I often find myself liking games with cool looking animation and special effects even if the level design isn't anything special. Take for instance, my Alisha game, nothing special about the level design or enemy AI, but it's fun to watch Alisha kicking those robots around, because the kicking animation, and explosions look cool.
rainwarrior wrote:
Yeah, I never thought that game looked that fun... Anyway, I don't necessarily care about how good the game looks in general, (otherwise I'd hate the NES) I just care if the game looked good for the system, because if it did, that would show that the developers actually put work into game, and usually in more areas than just the graphics. People do definitely underplay graphics though. One reason I like Irem games so much is that the art is really good.
The "more than they think?" part of the Subject is what makes this impossible to reliably answer.
Speaking personally: no, graphics do not tend to be a huge focal point for me. I focus more on smooth or "good-feeling" controls (i.e. responsive and react well on-screen, but not something as ridiculously wonky as the controls in Super Meat Boy), and with the general design put in to whatever genre of game it is.
A wonderful example is the Legend of Zelda -- really, the graphics are nothing to write home about (compare them to 2nd or 3rd-gen NES/Famicom games) -- yet the game is still one of the best, and it has little to do with the graphics. Sure, Zelda 3 has significantly improved graphics (it's SNES, what do you expect), but all the other aspects of the original Zelda were retained -- and this is why Zelda 3 has such a massive following (making something already amazing visually fantastic + longer plot + more things to do/more diverse).
I never cared for games that wasted tons of time and space on things like "ridiculously smooth animation" where it'd take an entire human lifetime to go through all the frames of animation in a sprite (ex. Prince of Persia, Metal Slug) -- I think that nonsense results in a sluggish feel of gameplay. It's a bit judgemental of me to say, but I tend to notice folks who like this sort of thing also have pretty strong OCD. And it's not the game genre -- I've played both fighters and shmups that have lots of frames of animation -- they feel "slow" and like the focal point is the animation, not the gameplay. Same goes for "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" games -- I shouldn't have to name names here.
Case in point: Trojan (for the NES, but I also have the arcade board) is a classic favourite for me. The graphics are "weird", and the game is often reported as "pretty bad" (one of Capcom's earlier titles, and is an arcade port), but I still enjoy playing it every time.
Case in point: Gauntlet (arcade) -- graphics were nothing to write home about (even for the time -- kind of a weird visual mix of older 8-bit graphics and "almost wanna-be 16-bit" graphics), but the gameplay and nature of the game (esp. being 4-player) made it compelling and attractive, plus offering high replay value.
And Shadow of the Beast... what a pile of garbage. I wish this game would die already. :P Damn you Rainwarrior. :P
This is a really complex topic and I'm sorely tempted to just ramble at length about it (but I won't, today).
The short version: Of course graphics can be a compelling part of your game. They don't have to be, but they certainly can. Ideally there will be many compelling aspects of your game, not just graphics, but there a lot of ways to entertain the player, and no game has them all. Some games have not enough.
koitsu wrote:
Speaking personally: no, graphics do not tend to be a huge focal point for me. I focus more on smooth or "good-feeling" controls (i.e. responsive and react well on-screen, but not something as ridiculously wonky as the controls in Super Meat Boy), and with the general design put in to whatever genre of game it is.
Well, there's DKC that has good controls AND good graphics.
( It hast the only CG that doesn't look completely awful from that time period)
koitsu wrote:
A wonderful example is the Legend of Zelda -- really, the graphics are nothing to write home about (compare them to 2nd or 3rd-gen NES/Famicom games) -- yet the game is still one of the best, and it has little to do with the graphics. Sure, Zelda 3 has significantly improved graphics (it's SNES, what do you expect), but all the other aspects of the original Zelda were retained -- and this is why Zelda 3 has such a massive following (making something already amazing visually fantastic + longer plot + more things to do/more diverse).
Agreed.
koitsu wrote:
I never cared for games that wasted tons of time and space on things like "ridiculously smooth animation" where it'd take an entire human lifetime to go through all the frames of animation in a sprite (ex. Prince of Persia, Metal Slug) -- I think that nonsense results in a sluggish feel of gameplay.
