that may confusing for you and Paul who are trying to apply blanket standards that simply aren't applicable.
You guys seem to be saying that there are disproportionately many babies in a young community undergoing a population explosion.  This is ... kind of nutty, to be honest.  Many of these 'babies' will 'grow up' and do stuff like Braid (Christ, look at all the half-made prototypes he produced before he did that), or drop out, and a few people will adopt the lo-fi approach as an ethos - and it's none of anybody's business if they do.
 
If feedback is all you are giving:  Fine.  But your standards seem to be pretty poorly defined, and aimed too broadly, limiting their usefulness.  It would be better if you stuck to specifics.

Also, I just wanna say that flashier graphics don't necessarily have a positive impact on gameplay.  Jumper 3 feels much more complete than Eternity's Child despite the lo-fi approach - probably because of it.  If that was all you ever meant - that designers simply need to understand the effect of graphics on gameplay - I agree.  Sometimes fewer frames of animation is preferable, after all (and the same thing goes for pixels).  But I don't think that's what was coming across at all. Going further:  Abstract graphics have infinitely more gameplay possibilities than a realistic or quasi-realistic  approach.  That may be a tangent, but you have been broadly dismissive of stuff that has opted for a less-detailed approach and I don't think it's a coincidence - you seem to think graphical detail is synonymous with graphical quality.  Please correct me if I'm wrong - but if I am, you have done your very best to lead me there.
Finally, I found Braid's detail level actually pretty incongruous with it's movement mechanics.  The way the dude turns/moves up ladders feels fine, but looks really off.  I never got that with Blueberry Garden.  Just sayin'!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i agree it'd be nutty if i actually thought any of the things you're saying i think -- but again, i think you're misreading what i'm saying, totally.

i already explained what i meant a few times, so i don't think another attempt will work since it seems like you're intentionally misreading it, but to try again: i think western indie developers tend to neglect polish (say, compared to japanese indie developers), and that this is preventing many great games from being played by a larger audience.

it's also not necessarily a matter of being new (although that plays a part) because there are many indie devs who have been making games for 10-20 years but still neglect polish: spiderweb software is an example.

i'm also not directing this to works in progress, but primarily to finished games on sale, many of which skimped on polish and have poor sales because of that. but this isn't universal, it's just a trend, there are counter-examples aplenty. for instance, cute knight has poor polish yet sold very well (much better than hpapillon's more polished game fatal hearts for instance).

[poorwill]

*shrug* You'd have to do a broader survey to prove that.  I already said that.  I'm fairly familiar with the indie Japanese shmup scene and I don't think there's much in it at all.  Perfect Cherry Blossom, for instance, has lousy graphics:
 


They are charging money for that!

There is very little work in the pixel art thread alone that is any worse and most of it is vastly better.  I would gladly take green pixel man over hideous loli-witch any day.  Blueberry Garden crushes it handily.  Of course, green pixel man and Blueberry Garden and Perfect Cherry Blossom don't speak for all, but you're going to need more examples to prove anything either way.  I don't really care about that general angle of it: I've always taken exception to your specific arguments, not your general thesis - the onus is on you to prove that, but as we don't disagree in broad terms ... eh.
I made the best interpretation of your point I could:  That a lot of indie stuff is on the ugly or unpolished side (amateur or not).  We agree on that!  I explained why I think that's okay and why it's nothing to worry about.  I do think the few specific examples you've given have been pretty rubbish.  Poor or vague critiques made authoritatively.   And if you are seriously using the Japanese doujin shmup scene and their penchant for pedophilia as some kind of outreach program for broad appeal, I cannot help you.
Summary:  You are trying to make a broad argument, that I don't necessarily disagree with, and then try to back it up with a few poor examples when you need many good examples.  I do think that the big success stories of indie games do have shiny graphics - but I don't think any of them are Japanese so ?? .  In fact, all the best known Japanese indie games have deliberately retro art (that is now being spriced up for Wiiware).

[inkBot]

Perfect Cherry Blossom, for instance, has lousy graphics: [pic] They are charging money for that!

And you're saying they shouldn't? It's a solid game, with wonderful music.
Japanese indie games in general have a higher polish rate than the average western game, I agree on that. It is however a rather unfair statement, since it's basically a Japan vs everyone else, kind of deal, and then the statistics are in their favour. One of my personal favourite shmups would be Royal Edoma Engine, despite the somewhat unsettling cover (I also have no clue what the heck the story is about ) But are nicely polished (and cleverly realized) and the gameplay is solid. Shooting random baddies in an isometric shooter and picking up and eating the bits of sushi they drop? Yes please

For level of polish for an indie game, take a look at Vanguard Princess. Sure, it's also on the borderline sexopath express, but that is not the point. The point is that it is polished beyond belief, and that is a free game!

There's nothing inherently wrong with not polishing the graphics as insanely, but if you have the time to do it and so on, then I don't think there's any reason not to.

[poorwill]

Perfect Cherry Blossom, for instance, has lousy graphics: [pic] They are charging money for that!

And you're saying they shouldn't? It's a solid game, with wonderful music.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

[HöllenKobold]

We should pretend that Paul Eres meant the Touhou fighting games.
Oh, ZUN, you and your drawing abilities. ;-;