Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: rednova on September 21, 2011, 11:53:00 PM
-
Dear Friends:
I have been gone a while but now I'm back.
My plan is to make new amiga games.
If I make new games...does the quality of grafix matter to you?
I am an amateur artist/animator.
If I spend a long time before making new games, I will eventually
become a professional artist and then the games will look better.
But if the quality of grafix does not matter to you, I can start
making new amiga games now.
What do you think ?
Rednova
-
It matters, but it isn't the most important part. I tend to prefer strategy games, but the biggest thing for me with graphics is whether everything is clear and easy to identify.
I'll take lower quality graphics that are clear to identify over a nicer look where you have no idea what is going on.
-
To me I prefer gameplay over graphics. If a game plays well then it's all good as far as I am concerned. Graphics obviously play an important role in it. But I have played text adventures and still enjoyed myself.
Look at Portal on the Amiga and C64. Not the prettiest game to look at but played brilliantly.
-
As runequester said, clarity is important. A clean, uncluttered interface with easily-identifiable game elements is much preferable to a pretty but ornate and confusing one. Also, I prefer a distinctive and consistent style over general niceness of graphics, myself; a game should have its own look, even if it's not the best-rendered thing out there.
In any case, I value gameplay most; a game's graphics have to be pretty awful before I won't play it. But nice visuals certainly don't hurt.
-
It is a good question. Eye candy grabs your attention at first, but it is the actual gameplay that ropes you in for the long haul.
Look at the graphics on the original Civilization. They were nothing to write home about, but the game still rocks. The same for Red Storm Rising and Railroad Tycoon. Sensilble Soccer is still way more fun with a group of drunken mates than FIFA 2011.
-
What everyone else has said. Well drawn, but simple graphics are the way to go. Think cute little characters and backdrop ala Final Fantasy for the Super Nintendo. Now that gaming has moved closer and closer to photo realistic graphics, I could care two squats about 'em. Modern gaming has lost a lot thanks to cheesy digitization. Only time I care for such photo-realism is in a driving game.
-
What everyone else has said. Well drawn, but simple graphics are the way to go. Think cute little characters and backdrop ala Final Fantasy for the Super Nintendo. Now that gaming has moved closer and closer to photo realistic graphics, I could care two squats about 'em. Modern gaming has lost a lot thanks to cheesy digitization. Only time I care for such photo-realism is in a driving game.
It always throws me off. In a dorky 80s looking game, I never care about "realism" but I hate when you play a game that has super realistic graphics.. and then find a room full of health packs on the floor or some other obvious game contraption.
-
Eye candy grabs your attention at first, but it is the actual gameplay that ropes you in for the long haul.
+1
-
clarity is important. A clean, uncluttered interface with easily-identifiable game elements is much preferable to a pretty but ornate and confusing one.
In any case, i value gameplay most;
+99999
-
To me I prefer gameplay over graphics.
+1
-
It matters, but it isn't the most important part. I tend to prefer strategy games, but the biggest thing for me with graphics is whether everything is clear and easy to identify.
I'll take lower quality graphics that are clear to identify over a nicer look where you have no idea what is going on.
:knuddel: +99999*10^99
-
Dear Friends:
does the quality of grafix matter to you?
Nope, just quantity!
(Just kidding ;) :p)
I am an amateur artist/animator.
If I spend a long time before making new games, I will eventually
become a professional artist and then the games will look better.
But if the quality of grafix does not matter to you, I can start
making new amiga games now.
What do you think ?
Release them as you make them, and then go on and make new ones, and learn and evolve in the process!
:)
-
Just remember style is more important than fashion. As long as you've got style, you can get away with anything. Look at Jeff Minter's games, for instance.
-
Work on perfecting the gameplay, but I don't think you should rush a game out with bad graphics just because the rest of the game is finished. Spend a bit of extra time refining your art, get some advice from the pixelart forums PixelJoint and Pixelation and release a game with both good gameplay and good graphics. I don't see any reason why the game would need to be rushed out before the graphics looked decent, there are no deadlines anymore. I don't expect Henk Nieborg-style masterpieces, but try and put a little bit of effort in, or just ask around for a graphic artist to help out.
People don't want to seem superficial so they'll always claim gameplay is the only important part of a game, while saying that looks/graphics mean nothing to them at all. But at the end of the day attractive or stylish graphics make a game more memorable, and you'll capture a lot more attention with the screenshots.
Although a few people here have replied here, I wonder how many will actually get around to playing your game when you release it. I think sometimes people just like to post for the sake of moral support, but don't actually go out of their way to try new Amiga software. How many of them downloaded, played and commented on the recent "Fallout 3" fangame that was released here on Amiga.org, for example?
Make the best game you can, don't compromise. Unless you've come up with some revolutionary new gameplay idea which hasn't been done, chances are your game will play pretty similar to a heap of other games already out there in whichever genre you choose to program the game for, so things like graphics and sound will really be the only thing to set it apart from the rest.
Just remember that we're here to help if you need it, and there's no harm in teaming up with someone to get the job done better or faster.
Remember this: Nice graphics draw people in, good gameplay keeps them playing. You need to bait your line with something or you won't get many bites.
-
Gameplay is more important, but there is no reason why you can't have good placeholders, that are fast to produce.
you could go the black and white on coloured background like Patapon or insanely twisted shadow planet:
http://thefinalcastle.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/3e386_210749-insanely-twisted-shadow-planet-13.jpg
http://patapon-hero.webs.com/photos/patapon2.jpg
Or perhaps a fake vector art place holders, they are also fast to do.
Another solution is to go to one of the many sprite banks available online, and use those as your stand in art, you'd get high quality straight away then.
-
Another solution is to go to one of the many sprite banks available online, and use those as your stand in art, you'd get high quality straight away then.
Use those as placeholders during development, maybe, but don't release with them. Few things inspire less confidence in a game than seeing it assembled out of pre-baked RPG Maker tiles and sprites.
-
It always throws me off. In a dorky 80s looking game, I never care about "realism" but I hate when you play a game that has super realistic graphics.. and then find a room full of health packs on the floor or some other obvious game contraption.
Yeah, it's similar to the 'uncanny valley' principle.
Still, gorgeous looking games are great, but if I wanna play some I turn on my PS3 or something. If a game plays fine and it doesn't look outright ugly, no problem.
-
Use those as placeholders during development, maybe, but don't release with them. Few things inspire less confidence in a game than seeing it assembled out of pre-baked RPG Maker tiles and sprites.
That's why I said placeholders?
-
Oh, so you did. That's what I get for posting while I'm still half-asleep...