Really, I like smooth animation.
koitsu wrote:
It's a bit judgemental of me to say, but I tend to notice folks who like this sort of thing also have pretty strong OCD. And it's not the game genre
Dang it! You got me.
koitsu wrote:
Same goes for "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" games -- I shouldn't have to name names here.
And of course, I like games that have smooth animation and a lot of sprites... (Again, why I like Irem. Their games are just very attractive.)
You know, this is shameless self promotion and is going against the topic, but does this look any good to any of you?
Attachment:
Player1.png [ 822 Bytes | Viewed 2595 times ]
I have spent faaar too much time playing Nethack and Larn and Angband. Without tilesets.
But, to say "more than they think"? No, I don't think so. I think certain games (*cough* Crysis) demonstrate that we know exactly how much people are influenced by appearances.
Quote:
I never cared for games that wasted tons of time and space on things like "ridiculously smooth animation" where it'd take an entire human lifetime to go through all the frames of animation in a sprite (ex. Prince of Persia, Metal Slug) -- I think that nonsense results in a sluggish feel of gameplay. It's a bit judgemental of me to say, but I tend to notice folks who like this sort of thing also have pretty strong OCD. And it's not the game genre -- I've played both fighters and shmups that have lots of frames of animation -- they feel "slow" and like the focal point is the animation, not the gameplay. Same goes for "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" games -- I shouldn't have to name names here.
...and by naming names, you're referring to me.
I thought he was referring to me...
He did say "names" plural, so I think he means both of us.
I made the
Sprite Cans 2011 demo, which shows all 64 "sprites" that the NES can draw. I can has OCD too?
psycopathicteen wrote:
He did say "names" plural, so I think he means both of us.
Alright, as long as I'm part of the club.
tepples wrote:
I made the
Sprite Cans 2011 demo, which shows all 64 "sprites" that the NES can draw. I can has OCD too?
Maybe... psychopathicteen and I will have to decide...
By "I shouldn't have to name names", I was referring to names of video games that are driven by the "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" mentality, and not names of people. My exact quote: "Same goes for "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" games -- I shouldn't have to name names here."
koitsu wrote:
By "I shouldn't have to name names", I was referring to names of video games that are driven by the "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" mentality, and not names of people. My exact quote: "Same goes for "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" games -- I shouldn't have to name names here."
Gunstar Heroes
psycopathicteen wrote:
Gunstar Heroes
Pff... Gunstar Heros is weak sauce.
Espozo wrote:
You know, this is shameless self promotion and is going against the topic, but does this look any good to any of you?
It looks pretty good, but is too realistic for my taste. I prefer more stylized and characteristic art styles, that you can tell belong to a specific universe as soon as you lay eyes on them. This realistic style also appears insanely difficult to animate (well).
When it comes to old games, graphics are the first thing I pay attention to. I often pick games to play based on screenshots. If the gameplay is mediocre, but the graphics are really good, chances are I'll still like the game. The opposite is true of ugly games, if they play really well I'll probably like them despite of how bad they look... that doesn't happen as often though, since the chances of me picking up an ugly game to test are much lower.
Regarding modern games, I hardly play any, but the graphics have become too generic in games that are not aimed at kids, with each game trying to look more realistic than the previous, so graphics are completely meaningless to me in this case. The few games that happen to have interesting art styles still catch my eye though.
My opinion of the graphic in question mirrors that of tokumaru. I think it "looks good", but I am not a particular fan of "excess shading" or "excess anti-aliasing" (the former applies more to the graphic referenced).
There is a point where it becomes excessive and thus distracting. Take a peek at the graphics of
Super James Pond (SNES) for example. I find that kind of style... well, the term friends and I use is "European" -- lots of gradients, excess shading, etc.. It's especially prolific on the Amiga and C64. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's just not a style that appeals to me.
I absolutely feel there is a good/healthy balance that once found results in a really amazing look that doesn't distract from gameplay and also becomes very memorable or unique.
I'll give an example: the classic "flat and matte" design of the graphics in Megaman 1 are memorable to me, yet Megaman 2 retains/respects that
while improving upon the graphics (especially background graphics), but without going overboard. Now compare that to
Megaman X (SNES) -- I can't stand how this looks (not to mention it suffers from what I described earlier, re: excessive frame animation resulting in (what feels to me like) bad gameplay and control).
You know, One thing I've always wanted to do is see how well I can replicate the "Irem look". I think I might try that and ask people how it looks... You know, this is a little random, but I don't really like what Irem/Nazca did with Metal Slug. I find the cartoony look of the characters greatly contradicts the blood "sweat" that appears when you kill an enemy. I kind of find the look awkward? I don't know. Maybe that's just me though.
Oh yeah, it seems we have very different opinions, koitsu... (I do agree I don't like the look of Megaman X. It's a bit ugly...)
Also... If there's a game I can't stand the art style of, it's Gunstar Heroes. God, how ugly... (hopefully I didn't start any arguments...)
koitsu wrote:
Now compare that to
Megaman X (SNES)403 Forbidden
Based on the filename, this is the forbidden image:
koitsu wrote:
I also really dislike that art style. Shading and gradients are poor substitutes for textures and detail. It looks cheap. Mega Man X looks MUCH better than this, I actually think it looks good. The backgrounds are not too heavily anti-aliased, and the sprites have a bit of color banding that prevents them from looking excessively smooth.
koitsu wrote:
video games that are driven by the "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" mentality
Extremely relevant (and shameless plug), although that was more to get the effect running quickly than just trying to push sprites (**** the sprite limits, argh! there's a reason why the player is on a scroll plane rather than being another sprite)
Holy crap! How did you come up with that idea?
Sik wrote:
koitsu wrote:
video games that are driven by the "how many sprites can we fit on the screen at once" mentality
Extremely relevant (and shameless plug), although that was more to get the effect running quickly than just trying to push sprites (**** the sprite limits, argh! there's a reason why the player is on a scroll plane rather than being another sprite)
It's like a pre-alpha version of Jumping Flash!
I think psycopathicteen raises some very interesting questions. In regards to being able to replace graphics in certain emulators with HD equivalents, I've wondered if people would play a game that originally looked terrible if the graphics were spiced up. Granted, the gameplay and sound would remain unchanged, but how would this affect people's opinions of the game? If it looks cool with new and improved pixels, but the overall concept remains weak would people still play it? I guess it would be best to test some random obscure game to avoid introducing nostalgia, but I'm curious how far a new look would go in shaping opinions.
For me, I guess good graphics are a bonus. If they're there, it helps with the atmosphere, making the game a more immersive experience. If they're not there, no problem. I guess I go something like:
Good graphics and gameplay? Great!
Questionable graphics but good gameplay? Great!
Neither? Why is this game wasting my time?
psycopathicteen wrote:
Holy crap! How did you come up with that idea?
Tetrisphere perhaps?
Shonumi wrote:
I think psycopathicteen raises some very interesting questions. In regards to being able to replace graphics in certain emulators with HD equivalents, I've wondered if people would play a game that originally looked terrible if the graphics were spiced up. Granted, the gameplay and sound would remain unchanged, but how would this affect people's opinions of the game? If it looks cool with new and improved pixels, but the overall concept remains weak would people still play it? I guess it would be best to test some random obscure game to avoid introducing nostalgia, but I'm curious how far a new look would go in shaping opinions.
It's a good question, no denying it -- but I equate it to those recent "remakes" of movies from the 70s/80s/90s that were highly successful back then. How many of those remakes have *you* seen which made you say "wow, that was as great as the original!?" I think to date I've only heard one or two of my peers say something like this. The usual response is "bleh, see the original" or "it was okay, but not like the original".
Likewise, still with the film analogy, look at the "redone" original 3 Star Wars films -- fans (including myself)
still want the originals digitally remastered (and cleaned up, but not "enhanced" or "changed") yet Lucas keeps putting out what nobody wants.
TL;DR -- I don't think slapping new graphics (or even new graphics + sound) on something makes it "magically" more appealing to people who have played (or re: films: seen) the originals. Some of us want our nostalgia left alone.
This is why I like seeing
new homebrew NES/SNES games -- because it shows people are coming up with new/unique ideas, rather than rehashing existing/old ones. Let the things of old be things of old -- there is beauty in appreciating something in its original form and only that form.
What if you take a bad game like Dr Jeckle and Mr Hyde, but exaggerate every action in the game to look badass? Instead of just poking enemies with his cane, he whacks them with his cane, and pointless over-the-top blood, guts and explosions burst out of the enemy.
koitsu wrote:
TL;DR -- I don't think slapping new graphics (or even new graphics + sound) on something makes it "magically" more appealing to people who have played (or re: films: seen) the originals. Some of us want our nostalgia left alone.
But what about people who have never played the game? Or more broadly, people who have little bias for or against it? That's what I was thinking about "random" or "obscure" games that hardly anyone touches these days. Some of them are forgotten for a reason, not necessarily due to bad graphics, but it would be interesting to see how "better" graphics shapes one's opinion. It doesn't have to a total game changer (someone instantly liking a low-quality game) but if it makes a difference between "yeah this absolutely sucks" and "eh, not bad, not good either" that's something to say the least.
Come on, it'd make for a great research paper (unless you're not into a gaming psychology like I am
)
psycopathicteen wrote:
What if you take a bad game like Dr Jeckle and Mr Hyde, but exaggerate every action in the game to look badass? Instead of just poking enemies with his cane, he whacks them with his cane, and pointless over-the-top blood, guts and explosions burst out of the enemy.
No. Nothing can save that game. This was proven by science if I'm not mistaken.
Attachment:
Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde.png [ 32.83 KiB | Viewed 1574 times ]
10 years ago, I was one of those teenagers who honestly believed good gameplay trumped graphics and sound. In my experience since, all three need to be balanced. Bad visuals and/or sound detract from the game, and if you don't believe me, try playing a game on mute and telling me you enjoyed it more than unmuted.
That's not to say that your game
requires cutting edge graphics technology or a fully orchestral soundtrack, but a little bit of polish will go a long way; as long as your visuals and audio are consistent and match the particular world/feel you're going with, they will complement your gameplay.
And SO HELP ME GOD if I catch
any SFXR in your finished product.
Edit: So to answer the topic, "Are people influenced by graphics more than they think?" I certainly was, and didn't even know it. I think it was because I made a sweeping generalization that a game with bad graphics is similar an Atari 2600 game, which isn't true at all.
Come on, give me a break ! 3 pages of posts in a single night ?!
As for graphics, I think they matters, a lot. Some people would say I like retrogames and I don't care about the graphics, what counts is the gameplay, ....
Personally I care about the graphics, them being 2D is not much a problem it's just a different style. If I play a NES game I expect it to look like a NES game, if it looks like Atari 2600 then I'll almost certainly not like the game, no matter how responsive are the controls.
This is not so extreme for later consoles, i.e. I would not be bothered by a SNES game looking like a NES game, if the rest of it is good, but I'd still say (it's weird it doesn't look like a SNES game)
Sik wrote:
This is really cool!!!
Bregalad wrote:
I play a NES game I expect it to look like a NES game, if it looks like Atari 2600 then I'll almost certainly not like the game
To this day I still can't believe how much NES Popeye looks like an Atari 2600 game. That is, until you look at the real 2600 Popeye and realize it looks even worse.
From the screenshots I can find, the arcade game looks like an Atari game.
Drag wrote:
And SO HELP ME GOD if I catch
any SFXR in your finished product.
So would it be a bad idea for me to make a small PC program that translates save files from
my NES sound effects editor into wave files?
Bregalad wrote:
If I play a NES game I expect it to look like a NES game, if it looks like Atari 2600 then I'll almost certainly not like the game
And some people who play a Super NES game expect it not to look like an NES game. The Super NES "look" may take a bit more effort from your artists to produce, as you have to add shading and a parallax background. Perhaps this is part of
why there isn't as much Super NES homebrew as byuu would like.
psycopathicteen wrote:
Holy crap! How did you come up with that idea?
I heard somebody had called his game Pixelsphere and a sphere made out of "pixels" (more like voxels) was the most literal thing that came to my mind =P (coming up with gameplay that used such an idea is a different issue and much less spontaneous)
Mind you, isn't this how Miyamoto does things? If I recall correctly the pipes in Mario came to be because he stumbled upon a pipe while going to work.
EDIT: also back on-topic (remembering some stuff), I would agree that graphics help to some extent. I mean, how many people here would be attracted to the average Atari 2600 game from how it looks? (OK a lot of those games are crap in general) But then
what if it looks like this? (yes, that one caught me off guard too) Eventually it reaches a point where better graphics don't influence anymore, but a minimum amount of quality is needed.
Espozo wrote:
Anyway, I don't necessarily care about how good the game looks in general, (otherwise I'd hate the NES)
I know this post was a while back, but I only just saw it and it's something I think is worth pointing out. Simple graphics are not bad graphics - the NES doesn't intrinsically have "bad graphics"; games that are visually unappealing are a result of an artist or developer not caring, or not feeling confident and comfortable enough with the limitations. Games like Kirby's Adventure, Super Mario Bros 3, Gimmick!, Journey to Silius are all great examples of artists working well with what they had and adopting a style that is well suited to the system. A modern remake of any of these with added detail and extra colors and parallax scrolling doesn't make it better, it makes it
different. Can it be (subjectively) better to many people? Absolutely. Are many people going to favor Yoshi's Island's carefully drawn 2D graphics to the CG pre-rendered Yoshi's Story graphics? It's very likely - despite the SNES being objectively less powerful, even with the SuperFX chip, the artists did a phenomenal job. It's funny when you consider that the style of the game was chosen as a backlash against CG pre-rendered games like Donkey Kong Country.
I did some silly stuff to the graphics in the game I'm working on today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEnnHL9ZZYwAt first it made me think graphics don't really matter, but then I started thinking that maybe they matter
too much.
Or maybe they matter more than you think?
oh snap I just title-dropped the topic name yeah I went there what 'cha gonna do now
I know exactly how much I'm influenced by graphics, which is quite a lot.
rainwarrior, I think the game could have blocky art and still look good, as long as the graphics were made for that specific resolution, instead of being automatically converted from the normal graphics. It doesn't even look bad as is.
It might as well be a ZX Spectrum game.
With that wealth of greens and big pixels I was kinda thinking IntelliVision.
koitsu wrote:
It might as well be a ZX Spectrum game.
No, Spectrum was decent resolution with shit colors =P (only two colors for every 8×8 region)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... Jl5NE#t=28And that's ignoring how most games just used 2 colors! (except maybe for the HUD)
Is this the Lizard of
GameKing III?
rainwarrior wrote:
I did some silly stuff to the graphics in the game I'm working on today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEnnHL9ZZYwAt first it made me think graphics don't really matter, but then I started thinking that maybe they matter
too much.
You can make it even more convincing if you set every sprite position and background scroll value to the nearest multiple of the pixel size.
mikejmoffitt wrote:
You can make it even more convincing if you set every sprite position and background scroll value to the nearest multiple of the pixel size.
That would play like ass. I kinda like the blocky look, but the lack of smoothness in the animations would kill all the fun.
And it wouldn't necessarily be more convincing... Look at the Atari 2600 for example: the graphics are usually blockier than the smallest possible movement.
I think he meant when putting the sprites on screen, not the internal values of the objects (i.e. it snaps only for display, not for gameplay).
I know (I didn't even consider the alternative), and I maintain my opinion. If the movement doesn't look smooth, the feedback players get feels wrong.
Like I said before, not being able to move in increments smaller than the pixel size isn't even necessarily authentic. Sometimes, big pixels mean that there isn't enough memory to hold more detailed backgrounds/sprites, not that the display system isn't capable of outputing smaller pixels.
Look at the playfield in the Atari 2600. There are only 20 bits for one scanline worth of background graphics, which can be replicated or mirrored for a total of 40, but the screen is 160 pixels wide, so each background pixel is repeated 4 times. This means that the resolution for movement is 4 times finer than the graphics alone would have you believe.
It was just a quick gag hack.
I'm more influenced by music.
Graphics might make something pretty, but I can't think of a game where I bought it for the graphics. (Okay, maybe Stunt Race FX, but I loved the gameplay and music too, so.)
Not that "bad" graphics aren't a repellent, but that's highly subjective. I don't much like the muted-browns-and-greys that're in-vogue this millennium. I feel as long as it doesn't feel like they cut corners in achieving their style (worst-apparent when there is an obvious disparity between two things in a game in detail)...